december 4, 2006 marc ross - global design effort - fermilab 1 accelerator design how can fermilab...

December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab

1

Accelerator Design

How can Fermilab leverage strengths for the ILC design effort?

How can Fermilab best contribute to the ILC design effort?

Start with a top down look at staffing…


2

Lab strength:

• Accelerator System and Component Engineering– General– RF and controls– Magnet systems

Cryogenic Accelerator Engineering– TTF / TESLA cryo and cryomodule participation

Accelerator Design and RF Design - Physics• Civil Engineering

– Recent NUMI construction and MI project

• Technology expertise integrated throughout lab– e.g. each division works on / has experts in cryo systems


3

Leaders in the ILC RDR effort with their supporting staff (2006):

• Accelerator design (Solyak – linac) – 3 FTE

• Cryomodule and component design (Carter)– 3 FTE

• Conventional Facilities design (Kuchler)– 4 FTE + contracts

• Cryogenic system design (Peterson)– 1 FTE

• Magnet systems (warm + linac cold) design (Tompkins)– 2 FTE

• Controls, Instrumentation and LLRF design (McBride, Wendt/Ross, Chase – J. Carwardine (ANL), lead)– 10 FTE

• Management (Peter Garbincius) – one of the three ‘cost engineers’– 1 FTE

Continue into TDR / EDR phase. RDR (05/06) has brought ILC design ‘home’ to Fermilab


4

Secondary efforts – in support of RDR

• RF and beam dynamics code development– 2 FTE

• collimation studies, – 1 FTE

• damping ring design, – 2 FTE

• Key aspects of the controls, instrumentation and LLRF work is done in collaboration with other institutions, especially ANL and SLAC.

• Total 30 FTE physicists and engineers on RDR 2006– about equal to R and D effort

• (total ILC professional FTE ~30 in TD alone)– About 40 names in the design effort; more than half are

engineers


5

Today’s Fermilab ‘professional’ staff distribution

• (not formal labels)

• Scientists 180• Engineering Scientists 130• Research Associates (entry) 110• Engineers 210• Engineers (entry) 30• Computing professional 290• TOTAL 950


6

GDE Americas Regional Team informal Policy

‘the bulk of the engineering effort needed for the Americas part of the ILC design (TDR) will come from Fermilab'.

This policy is clearly to our advantage and should be interpreted as strongly as possible in order to have a healthy program here.

Lab challenge: how best to deploy staff for the ILC design effort?

Effective inter-lab design teams?Support for GDE ?

Bottoms up look at what is ‘planned’…(For this presentation, stick with the 7+ RDR groups listed

Other design effort distributions could be considered)


7

ILC design effort – key milestone

• Primary goal of the TDR:– Step toward production of a 'biddable' design package

• There are therefore two basic stages beyond the RDR: – 1) the TDR design effort which will be complete in 3 years and – 2) a roughly 2 year project preparation stage which follows that.

In these 5 years… equivalent to ‘Title II’ • " Title II design includes all work necessary to control the final

design configuration for the project, incorporating all necessary details, and then to review, check, approve and accept the documentation into the procurement and construction packages. It also includes preparation of the acceptance test requirements and Project cost estimates to support bid evaluation.“

– Step 2 goes beyond the current GDE charter– 2007 to 2012

• Reasonable time frame for a project which has been under development since 1988.


8

Level of effort required for ILC design – in one region, examples

• Cryo estimate– 5 engineering FTE through TDR– Matched with design staff– 1/3 of global effort– 5 x RDR ‘06

• AP estimate– 8 FTE through TDR– (important) inter-regional, inter-lab ‘matching’ and coordination– 3 x RDR ‘06

• Civil/conventional estimate– 5 FTE average to manage contractors – 5 x RDR level of effort;

• Cryomodule, Magnet, Controls, Management – best guess– 5 x RDR ‘06


9

Cryogenic System Definition

• includes cryogenic plants for the main linac, RTML, sources, damping rings, and beam delivery systems.

• 2 K bath cooling for cryomodules – Also 4.5 K cooling for 650 MHz DR RF, undulators,

wigglers, special– 1.8 K cooling for crab cavities in the BDS.

• cryogen distribution and – cryogenic "boxes" on the surface and at tunnel

elevation

Scope of TDR cryo work - example• Integrated cryogenic system thermodynamic cycle design

– cryoplant conceptual designs - temperature levels, pressure ranges, flow rates, and capacity variability

– contracts with industry – 1 FTE engineer to specify and manage the contracts, interface with industry

• Analysis of non-steady and off-design conditions• Need to consider:

– Emergency venting, frequency of vent valves, need for helium has headers external to the cryomodules

– Cool-down, warm-up, inventory management – Options for segmentation for warm intervention in the main linac – Load shifting and/or sharing for partially or fully disabled cryoplant– Possible commercialization

• Possible significant impact on ILC main linac layout• There are literally hundreds of cryogenic distribution componets.

– require at least 3 FTE. • In total, about 4-5 FTE engineers and designers for ILC cryogenic system TDR


11

Qualifications for TDR cryo work

• All aspects of cryo technology:• experience from the Tevatron, magnet test

facility, Fermilab's experimental areas, SSC, TESLA TTF, and the LHC project.

• Technical Division, Accelerator Division, and Particle Physics Division all have experienced cryogenics/cryostat engineering and design staff.


12

Civil Engineering and Conventional Facilities

FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12

FermilabIn-House

Direct1 1 1 3 4 5

In-House M&S

2.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 5

SLACIn-House

Direct3 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

• TDR effort will include a site specific design;– Included– On-site Contract engineering & SLAC also included– Do not include A/E contracted effort (most of these

staff manage that)

• Average 5 FTE


13

ML Accelerator Physics: FY06

Scope: Acc. Physics Simulations to support RDR• Status:

– Design of engineering ML Lattice– Static tuning studies – Failure models and analysis– Sensitivity Studies– Wakefields for LL and reentrant cavities (w/DESY)– Tools development (MatLiar, CHEF)– Upgrade computing capabilities

• 20 nodes in grid computer for AP simulations• Two fast servers for EM simulation

• FY06 budget: ILC Americas + FNAL Resources


14

• FY07 goals:– Engineering Lattice design– Continue Static tuning studies– Start Dynamic tuning studies– Integrated DR-to IP Simulation – Continue Tools development (CHEF) – Developing computing capabilities– Support design of the accelerator components – Beam instrumentation issues

• Cold BPM design (0.3 um resolution, clean technology)

• Manpower:– To reach goal we need: ~ 8 FTE

• Increase fraction of time, spent on project by current players • Involve new resources• Expand existing collaboration (Cornell, BINP,..), Split work with

other collaborators

ML Accelerator Physics: FY07-09

ILC Main Linac Simulation w/ LIAR- Dispersion Free Steering (1)C

orre

cted

nor

mal

ized

em

ittan

ce

(nm

)

BPM index

Cavity pitch sensitivity

BPM resolution sensitivity CM offset sensitivity

Quad roll sensitivityDispersion Free Steering :

(mean of 50 seeds)

Straight

Curved

Sensitivity Studies

50 seeds mean 90%

Nominal 5.26 ± 0.38 9.47

Dispersion only 1.99 ± 0.24 4.22

Wakes only 1.8 ± 0.17 3

Quad roll only 1.47 ± 0.13 2.83

Total 5.26 10.05

Individual contributions

BPM in every CM

All the seeds have < 10 nm emittance growth

~4nm

Case 2: Failed Corrector NOT used in finding the correction-settings;

Failed Corrector / BPM

Cor

rect

ed n

orm

aliz

ed

emitt

ance

(n

m) After DFS

After DFS + 1 BumpCor

rect

ed n

orm

aliz

ed

emitt

ance

(n

m)

Using dispersion bump

ILC Main Linac Simulation w/ LIAR- Dispersion Free Steering (2)

Effect of BPM Scale Error

Cor

rect

ed n

orm

aliz

ed

emitt

ance

(n

m)

Case 1: Failed Corrector used in finding the correction-settings; but correction is not applied to the failed corrector

BPM index BPM index


17

Cavity Design, simulation, testing

ILC Base-line cavity studies•High order modes and wakes •Multipactor, Dark current, •Lorentz detuning, Heat loads•Production, tuning, treatment, tests

Alternative ILC designs: LL and Reentrant

(coll. with KEK/SLAC/Cornell/JLAB)•Same studies as for baseline design•High order modes in ICHIRO copper cavity

3rd harmonic accelerating 3.9GHz

ILC Crab-cavity 3.9 GHz

EE-44

EE-45

EE-46

EE-47

EE-48

Fields in TESLA cavity end

Example of HOM simulations in TESLA cavity

Accelerator Physics: Work plans for FY07 and beyond

FY07 will be spent mostly on work related to RDR documentBeam studies are in collaboration with SLAC/DESY/CERN/KEK

• Lattice and optics design– Work mostly on “engineered ML” lattice design ( (now available on Wiki page):

• Matching to RTML, undulator section and BDS• Beam diagnostics

• Static tuning studies– Jitter studies (beam/quad position jitter, quad/corrector field jitter) – Development of the static tuning algorithm for ML launch region.

• Sensitivity studies • Failure mode analysis (BPM, correctors, quads, RF)• Investigate other tuning methods (Kick minimization, Ballistic alignment, Quad shunting,

Adaptive alignment)– Global bumps tuning studies

• Dynamic tuning studies– Develop conceptual design and models for intra-train and inter-train Feed-back loops.– Introduce models for ground motion, jitter (RF, power supply, etc.) in CHEF,Liar,

Lucretia

• Code development – Transition to use of CHEF (FNAL) and Lucretia (SLAC) for most LET work– Develop parallel processor computing efforts (grid computing)

• First look for upgraded 1TeV machine– Lattice design (matching section, diagnostics, etc)– Some Static Tuning studies


19

AP Goals for FY08-FY09 (TDR stage)

Complete “Engineered ML” optics • Based on engineering design of the linac components • Iterative process with technical/engineering groups

- Developing full specifications for all components - Implementing necessary changes for cost minimization/buildability

Develop engineering drawings of certain components• Warm section with vacuum components and beam diagnostics • Cold BPM with submicron resolution • Quad and corrector designs

Static/Dynamic tuning continues (ML,RTML,BDS)• Iterations with the tuning procedure – review tolerances and performances• Move towards “best practices” on independent reproduction of simulation

results Code development continues Expand simulation / computing capabilities (grid computer) Integrated Cradle to Grave simulation (DR-to-IP) Machine Protection System (MPS) Studies (incd Dark current studies) Develop Linac Commissioning Strategy


20

Wrap up: RDR to TDR Possible plan

• Develop cohesive design team, building on collaboration, in-house strength.

• natural, adiabatic progression – to build on 7 RDR groups – consistent with RD strategy

• Total ‘TDR’ effort:– 140 ‘professional’ FTE

• From 3 to 15% of Fermilab


21

Building Collaborations

• The biggest challenge:– ILC will be the world’s first truly global large science project– (“The First Truly National Laboratory: The Birth of Fermilab, Catherine Westfall,

Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1988”)– Community invented the GDE and has begun to empower it to

face this challenge • Connections with primary ILC labs and institutions

– DESY – August 2006• Interconnection with XFEL

– KEK – November 2006– US Labs

• Development of small projects• Managing large ones

– R and D described by GDE Task Forces S#• Effective leadership at home is a key ingredient to

building collaborations and trust


22

Challenges for Fermilab:

• Transition from a single mission lab

• Transition to a different ‘core’ technology

• Deployment of a cohesive team

• Development of effective partnerships


23

R and D issues

How is Fermilab’s R and D program obligated to the ILC GDE Partnership?

Where are Fermilab’s opportunities within the partnership?


24

SCRF Cavity Gradient RD

• “S0 / S1”• GDE charge: Provide the information needed to

make a gradient decision for TDR.• Challenge: Cavity surface processing variability

(yield)– Secondary: the rest of the fabrication effort

• From the mine to the cryomodule (‘production-like RD’)

• Focused charge, well defined deliverable, broad base, expensive task with excellent cost / benefit


25

Processing R & D … (2006-09)

S0 ‘tight loop’ plan:– 3 cavities from each region; – Each processed 3x; tested and retested in each region

• Rotation– 27 total processing cycles (each cycle 7 to 10 days in full

assembly line mode)• S0 ‘tight loop’ questions:

– Which cavities?– EP Process capacity/ Vertical test capacity– Exchange and compatibility constraints– What are the required resources and impact on participants?

• How will it be managed?– How to ensure success (i.e. good advice in mid 08)

• Our role:– US resources scattered between several centers:

• J-Lab, ANL, FNAL, Cornell, LANL, MSU…

S0 issues: • US– ~ 4 Accel cavities in process– New vendor qualification underway– 2007 EP only at J-Lab, 2008 add ANL

• Limited processing capacity in 07– FNAL Vertical Test from summer 07; HP rinse?– Need cavities for NML module assembly

• EU– XFEL production cycles starting– XFEL needs yield assessment also– EP system in steady use – most ‘industrial’ system existing

• Tight loop work must be fit into busy schedule

• Japan– ‘Ichiro’ & STF baseline cavities different…

• Limited number of cavities until 10.07– good EP process capacity at KEK/Nomura Plating– Need cavities for STF cryomodule assembly– Ichiro HOM improvements needed– Flange gasket material incompatible with DESY practice

• expert SRF leadership from all 3 regions


27

String test and industrialization ‘gap’ (S2)

• Charge:– Recommend a string test strategy; – follow up responsibility not defined;

• S2 and TTF/XFEL– Interaction with design effort

• Extremely expensive• Poorly quantified deliverables• Duplication / competition / standardization• Cross threaded with mass-production issues and ‘regional

interest’ issues• R or D?• Fermilab role – develop constructive, practical string test

– Score success for GDE / ILC community: can we do it?


28

S2 is a referendum on the readiness of SRF ‘systems’ for ILC

• Also on the interdependencies of ILC / XFEL– XFEL system design / projectization effort now underway

• The more CM changes we make, more we need S2 for technical v/v development reasons

• For example: – XFEL will develop and test cryomodule type 3’– ILC is designing CM type 4

• Cost reduction may mandate additional design effort – CM5

– Is a separate string test needed for the new type? Why?– Are the changes cost effective, including the cost / risk of the

system test?


29

Interaction between RDR and R & D

• RDR should provide a new focus on needed ‘development’; – e.g. cryomodule cost– also need to revisit alternates

• Present RD priorities come from Snowmass era evaluation – With fresh cost information, we will be able to reassign priorities

• In the next ~ months, update strategy and identify:– Gaps – Poor cost/benefit RD

• Reconsider priorities using RDR project schedule


30

Extra Material


31

Professional Staff Details

TOTAL AD CD FES FIN PPD TD

Scientists 182 42 30 0 0 94 15Engineering Scientists 131 66 13 0 0 36 14Research Associates 106 21 9 0 0 67 8Engineers 206 82 14 24 0 43 41Engineering Associates 32 12 3 1 0 12 3Computer 291 47 171 3 27 27 10

948 270 240 28 27 279 91

december 4, 2006 marc ross - global design effort - fermilab 1 accelerator design how can fermilab...

Documents