1 future circular collider study michael benedikt dt training seminar 7 may 2015 future circular...

1Future Circular Collider StudyMichael BenediktDT Training Seminar 7 May 2015

Future Circular Collider (FCC) Study

M. Benedikt, F. Zimmermanngratefully acknowledging input from

FCC global design study team


• Motivation & scope

• Parameters & challenges

• Study organization

• Summary

Outline


• European Strategy for Particle Physics 2013: “…to propose an ambitious post-LHC accelerator project….., CERN should undertake design studies for accelerator projects in a global context,…with emphasis on proton-proton and electron-positron high-energy frontier machines..…”

• US P5 recommendation 2014:”….A very high-energy proton-proton collider is the most powerful tool for direct discovery of new particles and interactions under any scenario of physics results that can be acquired in the P5 time window….”

• Goal: Conceptual Design Report by end 2018, in time for next European Strategy Update

FCC Study - Motivation and Goal


Forming an international collaboration to study:

• pp-collider (FCC-hh) main emphasis, defining infrastructure requirements

• 80-100 km infrastructure in Geneva area

• e+e- collider (FCC-ee) as potential intermediate step

• p-e (FCC-he) option

~16 T 100 TeV pp in 100 km~20 T 100 TeV pp in 80 km

Future Circular Collider Study - SCOPE CDR and cost review for the next ESU (2018)


CepC/SppC study (CAS-IHEP), CepC CDR end of 2014, e+e- collisions ~2028; pp collisions ~2042

Qinhuangdao (秦皇岛）

50 km

70 km

easy access

300 km from Beijing

3 h by car

1 h by train

Yifang Wang

CepC, SppC

“Chinese Toscana”


FCC-hh: 100 TeV pp collider as long-term goal defines infrastructure needs

FCC-ee: e+e- collider, potential intermediate stepFCC-he: integration aspects of pe collisions

Tunnel infrastructure in Geneva area, linked to CERN accelerator complexSite-specific, requested by European strategy

Push key technologies in dedicated R&D programmes e.g.16 Tesla magnets for 100 TeV pp in 100 kmSRF technologies and RF power sources

Scope: Accelerator & Infrastructure


Elaborate and document- Physics opportunities- Discovery potentials

Experiment concepts for hh, ee and heMachine Detector Interface studiesConcepts for worldwide data services

Overall cost modelCost scenarios for collider optionsIncluding infrastructure and injectorsImplementation and governance models

Scope: Physics & Experiments


A. Ball, M. Mangano W. Riegler

Hadron ColliderPhysics &

Experiments

A. Blondel,J. Ellis, C. Grojean,

P. Janot

Lepton ColliderPhysics &

Experiments

M. Klein,O. Bruning

ep Physics, Experiment, IP

Integration

B. Goddard

Hadron Injectors

D. Schulte,M. Syphers

Hadron Collider

Y. Papaphilippou

Lepton Injectors

F. Zimmermann,J. Wenninger,U. Wienands

Lepton Collider

L. Bottura,E. Jensen, L. Tavian

Accelerator Technologies R&D

P. Lebrun,P. Collier

Infrastructures & Operation

P. Lebrun,F. Sonnemann

Costing &Planning

M. BenediktF. Zimmermann

Study Lead

JM. Jimenez

SpecialTechnologies

Further enlargement of coordination group and study teams with international partners

FCC Study Coordination Group


FCC hadron collider motivation: pushing the energy frontier

The name of the game of a hadron collider is energy reach

Cf. LHC: factor 3.5-4 in radius, factor 2 in field

factor 7-8 in energy

𝐸∝𝐵𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑒× 𝜌𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

Hadron collider: presently and for coming decades the only option for exploring energy scale at 10’s of TeV


FCC-hh baseline parameters

parameter FCC-hh LHC

energy 100 TeV c.m. 14 TeV c.m.

dipole field 16 T 8.33 T

# IP 2 main, +2 4

normalized emittance 2.2 mm 3.75 mmluminosity/IPmain 5 x 1034 cm-2s-1 1 x 1034 cm-2s-1

energy/beam 8.4 GJ 0.39 GJ

synchr. rad. 28.4 W/m/apert.

0.17 W/m/apert.

bunch spacing 25 ns (5 ns) 25 ns

Preliminary, subject to evolution (several luminosity scenarios)


Preliminary layout (different sizes under investigation)

Collider ring design (lattice/hardware design)

Site studies

Injector studies

Machine detector interface

Input for lepton option

Iterations needed

Preliminary layout


• 90 – 100 km fits geological situation well,

• LHC suitable as potential injector

Site study 93 km example


13

• Increase critical current density• Obtain high quantities atrequired quality

• Material Processing• Reduce cost

• Develop 16T short models• Field quality and aperture• Optimum coil geometry• Manufacturing aspects• Cost optimisation

C o n d u c t o r R & D

Nb3Sn

M a g n e t D e s i g n

16 T

FCC-hh: Key Technology R&D - HFM


only a quarter is shown

15-16 T: Nb-Ti & Nb3Sn 20 T: Nb-Ti & Nb3Sn & HTS

L. Rossi, E. Todesco, P. McIntyre“hybrid magnets”example block-coil layout

Key design issue: cost-optimized high-field dipole magnets

Arc magnet system will be the major cost factor for FCC-hh


SC magnets for detectors

Need BL2 ~10 x ATLAS/CMS for 10% muon momentum resolution at 10-20 TeV. Solenoid: B=5T, Rin=5-6m, L=24m size is x2 CMS. Stored energy: ~ 50 GJ > 5000 m3 of Fe in return joke alternative: thin (twin) lower-B solenoid at larger R to capture return flux of main solenoid Forward dipole à la LHCb: B~10 Tm

Dipole

Field

F. Gianotti, H. Ten Kate


• Stored beam energy: 8 GJ/beam (0.4 GJ LHC) = 16 GJ total equivalent to an Airbus A380 (560 t) at full speed (850 km/h)

Collimation, beam loss control, radiation effects: very important Injection/dumping/beam transfer: very critical operations Magnet/machine protection: to be considered early on

FCC-hh: some design challenges


High synchrotron

radiation load (SR) of protons @ 50 TeV:

~30 W/m/beam (@16 T) 5 MW total in arcs (LHC <0.2W/m)

• Beam screen to capture SR and “protect” cold mass• Power mostly cooled at beam screen temperature;• Only minor part going to magnets at 2 – 4 K

→ Optimisation of temperature, space, vacuum, impedance, e-cloud, etc.

Synchrotron radiation/beam screen


P. Lebrun, L. Tavian

contributions: beam screen (BS) & cold bore (BS heat radiation)

At 1.9 K cm optimum BS temperature range: 50-100 K; But impedance increases with temperature instabilities

40-60 K favoured by vacuum & impedance considerations

100 MW refrigerator power on cryo plant

Cryo power for cooling of SR heat

Contributions to cryo load: • beam screen (BS) & • cold bore (BS heat radiation)


• Two parameter sets for two operation phases:

• Phase 1 (baseline): 5 x 1034 cm-2s-1 (peak),250 fb-1/year (averaged) 2500 fb-1 within 10 years (~HL LHC total luminosity)

• Phase 2 (ultimate): ~2.5 x 1035 cm-2s-1 (peak),1000 fb-1/year (averaged)

15,000 fb-1 within 15 years

• Yielding total luminosity O(20,000) fb-1 over ~25 years of operation

FCC-hh luminosity goals & phases


phase 1: b*=1.1 m, DQtot=0.01, tta=5 h

phase 2: b*=0.3 m, DQtot=0.03, tta=4 h

for both phases:

beam current 0.5 A unchanged!

total synchrotron radiation power ~5 MW.

radiation damping: t~1 h

luminosity evolution over 24 h


integrated luminosity / day

phase 1: b*=1.1 m, DQtot=0.01, tta=5 h phase 2: b*=0.3 m, DQtot=0.03, tta=4 h


• Name of the game here - luminosity: as many collisions as possible high beam current, small beam size.

• Energy reach of circular e+e- colliders is limited due to synchrotron radiation of charged particles on curved trajectory:

Lepton collider FCC-ee

DE ∝ (Ekin/m0)4/r

mprot = 2000 melectr


Parameter FCC-ee LEP2

Energy/beam [GeV] 45 120 175 105

Bunches/beam 13000- 60000

500- 1400

51- 98 4

Beam current [mA] 1450 30 6.6 3

Luminosity/IP x 1034 cm-2s-1 21 - 280 5 - 11 1.5 - 2.6 0.0012

Energy loss/turn [GeV] 0.03 1.67 7.55 3.34

Synchrotron Power [MW] 100 22

RF Voltage [GV] 0.3-2.5 3.6-5.5 11 3.5

Dependency: crab-waiste vs. baseline optics and 2 vs. 4 IpsLarge number of bunches at Z and WW and H requires 2 rings.High luminosity means short beam lifetime (~ mins), requires continues injection.

Lepton collider FCC-ee parameters


50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4001

10

100

1000

c.m. energy [GeV]

tota

l lu

min

osi

ty [1

03

4 c

m-2

s-1

]

Z W H tt

Baseline 2 IPBaseline 4 IP

Crab waist 2 IP

Crab waist 4 IP

FCC-ee luminosity vs energy


FCC-ee: RF parameters and R&D

• Synchrotron radiation power: 50 MW per beam• Energy loss per turn: up to 7.5 GeV (at 175 GeV, t)• System dimension compared to LEP2:

• LEP2: 352 MHz, 3.5 GV voltage, 22 MW SR power (27 km)

• FCC-ee: 400 MHz, 12 GV voltage, 100 MW SR power (100 km)

• Main challenges: large variation of beam current• ~1 Ampere at Z working point, with very low energy loss

requiring only low RF voltage, impedance very important

• Very low beam current at top working point with large energy loss (6 – 7 GV/turn) requiring ~11 GV voltage.


26

• Cavity R&D for large , high gradient, acceptable cryo power, operation at 4.5 K

• Multilayer additive manufacturing combining Cu and LTS materials

• High quality over large surfaces

• Push Klystrons far beyond 70% efficiency

• Increase power range ofsolid-state amplifiers

• High reliability for high multiplicity

Superconducting RF

BeyondNb

P o w e r C o n v e r s i o n

Efficiency

FCC-ee: Key Technology R&D - RF


Beside the collider ring(s), a booster of the same size (same tunnel) must provide beams for top-up injection

• same RF voltage, but low power (~ MW)• top up frequency ~0.1 Hz• booster injection energy ~5-20 GeV• bypass around the experiments

injector complex for e+ and e- beams of 10-20 GeV• Super-KEKB injector ~ almost suitable

A. Blondel

FCC-ee top-up injector


FCC-ee preliminary layout

C=100 km


Constr. Physics LEP

Construction PhysicsProtoDesign LHC

Construction PhysicsDesign HL-LHC

PhysicsConstructionProtoDesign FCC

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

20 years

CERN Circular Colliders + FCC


2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Explore options“weak interaction”

Report

Study plan, scope definition

FCC Week 2018 contents of CDR

CDR ready

FCC Week 2015: work towards baseline

conceptual study of baseline “strong interact.”

FCC Week 17 & ReviewCost model, LHC results study re-scoping?

Elaboration,consolidation

FCC Week 2016Progress review

Study time line towards CDR


2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

CDR ready

FCC Week 2015: work towards baseline

conceptual study of baseline “strong interact.”

FCC Week 2016Progress review

• Converge on solid and agreed baseline scenarios• Launch technology R&D at international level• Assure coherence between study branches

Focus on Study-Phase 2


• A consortium of partners based on a

Memorandum Of Understanding (MoU)

• Working together on a

best effort basis

• Self governed

• Incremental & open to

academia and industry

• Specific contributions

detailed in Addendum

The FCC Collaboration


Collaboration Status• 53 institutes• 19 countries• EC participation

FCC Global Collaboration


FCC Collaboration Status

53 collaboration members & CERN as host institute , 1 May 2015ALBA/CELLS, Spain

Ankara U., Turkey

U Bern, Switzerland

BINP, Russia

CASE (SUNY/BNL), USA

CBPF, Brazil

CEA Grenoble, France

CEA Saclay, France

CIEMAT, Spain

CNRS, France

Cockcroft Institute, UK

U Colima, Mexico

CSIC/IFIC, Spain

TU Darmstadt, Germany

DESY, Germany

TU Dresden, Germany

Duke U, USA

EPFL, Switzerland

GWNU, Korea

U Geneva, Switzerland

Goethe U Frankfurt, Germany

GSI, Germany

Hellenic Open U, Greece

HEPHY, Austria

U Houston, USA

IFJ PAN Krakow, Poland

INFN, Italy

INP Minsk, Belarus

U Iowa, USA

IPM, Iran

UC Irvine, USA

Istanbul Aydin U., Turkey

JAI/Oxford, UK

JINR Dubna, Russia

FZ Jülich, Germany

KAIST, Korea

KEK, Japan

KIAS, Korea

King’s College London, UK

KIT Karlsruhe, Germany

Korea U Sejong, Korea

MEPhI, Russia

MIT, USA

NBI, Denmark

Northern Illinois U., USA

NC PHEP Minsk, Belarus

U. Liverpool, UK

PSI, Switzerland

Sapienza/Roma, Italy

UC Santa Barbara, USA

U Silesia, Poland

TU Tampere, Finland

Wroclaw UT, Poland


• Core aspects of hadron collider design: arc & IR optics design, 16 T magnet program, cryogenic beam vacuum system

• Recognition of FCC Study by European Commission

EC contributes with funding to FCC-hh study

EuroCirCol EU Horizon 2020 Grant

First FCC WeekConference

Washington DC23-27 March 2015

http://cern.ch/fccw2015

++...

US; 35

CH/CERN; 29

DE; 6

CN; 5

UK; 5

IT; 3.5

FR; 3.1RU; 3.1

JP; 3ES; 1.8PL; 1.5 Other; 4

21 Countries128 Institutes220 presentations


• Freeze baselines parameters and concepts• Colliders, injectors and infrastructures

• Put Nb3Sn/16 T magnet program on solid feet

• Define and launch selected technology R&D

programmes

• Reinforce physics and detector simulations

• Pursue MDI and experiment studies

• Further enlarge the global FCC collaboration

• Launch EuroCirCol Design Study

Outlook 2015


• There are strongly rising activities in energy-frontier circular colliders worldwide.

• The FCC collaboration is hosted by CERN and will conduct an international study for the design of Future Circular Colliders (FCC).

• FCC presents many challenging R&D requirements in SC magnets, SRF and many other technical areas.

• Global collaboration in physics, experiments and accelerators and the use of all synergies is essential to move forward.

Conclusions


FCC Week 2016

Rome, 11-15 April 2016

1 future circular collider study michael benedikt dt training seminar 7 may 2015 future circular...

Documents

tev pp collider

accelerator infrastructure

e e collisions

fcc presentation

pp collisions

fcc global design study

infrastructure requirements

infrastructure needsfccee