ILC Status and University Role in the R

1
ILC Status and
University Role in the RD
Program
HEPAP Subpanel on University Grants
Sept. 8, 2006 Paul Grannis
DOE Office of High
Energy Physics State University
of New York, Stony Brook
2
ILC and the Future
The ILC has been identified as the highest future
priority for US HEP by HEPAP, EPP2010, Office
of Science Comparable emphasis has been given
in Europe and Asia. To succeed, ILC must be a
fully international and cooperative effort. We
are embarked on a multi-year RD phase to
demonstrate the feasibility of the ILC project
we must assure the success of this RD
program. Integration of laboratory and university
efforts is essential. The ILC RD must proceed
synergistically with the nearer term priority of
the LHC program, and the other elements of a
diverse program.
3
Global Organization
FALC Funding Agencies LC (R.
Petronzio)
ILCSC International LC Steering Committee (S.
Kurokawa)
LCSGA LC Steering Gp Americas (M. Tigner)
GDE Global Design Effort (B. Barish)
WWS Worldwide Study (Brau, Richard, Yamamoto)
ART Americas Regional Team (G. Dugan)
LCSG Europe
ALCPG Americas LC Physics Gp (J.
Brau, M. Oreglia)
LCSG Asia
Asia RT (M. Nozaki)
key
oversight
Europe RT (B. Foster)
Europe phys/det
regional interest
Asia phys/det
accelerator
detector/ physics
4
GDE effort on Design/RD
Present GDE Membership Americas
22 Europe 24 Asia
18 About 30 FTEs
EU
Americas
Asia
2003? 7?
ILC is fully international in the RD phase, with
roughly equal efforts in each of the three
regions. Sample sites in each region. We expect
that ILC construction value shares would be 1/2
for host nation/region and the rest distributed
among partners.
5
Elements of ILC
e- arm (e arm is similar apart from
the source)
Superconducting RF Main Linac
6
Challenges gradient
Goal is high yield (90) of 9-cell cavities
qualified at 35 MV/m with 5 gradient spread.
BCP only
At present, poor yield and large spread. Nb
surface processing are not yet under control.
Electro-polish
7
Challenges luminosity

• Low emittance created in damping rings must be
  preserved in the linacs and beam delivery system.
• Squeeze the beam as small as possible (5 nm
  high at collision)

• Intense (polarized) e- and e sources
• Damping ring design to create low emittance
• Beam based alignment, fast feedback
• Complex final focus/beam delivery system

8
GDE organization
GDE Directorate
GDE
GDE Executive Committee
GDE R D Board
GDE Change Control Board
GDE Design Cost Board
Global RD Program
ILC Design and cost estimating
Labs and universities
9
Baseline design
Baseline design put in Change Control at end
2005 alternate design choices were defined.
Design is parametric can vary parameters.
Nominal L2x1034 (double if push all parameters)
10
Reference design report and cost estimate
During 2006, GDE is preparing the Reference
Design Report (RDR) and cost estimate based on
baseline design and four sample sites. Change
baseline through change control process. Cost
done as value estimate (ITER) with MS and FTE
labor as primary elements, with cost probability
distributions for each element. Convert to
national methodology with contingency, indirect
costs, escalation, pre-operations, etc. as
needed.
11
Cost drivers
2004 US Options Study for cold machine -- not
the result of current GDE work.
Civil
SCRF Linac
12
RDR and cost

• 1st pass at value estimate in July Vancouver
  meeting. Only 3 cost engineers and GDE director
  see the full picture. Refine, suggest cost
  reducing changes from now to Nov. Valencia
  meeting. Complete RDR by end of 2006.
• Refine high level parameter specification by
  November to help guide cost optimization (ILCSC
  subcommittee).
• Beyond optimizing details, some changes are
  considered
• One or two tunnels?
• undulator source for positrons as option, not
  baseline?
• Two or one IRs (detectors in push-pull)?
• Luminosity reduction to ease some cost problems?
• crossing angle at IR (2 20 mrad ? 2x 14 mrad)
  ? (proposed)
• second positron damping ring eliminated ?
  (proposed)

13
GDE timeline
2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010
Global Design Effort
Project
Baseline configuration
Reference Design
Technical Design
ILC RD Program
Expression of Interest to Host
International Mgmt
14
Next steps
Following RDR and cost estimate

• International review of costs (FALC?)
• National commitments to remaining RD and TDR
  phase?
• Continue RD on baseline and alternate choices
• Start Technical (engineering) design and costing
• More centralized GDE with defined oversight,
  authority?
• Formalize detector RD and design, selection
  process
• Start site selection process?
• Based on LHC results, TDR, cost, site choice
  get government agreement to ILC project?
• Start construction of accelerator and detectors?

These steps should proceed in parallel and are
inter-related.
15
Technical Design Stage
GDE estimates TDR phase takes 2 years Will
require much larger engineering manpower
commitment GDE needs expanded authority to
manage this effort. TDR is site specific

• Geology (tunnel separation, beam dumps,
  vibration control)
• National regulations (safety personnel
  protection, environmental remediation)
• Infrastructure existing laboratory space
  (location of DR, sources), land use (optimum
  location of shafts, cryoplants, rf
  infrastructure)

Cannot complete the TDR until a site is selected.
16
Regional Interest
In addition to ILC RD and design there are
specific interests and needs in the three
regions. These depend on whether the region
desires to host.

• Detailed design, impact analysis, costing of
  civil construction for host nation
• Community outreach
• Development of capability in key technological
  areas (SC RF)
• Developing test facility infrastructure

LCSGA has charged a subpanel to advise US GDE/ART
on priorities for US regional interest activities
(Ozaki panel). Report for FY2007 activities
delivered.
17
RD phase
We are now in the RD phase of ILC not yet
asking any government for approval to
construct! Traditional rule of thumb is that RD
for a project should spend 10 20 of project
cost to validate choices and prepare the
design. EPP2010 estimated 500M in RD for US,
comparable in other regions. Some of the
regional interest costs and detector RD should
be added to this. Technically limited RD program
will not conclude before 2010. Site selection,
settling organizational issues, getting
government agreements will only extend this. 2012
seems like earliest construction start date.
18
FALC
Funding Agencies Linear Collider US, Germany,
France, UK, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Canada, CERN,
(India, China ) is informal association of
funding agency officials that monitors GDE
progress. FALC senses the need to examine and
coordinate other large future projects (LHC
upgrade, high intensity n, ILC, CLIC RD). Will
prepare report on technological benefits from ILC
RD Discussing single international review of RDR
cost estimate Discussing more formal
organizational structure going forward to
TDR Should specify site selection process?
19
Americas effort
ART (G. Dugan director) oversees the Americas
(dominantly US) accelerator effort. First
DOE/NSF review April 2006.

• For FY07, collected RD proposals from US
  labs/universities (total of 110M) , prioritized
  them and will recommend budget to DOE. This
  process helped define the first stage of an
  overall RD plan.
• If DOE FY07 budget at Presidents request
  (60M), will bring ILC detector and accelerator
  funding at labs and universities into a single
  budget category, and also will include some ILC
  Regional Interest work. (SCRF RD and
  infrastructure that serve broader DOE SC goals
  can be carried separately.)
• In fall 2006, prepare first longer range RD
  plan for US. Reorganize ART along technical
  subsystem (linac, e source, etc) lines with WBS
  element leaders to better coordinate work in the
  labs AND the universities.
• ART (and GDE) do not presently oversee detector
  RD.

20
ILC university grants
In 2002, University Consortium for Linear
Collider (UCLC) aimed at NSF, and Linear
Collider Research and Development (LCRD) aimed at
DOE were established to promote LC research at
universities both accelerator and
detectors. First LCRD and UCLC awards were made
in FY03.
Detector Accelerator
21
University grant process
Relevant bodies (ALCPG, LCSGA, ART have
screened university proposals and made
recommendations to DOE and NSF. DOE and NSF have
done a joint review and selected proposals for
support without constraints on who funds, within
the overall budget guidance. Since FY2005, the
detector grants have been administered through a
single umbrella grant to Univ. Oregon. DOE
accelerator grants are to specific universities.
NSF uses Cornell for umbrella grant.
22
Current university accelerator grants
(Many grants have Lab partners)
Ohio State Rad hard 500 MHz digitizer UC
Berkeley, Notre Dame RF beam posn
monitors Cornell, SUNY Albany Synch. radiation
imaging BPM UC Davis Radiation damage
studies MIT Beam loss mitigation in
klystrons Illinois, Cornell Injection/ejection
kicker magnets Cornell, Illinois Fast kicker
prototypes Colorado State Linac element girder
movers New Mexico, NM State Effects of coherent
synch. radn Cornell Simulation of linac, BDS
optics Cornell, Minnesota Expt, simulation,
design for damp rings
23
Current university accelerator grants
Wisconsin Photocathodes for pol. electron
source Wisconsin High purity Nb for
cavities Northwestern Atom probe microscopy in
Nb Old Dominion Plasma etching for Nb
cavities Michigan St, Texas AM Chemical
polishing Nb studies William and Mary, Va
Tech Electropolishing studies Cornell Undulator
prototyping for e polarization Northern
Illinois Longitudinal phase space
monitor Cornell Design for CESR damping ring
tests Pennsylvania Real time simulator for low
level rf
21 current grants Average grant 50K
24
University-lab partnerships
The laboratories team with university partners on
a variety of high priority RD projects for ILC
(sometimes augmented by DOE/NSF grants, sometimes
on University or Lab MOU funds)
Fermilab Michigan St High pressure rinse
facility, materials, cavity vendor
development, TIG welding UICC damping ring
fast kickers Cornell BCP and EP cavity
processing, materials Pennsylvania Low level
rf Northern Ill cooperative grad student
research Wisconsin SCrf materials Northwestern
SCrf materials Argonne UIUC Damping ring
studies Northern Ill phase space manipulation
in e- DR
25
University-lab partnerships
SLAC So. California electron cloud
simulations Texas AM secondary emission
yields, e-cloud UC Berkeley cavity BPM energy
spectrometer Notre Dame cavity BPM energy
spectrometer Oregon synchrotron stripe energy
spectrometer ( various universities in UK,
Germany, Japan) JLab Wm Mary Nb surface
treatment, EP processing Boston Univ. Nb
surface treatment Old Dominion plasma treatment
of Nb surfaces NC State crystalline
characterization of Nb Univ. Virginia surface
impedance measurements of Nb
26
Comments on university accelerator grants
Original motivation for accelerator grants was to
stimulate interest in ILC at universities. With
the increased ILC visibility and increased
activity at most labs, this has been
accomplished. Many of the above grants address
generic problems of interest to ILC and other
uses. DOE intends to grow AARD NSF intends to
develop APPI.
We expect to reabsorb the ILC university grant
program into AARD/APPI after FY2007, and compete
with other accelerator RD proposals. ILC
specific work should be prioritized by ART and
funded with ILC funds. SBIR will
continue.
27
Current university detector grants
Iowa State Cerenkov luminosity
monitor Oregon Extraction line energy
monitor Notre Dame BPM based energy
monitor Iowa Polarimetry studies Tufts Compton
polarimeter backgrounds Wayne State Incoherent
and coherent beamstrahlung Yale Pixel vertex
detector RD UC Berkeley Monolithic pixel
detector prototype U. Washington Vertex detector
mechanical structures Hawaii CMOS pixel
detector Lousiana Tech GEM-based
tracking Cornell Micro pattern gas detector for
TPC
28
Current university detector grants
Michigan Tracker alignment and simulations UC
Santa Cruz Long shaping time Si microstrip
readout Colorado SiD barrel reconstruction
studies Kansas State Calorimeter-based tracking
for PFA Purdue Thin silicon sensors for
tracking Cornell TPC signal digitization
simulation Northern Illinois Scintillator based
hadron calorimetry Colorado Scintillator forward
calorimetry Iowa PFA studies Oregon SiW EM
calorimeter test module U. Texas Arlington GEM
based hadron calorimetry Northern Illinois PFA
algorithms and simulations
29
Current university detector grants
Kansas EM calorimeter concepts for PFA Argonne
Prototype RPC hadron calorimeter Iowa
State 4th concept design Princeton Calorimeter
and muon ID U. Washington Scintillator/Cerenkov
calorimetry Yale Electronics standards Wayne
State Solid state photomultiplier
development Wayne State Scintillator based muon
detector Colorado State Geiger mode avalanche
photodiodes
33 grants Average grant 35K
30
NSF/DOE position on ILC RD activity
Both DOE and NSF recognize the high priority
placed by HEPAP and the recent NRC EPP2010 report
on conducting a vigorous RD program that could
lead to the ILC project.  Both agencies currently
fund university grants for both detector and
accelerator research with applicability to the
ILC.  These programs have been modest but have
grown over the past several years.   Both
agencies respond to grants through the peer
review process. They welcome proposals for which
ILC detector or accelerator RD is the whole or a
component of the effort, as well as for generic
research that may have some bearing on ILC
issues. In addition, there is often some latitude
within existing grant funds to consider new
directions. The use of existing grant funds for
ILC-related research depends upon the details of
each proposal and grant holders are encouraged to
speak with their program monitors on the
appropriate extent of such activities.
31
Comments on university detector grants
A 2005 WWS panel chaired by C. Damerell compared
funded and self-estimated needs for detector RD
in the three regions. The US and Japan lagged
behind Europe significantly. The US effort was
about 4 times less than Europe, and was funded at
about 35 of the estimated need. (Japan received
1M new funding recently.)
32
Detector RD outlook
ALCPG proposes to increase ILC detector RD at
universities to 3M in FY2007, with 1M early
in year for specific deliverables related to
tests and 2M for the base program later in the
year. If the FY2007 ILC appropriation is at the
Presidents request (and House markup), DOE will
try to meet this goal and continue detector RD
effort and infrastructure at Labs. DOE/NSF
require a plan for multi-year detector RD with
goals, milestones and resource needs. Will peer
review proposals, and expect a detector RD
review.
33
Detector RD outlook
We aim to strengthen the interaction of lab and
university detector RD efforts, and treat
program as a coordinated whole. University
detector RD program will continue and should
grow. Much of the current funding is for generic
RD. Need to plan the transition to detector
collaborations proposals. There is at present
no body that is ideally suited to advise on the
relative priority between machine-related RD
and detector RD. For FY2007, we are using LCSGA
for this advice.
34
Homers questions
Topical Physics relevance See EPP2010, HEPAP
panels, Discovering Quantum Universe etc. Current
involvement 60 university grants/lab
collaborations with perhaps 2-3 part-time
students/physicists. Anticipated budget ILC
cost estimate coming in 2007. EPP2010 estimated
500M for ILC RD, plus detector RD, plus
infrastructure needs. (see below for RD phase
budget estimate) Infrastructure needs
simulation tools, mechanical and electronic shops
for detector RD Off-campus? Much of accelerator
RD done at or with Labs accelerator
instrumentation and detector prototype tests at
accelerator sites worldwide.
35
Homers questions
Topical Student training traditionally,
universities have used detector and accelerator
RD projects as hands-on training for students
prior to their going to a running experiment that
is already built. International components
yes, yes, yes Spin-offs, education, outreach
the chief spin-off is likely the development of
superconducting rf as a basis for new facilities
for materials science, nuclear physics,
structural biology etc. (ERLs, eRHIC, RIA,
neutron sources, light sources ). Outreach is a
central part of the GDE organization a
communicator for each region. Critical issues
Forging an international decision by governments
to proceed with ILC, select a host, and commit
the large sums of money required. ILC will be a
new step in international cooperation if it is to
be brought off. Technical challenges are
certainly large, but the political challenges are
probably larger.
36
Homers questions
Agency Program goals and planning Between now
and at least 2010, ILC will be in an RD phase,
shared roughly equally by Europe, Asia and the
Americas. Full project approval requires
understanding the cost, selection of site and an
international agreement. ILC planning through
GDE, ILCSC, FALC is fully international. Scope
ILC will be O(1010) facility, with the host
nation supporting about half. The RD phase
worldwide will likely require 1.5B. US would
contribute its share plus funding for detector
RD and the funding needed to qualify it as host
(next slide). Impact as the major future
facility, ILC would be a large piece of the US
program, but must leave room for other important
scientific components. ILC construction would
require some new funding. Reviews DOE/NSF
annual review of ILC RD DOE/NSF review of
detector RD program possible FALC review of
cost estimate
37
Rough estimate of RD phase funding
Out year integral taken from the EPP2010 estimate
(500M over 5 years) plus detector and laboratory
SCrf infrastructure., with a canonical project
profile. Assumes construction funding starts in
2012.
detectors
FY2007 is Presidents request and House markup
Senate is lower.
SCRF
RD, design
38
Closing comments
The physics opportunity at the ILC should be
great. LHC will start mapping the Terascale
landscape soon. ILC will be a major factor in US
HEP planning over the next decade. But the
international partnership means that this
planning cannot proceed solely within the US. ILC
will not be the primary focus for universities
for some time yet the LHC, n experiments,
astroparticles, etc. will be the central focus.
But work on ILC RD can be a major component of
training students in detector and accelerator
techniques (as LHC was for many years). When ILC
is approved, more dedicated focus will be
possible (CERN remained vital through the LHC
construction decade). Need to clarify ILC
situation to understand the other pieces of the
program.