accelerator science in the us - indico-fnal (indico)€¦ · 2014 p5 report –for general ......

Vladimir SHILTSEV

Accelerator Science and Technology (AST) working group meeting

16 March 2018

Accelerator Science in the US:high-level overview of HEP's strategic approach to

Advanced Technology R&D over the next ~20 years

2014 P5 Report – for General Accelerator R&D

3/16/2018 Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science2

• NB: Next European strategy update:

– proposals to consider expected late 2018 and discussions to

progress in 2019. The final plan is expected to be approved by

CERN Council in Spring of 2020.

• Next US Strategy Upgrade (Snowmass/P5) – ca 2020-2021

P5 (2014): US HEP Community Plan

3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science3

0-10 yrs

10-20 yrs

20+ yrs

Accelerator R&D (GARD)Thrusts:

• Advanced Accelerator Concepts

• Accelerator and Beam Physics

• Particle Sources and Targets

• RF Accelerator Technology (NC and SRF)

• SC Magnets and Materials

HEP

AP

GA

RD

Pla

n (

20

15

)

GARD: Funding Distribution FY1671M$/yr = 27M$/yr Facil.Ops + 44 M$/yr Research

• RF Accelerator Technology (NC and SRF) 20.9M$ 29.4%

• Advanced Accelerator Concepts 18.5M$ 26.0%

• SC Magnets and Materials 14.9M$ 21.0%

• Accelerator and Beam Physics 13.7M$ 19.3%

• Sources/Targets/Other 3.1M$ 4.3%

• Support research efforts at:

– 7 DOE national labs

– 30 university grants

• OHEP GARD led by Dr. L.K.Len


HEP Strategy


GARD Budget Trend


#1: RF Technologies (NC and SRF)


SC RF (FNAL et al)NC RF (SLAC et al)RF Sources/Aux.

Test facilitiesAt FNAL (several, no beam*)At SLAC (NLCTA with beam)At Jlab

* see on FAST belowGuidance: HEPAP Accelerator R&D Subpanel’s

Recommendation 4: Direct appropriate investment

in superconducting RF R&D in order to inform the

selection of the acceleration technology for the

multi-MW proton beam at Fermilab; and

Recommendation 6: Increase funding for

development of superconducting RF (SRF)

technology with the goal to significantly reduce the

cost of a ~ 1 TeV energy upgrade of the ILC. Strive

to achieve 80 MV/m accelerating gradients with

new SRF materials on the 10-year timescale.

Feb 9-10, 2017

Integrated RF Roadmap


February 8-9, 2017 in Gaithersburg, MD.

R&D On Cost-Effective SRF Structures at FNAL

ILC prototype elliptical cell “p-cavity” (1.3 GHz): field alternates with each cell

3/16/20189 Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science

31.5-35 MV/m

New materials (Nb3Sn) –

higher gradients

New techniques (Nb on Cu) –

lower cost

Surface treatment (N2 doping) –

higher Q0 and lower operation cost

(ILC)

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

25 30 35 40 45 50 55

ILC cost vs. gradient and Q - 500 GeV

Q=4.0E+09

Q=6.0E+09

Q=1E+10

Q=2E+10

Q=3E+10

ILC surface processing

N doping

Eacc [MV/m]

Cost

(%

)

SRF R&D Effect on ILC cost 6-20%

Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science

8 cavities~10 m

ILC: 16,000 cavities in 31 km linac

European XFEL

Baseline design

Cost analysis by N. Solyak

Q0 still very important!

3/16/201810

( Yes or No ) = ( Physics × Feasibility )

V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders11

• PHYSICS case of post-LHC high energy physics

machine depends on the LHC discoveries:

– it might call for a collider (if signals are clear)

– otherwise, search for signs of new physics in the

neutrino/rare decays (Intensity Frontier) or astrophysics

• FEASIBILITY of an accelerator is actually complex:

– Feasibility of ENERGY

• Is it possible to reach the E of interest / what’s needed ?

– Feasibility of PERFORMANCE

• Will we get enough physics out there / luminosity ?

– Feasibility of COST

• Is it affordable to build and operate ?

• ILC is fully feasible in “Energy” and “Performance”


LHC reference

“gap” in cost of technology:

~20-30% for Higgs facory~factor for 1 TeV ILC~factor of 3 for NC RF 3 TeV CLIC/I

LC-0

.25

#2: Advanced Accelerator Concepts


Laser-Plasma (LBNL et al)Beam-Plasma (SLAC et al)Dielectric WFA (ANL et al)

R&D facilitiesBELLA BELLA IIFACET FACET IIAWA ?

Laser-Plasma Research Roadmap


Advanced Concepts: Issues


• Feasibility of ENERGY

– Positrons can not be accelerated

– Staging needs to be demonstrated, eg 5 + 5 GeV

• Feasibility of PERFORMANCE

– Power efficiency O(0.1%) need to exceed ILC 10%

– Emittance matching in staging <1%

– FF and beam strahlung – not proven

• Feasibility of COST

– If scale from current cost of PW lasers and 100MW

beams: “cost gap” is ~3 for 3 TeV and ~5 for 10 TeV

#3 SC Magnets and Materials


From NbTi to Nb3Sn and beyond:

16T Canted cos-θ (LBNL)15-16T cos-θ (FNAL) *2T Bi2212/REBCO (NHMFL)

R&D/Test/Fabrication facilitiesFermilabBerkeleyBNLNHMFL(*also at CERN and Europe FCC)

SC Magnet-based Facilities: Issues



– Guaranteed modulo actual max

field (15-16 T)


– Guaranteed modulo SR loss limit

on cryopower


– Not guaranteed unless either

lower energy, or reuse smth or

get outstanding R&D success

Driven by SC cable technology - NbTi – upto 10 T- Nb3Sn – upto 16 T- HTS – 20+T

Cost of SC conductor- NbTi – $$- Nb3Sn – $$ x 5- HTS – $$ x 25


Option 1: re-use LHC, inj, infrastr.

100 TeV pp : Qualitative Cost Dependencies


* fo

r ill

ustr

ation

pu

rpo

se

s o

nly

Need to Develop Technology to Lower Cost

#4 Accelerator and Beam Physics


Accelerator modeling and simulation tools:

Many labs (LBNL, SLAC, FNAL, etc)University groups( SBIR companies )

Experimental beam physics R&D: Fermilab et al

Unique facility: IOTA/FAST

(planning workshop)

2018 ??

Guidance: HEPAP Accelerator

R&D Subpanel’s Recommendations

“2. Construct the IOTA ring, and

conduct experimental studies of

high-current beam dynamics in

integrable non-linear focusing

systems… 3. Support a

collaborative framework among

laboratories and universities that

assures sufficient support in beam

simulations and in beam

instrumentation to address beam

and particle stability including strong

space charge forces.”

FAST/IOTA : Accelerator R&D Facility


• The Fermilab Accelerator Science and Technology (FAST)

facility contains 3 components

– 150-300 MeV Electron Injector, 70 MeV/c Proton Injector,

and the IOTA Ring capable of operation with e- and p+

Electron Injector

IOTA Ring

Proton Injector(Proton Injector RF Station)

135 m

1st e- beam in IOTA – 2018 1st IOTA experiments begin1st p+ beam in IOTA – 2019

Experimental R&D program For several (5-8?) years

Motivation for IOTA/FAST: (Race to) Multi-MW Beams

3/16/2018 Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science22

“ “

“ “

23 Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science

Booster Protons Per Pulse Challenge: PIP “PIP-I+” PIP-II “PIP-III”

PIP I+

PIP

PIP IIIPIP II

6%

4%

2%

Avg power loss limit (~500W):

ΔN/Nmax < W /(N γ)

Space-charge scaling:Nmax ~ ΔQsc×ε×βγ

2

6.3 12

3/16/2018

new RCS

R&D Program at FAST/IOTA


• IOTA ring - driven mostly by Fermilab:

– Integrable Optics

• With strongly nonlinear magnets

• With specially shaped electron beams in electron lens

– Space Charge Compensation

• With ~“Gaussian” electron lens

• With neutralizing “electron columns”

– Coherent Beam “Super”-Stability (NL & electron lenses, FB)

– Optical Stochastic Cooling

• Electron Linac - driven mostly by external users:

– Beam dynamics in SRF linacs (ILC, MARIE, EIC)

– Advanced electron sources, phase-space manipulations

– Novel e- and photon beam diagnostics (all)

– Inverse Compton scattering

– etc

Intensity Frontier Facilities: Issues



– Guaranteed (NC Mag or SRF)


– “Guaranteed” with SRF

– Need R&D with RCSs (IOTA)


– If to assume 8 GeV PIP-III @ ~cost of 0.8 GeV PIP-II:

• Hard with SRF unless major R&D breakthrough (~3)

• Might be OK with RCS

– Beyond or instead of PIP-III - ?? – TBD by next P5

#5 Particle Sources and Targets


Partnerships :

In the US – FNAL et al (SNS)Int’l RaDIATE Collaboration (FNAL, SNS, CERN, ESS, MSU, et al)

US beam irradiation facility : BLIP at BNL ($$ thru FNAL)

Objectives : (1) to gain the ability to confidently design and predict the lifetimes of multi-MW neutrino

and next-generation muon target devices through well-justified modeling of high intensity beam/matter interactions using realistic, irradiated material properties;

(2) to develop advanced targetry technologies to meet these challenges; (3) to have the tools and material behavior data in place to enable the design, construction,

and operation of multi-MW target facilities,(4) and to point the way to new radiation and thermal shock compatible materials and

technologies.

(planning workshop)

2018 ??

Guidance: Subpanel

recommendation 1: Fund

generic high-power component R&D at a

level to carry out needed thermal shock

studies and ionizing radiation damage

studies on candidate materials that are

not covered by project-directed research


• GARD is facing severe budgetary challenges

– Things will not get better soon because of LBNF/DUNE and PIP-II

construction until 2030’s… still even 50M$ x 12 yrs = 600

• Roadmaps developed for GARD research thrusts are already

being used to align research efforts

– Time scale of these roadmaps depends on funding, hard to imagine

long-range milestones to be met (eg PWA-based collider CDR by

2035 (= R&D over)

• GARD directions ~2026 (after 2021 P5) are not predictable

– Subject of changes in the US and globally (ILC in Japan, European

strategy, etc)… some thrusts may diminish/go away

– We are all in the same boat and HEP future is VERY uncertain

• Chances are slim but non-zero if

– Re-use what we have (FNAL or CERN complex, LCLS-II/Upgr, etc)

– Switch to muons offer immediate gain (x10 in Physics@ same E)

– “Paradigm Shift”

Now, 3 years passed… comments (VS)…


“Dream” colliderLH

C

V.Shiltsev | ICHEP

2016 - Post LHC

Colliders

29

fundamental problem :

limited facility power

Pb=IbE Ib=Pb/EL ~ Pb/E

Paradigm Shift : Energy vs Luminosity


• If we are ever to get far beyond LHC

– 300-1000 TeV

• It will be linear accelerator

– Synchrotron radiation “kills rings” of e+e- >0.3TeV and pp >50TeV

• Electrons excluded >3 TeV

– Radiation at IP and in focusing channel γ2

– Left are protons and/or muons

• To stay within limits of <10B$, <10 km, <100 MW

– Need 30 GV/m avg - ! – only in very dense plasma

– Protons out (nuclear) muons only

• Need method to accelerate, focus and cool continuously

– E.g. channeling acceleration in crystals or CNTs

• If that’s the best we can do in “far” future can smth relevant

be done now?

Understand Horizon

1 PeV = 1000 TeV

n ~1000nB ~100frep ~106

L ~1030-32

“Dream” Collider = Muons + Acceleration in

Crystals + Continuous Focusing (Channeling)

V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders

V.S

hil

tsev

, P

hys.

Usp

ekh

y5

59

65

(2

01

2)

n~1022 cm-3, 10 TeV/m

31

Back-Up Slides


FY 2016 GARD Research –% By Thrusts


Analysis:

34

• Actually built:– RHIC, MI, SNS, LHC

• Under construction:– XFEL, FAIR, ESS

• Not built but costed:– SSC, VLHC, NLC

– ILC, TESLA, CLIC, Project-X, Beta-Beam, SPL, ν-Factory

V.Shiltsev | ICHEP

2016 - Post LHC

Colliders

17 “Data Points” - Costs

of Big Accelerators:

34

V.S

hilts

ev, A

ph

en

om

en

olo

gic

al c

ost m

od

el fo

r hig

h e

ne

rgy p

artic

le a

cce

lera

tors

2014 JINST 9 T07002

• 4 orders in Energy, >1 order in Power, >2 orders in Length

• Almost 2 orders in cost• (normalized to US TPC)

Wide range :

V.Shiltsev | ICHEP

2016 - Post LHC

Colliders

35

αβγ - Cost Estimate Model:

Cost(TPC) = α L1/2 + β E1/2 + γ P1/2

a) ±33% estimate, for a “green field” accelerators

b) “US-Accounting” = TPC ! ( ~ 2 ×European Accounting )

c) Coefficients ( units: 10 km for L, 1 TeV for E, 100 MW for P )

– α≈ 2B$/sqrt(L/10 km)

– β≈ 10B$/sqrt(E/TeV) for SC/NC RF

– β≈ 2B$ /sqrt(E/TeV) for SC magnets

– β≈ 1B$ /sqrt(E/TeV) for NC magnets

– γ≈ 2B$/sqrt(P/100 MW)

V.Shiltsev | ICHEP

2016 - Post LHC

Colliders

36

The αβγ-model is good to +-30%

Total Cost vs Model (Log-Log)αβγ

-

V.Shiltsev | ICHEP

2016 - Post LHC

Colliders

37

Illustrations

Sqrt-functions are quite accurate

over wide range because such

dependence well approximates

the “initial cost” – effect :

Comment:

Take LHC as an Example:

V.Shiltsev | ICHEP

2016 - Post LHC

Colliders

38

• αβγ – Model:

– 40 km of tunnels

– 14 TeV c.o.m SC magnets

– ~150 MW of site power

TOTAL PROJECT COST : 14B$ ± 4.5B$

• CERN LHC Factbook (2009):– 6.5 BCHF, incl. 5 BCHF for accelerator

(European Accounting)

– x 2 to US TPC 10 BCHF=10B$

– Cost of existing injector complex ~30-40% 3-4 B$

TPC : ~13-14B$

(of which CERN paid 10 over ~8 yrs) 2009-003

accelerator science in the us - indico-fnal (indico)€¦ · 2014 p5 report –for general ......

Documents