b. foster - lcuk l'pool 0907 global design effort 1 overview h ilc progress since last lcuk -...

B. Foster - LCUK L'pool 0907 Global Design Effort 1

Overviewh

• ILC Progress since last LCUK - global, European, UK.

• Summary of Steering Committee and

Collaboration Council

• Outlook

B. Foster (Oxford) LCUK Liverpool 25/09/07


ILC Reference Design Report

The RDR is not a full engineering design - it is conceptual; some aspects require R&D. Forms reliable basis for detailed engineering design & costing.

~700 contributorsfrom 84 institutes


Overall Layout

1st Stage: 500 GeV; central DR et al. campus; 2 “push-pull” detectors in 14 mrad IR.


ILC COSTThe reference design was“frozen” on 1-12-06 for RDRproduction, including costs.

Important to realise thisis a snapshot; design willcontinue to evolve, due to R&D, accelerator studies& value engineering.

The value costs havealready been reviewed many times; all reviews have beenvery positive and generally consider there is scope for further cost reductions.

Σ Value = 6.62 B ILC Units

SummaryRDR “Value” Costs

Total Value Cost (FY07)4.80 B ILC Units Shared

+1.82 B Units Site Specific

+14.1 K person-years

(“explicit” labor = 24.0 M person-hrs @ 1,700 hrs/yr)

1 ILC Unit = $ 1 (2007)


BCD

2006 2010 2014 2018

RDR EDRBeginConst

EndConst

EngineerDesign

Technically driven timeline

• GDE has to be driven by how quickly we think we canproduce a robust & affordable ILC design - irrespectiveof whether governments want to hear about it - “technically driven”.


Engineering Design Phase

• ILC Engineering Design– We have a solid design concept in the reference design, but it

is immature and needs engineering designs, value engineering, supporting R&D and industrialization.

• GDE is being reorganized around a Project Management Office to reach this goal– M. Ross, N. Walker and A Yamamoto – PM “Troika” + high

level engineering managers in the project office

– Central management will have authority to set priorities and direct the work

– Resources for the engineering design and associated R&D appears feasible

– Investments toward Industrialization and siting

– 2010 was foreseen as the time at which LHC results, CLICprogress etc would be reviewed and decision on ILCconstruction made. GDE committed to be ready at that time!



P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t O f f i c e

G D E I L C E n g i n e e r i n g D e s i g n P h a s e P r o j e c t

B a r r y B a r i s h

G D E D i r e c t o r

A k i r a Y a m a m o t o

P r o j e c t M a n a g e r

S C R F T e c h .

M a r c R o s s

P r o j e c t M a n a g e r ( c h a i r )

C F S & G l o b a l

N i c k W a l k e r

P r o j e c t M a n a g e r

A c c e l e r a t o r S y s t e m s

T e t s u o S h id a r a

( K E K )

J im K e r b y

( F N A L )

L u t z L ilje ( D E S Y )

C a v it y P r o c e s s in g

H it o s h i H a y a n o ( K E K )

C a v it y P r o d u c t io n &

I n t e g r a t io n

N o r ih it o O h u c h i ( K E K )

L e a d e r

H a r r y C a r t e r ( F N A L )

C o - L e a d e r

C r y o m o d u le

S h ig e k i F u k u d a ( K E K )

H L R F

T o m P e t e r s o n ( F N A L )

C r y o g e n ic s

C h r is A d o lp h s e n

( S L A C )

M a in L in a c I n t e g r a t io n

W ilh e lm B ia lo w o n s

( D E S Y )

J o h n C a r w a r d in e

( A N L )

J u n ji U r a k a w a

( K E K )

F r a n k L e h n e r

( D E S Y )

J e a n - L u c B a ld y ( C E R N )

C iv il E n g in e e r in g

V ic K u c h le r ( F N A L )

C o n v e n t io n a l F a c ilit ie s

M a r g a r e t V o t a v a ( F N A L )

C o n t r o ls

A x e l B r a c h m a n n ( S L A C )

E le c t r o n S o u r c e

J im C la r k e ( S T F C )

P o s it r o n S o u r c e

A n d y W o ls k i

( C o c k c r o f t I n s t it u t e )

D a m p in g R in g

N ik o la y S o ly a k ( F N A L )

R T M L

K iy o s h i K u b o ( K E K )

S im u la t io n

E w a n P a t e r s o n ( S L A C )

I n t e g r a t io n

P e t e r G a r b in c iu s ( F N A L )

C o s t & P la n n in g

N o b u T o g e ( K E K )

E n g in e e r in g

M a n a g e m e n t

L a r s H a g g e ( D E S Y )

E D M S / C M

N o b u T o g e ( K E K )

C h a n g e

M a n a g e m e n t

B r i a n F o s t e r

E u r o p e a n D i r e c t o r

M i t s u a k i N o z a k i

A s i a n D i r e c t o r

M i k e H a r r i s o n

A m e r i c a s D i r e c t o r

S h e k a r M is h r a ( F N A L )

I n t e r n a t io n a l A g r e e m e n t

O v e r s ig h t G r o u p

T B D

E u r o p e a n

A c c e l e r a t o r L e a d

K a o r u Y o k o y a

A s i a n A c c e l e r a t o r

L e a d

T o r R a u b e n h e i m e r

A m e r i c a s

A c c e l e r a t o r L e a d

A c c e l e r a t o r

A d v i s o r y P a n e l

H a n s W e is e ( D E S Y )

X F E L L ia is o n

P e t e r G a r b in c iu s ( F N A L )

T e t s u o S h id a r a ( K E K )

W ilh e lm B ia lo w o n s ( D E S Y )

I n t e r n a t io n a l C o s t in g G r o u p

A n d r e S e r y i ( S L A C )

B D S

E c k h a r d E ls e n ( D E S Y )

E D R P la n n in g



• “Kick-off” meetings now well underway– I attended the one last week at DESY on the SCRF.

Good atmosphere and already getting down to very detailed discussions.

– These meetings should mark the start of producing the WBS for each project and seeing which partners are willing to take on which WBS parts.

• The process should culminate in official start of EDR phase at Fermilab meeting next month– Should be reports from each of the top-level project

managers.

– Will still be a lot of work to do before the first MoUs can be signed - but it is hoped that the first will be ready around turn of the year.



• GDE will be reformed on timescale around Fermilab meeting– Everyone working on ILC > 30% or with

significant management responsibilities will be a member.

– Group leaders will be polled on those who qualify every year and the list maintained by M. Hronek.


August

BCD

All regions require ~ 5 yrs

Siting Plan being Developed

2006 2010 2014 2018

RDR EDRBeginConst

EndConst

EngineerDesign

Site Prep

Site Select



~ 5.5 km

~ 5.5 km

Central Area fits inside the Fermilab boundary

Site Characterization of the Central Area can be done already

~ Boundary of Fermilab

Fermilab site


Dubna Site


Dubna Site

• Geology of Dubna Site


Civil Construction Timeline

x

t


August

BCD

All regions ~ 5 yrs


2006 2010 2014 2018

RDR EDRBeginConst

EndConst

EngineerDesign

Site Prep

Site Select

R & D -- Industrialization



• The Task Forces were put together successively over a period of five months:

S0/S1 - Cavities, Cryomodule • S2 - Cryomodule String Tests• S3 - Damping Rings• S4 - Beam Delivery System• S5 - Positron Source• S6 - Controls, not yet active• S7 - RF

• The industrialisation in Europe dominated by the preparatory work for XFEL.

R&D Task Forces


KEK single cell results:2005 – just learning

2005

2007

2006

Current status

2006 – standard recipe2007 – add final 3 μm fresh acid EPNote: multi-cells harder than singles


August

BCD

All regions ~ 5 yrs


Construction Startup

2006 2010 2014 2018

RDR EDRBeginConst

EndConst

EngineerDesign

Site Prep

Site Select


System Tests

& XFEL



• Build 1 RF unit (3 cryomodules + 1 Klystron) fully to check:

– What gradient spread can be handled by LLRF system. This test should be done with and without beam loading, etc.

• Partial check of:– Reliability– Dark current– for degradation or other weaknesses

• The ILC cryomodule is different enough compared to TTF that a new system test is prudent.

String test - goal


BCD

All regions ~ 5 yrs



2006 2010 2014 2018

RDR EDRBeginConst

EndConst

EngineerDesign

Site Prep

Site Select


CryomoduleFull Production

System Tests

& XFEL



Schedule in Graphical Form

2009 2012 2015 2018

CryomoduleProduction

Country


August

BCD

All regions ~ 5 yrs



2006 2010 2014 2018

RDR EDRBeginConst

EndConst

EngineerDesign

Site Prep

Site Select


CryomoduleFull Production

System Tests

& XFEL

Detector Install

Detector Construct



Assemble detectors on surface

CMS assembly approach:• Assembled on the surface in parallel with underground work• Allows pre-commissioning before lowering• Lowering using dedicated heavy lifting equipment• Potential for big time saving• Reduces size of required underground hall


• Rather eventful time on the detectors;– move to merge LDC and GLD into ILD

• Agreement both internal to WWS and from funding agencies va FALC to proceed to LoIs– concern from FALC about resources to do

proper engineering for the detectors and on the time scales;

• Appointment of Sakue Yamada as ILC Research director– important to understand his job and how he

interfaces with the GDE. At start of this process!

News from detectors


detectorA

detectorB

IR Hall for push-pull

detectorA

detectorB

Platform for electronic and services (~10*8*8m). Shielded (~0.5m of concrete) from five sides. Moves with detector. Also provide vibration isolation.

may be accessible during run

The concept is evolving and details being worked out

detectorB

detectorA

accessible during run


• Europe has played a very important role in the ILC so far:– leadership within the GDE - BF & NW;– leadership within technical systems e.g. SCRF, BDS, e+

source, DR….– leadership in industrialisation via XFEL activity.

• This has been possible because of:– historical legacy from TESLA;– growing resources for accelerator R&D is some

European countries;– strong support from EU;– synergy from XFEL.

• Everything except the last point seems to be less favourable in future.

European situation


• Analysis:– DESY resources into ILC specifically very

small and hardly growing - HERA closure resources into XFEL and LHC experiments;

– BUT REMEMBER XFEL SYNERGY!– resources inside European funding agencies

flat or even decreasing;– resources inside EU FP7 for accelerators also

in general more constrained.

European situation


• FP7 calls:– “Preparatory phase” is intended for projects

on the ESFRI Road map; scheme is meant to take mature projects over the final threshold to construction. ILC is eligible since it is on the European particle physics roadmap, which was assimilated into the ESFRI roadmap. The EU Commission ruled that only 2 projects were sufficiently advanced to be eligible for PP funding: the LHC upgrade, and ILC. Call last May; result received this month.

– Excellent reviews and award of 5 Meuro cf 7 Meuro requested - MUCH better than pro rata

per project.

European situation


• Goals:– “Political”: prepare sites within Europe

(including Russia) and explore with governments mechanisms for site proposal and selection; develop models for governance of an ILC laboratory - FALC Chair is a member of collaboration; develop outreach materials and strategies in many EU languages. UK involved here.

– “Technical”: make 30 cavities integrated into ILC R&D programme; close interaction and synergy with XFEL facilities to build and test high-performance cavities and modules and to develop EU industrial capacity to produce substantial fraction of the ILC SC modules.

European situation


• Further FP7 calls:

– Great deal of activity currently going on in ILC currently supported under EuroTeV. Some of this needs to continue under FP7; but cannot be supported under PP because of restrictive nature of the call.

European situation

– Communication between ESGARD and GDE has been very poor. This is improving now. Working closely with ESGARD to ensure that bids to IA call due in November contain the highest priority ILC R&D activities. Much scope here for cooperation and synergy with CLIC R&D. P. Burrows & E. Elsen coordinating this for GDE.


• OMIA meeting, CERN, Sept. 10 - 11.– Presentation of 3 “WPs” and useful discussion

of situation and how to move forward– Now, finally, seems to be recognition from

ESGARD and ILC isn’t going to go away and they have to take our priorities seriously.

– The corollary is that we need to define our priorities! I have asked for advice from the RDB and also from the project managers. I have now received this and forwarded a priority-ordered list of projects to ESGARD.

European situation


• Further telephone meeting last Wednesday.– Search for someone to coordinate the

new programme. There are a couple of French candidates and 1 from CERN.

– Tentative agreement to reformulate the WPs into 4 - essentially high-intensity p, SCRF, e+e- LCs, “everything else”. Very positive - no discussion of financial boundaries.

European situation


• EDR phase:– In the next few months, WPs will be defined and

negotiations to decide who does what concluded. Europe has to decide what resources it will devote to the EDR and which WPs it will deliver. Europe has played a very strong part until now. EDR phase requires increase in resources, particularly engineering.

– At moment, such growth seems unlikely. CERN is the major European centre of expertise and engineering staff. The very small, and shrinking, involvement of CERN in the GDE is extremely regrettable. Europe has the capability to have great influence in the ILC with very small investment - we are at risk of loosing this.

European situation


• Rumours are already circulating of further slippages in delivery of first data to experiments.

• Three candidates for DG - John Ellis, Rolf Heuer, Roberto Petronzio - interviewed by CERN Council last week.

• Proposal to restore the politically nominated candidates rejected by the Search Committee rejected - just - by Council.

• Vote (2/3 of members required) between 3 candidates in December Council.

News from CERN


• STFC peer review bodies now all populated and starting to settle down; all have had inaugural meetings.– Membership available on the web; LCUK not

well represented. Indeed, several members are known to be not well disposed towards ILC.

– Situation at higher levels unchanged. OSI is currently very unfriendly towards particle physics and pressurising STFC over future investments in the field.

– Not a good time to press case for increased funding. However, that mustn’t stop us; but we have to be realistic in our requests.

UK News


• STFC financial situation pretty dire (NB. the following information is all unofficial and therefore not 100% reliable and not quotable):– Very large “black hole” now apparent in

finances due to a large “negative legacy” from CCLRC - e.g. no provision made for either closure OR future operation of SRS at Daresbury; large “hit” through OSI for VAT charges where they weren’t expected; CCLRC budget for last financial year 2/3 underspent and substantially clawed backed by OSI - commitments for which money was intended still there; etc.

UK News


• “Programmatic review” under way - experiments have been asked for input. PPAN will shortly commence its consideration of strategic priorities. LCUK has not been asked for its forward look, but (I presume) the subcomponents of our programme have. I have written to Chair and Deputy Chair of PPAN pointing this out and requesting to make an input.

UK News


• Took place 2 weeks ago. Informal feedback

• Lots of praise for achievements and attainment of positions of world leadership.

• Recognition of difficulty of reacting to ILC management decisions and switching resources between activities

• Seemed to be some inconsistencies between top-level claims and documentation at lower levels.

• Concern at possibility of further bridging funds.

LCABD OC


• UK has very strong voice in GDE at highest levels; BF remains on the reformulated EC. Recognition that regional voice will be required for long time to come.

• Now of the 15 or so “top-level” project managers, two (AW (Damping Rings) + JC (positron source)) - are from UK institutes. Larger than any other European country or lab - including CERN & DESY! We also have strong voice in BDS. Remarkable achievement.

• It is a strain however to support this level of influence with the current limitation and uncertainty on UK funding. Considerable re-jigging has already been necessary. We will need all flexibility possible, also in the UK Accelerator institutes & “CCLRC”.

UK in GDE


• ASTAB 16/17.10.07 - committee to be chaired by Steve Myers (CERN).– Some considerable confusion on what the committee

would be asked to do, and on what timescale; apparently they will be asked to identify areas of world leadership, other classes lof activity; duplication

– recommend reorganisation to achieve greatest impact– what would they increase if more money available?– what would they do if there were a substantial cut in

resources, folding in strategic priorities of STFC– if there were a substantial cut in, e.g. ILCV or NF

resources, how could trained personnel be retained and reallocated.

• Likely to be asked to conclude by end of year - some committee members don’t think that is possible.

Accelerator R&D review


• Some good financial news:– STFC has agreed that the unspent “concept

travel” fund can be spent at least for the remainder if this financial year. I pointed out that the steep increase of UK involvement with the concepts/LOIs meant that now we really did need this money. There is no commitment for the following year but if we make a good case I would expect this to be OK.

Concept Travel


– Can I therefore remind you all that this money (£17K) is again available. It covers travel NOT directly related to CALICE, LCFI or LCABD, but related to work on any of the current concepts and to LOI preparation.

– Mechanism to apply for funding is unchanged - 0.5 pages of A4 in 12pt explaining case for and relevance to UK of funding should be emailed to me with a copy to David Miller. Although not a requirement, matching funds from other sources will be a positive factor in consideration. Applications are encouraged!

Concept Travel


• Most of subjects discussed are covered elsewhere in this talk or in the meeting; here I highlight others.

• Discussion about best way to approach next funding round for LCFI/CALICE– timescales for new funding request within 6 months of

each other – there could be advantages in going to STFC with an

integrated R&D programme based on detector concepts/LoIs looking to the engineering design phase

– right time would be about this time next year– CALICE/LCFI management will meet over next couple of

months with aim of reporting back to SC at a special meeting in mid November.

News from SC/CC


• SC welcomed progress on establishing ILD/SiD UK groups, both of which had their first meeting.

• SC expressed desire that there shouldn’t be a “drip, drip”or separate ILC-related requests to STFC for the next detector phases.– preferred strategy is to wait for the announcement of the LoI

opportunity expected in next couple of weeks and see what sort of LoI was specified

– strong steer from FALC that LoIs should not have substantial engineering content

– aim for an overarching “strategic document” for LCUK which takes on board the detector and the accelerator activity and provides the strategic framework. This probably needs an early 1-page LoI to STFC, possibly with a resource figure

– may be possible to couple this with the actual bids for future LCABD activity and the LCFI/CALICE/SiD/ILC activity; but not essential if timescales don’t match - as long as we give the strategic framework

News from SC/CC


• Corollary of this is that substantial increase in available engineering resources would wait until this strategic statement and the LCFI/CALICE bid in middle of next year.

• Minimal engineering requirements for the LoI phase would be found by group leaders being creative inside RGs and other funding.

• Reiterated decision that UK should be involved in 2 LoIs. Discussion of possibility of UK involvement in more than 1 detector construction. BF reiterated that he considered this to be politically inconceivable in present climate, but SC agreed that LCUK would keep all options open and our traditional way of deciding these matters would be maintained unless and until we were told differently by STFC. This matter should be clarified on the timescale of the “strategic statement” by middle of next year.

News from SC/CC


• Agreement has been reached to have a single integrated LCUK group working on physics benchmarking, phenomenology etc that would amalgamate the current CALICE/LCFI groups and be the umbrella for both ILD/SiD work.

• Date and place of next meetings.– there will be a SC meeting mid-

November– next plenary LCUK meeting -

Birmingham? March 10 -11?

News from SC/CC


Summary and Outlook

• Still considerable uncertainty on future funding & STFC

priorities. However, the signs are not good.

Agreed on strategic input into STFC on time scale of mid

next year.

• Reorganisation of GDE and its organs to be fit for purpose

well under way. PMT essentially in place. The production of

the project WBSs has begun.

• We are making excellent progress throughout our activities on

machine and detector. The challenge is “political”.

• RDR now published. On to the next phase!

b. foster - lcuk l'pool 0907 global design effort 1 overview h ilc progress since last lcuk -...

Documents

engineering design phasegde

snapshot design

engineering designs

solid design concept

b ilc units

value costs havealready

driven timeline gde

toplevel project managers