Barry Barish PAC Meeting University of Oregon 11-Nov-10

1. GDE Director’s Report Grooved Insert for CesrTA Wiggler Barry Barish PAC Meeting University of Oregon 11-Nov-10 Global Design Effort

2. Outline • Status of R&D and design • Plans through 2012 • Technical Design Report • Implementation Plan • Future beyond 2012 Global Design Effort

3. Our Plan --- Updated “Living” Document Global Design Effort

4. R & D Plan Resource Table • Resource total: 2009-2012 • Not directly included: • Other Project-specific, general infrastructure or generic R&D resources overlap with ILC R&D Global Design Effort

5. R&D Progress Global Design Effort

6. Major R&D Goals for Technical Design SCRF High Gradient R&D - globally coordinated program to demonstrate gradient by 2010 with 50%yield; improve yield to 90% by TDR (end 2012) Manufacturing: plug compatible design; industrialization, etc Future systems tests: NML (FNAL), STF2 (KEK) Test Facilities ATF2 - Fast Kicker tests and Final Focus design/performance CesrTA - Electron Cloud tests to establish damping ring parameters/design and electron cloud mitigation strategy FLASH – Study performance using ILC-like beam and cryomodule A Yamamoto for details M Ross for details Global Design Effort Global Design Effort

7. SCRF Status/Progress A Yamamoto for details Global Design Effort

8. 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 Design Effort

9. Creation of a Global Database • Global Data Base Team formed: • Camille Ginsburg (Fermilab) • Rongli Geng (JLab) • Zack Conway (Cornell University) • Sebastian Aderhold (DESY) • Yasuchika Yamamoto (KEK) • Activities • July 2009: - Determine DESY-DB to be viable option, • Sept., 2009: (ALCPG/GDE) - Dataset, web-based, support by FNAL/DESY, • Dec., 2009: - 1st update of the yield statistics • March, 2010 - 2nd update - July, 2010 Global Design Effort

10. Global Plan for SRF R&D Global Design Effort

11. Cavity Gradient Milestone Achieved TDR Goal 2010 Milestone Global Design Effort

12. S1-Global Cryomodule Test in Progress DESY, FNAL, IHEP, INFN, KEK, SLAC Cooperation Vertical cavity test • CW low power test reached: < 30 MV/m > S1-Global cryomodule • 1ms, 5 Hz pulse Individual test reaching: < 28 MV/m＞ {as of Oct. 22, 2010} Global Design Effort

13. NML Cryomodule NML CM1 cryomodule (Fermilab, DESY, INFN). Closed and cool down is imminent. Global Design Effort

14. Test Facilities: FLASH M Ross for details Global Design Effort

15. Global Design Effort

16. Energy stability over 8hrs(3mA, 800us bunch trains) Beam Energy J. Carwardine 2MeV (0.25%) 844 MeV Tuning change (Spec: +/-0.1%) Time (hrs) RF Vector Sums (Normalized) Nominal 0.2% Time (hrs) 8 hrs Global Design Effort 16

17. Test Facilities: ATF-2 M Ross for details Global Design Effort

18. ATF2 – Beam size/stability and kicker tests IP Shintake Monitor Final Doublet Global Design Effort

19. ATF2 (KEK) Status/Plans T. Tauchi Global Design Effort

20. Test Facilities: Cesr-TA eCloud M Ross for details Global Design Effort

21. eCloud R&D • Mitigating Electron Cloud • Simulations – electrodes; coating and/or grooving vacuum pipe • Demonstration at CESR critical tests Global Design Effort

22. Mitigation - Simulation Studies Global Design Effort

23. Global Design Effort

24. CesrTA - Wiggler Observations 0.002”radius Electrode a best performance Global Design Effort IWLC2010 - CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

25. CESRTA - eCloud M Palmer • Mitigation performance: • Grooves are effective in dipole/wiggler fields, but challenging to make when size is small • Amorphous C, TiN and NEG show similar levels of EC suppression so each is a potential candidate for DR use • TiN and a-C have worse dP/dI than Al chambers at our present level of processing • In regions where TiN-coated chambers are struck by wiggler radiation (high intensity and high Ec), we observe significant concentrations of N in the vacuum system • EC suppression with the clearing electrode in the wiggler is significantly better than other options • No heating issues have been observed with the wiggler design in either CESRTA or CHESS operating conditions • Work is in progress to take RFA measurements in chambers with mitigations and convert these to the effective SEY of the chamber surfaces • Agreement between data and simulation looks very promising • Magnetic field region model requires full inclusion of RFA in simulation • Trapping and build-up of the EC over multiple turns in quadrupole and wiggler chambers • Simulation and experimental evidence • Further evaluation of impact on the beam is required Global Design Effort

26. Design UpdateGlobal Design and Decision Making(SB2009) N Walker for details Global Design Effort

27. Why change from RDR design? • Timescale of ILC demands we continually update the technologies and evolve the design to be prepared to build the most forward looking machine at the time of construction. • Our next big milestone – the technical design (TDR) at end of 2012 should be as much as possible a “construction project ready” design with crucial R&D demonstrations complete and design optimised for performance to cost to risk. • Cost containment vs RDR costs is a crucial element. (Must identify costs savings that will compensate cost growth) Global Design Effort

28. Proposed Baseline Changes for TDR Global Design Effort

29. Proposed Design changes for TDR RDR SB2009 • Single Tunnel for main linac • Move positron source to end of linac *** • Reduce number of bunches factor of two (lower power) ** • Reduce size of damping rings (3.2km) • Integrate central region • Single stage bunch compressor Global Design Effort

30. Top Level Change Control Themes Global Design Effort

31. Top Level Change Control Process keywords: open, transparent Global Design Effort Global Design Effort 31 31

32. TLCC Process Walker Physics and detector input / representation mandatory • Baseline Assessment Workshops • Face to face meetings • Open to all stakeholders • Plenary Global Design Effort Global Design Effort 32

33. TLCC Process • Formal Director Approval • Change evaluation panel • Chaired by Director • Final formal step (recommended by AAP) • Change Evaluation Panel • Chaired by director • Experts to evaluate impact on performance, cost, schedule, risk • F. Asiri, K. Buesser, J. Gao, P. Garbincius, T. Himel, K. Yokoya • Decision by Director • Accepts – becomes baseline; guidance in decision memo • Rejects – sent back for further work with comments Global Design Effort Global Design Effort 33 33

34. Proposals Received Global Design Effort

35. Single TunnelHigh-Level RF Solution • Critical technical challenge for one-tunnel option is the high level RF distribution. • Two proposed solutions : • Distributed RF Source (DRFS) • Small 750kW klystrons/modulators in tunnel • One klystron per four cavities • ~1880 klystrons per linac • Challenge is cost and reliability • Klystron Cluster Scheme (KCS) • RDR-like 10 MW Klystrons/modulators on surface • Surface building & shafts every ~2 km • Challenge is novel high-powered RF components (needs R&D) • Backup: RDR-like single tunnel HLRF Global Design Effort 35

36. Distributed RF – Single Tunnel Global Design Effort

37. Klystron Cluster – Single Tunnel Global Design Effort

38. RDR-type RF – Single Tunnel Global Design Effort

39. TLCC Process Global Design Effort Global Design Effort 39

40. TLCC Process Global Design Effort Global Design Effort 40

41. Plans through 2012--------------Technical Design Report (TDR) Global Design Effort

42. Five Themes to Develop N Walker Remains special case Industrialisation in-kind contribution models Site requirements Project Schedule Remaining Technical activities Project Implementation Plan >2012 Global Design Effort Global Design Effort 42

43. Technical Design Phase and Beyond change control process AAP PAC Physics TDP Baseline Technical Design TDR RDR Baseline SB2009 evolve TDP-2 TDP-1 Beijing Workshop CERN Workshop Change Request RDR ACD concepts R&D Demonstrations AD&I studies 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Global Design Effort

44. Technical Design Phase 2 • 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 Global Design Effort

45. 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 Global Design Effort

46. Project Implementation Plan Global Design Effort

47. Governance – Interim Reportpresented to FALC& ILCSC and at IWLC10 Global Design Effort

48. Governance – Interim Reportexample – approach to “in-kind” contributions Global Design Effort

49. Global Design Effort

50. Presently – Outline Stage Recent GDE Executive Committee Meeting during IWLC10 Global Design Effort