ILC Reference Design Efforts

1
ILC Reference Design Efforts

• DOE/NSF ILC Review
• April 4th, 2006

2
ILC GDE Program

• The present GDE ILC program has two portions
• Reference Design Report (RDR)
• A conceptual design based on sample sites with a
  cost estimate
• Accelerator physics and engineering efforts are
  being developed
• RD Program
• Presently administered through the different
  regions
• ILC Global Design Effort will coordinate effort
  more globally
• ILC design timeline
• RDR at end of CY2006
• TDR based on supporting RD in 2009
• ILC Americas
• Effort spread between RDR and RD programs
• Some redistribution may be needed to complete the
  RDR
• Coordinated by Gerry Dugan MOUs between GDE and
  labshttp//www.lns.cornell.edu/dugan/LC/Labs/

3
Global Design Effort
FALC
ICFA
FALC Resource Board
ILCSC
GDE Directorate
GDE
GDE Executive Committee
GDE R D Board
GDE Change Control Board
GDE Design Cost Board
Global RD Program
RDR Design Matrix
From Barry Barish, GDE Meeting, Frascati, Italy,
December, 2005
4
Global Design EffortSchedule
2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010
Global Design Effort
Project
Baseline configuration
Funding
Reference Design
Technical Design
globally coordinated
ILC RD Program
regional coord
expression of interest
Siting
Hosting
sample sites
FALC
International Mgmt
ICFA / ILCSC
From Barry Barish, GDE Meeting, Frascati, Italy,
December, 2005
5
Reference Design Report

• What exactly is the RDR?
• A 1st attempt at an international cost estimate
  for the ILC using reasonable extrapolations
  from present technology
• Baseline design mostly established at Snowmass,
  Aug. 2005
• Not TESLA and not USTOS
• Must document sufficiently to estimate cost
• Cost estimate based on sample sites from
  different regions
• Goal of completing the estimate in CY2006
• Need to use existing information TESLA TDR,
  USTOS, Japanese ITRP estimate
• New information from US industrial estimates,
  DESY XFEL estimates, Japanese industrial
  estimates but most of these will be late ?
  provide calibration but not a basis
• Need to make laboratory estimates for cost
  drivers

6
The ILC Accelerator

• 2nd generation electron-positron Linear Collider
• Parameter specification
• Ecms 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
• Options for electron-electron and g-g collisions
• The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV
• Three big challenges energy, luminosity, and cost

7
Baseline Configuration (BCD)

• BCD developed by ILC Working Groups established
  at KEK ILC Workshop (2004)
• Many working meetings during 2005
• Discussed extensively at Snowmass ILC Workshop
  (2005)
• Working groups summarized Snowmass Workshop with
  bulk of the BCD
• White papers on contentious issues by GDE members
  in fall 2005
• Energy upgrade
• Positron source
• Number of tunnels
• Interaction region configuration
• Laser straight versus curved or terrain following
  tunnels
• Basic form ratified at Frascati GDE meeting

8
Schematic of the BCD
9
Elements of the BCD (1)

• Parameter plane established
• TESLA designed for 3.4e34 but had a very narrow
  operating range
• ILC luminosity of 2e34 over a wide range of
  operating parameters
• Bunch length between 500 and 150 um
• Bunch charge between 2e10 and 1e10
• Number of bunches between 1000 and 6000
• Beam power between 5 and 11 MW
• Superconducting linac at 31.5 MV/m
• Cavities designed for central gradient 37 MV/m
• Cavities qualified at 35 MV/m in vertical tests
• A few cavities and cryomodules would be
  pulse-power tested
• Expect an average gradient of 31.5 MV/m to be
  achieved
• Poor performing cavities would be detuned
• Rf system must be able to support 35 MV/m
  cryomodules
• This still requires extensive RD on cavities and
  rf sources

10
ILC Beam Parameters
Parameter range established to allow operating
optimization
11
Gradient Choice

• Balance between cost per unit length of linac,
  the available technology, and the cryogenic
  costs
• Optimum is fairly flatand depends on detailsof
  technology

Relative Linac Costs
Gradient MV/m
12
Cavity Gradients
13
Cost Breakdown

• Cost breakdown from US Technology Options Study
• http//www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/techinfo/
  USLCTOS/default.htm
• Depends on costing practices (different in US,
  Europe, Asia)

14
Elements of the BCD (2)

• Circular damping rings 6.6 km in circumference
• 5 GeV ring like TESLA and USTOS but shorter
• Rf frequency of 650 MHz ½ main linac 1.3 GHz
• Allows for greater flexibility in bunch train
  format
• Allows for larger ion and electron cloud clearing
  gaps
• Shorter rings have large dynamic aperture
  compared to dogbone
• Single electron ring two rings for the positrons
• Dual stage bunch compressor
• Dual stage system provides flexibility in IP
  bunch length
• Allows for longer damping ring bunch length
• Turn-around allows for feed-forward from damping
  ring to ease kicker tolerances
• Pre-linac collimation system to remove beam tails
  at low energy

15
Elements of the BCD (3)

• Positron source based on planar undulator
• Undulator located at 150 GeV for energy
  flexibility and tuning stability
• Hot spare located on e side to provide positrons
  when problems with electron beam
• Provide sufficient charge to operate diagnostics
  well
• Could be used for commissioning is necessary
• Dual interaction regions
• Crossing angles of 2mrad and 20 mrad
• 2mrad has better hematicity while 20 mrad has
  better accelerator performance
• Optimize both to understand performance
  trade-offs
• Prepare a cost study of a single IR to understand
  cost trades
• Regions separated longitudinally as well as
  transversely

16
RDR Working Groups

• Established working groups to complete RDR effort
• Organized by Area around regional sections of LC
• Sources damping rings main linac beam
  delivery
• Technical design provide by technical groups that
  reach across Areas
• Coordinates technical resources but makes
  communication harder
• Uniform technical standards applied across
  collider
• Similar to style used for NLC Lehman design and
  TESLA TDR
• Some groups provide technical support for Areas
  but also have system-wide responsibility ? Global
  groups
• Conventional Facilities and Siting (CFS)
• Control systems Operations Installation
• Costs get rolled up to the Area groups so that
  they can study cost versus performance trades
• Costs get output to Cost Engineers so they can
  study cost basis across systems

17
RDR Matrix

• Matrix of Area Systems and Technical Systems to
  develop cost estimate
• International representation in all working
  groups

18
RDR Organization

• RDR Management group oversees design effort
• GDE accelerator leaders GDE cost engineers
  Integration physicist
• Design and Cost Board provides costing guidance
• Configuration Control Board used to limit changes
• Technical and Global groups provide costs to Area
  leaders
• Area leaders responsible to area design,
  performance versus cost
• Technical and Global groups responsible for
  technical designs and costs
• RDR management responsible for system-wide cost
  trades
• Charges and goals distributed in December and
  January
• Area leaders have designs mostly completed
• Technical leaders are starting costing efforts
• Want to have 1st cost estimates for July GDE
  meeting

19
Configuration Control Board

• Members
• C. Pagani
• G. Blair
• D. Schulte
• T. Markiewicz
• S. Mishra
• W. Funk
• K. Kubo
• M. Kuriki
• N. Toge

• Area Group and Global Group leaders, besides
  board chairs and EC, may submit Change Requests
• Change classifications Classes 0 (minor), 1
  (light, lt100M), 2 (heavy-weight, gt100M) with
  increasing impacts
• All CCB members participate in the review Some
  external opinions may be requested as found
  useful
• Assign 2-3 CCB members to draft the report and
  then sent to all members of GDE and AG/GG/TS-G

20
Configuration Changes

• http//www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?idbcd
  bcd_history
• Date Submitted Area Status
• 6 3/4/2006 CF/S under review
• 5 2/28/2006 Params Accepted 3/3/2006
• 4 2/24/2006 RTML Accepted 3/3/2006
• 3 2/7/2006 DR Accepted 2/27/2006
• 2 2/4/2006 OPS Accepted 2/11/2006
• 1 1/27/2006 RTML Not accepted 2/3/2006
• 0 12/20/2005 CF/S Accepted 12/23/2
• So far, 67 instances.
• Typical turn-around-time is 1-2 weeks.
• Additional record of related public
  communication http//lcdev.kek.jp/ML/PubCCB

21
Design Cost Board

• Members
• W. Bialowons
• J.P. Delahaye
• A. Enomoto
• P. Garbincius
• R. Kephart
• A. Mueller
• J.M. Paterson
• N. Phinney
• T. Shidara
• N. Terunuma

• Provide guidance for the design and costing
  effort.
• Set goals and milestones for producing the RDR
  and conduct design reviews and assessments of the
  RDR effort.
• Ensure that the project cost is developed such
  that it is done internationally and can be used
  in the different regions of the world.
• Costs and costing will be discussed in detail by
  Peter Garbincius tomorrow.

22
RDR Costing

• WBS for ILC construction has been defined
• Working on WBS dictionary
• Use the spirit of ITER Value methodology
• Doesnt include labor costs, but estimates of
  institutional labor effort in person-hours
• Doesnt include contingency need to subtract
  this cleanly from regional estimates
• Will need a risk assessment for costs
• Costs for raw materials will be standardized
  across project
• Insufficient time to develop a loaded schedule
• Assume a 7 year construction period
• Construction starts with the 1st contracts and
  finishing with the installation of the final
  components
• More detail provided by Peter Garbincius tomorrow

23
RDR Schedule

• RDR Matrix established _at_ Frascati (12/05)
• Area Systems meeting _at_ KEK (1/06)
• Area Technical Systems meeting _at_ FNAL (2/06)
• GDE Meeting _at_ Bangalore (3/06)
• Weekly review of different Area Systems
• Linac Systems meeting _at_ DESY (5/06)
• Weekly review of different Technical Systems
• First pass at cost estimates to AS and DCB by
  June 25th
• GDE Meeting _at_ Vancouver (7/06)
• Iterate on main cost drivers and estimates
• Complete written drafts of RDR
• Probable RDR meetings in early fall
• GDE Meeting _at_ Valencia (11/06)
• First draft of RDR and cost estimate ? complete
  in early 2007

24
RDR Effort

• Big fraction of the RDR effort is centered in US
• Europe and Asian efforts are more directly
  focused on RD
• At present, US efforts on the RDR are centered at
  FNAL, SLAC, ANL, and Jlab
• SLAC 5 US Area System and 4 Technical/Global
  leaders
• FNAL 1 US Area Systems and 4 Technical/Global
  leaders
• 1 of the US Technical/Global leaders is from ANL
  1 is from JLab
• Engineering needs are still being defined (a
  little late but )
• Additional support may come from LLNL, LBNL,
  Jlab, ANL, BNL, etc
• US industrial costing effort is being launch
  using the LCFOA
• Hard to separate US RDR effort from RD efforts
• Many errors but 1st cut is listed

25
US FY06 ProgramSummary

• US program is divided between
• RD (WBS 3 and 5)
• RDR (primarily WBS 2 and 4)
• Administration and travel (WBS 1)
• Not as clean separations as one might like
  between RD and RDR
• Developing reporting mechanisms

26
US FY06 ProgramAccelerator Design (RDR)
27
Summary

• GDE collaboration defined Baseline Configuration
  (BCD)
• Working to complete effort for the costing
  studies
• Reference Design Report organization developed
• RDR management group
• Design and Cost Board
• Configuration Control Board
• RDR Matrix
• Strong international representation
• Large effort on the RDR in the US
• Roughly 30 of the US ILC program
• Still working to provide resources for the
  Technical Systems