European Activities in Accelerator R

1
European Activities in Accelerator RD for the ILC

• Nick Walker
• EPP2010 visit to DESY13.9.2005

2
Foreword

• This talk is primarily about ILC activities in
  Europe. However
• it is no longer possible to look at a single
  region in isolation, and so we must now look at
  European activities within the global ILC context
• The best snapshot of the global context is the
  results of the recent Snowmass Workshop

3
The Hard Questions
4
The Hard Questions
Critical choices luminosity parameters gradient
5
Europes Strongest Contribution
6
Europes Strongest Contribution
SCRF linac technology

7
Historical Prospective

• Europe has been the heart of the TESLA
  Collaboration for over 12 years
• Aggressive RD effort culminated in the
  publication of the TESLA TDR in March 2001
• European ILC activities have significantly
  increased over the last few years
• Decision to construct a European XFEL based on
  TESLA technology is a major plus

8
(Technical) Historical Time-Line
1992
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
01
02
03
04
05
collaboration formed
TESLA TDR published
TTF infrastructureinstalled _at_ DESY
1st lasing of TTF FEL
SASE saturation achieved
TTF injector (FNAL) 1st nine-cell (SACLAY)
installed TTF linac
1st 10MW MBK delivered

• Not shown
• high-powered SC coupler development
• tuner and fast tuner development
• low-level RF system development
• cryomodule evolution

TTF-2 installation
TTF VUV-FEL operation
1st EP 35MV/mcavity (DESY/KEK)
35MV/mEP cavity acc. beam
9
(Political) Historical Time-Line
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
TESLA TDR published
Positive review by German Science Council
German Govn. approves XFELas EU project (LC is
longer time-scale)
ILC-TRC review (Loew report)
US LC options study
ITRP
Much has happened in a relatively short period of
time
UNIFICATION
1st ILC workshop _at_KEK
GDE formation
2nd ILC workshop _at_Snowmass
10
EU Participation in Snowmass
Total registered participants 669
11
EU Participation in Snowmass
Total registered participants 669
Includes HEP participation Balance even better if
one takes on ILC machine groups
12
Goals of the 2nd Workshop

• Continue process of making a recommendation on
  aBaseline Configuration
• Identify longer-termAlternative Configurations
• Identify necessary RD
• For baseline
• For alternatives
• Priorities for detector RD

Workshop was a major step towards these
milestones ?
13
Baseline / Alternativesome definitions

• Primary GDE Goal
• Reference Design Report including costs end 2006
• Intermediate goal (follows from primary)
• Definition of a Baseline Configurationby the end
  of 2005 this
• will be designed to during 2006
• will be the basis used for the cost estimate
• will evolve into the machine we will build

14
Baseline / Alternativesome definitions
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 (? RDR)
15
Baseline / Alternativesome definitions
Alternate A technology or concept which may
provide a significant cost reduction, increase in
performance (or both), but which will not be
mature enough to be considered baseline by
mid-end 2006NoteAlternatives will be part of
the RDRAlternatives are equally important
16
Towards the ILC Baseline Design
17
Reference Cavity Design
1m
9-cell 1.3GHz Niobium Cavity
18
Possible Enhancements
Low Loss Design Small modification to cavity
shape reduces peak B field. Increase operation
margin. Increases peak E field ?(field
emission) Mechanical stability ??(Lorentz force
detuning)
KEK currently producing prototypes
19
Snowmass Recommendation Gradient

• Baseline recommendation for cavity is standard
  TESLA nine-cell
• Alternatives (energy upgrade)
• Low-loss,
• Re-entrant
• superstructure

20
Gradient
assuming 75 fill factor
Total length of one 500 GeV linac ? 20km
XFEL specification 23 (28) MV/m
21
Improved Processing(Electropolishing)
22
Cavity RD
Fabrication from large grain or single-crystal Nb
discs May remove the need for electropolishing (?
cost!)
EU RD funded by XFEL project
23
Cryomodule Variants
TTF ILC cavities 8 12?spacing
3l/2 l/2?quad loc. end centre?
Main emphasis is on- industrialisation -
reliability- cost optimisation
TTF CM already 3rd generation
24
Auxiliaries
INFN blade tuner
TTF TYPE-IIIHP Coupler
SACLAY tuner (type III)
industrialisation cost reliability
25
RF Power source Distribution
26
Baseline Klystrons
Specification 10MW MBK 1.5ms pulse 65 efficiency
Thales
CPI
Toshiba
Baseline also for
27
Ideas for Improved RF sources
5 MW InductiveOutput Tube (IOT)
10 MW Sheet Beam Klystron (SBK)
Low Voltage 10 MW MBK
Voltage e.g. 65 kV Current 238A More
beams Perhaps use a Direct Switch Modulator
Parameters similar to 10 MW MBK
Klystron
Output
IOT
Drive
SLAC
CPI
KEK
28
Modulators (115 kV, 135 A, 1.5 ms, 5 Hz)
( 2m Long)
Operation an array of capacitors is charged in
parallel, discharged in series.SLAC Will test
full prototype in 2006
TTF Bouncer Modulator(baseline recommendation)
29
Main Linac The Cost Driver

• Biggest single cost item
• 10 years of RD by the TESLA collaboration has
  produced a mature technology
• But were not quite there yet

30
Main Linac The Cost Driver

• Primary focus of future RD
• successful tech. transfer to industry
• cost reduction through industrialisation
• need extensive effort to achieve high reliability
  !!!
• XFEL project is already driving much of this
  development within Europe
• but ILC needs ?35MV/m
• High-Gradient programme continues to be a
  priority for TESLA Tech. Collaboration
• Both as part of the ILC and XFEL projects

31
Global SCRF Test Facilities

• TESLA Test Facility (TTF)currently unique in the
  worldVUV-FEL user facilitytest-bed for both
  XFEL ILC
• US SMTF (now ILC Test Facility) Cornell, JLab,
  ANL, FNAL, LBNL, LANL, MIT,MSU, SNS, UPenn, NIU,
  BNL, SLACTF for ILC, Proton Driver (and more)
• STF _at_ KEKaggressive schedule to produce
  high-gradient(45MV/m) cavities / cryomodules

32
Discussions on SCRF Test Facilities_at_ Snowmass

• Regional test facilities are needed to enhance
  the technology base and enable each region to
  significantly participate in ILC Main Linac and
  be a possible host of ILC.
• The three regions are working towards developing
  collaborations on how to build regional test
  facilities.
• TTF Facility (DESY) established facility, 30
  allocated to accelerator studies
• ILC Test Facility (Fermilab)
• STF (KEK)
• International collaborative activities are
  progressing on
• Cavity fabrication, processing and testing to
  achieve 35 MV/mat Q 0.5-1 e10.
• Design and fabrication of ILC Cryomodule
• LLRF development for ILC
• Development and processing of Couplers
• Industrial development of the Main Linac
  components

Critical RD to reduce
33
Towards the ILC Baseline Design
Not cost drivers But can be L performance bottlen
ecks Europe also contributes here
34
Other ILC RD in Europe

• TESLA technology is Europes focus
• TTF
• European XFEL
• CARE programme (see later)
• Europe also supports significant RD activities
  in more general ILC RD
• Sources (polarised e)
• Damping Rings
• Beam Delivery IR
• General beam dynamics
• Controls (GAN), Machine Protection, Reliability
  studies

35
Major European Programmes for ILC Accelerator RD
Other than existing TTF/XFEL related
Pan-European programmes supported by the European
Commission via the Framework Package 6 (FP6)
initiative
Major national programme in UK focused on Beam
Delivery and IR system design and related RD
topics (e.g. diagnostics)
UK Linear ColliderAccelerator Beam
Delivery(LC-ABD)
36
CARE SRF Programme
37
The Structure of EUROTeV
Damping Rings
Global Accelerator Network
Beam Delivery System
IntegratedLuminosity PerformanceStudies
ILC GDI Concept
Total budget29 M over 3 yrs (EU 9 M)
EUROTeV forms the core of the European ILC
activities beyond SCRF
Diagnostics
Polarised Positron Source
Metrology Stabilisation
Represents significant resources available to GDE
effort
38
The structure of EUROTeV
Damping Rings
Global Accelerator Network
Beam Delivery System
IntegratedLuminosity PerformanceStudies
ILC GDI Concept
Total budget29 M over 3 yrs (EU 9 M)
Diagnostics
Polarised Positron Source
Metrology Stabilisation
Major contributor
39
Approximate European ILC Spending
or ILC related
40
Conventional Facilities Siting (CFS)
Outstanding Issues with Direct Impact on CFS
Progress that will Require Further Discussion and
Resolution 1 Tunnel vs 2 Tunnel Laser
Straight vs Curved or Segmented Shape and Length
of Damping Rings Shape and Configuration of
Sources 1 vs 2 Interaction Regions GDE ILC
Design will be done to samples sites in the three
regions North American sample site will be near
Fermilab Japan to determine sample sites by the
end of 2005 European sites will be DESY (TDR
site) and CERN
5 of our 10 critical design questions May well
be influenced by site constraints
8.19.05
V. Kuchler
6 of 8
41
GDE membership
workshop WG/GG convener
Chris Adolphsen, SLAC Jean-Luc Baldy,
CERN Philip Bambade, LAL, Orsay Barry Barish,
Caltech (the boss) Wilhelm Bialowons,
DESY Grahame Blair, Royal Holloway Jim Brau,
University of Oregon Karsten Buesser,
DESY Elizabeth Clements, Fermilab Michael
Danilov, ITEP Jean-Pierre Delahaye, CERN (EU dep.
dir.) Gerald Dugan, Cornell University (US
dir.) Atsushi Enomoto, KEK Brian Foster, Oxford
University (EU dir.) Warren Funk, JLAB Jie Gao,
IHEP Terry Garvey, LAL-IN2P3 Hitoshi Hayano,
KEK Tom Himel, SLAC Bob Kephart, Fermilab Eun
San Kim, Pohang Acc Lab Hyoung Suk Kim, Kyungpook
Natl Univ Shane Koscielniak, TRIUMF Vic Kuchler,
Fermilab Lutz Lilje, DESY
Tom Markiewicz, SLAC David Miller, Univ College
of London Shekhar Mishra, Fermilab Youhei Morita,
KEK Olivier Napoly, CEA-Saclay Hasan Padamsee,
Cornell University Carlo Pagani, DESY Nan
Phinney, SLAC Dieter Proch, DESY Pantaleo
Raimondi, INFN Tor Raubenheimer, SLAC Francois
Richard, LAL-IN2P3 Perrine Royole-Degieux,
GDE/LAL Kenji Saito, KEK Daniel Schulte,
CERN Tetsuo Shidara, KEK Sasha Skrinsky, Budker
Institute Fumihiko Takasaki, KEK Laurent Jean
Tavian, CERN Nobu Toge, KEK Nick Walker, DESY (EU
dep. dir.) Andy Wolski, LBL Hitoshi Yamamoto,
Tohoku Univ Kaoru Yokoya, KEK
42
ILC Projected Time Line
CARE
EUROTeV
UK LC-ABD
preparation
construction
operation
EURO XFEL
43
ILC Projected Time Line
synergy
EU FP7 ??
preparation
construction
operation
EURO XFEL
44
Final Comments

• Europe has a strong base (and history) in LC RD
• driven by the TESLA Collaboration SCRF
• ITRP decision has significantly strengthened
  Europes contribution to ILC
• Supported by the construction of the European
  XFEL
• European ILC community is expanding
• EU FP6 initiatives a great success
• FP7 is just around the corner
• The European activities are now well integrated
  into the International GDE context
• All European groups are actively and productively
  collaborating with their counterparts in America
  and Asia
• Europes commitment to the ILC project is clear
• regardless of where the machine will eventually
  be sited