gde report from snowmass to a baseline barry barish ilcsc meeting daegu, korea 27-aug-05

GDE Report from Snowmass to a Baseline

Barry BarishILCSC MeetingDaegu, Korea

27-Aug-05

27-Sept-05 ILCSC - Daegu, KOREA 2

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

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


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


Review of 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 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


Enter the GDE - 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• GG1 Parameters & Layout• GG2 Instrumentation• GG3 Operations & Reliability• GG4 Cost Engineering• GG5 Conventional Facilities• GG6 Physics Options

Birth of the GDEand Preparation for Snowmass

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


Gradient

• Baseline recommendation for cavity - Standard TESLA 9-cell

• Alternatives: – Low-loss,– Re-entrant – superstructure


Gradient

Gradient recommendation (WG5)• 8km @ 31.5 MV/m → 250 GeV• +7km @ 36 MV/m → 500 GeV

Tunnel length for one 500 GeV linac (8+7)/0.7 21km


Gradient (WG5 Justification)


Gradient - Justification


Results from KEK-DESY collaboration

must reduce spread (need more statistics)

sin

gle

-cell m

easu

rem

en

ts (

in n

ine-c

ell c

avit

ies) TESLA Cavity - Gradient Status


Cavity Fabrication


Alternative Fabrication Techniques


Improved Electropolishing


Improved Cavity Shapes


Cavity R&D

Fabrication from large grain Nb discs

May remove the need for electropolishing

( cost!)


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


Other Issues for ILCSC

• Appointment letters have been sent to the three Regional Directors with terms through RDR

• Machine Advisory Committee needed early 2006. Propose to ask three senior accelerator physicists to attend Frascati meeting and review the BCD.

• Plans to proceed past RDR to a TDR– Anticipated transition from ILCSC to FALC for

management and oversight of GDE (see Takeuchi letter to FALC Resource Board)

– Expresssions of Intererest for Siting? Stategy / When ?– Plans toward an International Management Structure for

the ILC

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 from snowmass to a baseline barry barish ilcsc meeting daegu, korea 27-aug-05

Documents