ILC Status K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin

Transcription

1 ILC Status Time line Test Facilities SCRF status Rebaseline Detectors Kaoru Yokoya Sep SRF2009 Berlin Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 1

2 ILC/GDE Timeline RDR Baseline TDP Baseline Technical Design TDR TDP-1 TDP-2 Change Request MM studies New baseline inputs RDR ACD concepts R&D Demonstrations Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 2

3 Technical Design Report It will be a detailed technical report Sufficient to give reliable estimate of the total cost Ready for construction proposal to governments But it will not be a complete engineering document Planned to be completed by the end of 2012 Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 3

4 Technical Design Phase TDP1 till Jul.2010 (ICHEP at Paris) Critical R&D Risk mitigation Cost reduction New baseline TDP2 till end of 2012 Technical design Project implementation plan Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 4

5 Critical issues Damping Rings Fast injection/extraction kickers Bunch-by-bunch extraction needed Rise/fall time < 6ns required test at KEK-ATF Electron cloud CESR-TA Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 5

6 Fast Kicker Unit test done in 2006 successfully Extraction test underway at KEK- ATF Using pulsers from SLAC-LLNL Rise/fall < 3ns Trouble in May test Try again DAFNE kicker will also be tested 60cm stripline Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 6

7 CESR-TA Electron cloud is one of the highest risk factor for ILC Study at CESR started last year Evolution of electron clouds under various cloud-mitigation techniques chamber coatings (TiN, alpha carbon) clearing electrodes grooved chambers can be monitored in various magnetic fields: drift, dipole, quadrupole, wiggler Beam parameters are not identical to ILC Extrapolation with computer simulation is needed Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 7

8 CESR-TA Status Almost all reconfiguration work finished BPM upgrade, xbsm, 4ns feedback new EC chambers (electrodes, grooves, a-c coating, RFA detectors, Solenoid windings Run #3 (May 12 June16) Major focus on commissioning efforts CTA09 (June 25-26) workshop WebHome Major review of experimental program 40 participants Planning for next 4 runs (Aug 09, Nov-Dec 09, approx. Mar 10, approx. Jul 10) Organize shift from commissioning focus experimental focus Run#4 July 31 st - Sept 8 th Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 8

9 CESR Reconfiguration L3 EC experimental region PEP-II EC Hardware: Chicane, upgraded SEY station (coming on line in May) Drift and Quadrupole diagnostic chambers New EC experimental regions in arcs (wigglers L0 straight) Locations for collaborator experimental chambers CHESS C-line & D-line Upgrades Windowless (all vacuum) x-ray line upgrade Dedicated optics box at start of each line Detectors share space in CHESS user hutches L0 region reconfigured as a wiggler straight CLEO detector sub-systems removed CESR Ring 6 wigglers moved from CESR arcs to zero dispersion straight Region instrumented with EC diagnostics and mitigation Wiggler chambers with retarding field analyzers and various EC mitigation methods (fabricated at LBNL in CU/SLAC/KEK/LBNL collaboration) Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 9

10 ATF2 Miniature of ILC Final Focus Same optics system as ILC Tolerances similar to ILC International project Funding manpower Goals 1 st step: Beam size < 35nm IP BSM (beamsize monitor) needed 2 nd step: Stability of the beam centroid < 2nm IP BPM (beam position monitor) (<2nm) needed IP feedback system ILC format beam from ATF Construction started in 2005 and completed in December 2008 Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 10

11 ATF2 Construction Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan.1.08 Nov.08 Sep.25, 2009 May Jul.2.08 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 11

12 IP Beam Size monitor (BSM) (Tokyo U./KEK, SLAC, UK) Improvement FFTB BSM 1064nm=>532nm dynamic range: 35nm up to a few μm phase scanning mode Shintake monitor schematics FFTB sample : σ y = 70 nm Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 12

13 Commissioning of IPBSM First test: Jan-Feb 2009 Laser Wire mode 0.2~0.5x10 10 electrons Laser size < 20μm Expected beam size ~10μm photons O(1000)/bunch Obtained convolution size ~50μm Interference mode since May Interference mode 4 steps of crossing angle 2deg 1400~ nm 8deg 360~1400 nm 30deg 100~360 nm 174deg 25~100 nm (below) Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 13

14 IP BPM Target ~2nm resolution Challenge: ~100μrad beam angle spread at IP => Thin gap, small aperture, x-y separation Measured values: resolution 8.7nm, dynamic range ~5 micron Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 14

15 GDE SCRF Plan Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 15

16 S0: Cavity Gradient Cavity gradient is a big, single cost-driver Adopting Euro-XFEL gradient would cancel all the cost savings presently considered RDR assumes >35MV/m (Q 0 >1x10 10 ) in vertical test (average operating gradient 31.5MV/m) Target during TDP Yield > 50% in TDP1 Yield > 90% in TDP2 Should be revisited in Rebaseline Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 16

17 Cavity Yield Understanding the `Yield Repeat processing many times does not help Distinguish between `process yield and `production yield Uniform, well-controlled data needed Cavity Global Database Team established Camille M. Ginsburg (Database Team leader, Fermilab) Sebastian Aderhold (DESY), Yasuchika Yamamoto (KEK), Zack Conway (Cornell) Rongli Geng (Cavity Group leader, JLab), Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 17

18 Qualified-Vendor Production Yield Plot Electropolished 9-cell Cavities 100 DESY first successful test of cavities from qualified vendors - ACCEL+ZANON (15 cavities) JLab first successful test of cavities from qualified vendors - ACCEL (7 cavities) yield [%] Since DESY and JLab yields are statistically consistent, can combine them to get a smaller error bar >10 >15 >20 >25 >30 >35 >40 max gradient [MV/m] Electropolished 9-cell cavities JLab/DESY (combined) first successful test of cavities from qualified vendors - ACCEL+ZANON (22 cavities) 80 Data from other labs (FNAL, Cornell, KEK) to be included soon yield [%] By C.Ginsburg, preliminary 0 >10 >15 >20 >25 >30 >35 >40 max gradient [MV/m] Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 18

19 S1-Global Goals Try average gradient > 31.5 MV/m Demonstrate plug-compatibility Assemble cavities from DESY-FNAL-KEK in KEK-STF All cavities and cryostat (1 from INFN) will be ready by December Operation to finish by the end of 2010 Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 19

20 S2: String Test System test with high-gradient, fully beam-loaded, full LLRF control, high rep rate Necessary in each region (Asia, Europe, Americas) Europe FLASH XFEL US FNAL-NML Japan KEK-STF2 Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 20

21 FLASH 9mA Experiment Fully beam-loaded, high gradient, LLRF-controlled experiment Finished last Monday Brian Chase 9/24 talk Successful long-time (>10hr) operation at 3mA Short time at >6mA Almost satisfies S2 Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 21

22 FNAL-NML (New Muon Lab) 1 RF unit (3 cryomodules) Synergy with Project-X First module Fabricated at DESY Assembled in FNAL Cooling test will start this autumn 2 nd and 3 rd module Planned by 2012 Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 22

23 1 st Cryomodule moving to NML NML is our RF unit test facility An important facility for both Project X & ILC R&D From Kephart SRF2009 Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 23

24 Progress at NML From Kephart SRF2009 1st Cryomodule Test fit CM Feed Can Large Vacuum Pump Control Room Capture Cavity NML He Refrigerator Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 24

25 KEK-STF2 First module test (STF1) completed in 2008 Half size (4 cavities) Max gradient ~30MV/m (1 cavity) Measurement successful STF2 1 RF unit with beam Share the injector (the gun of ILC format beam and capture cavity) with `Quantum Beam Project (test will finish by june 2012) Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 25

26 KEK-STF2 (continued) First module 9 cavities ordered (fully satisfy high pressure vessel code) Construction will finish by end of nd and 3 rd module Present schedule: Operation by 2014 Have to revisit Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 26

27 KEK Schedule: S1Global STF S1 Global KEK cavities production & VT & jacket assy. DESY, FNAL VT and jacket operation 31.5MV/m Compact FNAL RF gun cavity RF gun assy. Light Source JINP & IAP laser production (STF2 pre-accelerator) STF/CLS Laser installation Capture Cavities installationhpv inspection Compton Laser installation CLS beam operation capture module 2 cavities production VT jacket STF Phase2 HPV inspection 1 cryomodule 9 cavities production VT jacket assy. operation HPV inspection 2 cryomodules 17 cavities production VT jacket assy. operation Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 27

28 Industrialization Scale of projects # of cavs period production rate Euro-XFEL 800 2yr 1 cav/day Project-X 400 ~3yr 2 cavs/week ILC ~4yr 7 cavs/day (3 regions) Exceeds the present capacity of any company Success of S2 does not mean ready for production Project Managers visited industries over the world AES, Niowave, RI, Zanon, MHI, PAVAC An industry session being planned in IPAC2010 at Kyoto Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 28

29 Plan of Cavity Pilot Plant at KEK Prototype for the future production line Main part is EBW facility Cost reduction Need more companies to join EBW is the high hurdle for initial investment for companies EBW construction in JFY2010 Deep drawing trimming CP EBW for full assembling EBW for end group preliminary layout Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 29

30 Rebaseline Revisit the baseline design Cost optimization Taking into account the risk and performance Started right after RDR (July 2007) in the name of `Minimun Machine Now called `Accelerator Design & Integration (AD&I) Core member meeting ar DESY in end of May Created SB2009 (Strawman Baseline) Starting point of the rebaseline Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 30

31 SB2009 Single tunnel with new RF distribution system: KCS (Klystron Cluster System) DRFS (Distributed RF System) Half number of bunches (1312) with same pulse length (1ms) reduce RF system to half Half circumference of DR (same bunch interval in DR) Single-stage bunch compressor (minimum bunch length 300μm) Positron undulator at linac end Use QWT (Quarter Wave transformer) in capture section Traveling focus Layout of central region with shorter tunnel length Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 31

32 SB2009 Accelerating gradient MV/m 31.5 P fwd / cavity (matched) kw Q ext (matched) t f ill ms 0.62 RF pulse length ms 1.6 RF to beam efficiency % 61 IP Parameters Norm. horizontal emittance mm.mr 10 Norm. vertical emittance mm.mr 0.04 bunch length mm 0.3 horizontal β* mm 20 horizontal beam size nm 640 no trav. focus with trav. focus vertical β* mm vertical beam size nm D y δe BS /E % Avg. P BS kw Luminosity cm -2 s Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 32

33 Rebaseline Schedule 2009 May : AD&I (1) SB /29-10/3 : /2-3 : Review by /2-3 : AD&I (2) 2009 Dec : Draft of Rebaseline Proposal Doc /6-8 : Review by /26-30 : Decision at LCWS/GDE@Beijing 2010 Jul : TDP Interim Report presented at Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 33

34 RF Distribution for Single Tunnel Possibilities RDR RDR system in single tunnel KCS (Klystron Cluster System) Microwave output from ~30 MBK on surface combined and sent underground by ~50cm diameter waveguide DRFS (Distributed RF System) One klystron for a few cavities, all underground Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 34

35 DRFS Present senario 1 klystron for 4 cavities (SB2009) 1 modulator for 26 cavities with back up Being developed at KEK Planned Tests At the end of S1- Global Capture cavities for STF2 Scheme A Permanent magnet focusing Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 35

36 Availability Task Force One of the concerns with single tunnel is the possible reduction of `availability because some repair works cannot be done during operation Task Force established Up to now they compared A) RDR (twin tunnel) B) RDR equipment in single tunnel C) Single tunnel + KCS D) Single Tunnel + DRFS Preliminary conclusion B) gives significantly low availability C) and D) give only ~1% less availability than A) Difference between C) and D) is small compared with possible effects from other factors Safety problem is another issue Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 36

37 ILC Organization PAC ILCSC FALC FALC-RG IDAG RD EC Regional Directors ILC-GDE Director Project Managers Experts AAP EU AM AS SCRF-ML G-CFS AS Project. M. Office Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 37

38 Review System AAP (Accelerator Advisory Panel) Formed by GDE. Accelerator review Internal external reviewers 1 st review: TILC09 (Last April, Tsukuba) 2 nd review: Oxford, Jan 6-8, 2010 PAC (Project Advisory Committee) Formed by ILCSC Higher-level review on general issues including physics/detectors Meetings at Paris (Oct.2008) and Vancouver (May 2009) Next review at PAL (Korea, Nov ) Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 38

39 Collaboration with CLIC Collaboration of the two linear colliders groups, ILC and CLIC, is desirable with respect to synergies and saving resources Collaboration is going on in several fields and will be expanded (next page) Formation of `general issue group is being discussed Will be an issue of ILCSC/ICFA Including the collaboration on detectors Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 39

40 ILC-CLIC Collaboration Fields ML-SCRF Cryomodule & cryogenics engineering High pressure code, safety/risk analysis on cryogenics CFS AS PMG Tunneling, Building, Utilities, Conventional components, General safety and emergency risk assessment, applicable safety regulation Damping ring, e-, e+ source beam-dynamics/simulation Beam delivery system and machine detector interface, Controls, Instrumentation, Pushpull detector and interaction region design Comparable project planning methodology including risk assessment and mitigation Design, engineering, and management tools including operations analysis Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 40

41 Detectors RDR adopted push-pull waiting detector detectors Need to select 2 detectors IDAG (International Detector Advisory Group) working detector formed under RD (Research Director) But selection Validation is more appropriate Validation Detector groups should submit LoI by March 2009 IDAG reviews for `validation by Sep.2009 Interim report in 2010 Detailed baseline designs (avoid the word Technical Design) by 2012 Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 41

42 Detector LoI LoI submitted by end of March by 3 groups: ILD, SiD, and 4 th Concept: Each group is international ~1000 people signed in total Presented in TILC09 in April at Tsukuba Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 42

43 IDAG Recommendation Review/evaluation by IDAG Face-to-face meetings at Tsukuba in April and at Orsay in June IDAG report delivered on Aug.17 (official submission during Albuquerque meeting) Recommendation ILD and SiD validated Solid basis of push-pull concept Large amount of complementarity 4 th Concept was not validated R&D dual readout calorimetry should be supported for higher energy colliders ILCSC endorsed the recomendation Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 43

44 Summary Test facilities, CESR-TA, ATF/ATF2, FLASH, etc, contributing to risk mitigation Progress in SCRF technology and evaluation of cavity yield Rebaseline is being planned by summer 2012 GDE is on the track to TDR in 2012 Detector group is showing progress, including group validation, in parallel to accelerator. Detailed design to be completed also by Sep.25, 2009 K.Yokoya, SRF2009, Berlin 44