1 / 32

Status of the ILC

Status of the ILC. Brian Foster (Oxford & GDE) PECFA Meeting CERN 27/11/09. Why the ILC?. I could pick many statements. Here are 2: CERN Council Strategy Document:

gladysphillips
Download Presentation

Status of the ILC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Why the ILC? • 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….” Global Design Effort

  3. 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 Global Design Effort

  4. Overall ILC Layout from RDR 1st Stage: 500 GeV; central DR et al. campus; 2 “push-pull” detectors in 14 mrad IR. Global Design Effort

  5. GDE Structure PAC ILCSC FALC FALC-RG Director’s Office = ~ Central Team = ~ EC + AAP ILC-GDE Director BB Regional Directors Project Managers Experts EC~11; weekly teleconf. CLIC PM • Project. M. Office • EDMS • Cost & Schedule • - Machine Detector Interface • - ILC, XFEL, Project X liaison • ILC Communications BF MH KY Global Design Effort

  6. GDE R&D - the Technical Phase Updated every six months Global Design Effort 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)

  7. Available GDE resources Global Design Effort • Resource total: 2009-2012 • Not directly included: • There are other Project-specific and general infrastructure resources that overlap with ILC TDP

  8. TDP Timeline TDR TDP Baseline Technical Design RDR Baseline TDP-1 TDP-2 Change Request New baseline inputs RDR ACD concepts R&D Demonstrations SB2009 studies 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Global Design Effort

  9. 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 Global Design Effort

  10. SRF Test Facilities DESY KEK, Japan FNAL    NML facility Under construction first beam 2010 ILC RF unit test STF (phase I & II) Under constructionfirst beam 2011 ILC RF unit test TTF/FLASH ~1 GeV ILC-like beam ILC RF unit(* lower gradient) Global Design Effort

  11. Other Test Facilities ATF & ATF2 (KEK) ultra-low emittance Final Focus optics Cornell  KEK, Japan  INFN Frascati  CesrTA (Cornell) electron cloud low emittance DAfNE (INFN Frascati) kicker development electron cloud Global Design Effort

  12. Key R&D - SCRF Global Design Effort

  13. Key R&D – SCRF Global Plan Global Design Effort

  14. Key R&D – Cavity gradient • Two-pass processing of cavities • Yield at 31.5 MV/m ~40% Global Design Effort

  15. Key R&D – 1st XFEL Cryomodule Global Design Effort

  16. Key R&D – Cryomodule Global Design Effort

  17. Key R&D – SCRF Future Strategy Global Design Effort

  18. Key R&D – Beam Delivery Optical Table of the Shintake monitor • ATF2Goals • Test fast kicker magnet • Focus the electron beam to 35 nm in vertical • Stabilize the vertical beam position with 2 nm resolution ATF/ATF2Layout Global Design Effort

  19. Key R&D – E cloud @ CESR Beampipe EM wave Low-energy electrons Phase velocitychangesin the ec region Signal Generator Receiver Bandpass Filter Amplifier  Isolator 180º Hybrid Beam Electron Cloud Global Design Effort

  20. Key R&D – CF&S & Rebaselining • Rationale to move away from RDR: Global Design Effort • 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

  21. Key R&D – CF&S & Rebaselining • Proposals: • A Main Linac length consistent with an optimal choice of average accelerating gradient • RDR: 31.5 MV/m, to be re-evaluated • Single-tunnel solution for the Main Linacs and RTML, with two possible variants for the HLRF • Klystron cluster scheme • DRFS scheme • Undulator-based e+ source located at the end of the electron Main Linac (250 GeV) • Capture device: Quarter-wave transformer • Reduced parameter set (with respect to the RDR) • nb = 1312 (so-called “Low Power”) Global Design Effort

  22. Key R&D – CF&S & Rebaselining • GDE group co-chaired by BF and A. Seryi tryingto answer questions from experiments on how these changes will affect physics extraction, backgrounds etc. Global Design Effort • Approx. 3.2 km circumference damping rings at5 GeV • 6 mm bunch length • Single-stage bunch compressor • compression factor of 20 • Integration of the e+ and e- sources into a common “central region beam tunnel”, together with the BDS.

  23. Key R&D – CF&S & Rebaselining • RDR layout (not to scale) • SB2009 • layout • (not to • scale) Global Design Effort

  24. Key R&D – RF Distribution • Klystron Cluster scheme: Global Design Effort

  25. Key R&D – RF Distribution • Distributed scheme: Global Design Effort

  26. Virtual ILC TOUR Electron Beam direction Positron Beam direction Central Integration – AD&I Transfer Tunnel branch Electron RTML (coming from DR) I.P. (down here somewhere) Positron Transfer Line Heading into DR Positron Main Dump line (after collision) BDS (e- side) Heading towards I.P. 1/2/2020 30/09/09 PAC Meeting, Pohang, Korea N.Collomb Global Design Effort

  27. ILC-CLIC cooperation • CLIC – ILC Collaboration has two basic purposes: • allow a more efficient use of resources, especially engineers • CFS / CES • Beamline components (magnets, instrumentation…) • 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 Global Design Effort

  28. ILC-CLIC cooperation • Conclusions from CERN/CLIC/ILC management at CERN include: • Existing workinggroups 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). Global Design Effort

  29. ILC Governance & PIP ILCSC FALC Asian Governance GDE Governance American Governance ILCSC Siting ILC-HiGrade Governance CERN Council (Strategy group) Communication EU Legal Framework Cross-members Global Design Effort

  30. 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) Global Design Effort

  31. 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 Global Design Effort

  32. 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. Global Design Effort

More Related