Michae l Bened ik t

CERN

March 23 r d , 2015

Study Overview & Status

2

Topics

• Motivation, Goal and Scope• Parameters, Technologies• EuroCirCol• Study Organisation• Outlook

3

Motivation• 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….”

4

Goal of FCC Study

• Conceptual Design Report• By end 2018• In time for nextEuropean Strategy Update

5

Scope: Accelerator & InfrastructureFCC-hh: 100 TeV pp collider as long-term goal

defines infrastructure needsFCC-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

6

Scope: Physics & Experiments

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

7

CERN Circular Colliders + FCC

Constr. Physics LEP

Construction PhysicsProtoDesign LHC

Construction PhysicsDesign HL-LHC

PhysicsConstructionProtoDesignFuture Collider

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

20 years

8

Study time line towards CDR2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Q1 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

9

Focus on Study-Phase 22014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Q1 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

10

Key Parameters FCC-hhParameter FCC-hh LHC

Energy [TeV] 100 c.m. 14 c.m.

Dipole field [T] 16 8.33

# IP 2 main, +2 4

Luminosity/IPmain [cm-2s-1] 5 - 25 x 1034 1 x 1034

Stored energy/beam [GJ] 8.4 0.39

Synchrotron rad. [W/m/aperture] 28.4 0.17

Bunch spacing [ns] 25 (5) 25

• 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

FCC-hh Luminosity Goals

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

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

FCC-hh luminosity evolution 24 h

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

FCC-hh Integrated Luminosity/day

14

Key Parameters FCC-eeParameter 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-waist vs. baseline optics and 2 vs. 4 IPs

15

FCC-ee: Luminosity vs. Energy

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

16

Geology Studies – Example 93 km

• 90 – 100 km fits geological situation well,better than a smaller ring size

• LHC suitable as potential injector

17

Push Technologies

?WHY

18

Scale Up versus Scale Out

S u s t a i n a b i l i t y A v a i l a b i l i t y

• Scale-out of available technologies without advancement leads to unsustainable and inadequate performance

• Mandatory to use large projects to develop new technologies

Cost effective operation:Personnel and material resourcesEnergy efficiency

Number of subsystems requires breakthrough in reliability, availability

Diversify technology sources to control riskEconomic return to society is mandatory

E c o n o m y

Innovation Mining

19

Key Technology R&D - HFM

• 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

20

Key Technology R&D - RF

• Cavity R&D for large , high gradient, acceptable cryo power

• 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

A key to New Physics

22

EuroCirCol EU Horizon 2020 Grant

• Core aspects of hadron collider design: arc & IR optics design• Feasibility study of key technologies: 16 T

magnet program, cryogenic beam vacuum system

EC contributes with funding to FCC-hh study

23

Evaluation Results

1 5 / 1 5

Q u o t e s

• Science is excellent• Project is ambitious andshows innovation potential

• Objectives are clear andapproach is credible

• Will have impact on other disciplines and industry

• Key element of European Strategy on Particle Physics

Recognition of FCC Study by European Commission

24

EuroCirCol Consortium + Associates

J a p a nK E K

F i n l a n dT U T

F r a n c eC E A , C N R S

I t a l yI N F N

G e r m a n yK I T , T U D

S w i t z e r l a n dE P F L , U N I G E

N e t h e r l a n d sU T

S p a i nA L B A , C I E M A T

C E R N

U n i t e d K i n g d o mS T F C , U N I L I V , U O X F

CERN IEIOTUT FinlandCEA France

CNRS France

KIT GermanyTUD GermanyINFN ItalyUT Netherlands

ALBA Spain

CIEMAT Spain

STFC United KingdomUNILIV United KingdomUOXF United Kingdom

KEK Japan

EPFL SwitzerlandUNIGE SwitzerlandNHFML-FSU USABNL USAFNAL USALBNL USA

Consortium Beneficiaries, signing the Grant Agreement

25

Study Setup

• Carried out by global collaboration

• Universities, laboratories & industry worldwide

• Hosted by CERN

GeographicallyBalanced

Worldwide

TopicallyComplementary

Excellence

26

The FCC Collaboration

• 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

27

Collaboration Status• 51 institutes• 19 countries• EC participation

ALBA/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

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

51 FCC collaboration members & CERN as host institute,

22 March 2015

29

Study Coordination Group

A. Ball, F. Gianotti , M. Mangano

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

JM. Jimenez

SpecialTechnologies

Further enlargement of coordination group and study teams with international partners

M. BenediktF. Zimmermann

Study Lead

30

Information Management in FCChttp://cern.ch/fcc

31

Documents and Publications

Study internal

CERN EDMS• Notes, drawings, slides, minutes

• Source files of scientific papers

• http://cern.ch/fcc-edms

Public documents

CERN CDS• PDF of scientific papers,

public slides, official reports, videos

• http://cern.ch/cds > R&D and Studies

> Future Circular Collider Documents

32

Collaborative Work Platform

Meetings• Structure in CERN Indico• http://cern.ch/fcc-meetings

Collaboration Tools• Institutes and work breakdown overview• Growing platform for information exchange• http://cern.ch/fcc/collaboration

33

Access to Collaboration ServicesCollaboration members can subscribe to one of the following e-groups to gain access to IT services at http://cern.ch/egroups

E-group Name:

fcc-collider-hadron

fcc-collider-lepton

fcc-experiments-hadron

fcc-experiments-lepton

fcc-infrastructures

fcc-injectors-hadron

fcc-injectors-lepton

34

Outlook 2015

• 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 our global FCC collaboration

35

This 1st FCC Week should

• Stimulate exchange between participants of all study areas

• Strengthen the collaboration network

• create fruitful discussionstowards our common goal

36

Have a Great Week!