# Presentation: 160868

## The Run II Upgrade Project(s)

- Project Organization
- Performance Goals and Scope
- Introduce Tomorrow’s Talks
- Project Plan for the next few months

## A set of upgrades, building on:
Run II Handbook and Recycler TDR = Run IIa
Plans for Run IIb (presented to AAC Dec 2001)
Report to Director on 132 nsec Operation
Operating experience

Remarks
Now operating+commissioning+upgrading  integrated approach for planning and scheduling
Work In Progress
Technical scope and issues
Project plan (WBS) and Resource Loaded Schedule

- A set of upgrades, building on:
- Run II Handbook and Recycler TDR = Run IIa
- Plans for Run IIb (presented to AAC Dec 2001)
- Report to Director on 132 nsec Operation
- _Operating experience_
- Remarks
- Now operating+commissioning+upgrading  integrated approach for planning and scheduling
- Work In Progress
- Technical scope and issues
- Project plan (WBS) and Resource Loaded Schedule

- The Run II Upgrade Project(s)

## Upgrade Project Organization

- Dave Wildman

- TEL V Shiltsev

- Lum Leveling
- Mike Martens

- Recycling:
- Jerry Annala
- Chandra Bhat

- Luminosity(3)
- Limitations
- Tanaji Sen

- Debuncher and Stacktail Cooling
- Paul Derwent

- RR Stoch Cooling(2)
- Dan Broemmelsiek

- e-Cooling
- Sergei Nagaitsev

- Rapid Transfers
- Elvin Harms

- AP2&DB Acc
- Keith Gollwitzer

- Tgt&Sweeping
- Jim Morgan

- SlipStacking
- Kiyomi Koba
- Ralph Pasquinelli

- Task Force

- Integration
- Task Force

- Project Manager: Jeff Spalding
- Technical Coordination: Dave McGinnis

- Protons on Target

- Pbar Acceptance

- Stacking & Cooling

-  Tev & Beam-Beam

- Li Lens
- Jim Morgan

- Ioanis Kourbanis

- Steve Werkema

- Dave McGinnis

- Vladimir Shiltsev

- Dave McGinnis

- Valeri Lebedev
- Mike Syphers

- Notes
- Includes issues associated with operating MI at high intensities for stacking and NuMI
- RR commissioning is under FY03 project, represented here in the stacking and cooling scheme for the upgrade
- Studies and simulations for Tevatron luminosity limitations are common with FY03 operational studies

## (1) Tevatron Task Force
Describe operating scenario and implementation for Tevatron operation with ~27E10 protons per bunch and 5E12 pbars total
Identify the key performance parameters and technical issues 
Outline the simulation/study plan  

(2) Stacking and Cooling Task Force 
Describe operating scenario and implementation for an average stacking rate of 40E10/hr for 12 hours, with recycling 
Identify the key performance parameters and technical issues
Outline the simulation/study plan

Plan to “bootstrap” from this initial charge to a 
set of operating parameters and definition of technical scope

- Describe operating scenario and implementation for Tevatron operation with ~27E10 protons per bunch and 5E12 pbars total
- Identify the key performance parameters and technical issues
- Outline the simulation/study plan
- (2) Stacking and Cooling Task Force
- Describe operating scenario and implementation for an average stacking rate of 40E10/hr for 12 hours, with recycling
- Identify the key performance parameters and technical issues
- Outline the simulation/study plan
- Plan to “bootstrap” from this initial charge to a
- set of operating parameters and definition of technical scope

- Initial Charges to the Two Task Forces

## Performance Goals

- Performance goals will be defined via the Task Forces (“bottom up”)
- Starting point:
- 27E10 protons per bunch (achieved in Run 1b)
- pBar bunch intensity  50% p bunch intensity (beam-beam interactions: limit for strong-weak)
- sustained pBar stacking rate  40E10/hr, transfers Accumulator  RR every > 30min (< Run IIb spec)
- 2 hours shot setup (between stores)
- on completion of the upgrades: 46 weeks per year HEP with 48 hours downtime per week

## Performance Goals/Scope

- 132/396 nsec (see V Lebedev’s talk)
- Original impetus for 132 nsec operation was to reduce the number of interactions /crossing – this now appears manageable @396 (see below “luminosity leveling”)
- 132 requires a crossing-angle  ~40% red. in luminosity
- pBar/bunch x1/3, _total protons ____x3_  concern about long range beam-beam interactions and instabilities
- Crossing-angle  large orbit offsets in low beta quads
- Would require large study and simulation effort
- Significant work on hardware (separators, RF cavities... and instrumentation)

- Position: base scope is 36 bunch operation (396 nsec)
- with lum leveling if needed – _will do no further work _
- _for 132 nsec operation_

## Performance Goals/Scope

- Parametric model: achieves 3.2fb-1 pa (V Lebedev’s talk)
- How robust?
- Leveling @2E32: lose ~12% (if required by experiments)
- No recycling: lose ~10% (longer stores)
- pBar=40%p: lose ~14% (shorter stores)
- Average stacking = 30E10/hr: lose ~10% (longer stores)

- Average luminosity (incl shot setup)

- Store length

## Performance Goals

- Compared
- to now
- x1.5
- x5
- x3.5
- x5.7

## Project Scope

- Luminosity Leveling
- June 02: Report on 132nsec Operation  leveling at           2E32 cm-2s-1 (~6 interactions/crossing)
- Aug 02: charge to experiments - planned upgrades designed to operate efficiently up to 4E32 cm-2s-1 (with ~no contingency)
- Expect to operate with peak luminosities < 4E32 cm-2s-1
- Will develop ability to level luminosity by varying *, should this be needed
- 12% reduction for leveling @2E32cm-2s-1 is “worst case”

## Project Scope

- Recycl_ing_ (V Lebedev’s, V Shiltsev’s talks)
- Historically ~30% of stores end prematurely
- P. model: ~75% pBar left, 70% acceptance to RR
- Recoup with longer stores  lose ~10% in integrated luminosity
- Biggest issue is the timely removal of protons (without risk to experiments or quenching), followed by pBar deceleration
- Would require significant studies

- Position: will not include recycl_ing_ in the base scope

- 37% pBars
- return to RR

## Project Scope

- Bunch Intensities (see V Shiltsev’s talk)
- Increasing both proton and pBar bunch intensities is key
- Need to understand long range beam-beam effects
- Plan to mount a program of studies to benchmark beam-beam effects and dynamic aperture parametric model
- Expect improvements from increased orbit separation
- Short term - C0 Lambertson removal  will learn
- Longer term – ideas for additional separators
- Beam-beam compensation:
- TEL – studies continue, electron gun upgrade  2nd TEL
- Consider also wires (as for LHC) ?

## Project Scope

- Stacking Rate
- RR with electron cooling is key to large stack sizes – without “1/N” loss in cooling (x1.5)
- Developing on an _integrated plan_ for stacking and cooling
- (D McGinnis’ Talk)
- Once RR commissioned into operations (late calendar 03),re-optimize the Debuncher and Accumulator for stacking rate (P Derwent’s talk)
- Also
- Slip-stacking: low intensity studies very encouraging, writing specs for beam-loading compensation for high intensities (I Kourbanis’ talk)
- Beam sweeping – testing in the next 2 months
- pBar aceptance: a lot of progress on higher gradient lens, ramping up on documenting and improving the AP2 and Debuncher acceptance (S Werkema’s talk)

## Essential Components

- Tevatron
- Increase protons per bunch (x1.6 from present)
- Increase pBars (x5)
- Increased separation?
- Beam-beam compensation: TEL?
- pBar production rate
- Protons on target (x2 from present, 8E12/2sec)
- Slip-stacking (beam loading)
- Beam sweeping / improved target material
- pBar acceptance increase (x2-2.5, pBar/p 1635x10-6)
- Lithium Lens upgrade (7451000T/m)
- AP2+DB Acceptance (20H,12V un-norm >35)

## Essential Components

- pBar production rate (continued)
- RR commissioned into Operations (see S. Mishra Talk)
- Debuncher Momentum Cooling upgrade (--)
- Stacktail Cooling upgrade (--)
- Rapid Transfers to RR (every 30 min)
- Cooling large stacks
- Electron Cooling in the RR (beam from Acc and Recycl_ing_: 22 eV-s/hr and 1.2 mm mrad/hr per 100 mA)
- Develop a phased approach, while continuing to operate and increase luminosity
- Limited shutdowns: <6 wks per summer, ~6 months for experiment upgrades

- x1.5

## Studies

- Expect to come up with a substantial study plan
- Tevatron
- Simulation of beam-beam effects, mis-alignments ... dedicated stores to benchmark (one pBar bunch?)
- Pbar Source
- Reverse protons for acceptance studies (ongoing)
- Studies to fully characterize present cooling and benchmark calculations and simulations
- Maybe proton stacking to benchmark at high rates
- Plus - learn from on-going studies, RR Commissioning, MI Slip-stacking, e-Cooling at Wide Band

- These studies will be essential to put the upgrade plan on a solid technical foundation

## Tomorrow’s Talks

-  8:00 - 8:40	Tevatron Task Force (Lebedev)
-  8:40 - 9:30	Stacking and Cooling Task Force (McGinnis)
-  9:30 -10:00	Discussion
- 10:00 -10:15	Break
- 10:15 -10:45	Protons on Target (Kourbanis)
- 10:45 -11:15	Antiproton Acceptance (Werkema)
- 11:15 -11:45	Stacking and Cooling (Derwent)
- 11:45 -12:15	Tevatron and Beam-beam (Shiltsev)
- 12:15 -12:30	Discussion

- Description of the status and discussion of the issues

## Project Status and Plans

- Define the Project Scope
- Basis: all the work in the Run II Handbook.... Run IIb Plan
- Develop parametric model for Tevatron stores
- Develop integrated scheme for stacking and cooling
- Identify key issues and parameters and define study+simulation plans
- Preparing documentation on Project, Scope, Issues and Status
- Good progress on many of the subprojects
- Review technical scope
- Are there “fixes” we should add?
- Are there extensions that should be studied in parallel?
- How robust is the plan? (backup scenario)
- Review gain/scale/risk	 started
- Include B.Div and experiments in the “review”

- Task
- Forces

- You are
- here

## Project Status and Plans

- First pass at defining tasks (WBS) and est. resources and _schedule_ (bottom up)
- Resources: personnel, $ and dedicated study time
- Difficult to estimate for many of the subprojects
- Progress on the study plan				crucial
- Plan may include significant dedicated study periods
- for parameterizing beam-beam effects
- for benchmarking pBar cooling systems
- April 
- Second pass, consolidate across Run II, “resource leveling”
- Prepare documentation for DOE (< June 1)

## Conclude

- Is the strategic approach to increasing luminosity into the range 2-41032 cm-2sec-1 sound?
- What are the primary accelerator physics and technology risks associated with this strategy? Can the level of risk be translated into a luminosity performance uncertainty?
- Do opportunities exist for mitigation of these risks through alternative approaches?
- Are operational scenarios developed that appropriately account for the simultaneous needs of fixed target operations?

- Technical basis is well established
- Developing integrated approach and defining scope
- Developing performance model and engineering specs
- Performance parameters and schedule will be “bottom up”
- Project is highly constrained (time and operations)
- We welcome your input!

- From Review Charge