Status of the ILC Brian Foster (Oxford & GDE) PECFA Meeting CERN 27/11/09.

Status of the ILC

Brian Foster (Oxford & GDE)

PECFA MeetingCERN 27/11/09

• I could pick many statements. Here are 2:• CERN Council Strategy Document:

– “It is fundamental to complement the results of the LHC with measurements at a linear collider. In the energy range of 0.5 to 1 TeV, the ILC, based on superconducting technology, will provide an unique scientific opportunity at the energy frontier.”

• OECD Science Ministerial Statement (2004)”– “..noted the worldwide consensus of the

scientific community, which has chosen an electron-positron linear collider as the next accelerator-based facility… endorsed the OECD GSF statement on ILC….”

Why the ILC?

B. Foster - PECFA - 11/09 2Global Design Effort

Why the ILC?


• Ecm adjustable from 200 – 500 GeV

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

(corresponds to 2*1034 cm-2 s-1 )

• 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

Overall ILC Layout from RDR

1st Stage: 500 GeV; central DR et al. campus; 2 “push-pull” detectors in 14 mrad IR.


GDE Structure


SCRF-ML G-CFS AS

EU

AM

AS

ILCSC FALC

ILC-GDE Director

Regional Directors

Project Managers

AAP

PAC FALC-RG

Director’s Office= ~ Central Team

= ~ EC +

Experts

Project. M. Office- EDMS- Cost & Schedule- Machine Detector Interface- ILC, XFEL, Project X liaison- ILC Communications

BFMHKY

BB

CLIC PMEC~11;weeklyteleconf.

GDE R&D - the Technical Phase


Major TDP Goals:• ILC design evolved for

cost / performance optimization

• Complete crucial demonstration and risk-mitigating R&D

• Updated VALUE estimate and schedule

• Project Implementation Plan (PIP)

Updated every six months

Available GDE resources


• Resource total: 2009-2012

• Not directly included:– There are other Project-specific and general

infrastructure resources that overlap with ILC TDP

FTE SCRF CFS & Global AS TotalAmericas 243 28 121 392Asia 82 9 51 142Europe 108 17 64 189

433 55 236 724

MS (K$) SCRF CFS & Global AS TotalAmericas 18080 2993 6053 27126Asia 23260 171 5260 28691Europe 9890 921 530 11341Total 51231 4085 11843 67158

TDP Timeline


SB2009 studies

2009 2010

RDR ACD concepts

R&D Demonstrations

TDP Baseline Technical Design

2011 2012 2013

RDR Baseline

Ne

w b

ase

line

inp

uts

TDR

TDP-1 TDP-2 ChangeRequest

Major R&D Goals for TDP1


SCRF• High Gradient R&D - globally coordinated program to

demonstrate gradient by 2010 with 50%yield

ATF-2 at KEK • Demonstrate Fast Kicker performance and Final Focus

Design

Electron Cloud Mitigation – (CesrTA)• Electron Cloud tests at Cornell to establish mitigation

and verify one damping ring is sufficient.

Accelerator Design and Integration (AD&I)• Studies of possible cost reduction designs and

strategies for consideration in a re-baseline in 2010

SRF Test Facilities


KEK, Japan

DESYFNAL

TTF/FLASH~1 GeVILC-like beamILC RF unit(* lower gradient)

NML facilityUnder constructionfirst beam 2010ILC RF unit test

STF (phase I & II)Under constructionfirst beam 2011ILC RF unit test

Other Test Facilities


KEK, Japan

Cornell

INFN Frascati

CesrTA (Cornell)electron cloudlow emittance DANE (INFN Frascati)

kicker developmentelectron cloud

ATF & ATF2 (KEK)ultra-low emittanceFinal Focus optics

Key R&D - SCRF


Key R&D – SCRF Global Plan


Key R&D – Cavity gradient


• Two-pass processing of cavities

•Yield at 31.5 M

V/m ~40%

Key R&D – 1st XFEL Cryomodule


Key R&D – Cryomodule


Key R&D – SCRF Future Strategy


Key R&D – Beam Delivery


ATF/ATF2 LayoutATF2 Goals• Test fast kicker magnet • Focus the electron beam to 35 nm in vertical• Stabilize the vertical beam position with 2 nm resolution

Optical Table of

the Shintake monitor

Key R&D – E cloud @ CESR


Low-energy electrons

Beampipe

EM wave

Phase velocity changes in the ec region

SignalGenerator

Receiver

Amplifier

Isolator

BandpassFilter

180º Hybrid

Beam

Electron Cloud

Key R&D – CF&S & Rebaselining


• Cost constraint in TDR– Updated cost estimate in 2012 6.7 BILCU– Need margin against possible increased component costs

• Process forces critical review of RDR design– Errors and design issues identified– Iteration and refinement of design– More critical attention on difficult issues

• Balance for risk-mitigating R&D– Majority of global resources focused in R&D– Important to prepare / re-focus project-orientated activities

for TDP-2

• Need for design options and flexibility– Unknown site location

• Rationale to move away from RDR:



• Proposals:1. A Main Linac length consistent with an optimal

choice of average accelerating gradient– RDR: 31.5 MV/m, to be re-evaluated

2. Single-tunnel solution for the Main Linacs and RTML, with two possible variants for the HLRF

– Klystron cluster scheme– DRFS scheme

3. Undulator-based e+ source located at the end of the electron Main Linac (250 GeV)

– Capture device: Quarter-wave transformer

4. Reduced parameter set (with respect to the RDR)nb = 1312 (so-called “Low Power”)



4. Approx. 3.2 km circumference damping rings at5 GeV

– 6 mm bunch length

5. Single-stage bunch compressor– compression factor of 20

6. Integration of the e+ and e- sources into a common “central region beam tunnel”, together with the BDS.

• GDE group co-chaired by BF and A. Seryi tryingto answer questions from experiments on how these changes will affect physics extraction, backgrounds etc.



• RDR

layout

(not to

scale)

• SB2009

layout

(not to

scale)

Key R&D – RF Distribution


• Klystron Cluster scheme:

Key R&D – RF Distribution


• Distributed scheme:

Virtual ILC TOUR


04/22/23 PAC Meeting, Pohang, Korea30/09/09 N.Collomb

Positron Main Dump line (after collision)BDS (e- side)

Heading towards I.P.

Electron RTML(coming from DR)

Positron Transfer LineHeading into DR

Transfer Tunnel branch

Electron Beam directionPositron Beam direction

I.P.(down here somewhere)

Central Integration – AD&I

ILC-CLIC cooperation


• CLIC – ILC Collaboration has two basic purposes: 1. allow a more efficient use of resources, especially

engineers– CFS / CES– Beamline components (magnets, instrumentation…)

2. promote communication between the two project teams.– Comparative discussions and presentations will occur– Good understanding of each other’s technical issues is

necessary– Communication network – at several levels – supports it

• Seven working groups which are led by conveners from both projects

ILC-CLIC cooperation


• Conclusions from CERN/CLIC/ILC management at CERN include:– Existing working

groups deemed success ; two more(damping rings & positron production) created

– Jean Pierre Delahaye (CLIC StudyLeader) has joined GDE EC, and BF (European Regional Director) has joined the CLIC steering committee.

– joint workshop in Sept/Oct. 2010; further joint management meetings.

–

• Joint general issues subgroup endorsed by ILCSC and the CLIC Collaboration Board – joint chairs M. Harrison (GDE) & P. LeBrun (CLIC).

ILC Governance & PIP


FALC

American Governance

Asian GovernanceGDE

Governance

ILC-HiGrade Governance CERN Council

(Strategy group)

EU Legal Framework

ILCSC Siting

ILCSC

Communication

Cross-members

ILC Governance timetable


1) FALC presentation – July 13th 2009 ✔

2) Albuquerque Sep 29 – Oct 3 – tentative conclusion on funding model – fractions per

partner, size of common fund etc. ✔

3) EC face-to-face ~ Jan. Oxford – conclusion on funding models, preliminary conclusion on governance model options

4) Beijing March/April 2010? – conclusion on governance model options

5) Write preliminary governance report and iterate May – June 2010

6) Present to and hope to get agreement from ICFA, ILCSC, PAC & FALC – June-July 2010?

7) Present at Paris ICHEP July 2010 – N.B. this is not a final report and no funding authority/government will be expected to sign off on it.

• ILC HiGrade Gov. meeting at lunchtime today on item 3)

ILC Cost – fact & fiction


• RDR cost (value) = 6.62 B$ (US 2007)(+ 24M person-hours explicit labor ~ $1.4B) => $8B

• So why do you keep hearing ludicrous figures like $20B?• DOE accounting - Add some contingency (note GDE estimates

include some, but not all (DoE) contingency. It needs to be done item by item. (conservatively + 20%)

• Escalation to “then year dollars” using arbitrary inflation estimate This is the big factor that people use – escalating for ~ 15-20 years gives ~ 200%

• For the total project, this gives ~$20B+ (then year $$)

• But e.g. Japan has ~ 0 inflation!• US will never build the entire machine• GDE aims that savings from rebaselining will maintain RDR cost

in 2012

Summary and Outlook

• Enormous progress continues to be made in ALL of

the critical R&D areas essential to build affordable ILC –

particularly in SCRF. • Wider political arena being addressed through ILCSC

and FALC. • On schedule for submission of convincing & detailed

TDR end 2012.


• Next steps rebaselining meeting in DESY next week

and AAP review in Oxford Jan 6 - 8.

• I hope to be able to report more progress to you at next PECFA meeting.

Date post:	29-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wendy-houston
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Status of the ILC Brian Foster (Oxford & GDE) PECFA Meeting CERN 27/11/09.

Documents