gde report to falc status and plans barry barish falc fermilab 4-nov-05 ilc polarized electron...

GDE Report to FALC Status and Plans

Barry BarishFALC

Fermilab 4-Nov-05

ILC Polarized Electron Source

5-Nov-05 FALC - Fermilab 2

The ITRP Recommendation

• We recommend that the linear collider be based on superconducting rf technology

– This recommendation is made with the understanding that we are recommending a technology, not a design. We expect the final design to be developed by a team drawn from the combined warm and cold linear collider communities, taking full advantage of the experience and expertise of both (from the Executive Summary).


SCRF Technology Recommendation

• The recommendation of ITRP was presented to ILCSC & ICFA on August 19, 2004 in a joint meeting in Beijing.

• ICFA unanimously endorsed the ITRP’s recommendation on August 20, 2004


The Community Self-Organized

Nov 13-15, 2004


Self Organization following Technology Decision

• 1st ILC workshop at KEK November 2005• ILCSC forms 5 technical WG + 1 communications

and outreach WG• WG1 Parameters & General Layout• WG2 Main Linac• WG3 Injectors• WG4 Beam Delivery & MDI• WG5 High gradient SCRF• WG6 Communications


Evolution by Snowmass

• WG1 Parms & layout• WG2 Linac• WG3 Injectors• WG4 Beam Delivery• WG5 High Grad. SCRF• WG6 Communications

• WG1 LET beam dynamics• WG2 Main Linac• WG3a Sources• WG3b Damping Rings• WG4 Beam Delivery• WG5 SCRF Cavity Package• WG6 Communications

Birth of the GDEand Preparation for Snowmass


Global Design Effort

– The Mission of the GDE • Produce a design for the ILC that includes a

detailed design concept, performance assessments, reliable international costing, an industrialization plan , siting analysis, as well as detector concepts and scope.

• Coordinate worldwide prioritized proposal driven R & D efforts (to demonstrate and improve the performance, reduce the costs, attain the required reliability, etc.)


GDE MembersChris Adolphsen, SLACJean-Luc Baldy, CERNPhilip Bambade, LAL, OrsayBarry Barish, CaltechWilhelm Bialowons, DESYGrahame Blair, Royal HollowayJim Brau, University of OregonKarsten Buesser, DESYElizabeth Clements, FermilabMichael Danilov, ITEPJean-Pierre Delahaye, CERN, Gerald Dugan, Cornell UniversityAtsushi Enomoto, KEKBrian Foster, Oxford UniversityWarren Funk, JLABJie Gao, IHEPTerry Garvey, LAL-IN2P3Hitoshi Hayano, KEKTom Himel, SLACBob Kephart, FermilabEun San Kim, Pohang Acc LabHyoung Suk Kim, Kyungpook Nat’l UnivShane Koscielniak, TRIUMFVic Kuchler, FermilabLutz Lilje, DESY

Tom Markiewicz, SLACDavid Miller, Univ College of LondonShekhar Mishra, FermilabYouhei Morita, KEKOlivier Napoly, CEA-SaclayHasan Padamsee, Cornell UniversityCarlo Pagani, DESYNan Phinney, SLACDieter Proch, DESYPantaleo Raimondi, INFNTor Raubenheimer, SLACFrancois Richard, LAL-IN2P3Perrine Royole-Degieux, GDE/LALKenji Saito, KEKDaniel Schulte, CERNTetsuo Shidara, KEKSasha Skrinsky, Budker InstituteFumihiko Takasaki, KEKLaurent Jean Tavian, CERNNobu Toge, KEKNick Walker, DESYAndy Wolski, LBLHitoshi Yamamoto, Tohoku UnivKaoru Yokoya, KEK

49 members

Americas 16 Europe 21 Asia 12


main linacbunchcompressor

dampingring

source

pre-accelerator

collimation

final focus

IP

extraction& dump

KeV

few GeV

few GeVfew GeV

250-500 GeV

Starting Point for the GDE

Superconducting RF Main Linac


Parameters for the ILC

• Ecm adjustable from 200 – 500 GeV

• Luminosity ∫Ldt = 500 fb-1 in 4 years

• 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


GDE Structure and Organization

• Executive Committee for Baseline Configuration– GDE Director

• Barish

– Regional Directors • Dugan – Americas • Foster – Europe• Takasaki – Asia

– Accelerator Leaders• Yokoya - Asia• Raubenheimer - Americas• Walker - Europe

• Responsible for decisions and documentation for the Baseline Configuration Document (BCD)


GDE Structure and Organization

• GDE Groups– Design / Cost Engineers

• Shidara – Asia

• Bialowons – Europe

• Garbincius – Americas

– Siting, Civil Construction and Infrastructure• Baldy - Europe

• Enomoto – Asia

• Kuchler – Amercas

– Physics / Detectors (WWS chairs)• Brau - Americas

• Richard - Europe

• Yamamoto - Asia

– Accelerator Experts (34 GDE members)


GDE Organizational Evolution for RDR

• Selected additions to the GDE following the BCD completion having needed skills in design, engineering, costing, etc

• Change Control Board– The baseline will be put under configuration control and a

Board with a single chair will be created with needed expertise.

• R&D Board– A GDE Board will be created to evaluate, prioritize and

coordinate the R&D program in support of the baseline and alternatives with a single chair

• Design / Cost Board– A GDE Board with single chair will be established to

coordinate the reference design effort, including coordinating the overall model for implementing the baseline ILC, coordinating the design tasks, costing, etc.

The GDE Plan and Schedule 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Global Design Effort Project

Baseline configuration

Reference Design

ILC R&D Program

Technical Design

Expression of Interest to Host

International Mgmt

LHCPhysics

CLIC


GDE Begins at Snowmass

670 Scientists attended two week

workshopat

Snowmass


Self Organization following Technology Decision

• 1st ILC workshop at KEK November 2005• ILCSC forms 5 technical WG + 1 communications

and outreach WG• WG1 Parameters & General Layout• WG2 Main Linac• WG3 Injectors• WG4 Beam Delivery & MDI• WG5 High gradient SCRF• WG6 Communications


Evolution by Snowmass


• WG1 LET beam dynamics• WG2 Main Linac• WG3a Sources• WG3b Damping Rings• WG4 Beam Delivery• WG5 SCRF Cavity Package• WG6 Communications



Enter the GDE - Snowmass


• WG1 LET beam dynamics• WG2 Main Linac• WG3a Sources• WG3b Damping Rings• WG4 Beam Delivery• WG5 SCRF Cavity Package• WG6 Communications• GG1 Parameters & Layout• GG2 Instrumentation• GG3 Operations & Reliability• GG4 Cost Engineering• GG5 Conventional Facilities• GG6 Physics Options


Introduction of Global Groupstransition workshop → project


GDE Organization for Snowmass

•W

G1

LE

T b

dy

n.

•W

G2

Ma

in L

ina

c

•W

G3

a S

ou

rces

•W

G3

b D

R

•W

G4

BD

S

•W

G5

Ca

vity• GG1 Parameters• GG2 Instrumentation• GG3 Operations & Reliability• GG4 Cost & Engineering• GG5 Conventional Facilities• GG6 Physics Options

Technical sub-systemWorking Groups

Global Group

Provide input


Goals of the Snowmass Workshop

• Recommendations for the Baseline Configuration

• Identify - Alternative Configurations

• Identify R&D– To support the baseline– To develop the alternatives

• Priorities for detector R&D


Guidance for Baseline Configuration

Baseline: A forward looking configuration which we are reasonably confident can achieve the required performance and can be used to give a reasonably accurate cost estimate by mid-end 2006 in a “Reference Design Report.”


What are Alternatives and Why?

Alternates: Technologies or concepts, which may provide a significant cost reduction, improved performance (or both), but which will not be mature enough to used in baseline by end 2006

Alternatives will be part of the RDR, will form an important element in the R&D program and are the key to evolving the design


Baseline Configuration Document

• Our ‘Deliverable’ by the end of 2005

• A structured electronic document– Documentation (reports, drawings etc)– Technical specs.– Parameter tables– …

• A ‘printable / readable’ summary document (~100 pages)


Structure of the BCD

Summary-like overview for those who want to understand the choice and the why

Technical documentation of the baseline, for engineers and acc. phys. making studies towards RDR


Alternatives Section(s)

Note ACD is part of the BCD


Design Approach

• Create a baseline configuration for the machine– Document a concept for ILC machine with a complete

layout, parameters etc. defined by the end of 2005– Make forward looking choices, consistent with attaining

performance goals, and understood well enough to do a conceptual design and reliable costing by end of 2006.

– Technical and cost considerations will be an integral part in making these choices.

– Baseline will be put under “configuration control,” with a defined process for changes to the baseline.

– A reference design will be carried out in 2006. I am proposing we use a “parametric” design and costing approach.

– Technical performance and physics performance will be evaluated for the reference design


Parametric Approach

• Parametric approach to design– machine parameters : a space to optimize the machine

– Trial parameter space, being evaluated by subsystems

– machine design : incorporate change without redesign; incorporates value engineering, trade studies at each step to minimize costs


Approach to ILC R&D Program

• Proposal-driven R&D in support of the baseline design. – Technical developments, demonstration experiments,

industrialization, etc.

• Proposal-driven R&D in support of alternatives to the baseline– Proposals for potential improvements to the baseline,

resources required, time scale, etc.

• Develop a prioritized DETECTOR R&D program aimed at technical developments needed to reach combined design performance goals


The Key Decisions

Critical choices: luminosity parameters & gradient


Making Choices – The Tradeoffs

Many decisions are interrelated and require input from several WG/GG groups


Cost Breakdown by Subsystem

cf31%

structures18%rf

12%

systems_eng8%

installation&test7%

magnets6%

vacuum4%

controls4%

cryo4%

operations4%

instrumentation2%

Civil

SCRF Linac


TESLA Cavity

9-cell 1.3GHz Niobium Cavity

Reference design: has not been modified in 10 years

~1m


How Costs Scale with Gradient?

Relative

Co

st

Gradient MV/m

2

0

$ lincryo

a Gb

G Q

35MV/m is close to optimum

Japanese are still pushing for 40-45MV/m

30 MV/m would give safety margin

C. Adolphsen (SLAC)


Cavity Fabrication


Gradient

Results from KEK-DESY collaboration

must reduce spread (need more statistics)

single

-cell

measu

rem

ents

(in

nin

e-c

ell

cavit

ies)


Improved Fabrication


Improved ProcessingElectropolishing


Improved Cavity Shapes


Cavity R&D

Fabrication from large grain Nb discs

May remove the need for electropolishing

( cost!)


ILC Siting and Conventional Facilities

• The design is intimately tied to the features of the site– 1 tunnels or 2 tunnels?– Deep or shallow?– Laser straight linac or follow earth’s curvature in

segments?

• GDE ILC Design will be done to samples sites in the three regions – North American sample site will be near Fermilab– Japan and Europe are to determine sample sites by the

end of 2005


1 vs 2 Tunnels

• Tunnel must contain– Linac Cryomodule– RF system– Damping Ring Lines

• Save maybe $0.5B

• Issues– Maintenance– Safety– Duty Cycle


Possible Tunnel Configurations

• One tunnel of two, with variants ??


ILC Civil Program

Civil engineers from all three regions working to develop methods of analyzing the siting issues and comparing sites.

The current effort is not intended to select a potential site, but rather to understand from the beginning how the features of sites will effect the design, performance and cost


How and when to involve industry?

• Large Scale Project Characterization– Large Project Management– Precision Engineering– International Coordination– Costing

• Industrialization– Civil Construction & Infrastructure– Cryogenics– Superconducting RF structures, couplers, etc– Electronics and Control Systems– Large Scale Computing


Since Snowmass

• Summaries from Working Groups and Global Groups are posted on the ILC Website

• Analysis and Recommendations of the 40+ Decisions posted on the ILC Website

• GDE Executive Committee met at SLAC 22-Sept to assess Snowmass results, make plans to produce a “strawman” baseline by mid-November

• Planning done in the context of organizational approach and structures for next year to produce the RDR


RDR Matrix

22.09.2005

e- source e+ source Damping Rings RTML Main Linac BDS

Vacuum systems X X X X X X

Warm magnet systems X X X X (X) X

Cryomodule X X (X) X X (X)

Cavity Package X X (X) X X (X)

RF Power X X (X) X X (X)

Cryogenics X X X X X X

Accelerator Physics X X X X X X

Operations & Reliability X X X X X X

Instrumentation X X X X X X

Controls X X X X X X

Systems integration X X X X X X

CF&S X X X X X X

Cost X X X X X X


From Snowmass to a Baseline

August September October November December

2005Snowmass

WW/GG summaries

Response to list of 40+ decisions

All documented ‘recommendations available on ILC Website (request community feedback)

Review by BCD ECBCD EC publishes‘strawman’ BCD

PublicReview Frascati

GDE meeting

BCD Executive Committee:BarishDugan, Foster, Takasaki Raubenheimer, Yokoya, Walker


Baseline Configuration Document Review Process

• BCD executive committee will monitor BCD progress– Review WG/GG summary write-ups (recommendations)– Review each question on the list of 40+ decisions

• BCD EC will identify and solicit needed additional input– additional expertise from ILC / GDE community

• Strawman BCD available mid-November• Presentation of strawman BCD at Frascati GDE meeting

(Dec. 10-12)

• Final agreed BCD to be documented by end of 2005• Final BCD becomes property of ‘change control board’ in

early 2006• Begin the Reference Design to be completed by end of 2006

The GDE Plan and Schedule 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Global Design Effort Project

Baseline configuration

Reference Design

ILC R&D Program

Technical Design

Expression of Interest to Host

International Mgmt

LHCPhysics

CLIC

gde report to falc status and plans barry barish falc fermilab 4-nov-05 ilc polarized electron...

Documents

falc status

falc fermilab4

falc fermilab2

snowmass slide

kek tom himel

kek brian foster

kek sasha skrinsky

kek olivier napoly