international linear collider

International Linear Collider

Barry BarishP5 MeetingWashington DC8-Sept-05

ThalesCPI

Toshiba

8-Sept-05 P5 Meeting - Washington DC 2

Outline

– Charge posed by Abe Seiden1. Your plans for how to make progress on the

LC design and R&D.2. Budget requirements tied to the above, any

milestones you feel comfortable presenting at this time.

3. Community response to the design challenge. Names of any individuals who plan to commit significant time to this effort.

4. Regional issues - division of effort.5. Any comments you wish to make regarding

outcome of Snowmass meeting.6. Anything you feel we should know about.


Outline


LC design and R&D.


What’s our 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.)


The ITRP Recommendation

• We recommend that the linear collider be based on superconducting rf technology

– This recommendation is made with the understanding that we are recommending a technology, not a design. We expect the final design to be developed by a team drawn from the combined warm and cold linear collider communities, taking full advantage of the experience and expertise of both (from the Executive Summary).


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


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.


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


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 25 FTE (2005-2006) about 50 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

Americas 16 Europe 21 Asia 12

The GDE Plan and 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


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


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


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


Outline


LC design and R&D.

2. Budget requirements tied to the above, any milestones you feel comfortable presenting at this time.


US ILC Budgets – FY05



• SLAC, LBNL & Cornell – Design & Simulation of Bunch Compressor

• All – Main Linac Lattice Design & Beam based alignment

• Berkeley developed RF BPMs to measure local tilt of the bunch

• Ohio State developing radiation hard digitizers

• Coherent Synchrotron Radiation in Bunch Compressors studied at UNM


European ILC Budgets – FY05

Japan / Asia budgets are pending, but the efforts are comparable.


Present ILC R&D Budget Levels

• Comparable in the three regions– About $30M / region

• Estimate that the global level must triple to produce technical design and readiness for construction (e.g. by construction start ~ 2010)

• Main items –– Design Effort (engineering, cost estimates, etc)– R&D in support of baseline and alternatives– Industrialization– System Tests

• Detailed outyear budget plan will be developed after baseline configuration is completed


Outline


LC design and R&D.




Participation in Snowmass

670 Scientists attended two week

workshopat

Snowmass


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


Outline


LC design and R&D.



4. Regional issues - division of effort.


Regional Efforts

• Asia – – Broaden participation (e.g. India, Taiwan)

• Europe – – CERN role (Delahaye, Baldy) EDMS?

• Americas – – Broaden participation (Canada); – Develop SCRF capability at Fermilab; – Industrialize; – Prepare to bid to host

• Division of effort will take place at time of technical design / site selection.


Outline


LC design and R&D.



4. Regional issues - division of effort.

5. Any comments you wish to make regarding outcome of Snowmass meeting.


Highlights from Snowmass


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


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)


Cavity Fabrication


Gradient

Results from KEK-DESY collaboration

must reduce spread (need more statistics)

single

-cell

measu

rem

ents

(in

nin

e-c

ell

cavit

ies)


Improved Fabrication


Improved ProcessingElectropolishing


Improved Cavity Shapes


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


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


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


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.


Outline


LC design and R&D.2. Budget requirements tied to the above, any

milestones you feel comfortable presenting at this time.


4. Regional issues - division of effort.5. Any comments you wish to make regarding

outcome of Snowmass meeting.6. Anything you feel we should know about.


• Three concepts under study

• Typically requires factors of two or so improvements in granularity, resolution, etc. from present generation detectors

• Focused R&D program required to develop the detectors -- end of 2005

• Detector Concepts will be used to determine machine detector interface, simulate performance of reference design vs physics goals next year.

Detector Concepts and Challenges

international linear collider

Documents

lc design

design challenge

final design

outcome of snowmass

reference design end

detailed design concept

reference design report

extra dimensions ilc