Report from Project Managers 1
Akira YamamotoMarc Ross
Nick Walker
ILD Collaboration Meeting – 2011.5.23
Report from Project Managers
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
2
Outline
• Introduction – Where we are in TD phase and R&D?
• Accelerator Baseline Design (ABD) for TDR– SB2009 with the Top-Level Change Control (TLCC)
process complete,– Baseline to be established through Technical Design
Review (RDR) process, • Future scope toward 1 TeV upgrade
– Study in cooperation with Physics/Detector groups • Preparation for Technical Design Report
– Technical description and cost-estimate update
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 3
Technical Design Phase
AD&I studies
2009 2010
RDR ACD concepts
R&D Demonstrations
TDP Baseline Technical Design
2011 2012 2013
RDR Baseline
Beijing W
orkshop
TDR
TDP-1 TDP-2ChangeRequest
SB2009 evolve
change control processAAPPACPhysics
CER
N W
orkshop
R.L. Geng, 5/19-20,2011 ILC PAC @ Taipei 5
Global ILC Cavity Gradient YieldUpdated at ALCPG2011
Plot courtesy Camille Ginsburg of FNAL
Our Goal
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 6
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
7
MHI-09MHI-07
MHI-06MHI-05AES004 ACC011 Z108 Z109
FNAL DESY KEK
Comparison of cavity performance ave. Eacc,max VT : 30 MV/m1 cav : 27 MV/m7 cav : 26 MV/m
D
C
D : DetuneC : Coupler
D
Global Design Effort
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 8
FLASH 9 mA Test
Example Experimental Results
• Flat gradient solution achieved– 4.5 mA beam
• Characterisation of solution by scanning beam current– model benchmarking
Beam Current (mA)1 2 3 4 5
Grad
ient
cha
nge
over
400
us (%
)
0
-3
-5
+3
+5
Gradient Tilts vs Beam Current (ACC7)
Intended working
point
~2.5%
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 9
FLASH Progress: Energy Stability• 15 consecutive studies shifts
(120hrs), and with no downtime
• Time to restore 400us bunch-trains after beam-off studies: ~10mins
• Energy stability with beam loading over periods of hours: ~0.02%
• Individual cavity “tilts” equally stable
Energy stability over 3hrs with 4.5mA
~0.02% pk-pk
9 Feb 2011
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 10
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 11
• Mitigating Electron Cloud
• Simulations – electrodes; coating and/or grooving vacuum pipe
• Demonstration at CESR critical tests
Cesr-TA: R&D for Mitigating e-Cloud
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan Global Design Effort 12
CesrTA - Wiggler Observations
0.002”radius
Electrode a best performance
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 13
Field Region Baseline Mitigation Recommendation
Alternatives for Further
InvestigationDrift* TiN Coating Solenoid Windings NEG Coating
Dipole Grooves with TiN Coating
Antechambers for power loads and photoelectron control
R&D into the use of clearing electrodes.
Quadrupole*
TiN Coating R&D into the use of clearing electrodes or grooves with TiN coating
Wiggler Clearing Electrodes
Antechambers for power loads and photoelectron control
Grooves with TiN Coating
Proposed ILC Mitigation Scheme
Report from Project Managers
14
Interim Report in printing
• Front Page
Contents1. Introduction and overview2. Superconducting RF
Technology3. Accelerator system R&D4. Accelerator design and
integration5. Conventional facilities
and siting6. Toward TDR
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
15
Outline
• Introduction – Where we are in TD phase and R&D?
• Accelerator Baseline Design (ABD) for TDR– SB2009 with the Top-Level Change Control (TLCC)
process complete,– Baseline to be established through Technical Design
Review (RDR) process, • Future scope toward 1 TeV upgrade
– Study in cooperation with Physics/Detector groups • Preparation for Technical Design Report
– Technical description and cost-estimate update
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
16
Accelerator Design & Integration• SB2009 Design Studies
– on-going• Cost Constraint
– ‘Global’ Value Engineering
• Towards an agreed-upon baseline for the TDR– Top-Level Change
Control Process(TLCC)
– Communication with Physics & Detector groups
– Technical Design Review (TD-Rev)
RDR SB2009
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
17
SB2009 Working Assumptions1. 31.5 MV/m average accelerating
gradient2. Single tunnel for Main Linacs3. Undulator-based e+ source relocation
to end of e- Main Linac4. Reduced beam-power parameter set5. 3.2km circumference Damping Ring6. Singe-stage bunch compressor7. Central region integration
Seven Working Assumptions put forth in original SB2009 Proposal (Dec. 2009)
http://ilc-edmsdirect.desy.de/ilc-edmsdirect/file.jsp?edmsid=*900425
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
18
SB2009 Working Assumptions1. 31.5 MV/m average accelerating
gradient2. Single tunnel for Main Linacs3. Undulator-based e+ source relocation
to end of e- Main Linac4. Reduced beam-power parameter set,
3.2km circumference Damping Ring
6. Singe-stage bunch compressor7. Central region integration
http://ilc-edmsdirect.desy.de/ilc-edmsdirect/file.jsp?edmsid=*900425
5 Taken forward as part of Top-Level Change Control process: Combined to Four Themes
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
19
SB2009 Working Assumptions1. 31.5 MV/m average accelerating
gradient2. Single tunnel for Main Linacs3. Undulator-based e+ source relocation
to end of e- Main Linac4. Reduced beam-power parameter set
3.2km circumference Damping Ring
6. Singe-stage bunch compressor7. Central region integration
http://ilc-edmsdirect.desy.de/ilc-edmsdirect/file.jsp?edmsid=*900425
Possible impact on Physics & Detector
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
20
TLCC Process
keywords: open, transparent
1. Accelerating Gradient2. Single-tunnel (HLRF)3. Low-Power Parameter4. Positron source location
1st BAWKEK 7-10th Sept. 20102nd BAWSLAC 18-21st Jan. 2011
Proposals submitted to director
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
APPROVED
Report from Project Managers
21
TLCC-1: Gradient
• Average accelerating gradient of ≥31.5 MV/m Q0 ≥ 1010
• ≤ ±20% Operational Gradient Spread (new)– Acceptance Test ≥ 0.8×35 = 28 MV/m yield improvement– Assumes (some) cavities will achieve 1.2×35 = 42 MV/m– 10% margin for assembly degradation, LLRF control etc.– 31.5 MV/m avg. Eacc in linac (25 ≤ Eacc ≤ 38 MV/m)
• Primary impact on baseline design is RF power capacity– Additional 10-15% required (reduced hRFbeam)– Operational challenges for LLRF (9mA programme)– Increased cost, but $(1% Eacc)/$(1% RF Power) ~ 4
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
R.L. Geng, 5/19-20,2011 ILC PAC @ Taipei 22
Global ILC Cavity Gradient YieldUpdated at ALCPG2011
Plot courtesy Camille Ginsburg of FNAL
Our Goal
Effective yieldImproved
Report from Project Managers
23
TLCC-2 Single Tunnel RDR
Backup solution
TDR Baseline
• Removal of ~25 km service tunnel– central region (BDS/sources)
retains service tunnel• Two variants for RF
Power solution– Distributed RF sources
(DRFS) (mountainous region)
– Klystron Cluster Scheme (KCS) “Flat-land” site
– Both require R&D• Considerations of
– Operations /installation– Availability– Safety egress
• Back-up solution– TESLA Tech. option in single
tunnel (e.g. XFEL-like)
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
SB2009
Report from Project Managers
24
TLCC-3 Low Beam Power• Reduce number of bunches per pulse by 50%
– 2600 1300• Allows to
– Reduce the circumference of DR from 6.43.2 km– Reduce the installed RF power by 30-50%*– Major cost saving
• Recover luminosity by more aggressive beam-beam– stronger focusing at IP– possibility of using travelling focus scheme– Top 30% luminosity is high-risk (compared to RDR)
• *Solutions differ for baseline RF– KCS: 6.0 mA current, 1.6 ms RF pulse– DRFS: 4.5 mA current, 2.2 ms RF pulse
• Recovery (risk mitigation) / upgrade – Restore (install) RF power (modulators/klystrons)– Allow possibility to construct a second DR for e+
• 3rd ring in tunnel
CFS support in baseline to accommodate possible restoration
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
25
TLCC-4: Positron Source Relocation• Relocate undulator-based source at end of main electron
linac– RDR location: nominal 150 GeV point
• Rationale:– Consolidation of sources in central “campus” region (environment etc.)– Large energy overhead for driving source for Ecm>300 GeV– No need to decelerate the beam for Ecm<300 GeV– Further integration with stand-alone conventional source (AUX source)
for commissioning/availability.• Requires implementation of 10 Hz alternate pulse scheme for Ecm<300 GeV– Make use of reduce linac power to have separate pulse to generate
positrons– Implications for RF sources and Damping Rings
• cost increase– Some additional transfer lines and pulsed-magnet systems required in
central region (not incl. in cost estimate)
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
26
Luminosity Containment Effort in SB2009
• Evaluated by J. Brau, (report from ILC-PAC, May 20, 2011)
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
27
Further consolidation of TDR baseline
• Top-level baseline decisions have now been made– Large ticket items (either cost or performance)– Mandatory interaction with Physics & Detector– Requiring Director sign-off
• Many next-level detail decisions still required for TDR baseline– Many things have changed/evolved from the RDR– Level of complexity and impact varies substantially– None are deemed to be as “high-level” as TLCC
themes to be managed with PM’s responsibility 20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
28
Further consolidation of TDR baseline
• Approach: continue successful format of the TLCC-BAW plenary workshops– Baseline Technical Reviews (BTR)– Project Manager driven
• no need for Director sign-off, unless…– Accelerator Integration & Design team orientated– Maintain strong involvement with Physics &
Detector groups– Generate design documentation (ILC-EDMS)
• in preparation for cost estimation• in preparation for TDR writing
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
An Industrialization Model and Responsibility
• Lab: responsible for perofrmance• Industry: responsible build-to-print
manufacturing
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 29
Manufacturer / industry
ILC host-laboratory
Hub-Laboratory: A Hub-Laboratory : …
Hub-Laboratory: B Reg. Hub-Laboratory: E
Hub-Laboratory: CRegional Hub-Laboratory : D-centered in cooperation/consortium with other regional laboratories
Performance specification agreed w/ MOU
Build-to-print specification in Contract
Report from Project Managers
2nd Visiting Companies in Progress
Date Company Place Technical sbject1 2/8 Hitachi Tokyo (JP) Cavity/Cryomodule
2 2/8 Toshiba Yokohana (JP) Cavity/Cryomodule, SCM
3 2/9 MHI Kobe (JP) Cavity / Cryomodule
4 2/9 Tokyo Denkai Tokyo (JP) Material (Nb) 5 2/18 OTIC NingXia (CN) Material (Nb, NbTi, Ti)
6 3/3 Zanon Via Vicenza (IT) Cavity/Cryomodule
7 3/4 RI Koeln (DE) Cavity
8 3/14, (4/8) AES Medford, NY (US) Cavity
9 3/15, (4/7) Niowave Lansing, MI (US) Cavity/Cryomodule
10 4/6 PAVAC Vancouver (CA) Cavity
11 4/25 ATI Wah-Chang Albany, OR (US) Material (Nb, Nb-Ti, Ti)12 4/27 Plansee Ruette (AS) Material (Nb, Nb-Ti, Ti)13 5/24 SDMS Sr. Romans (FR) Cavity14 7/6 Heraeus Hanau (DE) Material (Nb, Nb-Ti, Ti)
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers
30
Report from Project Managers
The 2nd workshop on SCRF Technology and Industrialization for the ILC
as a satellite meeting of SRF 2011• Date: July 24, 2011• Place: Chicago • Agenda:
– Introduction – Reports from SCRF cavity/cryomodule industry– Reports from SC material vendor– Comments from Regional Hub-laboratory – Discussions on the ILC SCRF industrialization model
• Note:– Open for everybody, – Industrial participation anticipated
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 31
Report from Project Managers
Baseline Technical Reviews (BTW)
• Typically 2 days for each accelerator system– 5 days specially for e-source, RTML, BDS/MDI at DESY
• Plenary (no parallel sessions)• Open meetings (but working environment)
Damping Ring 7-8 July 2011 INFN FrascatiSources, RTML incl. BC, BDS/MDI
24-28 October 2011 DESY
Main Linacs (SCRF) 19-20 January 2012 KEKCFS/Global February 2012 TBC FNAL/CERN
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 33
Report from Project Managers
34
Baseline Technical Reviews
• Goal: document and sign-off Baseline design elements– Includes review of on-going (and needed) R&D– detained design documentation structured into ILC-EDMS WBS– cost review
• Work is on-going via remote conferencing (monthly AD&I meetings)– Workshop (BTR) is the end result
Damping Ring 7-8 July 2011 INFN FrascatiSources, RTML incl. BC, BDS/MDI
24-28 October 2011 DESY
Main Linacs (SCRF) 19-20 January 2012 KEKCFS/Global February 2012 TBC FNAL/CERN
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
35
Outline
• Introduction – Where we are in TD phase and R&D?
• Accelerator Baseline Design (ABD) for TDR– SB2009 with the Top-Level Change Control (TLCC)
process complete,– Baseline to be established through Technical Design
Review (RDR) process, • Future scope toward 1 TeV upgrade
– Study in cooperation with Physics/Detector groups • Preparation for Technical Design Report
– Technical description and cost-estimate update
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
36
Toward Upgrade: from 500 to 1000 GeV
2.2 km
1.3
km10.8 km
1.1
km
BDSMain Linac
e+ s
rc
bunc
h co
mp.
<26 km ?(site length <52 km ?)
Main Linac<Gcavity> = 31.5 MV/m Geff ≈ 22.7 MV/m(fill fact. = 0.72)
IP
central region
<10.8 km ?
Snowmass 2005 baseline recommendation for TeV upgrade: Gcavity = 36 MV/m ⇒ 9.6 km (VT ≥ 40 MV/m)
Based on use of low-loss or re-entrant cavity shapes
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
ultra-high gradient R&D>2012
Report from Project Managers
37
Efficiency and Power to be further studied
effic
ienc
y %
Tota
l AC
Pow
er M
W
Gradient MV/m Gradient MV/m
half-power (SB2009)
half-power (SB2009)
Simples scaling – needs more detailed analysis
nb 4 Hz rep. rate
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
38
1 TeV Tentative ParametersCurrent “official” parameter set in EDMS*.
Should still be considered tentative, pending review and further study.
Understanding (and updating) these parameters is our job for the next ~6 months.
* EDMS Doc ID: D*925325http://ilc-edmsdirect.desy.de/ilc-edmsdirect/file.jsp?edmsid=*925325&fileClass=ExcelShtX
To be discussed !
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
39
Outline
• Introduction – Where we are in TD phase and R&D?
• Accelerator Baseline Design (ABD) for TDR– SB2009 with the Top-Level Change Control (TLCC)
process complete,– Baseline to be established through Technical Design
Review (RDR) process, • Future scope toward 1 TeV upgrade
– Study in cooperation with Physics/Detector groups • Preparation for Technical Design Report
– Technical description and cost-estimate update
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
40
TD Phase Key Focus (beyond R&D)
Highest Priority
(new estimate)High Priority
(updated estimate)RDR update
Documentation
(scaled estimate)
CFS requirementscritical input
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
41
CFS Study in progress at KEKReported by M. Miyahara and A. Enomoto at KEK LC office meeting, May 23, today, in Japan
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
RDR Double tunnelwith TBM
DRFSSingle tunnelwith NATM
Report from Project Managers
42
Planning for the TDP 2
* Baseline Technical Reviews We are here!
2010 2011 2012
Risk Mitigating R&D
Re-Baseline (CC)
AD&I (TLCC)
AD&I (BTR*)
TeV upgrade study
Update VALUE estimate
Tech. Risk Assessment
PIP
Write TDR report(s)
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Plan for Technical Design Report
Part 0: Executive Summary– An overview for a less technical audience, such as
decision makers and other branches of science.Part 1: TD phase R&D
– Extension/update of the Interim Report (IR), but more conclusive
Part 2: Accelerator Design Report – Update of the accelerator design.
Part 3: Risk analysis and post 2012 work– Remaining technical risk identified should
emphasize the future R&D programme,
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 43
Report from Project Managers
44
Summary• Four proposed changes to baseline now formally
accepted– TLCC process complete– Culmination of 18 months of work
• AD&I efforts focused on next-level of baseline detail BTRs (BDS/MDI BTR at DESY, Oct. 24-28)– Comprehensive review of TDR baseline– R&D status (TDR relevant)– Cost and Documentation!
• TeV upgrade study – now gaining momentum– Increasing emphasis LHC!
• Preparation for Technical Design Report– To progress through Webex TAG meeting and BTRs,– To complete by the end of 2012
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Report from Project Managers
45
Backup
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto
Global Plan for SCRF R&D
Year 07 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Phase TDP-1 TDP-2Cavity Gradient in v. test to reach 35 MV/m Yield 50% Yield 90%Cavity-string to reach 31.5 MV/m, with one-cryomodule
Global effort for string assembly and test(DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK)
System Test with beamacceleration
FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, test start in 2013)
Preparation for Industrialization
Production Technology R&D
Communication with industry:
2009: 1st step: Visit Venders (2009) 2010: 2nd step: Organize Workshop (2010) 2011: 3rd step: Send specification & receive response
GDE-PMs, 110519c 49Preparing Industrialization
We are here
Global Plan for SCRF R&D
Year 07 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Phase TDP-1 TDP-2Cavity Gradient in v. test to reach 35 MV/m Yield 50% Yield 90%Cavity-string to reach 31.5 MV/m, with one-cryomodule
Global effort for string assembly and test(DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK)
System Test with beamacceleration
FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, test start in 2013)
Preparation for Industrialization
Production Technology R&D
Communication with industry:
2009: 1st step: Visit Vendor (2009) 2010: 2nd step: Organize Workshop (2010) 2011: 3rd step: Send specification & receive response
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 56Report from Project Managers
An Industrialization Model• Industry-based Cavity Production
– Manufactured by companies,• shared fraction of 20 % ~ 100 %
– According to ‘build-to-print specification’ , satisfying• Minimum acceptance criteria and inspections, • Specific process,
– Delivery with no test for the gradient performance • Laboratory-based Cavity Performance Test
– Collaborating laboratories should be responsible for the cavity gradient performance,
• As a deliverable in collaboration between / among laboratories, – Multiple laboratories’ collaboration are important – Delivery from laboratory to (host) laboratory with
performance tested,
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 57Report from Project Managers
Possible Models of Industrialization Possible work sharing
Commercially supplied, relying on market
Region/ Laboratory responsible
Notes, constraint
# of participants 1: possible , ≥ 2: desired ≥2: most likely
Cavity: Nb and raw material Yes
Main cell, He-Jacke Yes with care High Pressure Code
End-group, HOM etc. Yes
Input Coupler, Tuner Yes
Surface Process Yes /Possible Yes/Possible
Integration Most Likely High Pressure Code
Cavity Perform.. Test Most Likely Lab should be responsible
Cryomodule: Vacuum vessel Yes
C.M. component Yes with care High P. code
Cavity-CM Assembly ≥2: Most likely1: special case
Cryomodule test Most likely Lab should be responsible
5820.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers
Report from Project Managers
Technical Management Scheme
• Lab responsible performance, • Company responsible for ‘build-to-print manufacturing
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 59
ILC host-laboratory
Regional hub-Laboratory: - Responsible for performance - Hosting cold test & performance
Cavity industrial R&D, and Production partly hosted at Labo-site: Pilot-plant Mother plant
Cavity production at company-site
Cavity production at company site
Cryomodule/cavity assembly hosted at lab-site, and contracted work by Company
Cryomodule production at company site
Cryomodule production at company site
Lab-oriented
Company-oriented
Regional hub-lab.
Report from Project Managers
Cost-Study Status and Further Plan
• Cost-study in Communication with industry– In progress, and more than half companies responding to our
‘request for information’, and we are getting very important information for our further study,
– We are getting the hint that SCRF cavity costs are ……, ………………..
– We are planning to organize the 2nd stage of communication by summer, 2011, to prepare for our own final stage study in autumn,
• Cost study in Communication with Laboratories– Information given by DESY/EXFEL team lead by H. Weise has
been critically important, valuable, and acknowledged,– Further communication with potential regional hub-laboratories will
be important to develop a whole scope of the industrialization model..
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 60
Confidential
Report from Project Managers
Cavity Factory Layout StudyAssuming KEK to host a ‘Leading Factory’
A proposal for Hub-Lab taking roles of:– Industrial Technology development center in R&D stage, extendable for further
industrial R&D beyond TD Phase (for example, scoping 1 TeV upgrade), – ‘Leading factory’ as ‘mother plant’ to lead industrialization effort:
• Production capacity of ~ ¼ of 20 % (~ 150 cavities/year, max.)
Currently19m x 14m clean room
Layout study in progress
Building area: ~ 60 x 30 m
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 61
Report from Project Managers
Cryomodule Assembly Factory Layout
• Production: 20 % fraction, 6 years• Factory area: ~ 200 x 50 m
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto 62
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 63
• Timescale: Produce final reports end of 2012– Technical Design (TDR)– Project Implementation (PIP)
• First goal: Technical Design (TDR)– SCRF – S0 gradient; S1 Global Tests continue past 2012– Detailed technical design studies from new baseline – Updated VALUE estimate and schedule. – Remaining critical R&D and technology demonstration (CesrTA
complete; ATF-2; FLASH; etc)
• Second Goal: Project Implementation Plan (PIP)– Studies of governance; siting solicitation and site preparations;
manufacturing; etc
Technical Design: Phase 2
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 64
Essential Elements of TDP• Optimize the design for cost / performance / risk
– Top down approach got SB2009; value engineering; risk mitigation
• Key Supporting R&D Program (priorities)– High Gradient R&D - globally coordinated program to
demonstrate gradient for TDR by 2010 with 90%yield– Electron Cloud Mitigation – Electron Cloud tests at Cornell to
establish mitigation; determine mitigtion plan; verify one damping ring is sufficient and size.
– Final Beam Optics – Tests at ATF-2 at KEK
• GOAL – Bring us ready to propose a solid and defendable “construction project” to world’s governments any time after 2012
Plan for TDR Costing
• TDR will have new, current 2012 estimates for cavities & cryomodules, KCS, DRFS, and many elements of conventional facilities, especially for Conventional Facilities for Americas and Asia
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 65
See Garbincius for Costing Plan
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers 66
ILC: Future after 2012
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers 67
CYTechnical Design Report completeBaseline established
2011 2012 2013 2014 20162010
ILC
2015
Technical design & R&D program
2017 2018
ILC possible timeline
SRF system tests
TDR reviews
Site EOI’s
Cost Estimating
Decision to proceed
Site/host established
Project Implementation Plan complete XFEL operation
LHC
Physics Run 1 Physics Run 2Interconnect repair
Existence of low-lying SUSY known
Higgs energy scale known
timegap
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers 68
CYTechnical Design Report completeBaseline established
2011 2012 2013 2014 20162010
ILC
2015
Technical design & R&D program
2017 2018
ILC possible timeline
SRF system tests
TDR reviews
Site EOI’s
Cost Estimating
Decision to proceed
Site/host established
Project Implementation Plan complete XFEL operation
LHC
Physics Run 1 Physics Run 2Interconnect repair
Existence of low-lying SUSY known
Higgs energy scale known
timegap
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers 69
Pre-project ILC Organization
• GDE will have successfully completed its mandate after TDR + reviews (mid-2013 at latest)
• ILCSC / ICFA considering transition organization
http://cpdg.kek.jp (cpdg username and password).
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers 70
Possible GDE program - post 2012
• We will support a core team to maintain corporate knowledge and be available for TDR reviews
• We plan to keep the SRF industrial base active at a minimally useful level and engaged in pre-production (value) engineering.
• It’s likely that positron production will benefit from R&D past 2012.
• It is likely that machine-detector interface activities will need to continue. This will help to facilitate the detector program.
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers 71
GDE - Technically-driven post 2012 program
We are discussing possible major themes to guide this R&D development program. Examples including R&D toward a 1TeV, either directly or as an upgrade, emphasizing achieving higher gradient (energy) economically.
•SCRF Systems tests; Mass production; Value Engineering, etc.
•Design evolution: 1 TeV; Positrons; R&D toward major technical advances
•Must preserve GDE-like global decision making and coordination in new pre-project organization
20.05.23, A. Yamamoto Report from Project Managers
72
Final Remarks• ILC accelerator R&D and design evolution is on track
for producing the ILC Technical Design Report at end of 2012, including a Project Implementation Plan
• We are developing our scope and work plan for developing the TDR. We have presented our first ideas for the content of the TDR deliverable
• Planning for ILC development beyond 2012 is very important. It will be very challenging to maintain a viable forward-looking effort until a project decision is made.
• LHC will open the TeV energy frontier with significant results on the 2012 timescale. The resulting physics results will begin to point the way to the future of a linear collider.
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 73
The ILC SCRF Cavity
- Achieve high gradient (35MV/m); develop multiple vendors; make cost effective, etc
- Focus is on high gradient; production yields; cryogenic losses; radiation; system performance
Global Plan for ILC Gradient R&D
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 74
New baseline gradient:Vertical acceptance: 35 MV/m average, allowing ±20% spread (28-42 MV/m)Operational: 31.5 MV/m average, allowing ±20% spread (25-38 MV/m)
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 75
Cavity Gradient Milestone Achieved
2010Milestone
TDRGoal
See Geng
• Toward TDR goal• Field emission; mechanical
polishing• Other progress
Scope of TDR and supporting work (2)
• Part 2: Design reportEquivalent (replacement) for the RDR. May well
draw on RDR text were it has not significantly changed, although much will need to be updated.1. Introduction2. Overview, layout and parameters3. Main linac4. Sources5. Damping Rings6. RTML / bunch compressors7. BDS/MDI8. CFS9. TeV upgrade path10.Cost and schedule
19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort 78
Scope of TDR and supporting work (3)
• Part 3: Risk analysis and post 2012 workIdentified remaining technical risk should support
the future R&D programme, in the same way that the identified RDR risk set the scope of the TDP work.
• R&D : SCRF - ultra-high gradient (relates to TeV upgrade); SCRF System tests; Positron source related, etc
• Project engineering : Design for manufacture; value engineering; site development (detailed CFS engineering)
• Technical (Performance) Risk Analysis: Where are the extrapolations? How much is the extrapolation? What is the risk of not achieving extrapolation? What is the impact of failure? What is the mitigation strategy?
• Part 4: Implementation Plan19-May-11 Pac Mtg - Taiwan
Global Design Effort \79