GDE Report to ILCSC Barry Barish Snowmass, CO 23-Aug-05.

GDE Report to ILCSC

Barry BarishSnowmass, CO23-Aug-05

23-Aug-05 ILCSC Meeting - Snowmass 2

Outline

– Status of GDE Formation• Defining the Mission and Goals • Forming the GDE • Forming the Baseline• Report on Snowmass• The GDE and Industry• Linear Collider Accelerator School


What’s are job?

– The Mission of the GDE • Produce a design for the ILC that includes a

detailed design concept, performance assessments, reliable international costing, an industrialization plan , siting analysis, as well as detector concepts and scope.

• Coordinate worldwide prioritized proposal driven R & D efforts (to demonstrate and improve the performance, reduce the costs, attain the required reliability, etc.)


GDE – Staffing

• Staff the GDE– Administrative, Communications, Web staff– Regional Directors (one per region)– Accelerator Experts (covering all technical areas)– Senior Costing Engineer (one per region)– Civil/Facilities Engineer (one per region)– Detectors (WWS chairs)– Fill in missing skills (later)

• Total staff size about 20 FTE (2005-2006) about 40 heads.

• The internal GDE organization and tasks will be organized internationally, not regionally


GDE MembersChris Adolphsen, SLACJean-Luc Baldy, CERNPhilip Bambade, LAL, OrsayBarry Barish, CaltechWilhelm Bialowons, DESYGrahame Blair, Royal HollowayJim Brau, University of OregonKarsten Buesser, DESYElizabeth Clements, FermilabMichael Danilov, ITEPJean-Pierre Delahaye, CERN, Gerald Dugan, Cornell UniversityAtsushi Enomoto, KEKBrian Foster, Oxford UniversityWarren Funk, JLABJie Gao, IHEPTerry Garvey, LAL-IN2P3Hitoshi Hayano, KEKTom Himel, SLACBob Kephart, FermilabEun San Kim, Pohang Acc LabHyoung Suk Kim, Kyungpook Nat’l UnivShane Koscielniak, TRIUMFVic Kuchler, FermilabLutz Lilje, DESY

Tom Markiewicz, SLACDavid Miller, Univ College of LondonShekhar Mishra, FermilabYouhei Morita, KEKOlivier Napoly, CEA-SaclayHasan Padamsee, Cornell UniversityCarlo Pagani, DESYNan Phinney, SLACDieter Proch, DESYPantaleo Raimondi, INFNTor Raubenheimer, SLACFrancois Richard, LAL-IN2P3Perrine Royole-Degieux, GDE/LALKenji Saito, KEKDaniel Schulte, CERNTetsuo Shidara, KEKSasha Skrinsky, Budker InstituteFumihiko Takasaki, KEKLaurent Jean Tavian, CERNNobu Toge, KEKNick Walker, DESYAndy Wolski, LBLHitoshi Yamamoto, Tohoku UnivKaoru Yokoya, KEK

49 members


ILCCommunications

• Launch New ILC Website

www.linearcollider.org – thanks to Norm Graf for url

• “One Stop Shopping”– electronic document

management system (EDMS), news, calendar of events, education and communication,

• Designer – Xeno Media (Kevin Munday)


ILC Newsline

Subscribe at http://www.linearcollider.org

http://www.linearcollider.org/newsline/

What’s our schedule?

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Global Design Effort Project

Baseline configuration

Reference Design

ILC R&D Program

Technical Design

Bids to Host; Site Selection;

International Mgmt

LHCPhysics


GDE – Near Term Plan

• Schedule• Begin - define Configuration (Snowmass Aug 05) • Baseline Configuration Document (end of 2005)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------• Baseline under Configuration Control (Jan 06) • Develop Reference Design (end of 2006)• Coordinate the supporting R&D program

• Three volumes -- 1) Reference Design Report; 2) Shorter glossy version for non-experts and policy makers ; 3) Detector Concept Report


What is our design approach?– Create forward looking BCD, consistent with doing

reference design and costing next year • Regarding the parameter space, I think it important to

maintain a large operating space at this point in the project. The four places that the parameter range pushed are the number of bunches stored in the damping ring, the minimum bunch length, the angular divergences, and the beamstrahlung and extraction line system. In some cases, it may be possible to consider schemes where increases to the parameter range are add-ons - for example, it may be possible that a second bunch compressor is an inexpensive add-on and a could be installed after initial operation, however there are also cases where the parameter changes would imply much larger and invasive modifications: for example, the larger number of bunches or increased bandwidth in the extraction line. (Tor)


Parametric Approach

• Parametric approach to design– machine parameters : a space to optimize the machine

– Trial parameter space, being evaluated by subsystems

– machine design : incorporate change without redesign; incorporates value engineering, trade studies at each step to minimize costs


Design Approach• Create a baseline configuration for the machine

– Document a concept for ILC machine with a complete layout, parameters etc. defined by the end of 2005

– Make forward looking choices, consistent with attaining performance goals, and understood well enough to do a conceptual design and reliable costing by end of 2006.

– Technical and cost considerations will be an integral part in making these choices.

– Baseline will be put under “configuration control,” with a defined process for changes to the baseline.

– A reference design will be carried out in 2006. I am proposing we use a “parametric” design and costing approach.

– Technical performance and physics performance will be evaluated for the reference design


Approach to ILC R&D Program

• Proposal-driven R&D in support of the baseline design. – Technical developments, demonstration experiments,

industrialization, etc.

• Proposal-driven R&D in support of alternatives to the baseline– Proposals for potential improvements to the baseline,

resources required, time scale, etc.

• Develop a prioritized DETECTOR R&D program aimed at technical developments needed to reach combined design performance goals


How do we do our work?• Short term organization

– Need simple organization – many global questions– Good tools (video conferencing, EDMS, etc)– Tasks - Internationally organized– Organize Snowmass second week and products to enable

and focus fall BCD program (Snowmass Frascati)

• General Meetings– Snowmass (Aug 05) first meetings– Frascati (Dec 7-10, 2005) (in conjunction with TESLA

collaboration meeting)– Bangalore, India (March 2006) (in conjunction with LCWS

2006)– Topical Meetings ?? (Simplified organization will

minimize meetings)

• Our process and meetings will be open!


Parameters for the ILC

• Ecm adjustable from 200 – 500 GeV

• Luminosity ∫Ldt = 500 fb-1 in 4 years

• Ability to scan between 200 and 500 GeV

• Energy stability and precision below 0.1%

• Electron polarization of at least 80%

• The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV


Higgs Coupling and Extra Dimensions• ILC precisely measures Higgs interaction strength with standard model particles.

• Straight blue line gives the standard model predictions.

• Range of predictions in models with extra dimensions -- yellow band, (at most 30% below the Standard Model

• The models predict that the effect on each particle would be exactly the same size.

• The red error bars indicate the level of precision attainable at the ILC for each particle

• Sufficient to discover extra dimensional physics.


Report from Snowmass?


Some Snowmass Highlights


main linacbunchcompressor

dampingring

source

pre-accelerator

collimation

final focus

IP

extraction& dump

KeV

few GeV

few GeVfew GeV

250-500 GeV

Starting Point for the GDE

Superconducting RF Main Linac


ILC Workshop Organization

2nd Week: BCD Recommendations - Focus Groups


Design Choices for Baseline

• Design Alternatives– Gradient / Length (30MV/m?, 35MV/m? Higher?)– Tunnel (single? or double?)– Positron Souce (undulator? conventional?)– Damping ring (dogbone? small ring?)– Crossing angle (head-on, small angle, large angle)

• Define detailed configuration– RF layout– Lattice layout– Beam delivery system layout– Klystron / modulators– Cryomodule design

• Evolve these choices through “change control” process


Defining the Parameter Space


Cost Drivers

cf31%

structures18%rf

12%

systems_eng8%

installation&test7%

magnets6%

vacuum4%

controls4%

cryo4%

operations4%

instrumentation2%

Civil

SCRF Linac


How Costs Scale with Gradient?

Relative

Co

st

Gradient MV/m

2

0

$ lincryo

a Gb

G Q

35MV/m is close to optimum

Japanese are still pushing for 40-45MV/m

30 MV/m would give safety margin

C. Adolphsen (SLAC)


TESLA Cavity

9-cell 1.3GHz Niobium Cavity

~1meter


Gradient

Results from KEK-DESY collaboration

must reduce spread (need more statistics)

single

-cell

measu

rem

ents

(in

nin

e-c

ell

cavit

ies)


Cavity Fabrication


Improved Fabrication


Improved ProcessingElectropolishing


Improved Cavity Shapes


Baseline Gradient


Baseline Gradients


Large Grain Single Crystal Nb Material


Conventional Facilities and Siting

Milestone One: Snowmass 2005 ConferenceMilestone One: Snowmass 2005 ConferenceSuccessfully Initiate the Global Civil and Siting EffortSuccessfully Initiate the Global Civil and Siting EffortComplete Comparative Site Assessment Matrix Complete Comparative Site Assessment Matrix

FormatFormat

Milestone Two: December, 2005Milestone Two: December, 2005Identify Regional Sample Sites for Inclusion into the Identify Regional Sample Sites for Inclusion into the

Baseline Configuration DocumentBaseline Configuration Document

Milestone Three: December, 2006Milestone Three: December, 2006Complete Conventional Facilities and Siting Portion of Complete Conventional Facilities and Siting Portion of

the Reference Design Documentthe Reference Design Document

8.19.05 V. Kuchler 2 of 8


Conventional Facilities and Siting

8.19.05 V. Kuchler 6 of 8

Outstanding Issues with Direct Impact on CFS Outstanding Issues with Direct Impact on CFS Progress that will Require Further Discussion and Progress that will Require Further Discussion and Resolution with Other Working GroupsResolution with Other Working Groups

1 Tunnel vs 2 Tunnel1 Tunnel vs 2 Tunnel

Laser Straight vs Curved or SegmentedLaser Straight vs Curved or Segmented

Shape and Length of Damping RingsShape and Length of Damping Rings

Shape and Configuration of SourcesShape and Configuration of Sources

1 vs 2 Interaction Regions1 vs 2 Interaction Regions


ILC Siting and Conventional Facilities

• The design is intimately tied to the features of the site– 1 tunnels or 2 tunnels?– Deep or shallow?– Laser straight linac or follow earth’s curvature in

segments?

• GDE ILC Design will be done to samples sites in the three regions – North American sample site will be near Fermilab– Japan and Europe are to determine sample sites by the

end of 2005


1 vs 2 Tunnels

• Tunnel must contain– Linac Cryomodule– RF system– Damping Ring Lines

• Save maybe $0.5B

• Issues– Maintenance– Safety– Duty Cycle


Possible Tunnel Configurations

• One tunnel of two, with variants ??


ILC Civil Program

Civil engineers from all three regions working to develop methods of analyzing the siting issues and comparing sites.

The current effort is not intended to select a potential site, but rather to understand from the beginning how the features of sites will effect the design, performance and cost


Sample Site StudyConventional Facilities Site Considerations - 16 Aug. 2005

1. Site Impacts on Critical Science Parameters

Description: This sub-heading will evaluate site-specific factors that affect critical science parameters.

Consideration: The site should permit the highest level of research productivity and overall effectiveness at a reasonable cost of construction and operation and with a minimal impact on the environment.

1A. Configuration (Physical Dimensions and Layout)

The topography and geology of a site strongly influences machine configuration, tunnel alignment, tunnel depth, tunnel access and penetrations as well as the flexibility for design optimization options.

1B.Performance (Vibration and Stability)

Micro-seismic ground motion and cultural noise (man-made vibrations) may affect the operations of the beamline apparatus. To minimize impact upon beam position, the ILC beam line should be oriented to minimize ground waves at a given site. A quiet site which has low levels of micro-seismicity and cultural noise will avoid the need for passive or active damping systems to achieve required stability during operation.


Example of Discussions


But, do you same $$ ?

Disagree ---- Needs a more careful analysis


Baseline Klystrons

ThalesCPI

Toshiba

Available today: 10 MW Multi-Beam Klystrons (MBKs) that operate at up to 10 Hz


Improved Klystron ?

10 MW Sheet BeamKlystron (SBK)Parameters similar to

10 MW MBK

Low Voltage10 MW MBK

Voltage e.g. 65 kVCurrent 238AMore beams

Perhaps use a Direct Switch Modulator

5 MW Inductive Output Tube (IOT)

Drive

Out

put

IOT

Klystron

SLAC CPI

KEK


With two-level power division and proper phase lengths, expensive circulators can be eliminated. Reflections from pairs of cavities are directed to loads. Also, fewer types of hybrid couplers are needed in this scheme. There is a small increased risk to klystrons. (Total reflection from a pair of cavities sends < 0.7% of klystron power back to the klystron.)

Similar to TDR and XFEL scheme.

BASELINE DESIGN

POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT?

RF Distribution


ILC Beam Instrumentation Requirements

~ 60% complete


Beamsize Growth Study (cumulative after feedback)

30 min ground.

+ Undulator

+ Component

jitter

+ 5 Hz

ground.

+ Kicker, current,

energy jitter, BPM resol.


Availability Studies1 vs 2 tunnels


Improving Mean Time Between Failures


ILC International Industrial Forums

• The first meeting of the ILC industrial Forums from Americas, Asia and Europe took place at Snowmass, Aug. 16th 2005 and during the cost and engineering discussions.

•The purpose was to provide a setting for ILC and industrial representatives to exchange information on industrial development in each ILC regions.

• The ILC Industrial Forums from the three regions were represented by Nirihiko Ozaki, Asia; Michael Peiniger, Europe and Kenneth Olsen, Americas.

• The Asian discussions centered on the industrial practices in three regions . The European discussion was on industrial involvement in the TTF and XFEL projects. The Americas discussion was on the status and view from industry about ILC.


Issues• ILC will be viewed as a project, not a sustainable business area,

therefore it must be prepared to fund one time manufacturing engineering and tooling costs.

• Long term funding uncertainties create barriers to major industry commitments to the ILC

• In general, technology will flow from labs. to small companies, small companies will partner with larger ones for full scale production

• ILC user facilities at key labs will accelerate tech transfer

• Specifications can be a major cost driver and must be critically evaluated

• Costs, risk and schedule are interrelated, must be understood and agreed to by everyone.


Issues…

• Infrastructure Issues:– For industry to invest in the large infrastructure required for ILC

there would have to be a follow-on business or market that the ILC project should plan on paying for all the required infrastructure wherever it is built.

• Early standardization is important– Can deal with whatever standards ILC chooses

• Risks– Let industry make up its mind on risks, then ILC should LISTEN– Perceived risks will influence the actual cost of contracts from

industry.

• Cost Reductions might be achieved with joint facilities between national labs and industries.


Industrial Studies

• Industrial studies in three regions are essential.

– Important to understand industrial costs– Important to examine potential cost reductions– Need to think about what studies are needed and when– Focus on the cost drivers for ILC, important for cost estimate – Focus on places where there is technical risk to the project goals– ILC need a point-of-contact and a plan for industrial studies

2nd ILC Industrial Forum Meeting is scheduled to be held atFermilab Sept. 21st and 22nd, 2005.


• School sponsorship: GDE ICFA Beam Dynamics Panel ICFA ILCSC

• Organizing Committee (OC) members: Sponsors: Barish (GDE), Kurokawa (ICFA ILCSC),

Chou (ICFA BD) Europe: Jean-Pierre Delahaye (CERN), Rolf-Dieter

Heuer (DESY) Asia: In Soo Ko (PAL), Kaoru Yokoya (KEK) America: Alex Chao (SLAC), Paul Grannis (DOE)

• Goal: To train young generations for the next major accelerator facility

• Tentative dates and place: May 2006, Sokenda, Hayama, Japan

Linear Collider Accelerator Physics School

GDE Report to ILCSC Barry Barish Snowmass, CO 23-Aug-05.

Documents

Transcript of GDE Report to ILCSC Barry Barish Snowmass, CO 23-Aug-05.