1 / 22

Final Report of the CLIC-ILC Joint WG on Accelerator General Issues

Final Report of the CLIC-ILC Joint WG on Accelerator General Issues. Ph. Lebrun for the CLIC-ILC Joint WG* CLIC Workshop, CERN 28 January – 1 February 2013. * E. Elsen, M. Harrison, Ph. Lebrun, K. Peach, D. Schulte, K. Yokoya. 2010. 2010.

urania
Download Presentation

Final Report of the CLIC-ILC Joint WG on Accelerator General Issues

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. Final Report of theCLIC-ILC Joint WG on Accelerator General Issues Ph. Lebrun for the CLIC-ILC Joint WG* CLIC Workshop, CERN 28 January – 1 February 2013 * E. Elsen, M. Harrison, Ph. Lebrun, K. Peach, D. Schulte, K. Yokoya

  2. 2010

  3. 2010

  4. Joint WG on « Accelerator General Issues » • Membership: • CLIC: Ph. Lebrun (co-chair), K. Peach, D. Schulte • ILC: E. Elsen, M. Harrison (co-chair), K. Yokoya • Mandate • The ILCSC and the CLIC Collaboration Board have approved formation of a CLIC/ILC General Issues working group with the following mandate: • Promoting the Linear Collider • Identifying synergies to enable the design concepts of ILC and CLIC to be prepared efficiently • Discussing detailed plans for the ILC and CLIC efforts, in order to identify common issues regarding siting, technical items and project planning. • Discussing issues that will be part of each project implementation plan • Identifying points of comparison between the two approaches to the linear collider • Reporting line • The conclusions of the working group will be reported to the ILCSC and CLIC Collaboration Board with a goal of producing a joint document

  5. 37 meetings of the WG 10 November 2009 Webex 7 December 2009 Webex 5 January 2010 Face-to-face Oxford 8 March 2010 Webex 28 March 2010 Face-to-face Beijing 10 May 2010 Webex 24 July 2010 Face-to-face Paris 12 August 2010 Webex 27 September 2010 Webex 15 October 2010 Face-to-face CERN 29 November 2010 Webex 20 January 2011 Webex 21 February 2011 Webex 14 March 2011 Face-to-face CERN 11 April 2011 Webex 3 May 2011 Face-to-face CERN 17 June 2011 Webex 14 July 2011 Webex 28 July 2011 Face-to-face CERN 12 September 2011 Face-to-face CERN 28 September 2011 Face-to-face Granada 24 October 2011 Webex 21 November 2011 Webex 5 December 2011 Webex 19 December 2011 Webex 1 February 2012 Face-to-face Oxford 12 March 2012 Face-to-face CERN 8 May 2012 Face-to-face CERN 29 August 2012 Webex 3 October 2012 Webex 9 October 2012 Webex 25 October 2012 Face-to-face Arlington 3 December 2012 Webex 21 December 2012 Webex 11 January 2013 Webex 25 January 2013 Webex 30 January 2013 Fuze Meeting

  6. First Interim Report – January 2011 • “Identifying synergies to enable the design concepts of ILC and CLIC to be prepared efficiently” • Survey of CLIC-ILC collaboration throughtopical joint working groups • Possible re-use of ILC infrastructure for CLIC • “Discussing detailed plans for the ILC and CLIC efforts, in order to identify common issues regarding siting, technical items and project planning” • Comparative projectroadmaps and milestones • Statement on siting • R&D programs and technicalmilestones • Project planning

  7. Second Interim Report – January 2012 • “Identifying synergies to enable the design concepts of ILC and CLIC to be prepared efficiently” • Assessment and future of the topical joint working groups • “Discussing issues that will be part of each project implementation plan” • More on siting • Power and energyconsiderations • Industrialprocurement for large acceleratorsystems • Decisionprocess

  8. Final Report – January 2013 • Address remaining point of the mandate“Identify points of comparison between the two approaches to the Linear Collider” • Cruciallyenabled by completion in 2012 of • CLIC CDR and Value Estimate (reviewed in 2012) • ILC TDR and Value Estimate(underreview) • Accelerator technology • Design maturityconcerningenergyreach • Design maturityconcerningluminosityreach • System tests • Costestimate • Methodology & assumptions • Value estimatesat 500 GeV • Costscalingwith collision energy • Power & energyconsiderations • Power estimatesat 500 GeV • Power scalingwith collision energy and luminosity • Standby modes & energy management • Pathstowardsenergyefficiency

  9. Layout of CLIC at 500 GeV (A)

  10. Layout of ILC at 500 GeV Polarised electron source Damping Rings Ring to Main Linac (RTML) (inc. bunch compressors) e+ Main Linac Beam Delivery System (BDS) & physics detectors Beam dump Polarised positronsource e- Main Linac

  11. Base parameters @ 500 GeV

  12. Accelerator technologyEnergyreach [1/2] • Accelerating gradient • ILC goal ≥ 31.5 MV/m on averageat Q0 ≥ E+10, equivalent to 35 MV/m achieved on vertical tests stand, validated on 16 cavities • European X-FEL production willestablishstatisticalsignificance • ILC cavitytechnologycanbeconsidered mature • Two CLIC structures have exceeded 100 MV/m (withoutbeamloading) withlow breakdown rate compatible withlinacoperation • Beamloading tests at CTF3 in 2013 • Next major goal is to optimize the CLIC structure design and producesmallseries prototypes • RF power components • Main RF sources for bothprojects are pulsed L-band klystrons, 1.3 GHz & 10 MW for ILC, 1 GHz and 15 MW for CLIC drive beam • ILC pulse lengthorder of magnitude longer, repetition rate 10 times smaller, hencesimilaraverage power and lower pulse energy for CLIC • ILC klystrons commerciallyavailable, new technologytestedsuccessfullyfor modulators • Prototype development for CLIC klystrons and modulators to bedone

  13. Accelerator technologyEnergyreach [2/2] • RF unit system test • ILC RF unit operatedwithbeamwithparameters close to ILC design • CLIC drive beam concept demonstratedat CTF3, total current about 1/3 of needed for CLIC. Detailed simulations of beamstability and quality, usingrealisticwakefields and imperfections, show that design targets for drive beamaccelerator, combiner rings and deceleratorscanbereached • Prototype two-beam modules for main linacunder construction • Development prototypes of 1 GHz klystrons and modulatorscanbeused for building full-current drive-beamfacility, required for power tests of series CLIC modules

  14. Accelerator technologyLuminosityreach [1/3] • Sources • Both ILC and CLIC use a polarizedelectron source (yielding 80 % polarizationat IP) • ILC positron source uses helicalundulator on electronbeam, (polarization ~30 %, couldbepotentiallyincreased to 60 % with photon collimation) • CLIC uses conventional positron source (no polarization), other options considered for polarized positrons which do not use the electronbeam • Veryappropriatedomain for continued CLIC-ILC collaboration • Damping rings • Challenging for bothprojects, but relying on vastexperiencewith modern light sources and test facilities (ATF2 at KEK, CESR-TA atCornell) • More demanding CLIC wiggler: prototype to betestedwithbeamsoon • Collective instabilities (e.g. electroncloud) studied by simulation and experiment, mitigation techniques tested • Need for stable extraction: prototype kicker for ILC successfullytestedat ATF2, for CLIC under construction • Continued CLIC-ILC collaboration, alsobenefittingothercommunities

  15. Accelerator technologyLuminosityreach [2/3] • Main linacs • Damping of long-range wakefields essential, in ILC extracted by antennas, in CLIC by waveguidesintegratedintoaccelerating structures • Short-range wakefields more important in CLIC, need BNS damping • Small vertical emittances for bothprojects, need to bepreserved first by mechanicalprealignment. ILC achieves ~300 mm in cryomodule, CLIC needs 10 mm (13 mm achieved) • Thenbeam-basedalignment for bothprojects, by dispersion-free steering. CLIC uses wake-field monitors to measurebeam offset wrt structures • Bothprojectsexpected to preservebeamqualityalong main linacsnecessary to achieveluminosity goals • Beamdelivery system • Final focus systems of CLIC and ILC based on sameprinciple • Finitecrossing angle necessary to removespentbeams, 14 mradianat ILC, 18.6 mradianat CLIC 500 • Critical components are final quadrupoles, CLIC has short prototype • Most important beamdynamics issue istuning of complexoptics to reachsmall spot size at IP: more R&D needed, collaboration useful

  16. Accelerator technologyLuminosityreach [3/3] • Machine stability • Both CLIC & ILC are seneitive to dynamic imperfections, ground motion & technical noise: ILC more tolerant as one can use intra-pulse feedback • Ground motion strongly site-dependent • CLIC has developed passive and active stabilizationsystems: performance of active system testedsuccessfully on prototypes • Machine protection • Veryenergetic and brilliantbeamsat end of linacs have domagepotential for both machines • Combination of passive and active protection measures • More detailedworkrequired

  17. CostsMethodology • CLIC and ILC use «value estimate» + «explicit labor» methodology • Project baseline • ILC costsderivedfrom 500 GeVbaseline machine, as described in TDR • CLIC costsat 500 GeV and 1.4/1.5 TeVderivedfromintermediate stages of 3 TeVbaseline as described in CDR • Two scenarios for CLIC at 500 GeV: A (luminosityoptimized) & B (lower entry cost) • No attempt to investigate first stages atlowerenergy («Higgsfactory»), including klystron-powered CLIC underconsideration • Currencies, conversion & escalation • ILC costsexpressed in ILCU (= USD of 2012), convertedusing PPP (OECD) • CLIC costsexpressed in CHF of Dec 2010, convertedusing exchange rates and escalatedusingSwiss indices • Labor • ILC uses bottom-up approach, CLIC scalesgloballyfrom LHC data • Bothapproachesyieldsimilarresultsat ~ 24 million person.hours • Reviewing • ILC TDR costsunderreview (Feb 2012), hence no precisenumbersquotedhere • CLIC CDR costsreviewedFeb 2011 • Coststakenat face value, i.e. no attempt to validatethem • Precision of value estimates ~ 25 %

  18. Value estimatesat 500 GeV Conventionalfacilities are a major costelement

  19. Value vs center-of-mass energy of CLIC and ILC Incrementalcost for CLIC ~ 4 MCHF/GeVmuchlowerthan for ILC Position of cross-over point sensitive to value uncertainty

  20. Power & energy • Linearcolliders are single-pass machines, hence power-hungry • Power efficiency • «intrinsic» efficiency, i.e. luminosity per beam power, maximized by lowemittance and strong FF • «technological» efficiency, i.e. electricalgridto beam, maximized by developments in RF and otheracceleratorsystems • Power stronglydependent on beamenergy and luminosity • Power consumption, and not only construction cost, willeventuallylimit the practicalenergy range of linearcolliders • Single largest fraction of electrical power used for main linac RF systems • Still, only ~1/3 of total for CLIC and ILC • Injectorcomplex and conventionalfacilities are bigusers, withstrongdifferencesbetween CLIC and ILC • From power to energy • CLIC shows significantlyreduced power in standby modes • Possibility of modulatingoperation off periods of peak power demand • Reducing power consumptionis essential for bothprojects, e.g. through • High-efficiency RF power sources • Reduction of ohmiclosses in electromagnets and cables • Wasteheatrecovery and valorization

  21. Nominal power at 500 GeV Substantialdifferences on conventionalfacilities

  22. Power vs center-of-mass energy of CLIC and ILC 3.7 E34 cm-2.s-1 5 E34 cm-2.s-1 2.3 E34 cm-2.s-1 1.3 E34 cm-2.s-1 1.8 E34 cm-2.s-1

More Related