# Presentation: 357538

## LARP Collaboration MeetingMagnet Program

**Steve Gourlay**
** **
**October 5 - 6, 2005**

## Outline

**June Review**
**Strategy and organization for the **_**next**_** review**

## Action Item

**	**
**	****“****While the reviewers did not question the ultimate goals of the magnet-development program, they explored the path chosen to attain those goals. As a result, a ****more detailed technical review of the research and development plans for the superconducting quadrupoles**** was requested, which will be scheduled in early November. This review will also encompass further discussion of the proposed activities in accelerator physics.” **

- Action Item 1
**Technical Review**

## Materials

**	**
**	****“****LARP must concentrate more effort on material supplies, suppliers, measurement of conductor characteristics, etc.  This is the bedrock upon which the entire program will rest. Conductor development, manufacture and measurement must be the first priority of LARP . . . ” **
**	****“****one of the laboratories should be equipped to measure fully-reacted cable.”**

## LR

**	****“****The aim is to address issues of scaling with length, but the critical ****questions inherent in a full-size IR quad were not fully addressed**** in the review, nor were the values of other parameters for 4m coils (or for coils of sub-scale length).  It was not possible to assess ****whether 4m was sufficient for verifying the performance**** of a full-length magnet, or whether 2m or 3m would suffice.  It***** *****is therefore recommended that the LARP magnet program revisit this issue, using prior experience, CERN criteria, analysis and other tools to determine the minimum magnet length needed to address scaling to full-size LHC large-bore IR quadrupoles.” **

## Analysis

**	****“****It is recommended that the linkage between sub-scale technology trials and testing efforts and the ****limiting technology of the long quadrupole be further defined**** and folded into the overall program.”**
**	****“****From the material presented, it was not clear whether any ****analysis benchmarking**** is included in the near-term testing plans. The LARP program should seek opportunities to benchmark the tools by tying the analysis tasks to the sub-scale testing as well as to other R&D goals.”**

## Long Magnet Program

**	**
**	****“****No clear ****connection**** was presented between the 2008–2009 ****long-racetrack and the long-quad coil**** programs.  It would seem that the long-racetrack program should precede the long-quad program to be of value.” **
**	****“****Management must ****clarify how design decisions will be made on the long quadrupole****, and how those decisions will relate to prior R&D.” **

## Program Management

**	****“****The current process using ****Task Sheets in LARP seems to be too *****ad hoc******, *****even for a program, as opposed to a project.” **
**	****“****Clearly, a project-type plan is both unnecessary and probably undesirable for a research program, even when there is a well-defined goal, but ****more formality should be evident****. It is recommended that the magnet program develop a clearer plan of action, and that the details of this plan be reviewed on a regular basis.”**** **

- Action Item 2
**R&D Plan**

## Concluding Remarks

**	**
**“****recommended that there should be a ****thorough technical review of the superconducting-magnet component of LARP**** in early FY 2006, and that this ****should include the connections to the core programs at the U.S. laboratories****.”**
** **
**	****“****The goal of the magnet program is ambitious, and it has far-reaching consequences. However, we are concerned that the ****current budget**** for this program, at least through FY2009, ****may not be sufficiently large to assure the success of this effort.”**

## Magnet Program Goals

**Provide options for future upgrades of the LHC Interaction Regions**
**Demonstrate by 2009 that Nb****3****Sn magnets are a viable choice for an LHC IR upgrade**
**(Developed in consultation with CERN and LAPAC)**
- Focus on major issues: consistency, bore/gradient (field) and length

- 1.

**Predictable and reproducible** performance
- TQ models (1 m, 90 mm aperture, Gnom > 200 T/m, Bcoil > 12 T)
**Long magnet** fabrication
- 	LQ models (4 m, 90 mm aperture, Gnom > 200 T/m, Bcoil > 12 T)
**High gradient** in **large aperture**
-         HQ models (1 m, 90 mm aperture, Gnom > 250 T/m, Bcoil > 15 T)

## Review

**R&D Plan**
**Focus on main short-term goals/issues**
**Materials**
**Technology Quads (TQ)**
**Long Racetracks (LR)**

## R&D Plan

**Introduction**
**Program Structure**
**Issues**
**Conductor and Cable**
**Coil Design**
**Fabrication**
**Mechanical Structure**
**Operation in radiation environment**
**Program Goals**
**1,2,3**
**Program Management (DS, M, MMR&D, SR&D)**
**Facilities and Infrastructure**
**Risk and Risk Management**
**Technical**
**Schedule**

## Agenda

**Wednesday**
**Design Studies**
**Supporting R&D**
**Thursday**
**Materials**
**Model Magnet R&D**