Research & Innovation Action INFRADEV-1-2014: Design studies

1. HORIZON2020-Work Programme 2014 - 2015 • Research & Innovation Action • INFRADEV-1-2014: Design studies Project: “X-band technology for FELs (XbFEL)” • Participants: • Elettra – Sincrotrone Trieste • CERN • Ankara University • Australian Synchrotron - ALS • Uppsala University • SINAP Shangai • Cockcroft Institute • Solaris-Jagiellonian University- Krakow (new) • VDL • Other organizations that have manifested interest: • PSI - SwissFEL • MAXLab

2. Design Studies_ Specific challenge • The aim of this activity is to support the conceptual and technical design and preparatory actions for new research infrastructures, which are of a clear European dimension and interest. • Major upgrades of existing infrastructures may also be considered if the end result is intended to be equivalent to, or capable of replacing, an existing infrastructure.

3. Aims and motivations • Motivation: • Increasing interest by the Scientific Community for very compact Normal Conducting Linacs for FELs (~6 GeV, ~150m, for 1 Å wavelength). • “Support for feasibility studies of new research infrastructures (i.e. Ankara University, Australian Synchrotron,….), or major upgrade of existing ones (i.e. FERMI@Elettra, SwissFEL,….)”. • Advantages: • Compactness, possibility to go high repetition rate, costs.

4. Design Studies_ Specific challenge • Objective • Validate the X-band technology for FEL based photon sources, with the design and assembly of an X-band accelerating module to be tested with the beam. • Focusing on: • operating gradients, breakdown fault rate, alignment issues, wake fields effects, RF stability. • The module will be based on: • One RF power unit; • RF pulse compressor and WG power distribution system; • Two accelerating structures; • Diagnostics; • Mechanical supports and structure alignments.

5. X-band module layout Constant Impedance Accelerating Structure with input power coupler only HV Modulator Klystron Pulse compressor RF load P C Hybrid A. Grudiev, HG2013 workshop

6. Installations and tests • If possible the X-band module would be installed at CERN CLIC Test Facility (detailed plans to be done when the project will be well defined). • Besides the gradient and the fault rate tests, this choice would also allow extensive beam tests with the CALIFES beam*. • Use of the existing diagnostics with an adequate upgrading (i.e. an X-band deflecting cavity….). • The objective is the evaluation of the beam brightness degradation due to wake fields, misalignments, etc. * May be at a reduced charge to improve the emittance

7. RF station characteristics

8. RF station characteristics II

9. Research and Innovation Action Presentation outline • Submission forms for: - Research and Innovation Actions (RIA) (Version 1.0, 21 March 2014) - Administrative forms (Part A) - Research proposal (Part B) • Evaluation process and award criteria For the submission form template see at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/call_ptef/pt/h2020-call-pt-ria-ia_en.pdf

10. Part A_Administrative forms 1. General information - Abstract - Declarations i.e. The coordinator declares to have the explicit consent of all applicants on their participation and on the content of this proposal, …………… 2. Participants & contacts - Administrative data of participating organizations i.e. Legal Status of organization, Departments carrying out the proposed work, Person in charge of the proposal, ………….. 3. Budget - Budget for the proposal 4. Ethics - Ethics issues table 5. Call-specific questions

11. Part B_Research proposal (Technical Annex) • The Technical Annex is based on five sections: • Excellence • Impact • Implementation • Members of the consortium • Ethics and Security Very important for the evaluation process and award criteria Note: The cover page and sections 1, 2 and 3 together should not be longer than 100 pages (note that the standard limit for other Research and Innovation Actions is 70 pages). All tables in these sections must be included within the limit of 100 pages. Please be aware that proposals will be evaluated as they were submitted, rather than on their potential if certain changes were to be made. This means that only proposals that successfully address all the required aspects will have a chance of being funded.

12. XbFEL Work Packages (proposed) WP1_Management WP2_FEL Users requirements and applications WP3_X-band accelerating module design WP4_Accelerating module construction and installation WP5_Beam tests WP6_Dissemination and exploitation of the results

13. Work package description Table 3.1a: Work package description Deliverables (brief description and month delivery) i.e. D1.1 Homepage XbFEL – public web site (month 4) D1.2 Audited financial reporting (month 36) D1.3 …………………………

14. Evaluation process • Excellence • Impact • Quality and efficiency of implementation Scoring Scores must be in the range 0-5. Half marks may be given. Evaluators will be asked to score proposals as they were submitted, rather than on their potential if certain changes were to be made. When an evaluator identifies significant shortcomings, he or she must reflect this by awarding a lower score for the criterion concerned. Thresholds The threshold for individual criteria is 3. The overall threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, is 10.

15. Evaluation process and award criteria • 1. Excellence • Clarity of the objectives; • Credibility of the proposed approach; • Soundness of the concept, including trans-disciplinary considerations; • Extend that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches). Score 1: Threshold 3/5

16. Evaluation process and award criteria • 2. Impact • (….. contribution to:) • The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic; • Enhancing innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge; • Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global markets, and where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets; • …measures to, disseminate and exploit the project results,… communication. Score 2: Threshold 3/5

17. Evaluation process and award criteria 3. Quality and efficiency of implementation* Coherence and effectiveness of work plan, … allocation of tasks, resources; Competences, experience and complementarity of the individual participants, as well as of the consortium as a whole; Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management. Score 3: Threshold 3/5 * Experts will also be asked to assess the operational capacity of applicants to carry out the proposed work.

18. Next steps (within the next 2-3 weeks) • Identify a reference/contact person representing each Institution. These persons will supply all the information concerning their Institutions and will be actively involved in the proposal preparation (part A and B). • Define the contribution of each participant (in terms of role, manpower, components, etc.), for the Work Packages (WP) and budget preparation. • Identify the WP leaders for their organization and preparation in terms of objectives, description of work and deliverables.