KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

KEK 訪問

Minimum Machine, CFS, Cavity 開発

AAP Review, つくば、２００９．０４ .１７－２１

M. Ross2008.12.15

The ‘R & D Plan’ is our basis document explains activities

• Input from:– Project Managers– Regional Directors– Technical Area Group

Leaders (14 - 早野、大内、福田、久保。。。 )

• To be used by:– GDE (us)– Funding Agencies and

Leadership (FALC and ILCSC/ICFA)

– Review Panels– Partner projects and

institutions

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

山本さま , ILC Project Manager ：

• TDP R&D plan (Release 2, DRAFT)• FALC-RG に提出した TDP R&D Plan を再度、アッ

プデートし• 『 Release 2 DRAFT 』として、全ての TDP-GLs ま

で• 広く配布した (5/31). 今週の GDE Dubna meeting• の期間中に、再度、コメントを求め、 6/6 には、• Release 2 としての最終版をさらに広く配布する。• 皆様のご協力をお願いする。（随時改訂は行う – 6

months ）。

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

TD Phase 1• TD Phase 1 will conclude in mid-2010 with the

publication of the TD Phase-1 Interim Report. • The emphasis of TD Phase 1 is on:

– high-priority risk-mitigating R&D – (most notably the Superconducting RF linac technology) – and

– quantifying the scope for potential cost reduction of the current Reference Design.

• The end of TD Phase 1 will also see a re-baseline of the conceptual machine design, in preparation for more detailed technical design work in TD Phase 2.

• The re-baseline will take place after careful consideration and review of the results of the TD Phase 1 studies and the status of the critical R&D.

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

TD Phase 1 Priorities:

• １） Technical R ＆ D:– SRF (Main linac technology)– Beam Test Facilities– Specialized R & D (components)

• 2) Cost reduction studies / Design studies• 3) Project Preparation 　 (increases in TDP2)

– Communication, Reviews, Governance and Siting studies, Mass-production scenarios, Document preparation,…

何時も第一

R & D Plan explains both 1) and 2)

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

2) Cost reduction studies / Design studies:

• Two Components:1. Technical Area Group Work Packages

– Within each group; managed by TA Group Leader– Goals Performance, Cost reduction, Design

Development…2. Minimum Machine Initiative

– Between Groups; managed by Nick / Ewan– Goal Cost Reduction through CFS scope

reduction– Good Potential

• Priority: Technical Area Work

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

Minimum Machine Initiative• RDR の baseline はそのままにして、当面の study 目標としての machine を定義する必要• 2009 年中の study• TDP1 の終り（ 2010 年 7 月）にむけて re-baseline

MM def MM studies

2009 2010

New baseline engineering studies

2012

RDR Baseline (VALUE est.)

横谷

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

方針• Conceptual sketch のみ . (lattice の詳細のようなものはナシ）• 人的資源・時間が限られているので、できるだけ各選択肢の１つに絞る

横谷

Hopefully – the cost reduction achieved by each Minimum Machine item will exceed 0.1 B ILCU (mcr)

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

Definition of Minimum Machine

• 物理からの要請（ WWS document ）は満たすこと（ energy, luminosity はそのまま）

• overhead, margin, design conservatism は最小限にとどめる

• Categories– General layout （ e.g., DR の位置）– Technical component specs (e.g. 冷却水 )– Accelerator performance specs （ e.g., 電源数

の節約、許容誤差の見直し）

横谷

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

advanced R&D for positron production at KEK:

• (discussion held at DESY on Thursday 2008.12.04, concerning the possible approach to advanced R&D for positron production at KEK, and in particular the proposal for a ‘conventional’ source for ILC)

1. Kuriki to prepare a technical presentation of e+ system parameters for the Accelerator Systems TAG leaders meeting to be held on 2009.02.04

2. Clarke to explicitly include the proposed KEK source-related R&D plans into the next release of the formal ILC Technical Design Phase R&D Plan– R&D Plan is our highest-level document – (unlike the Minimum Machine document, which is essentially an

internal document) Nick Walker

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross栗木

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

CFS Goals / Mission:• Identify cost drivers, justify these and develop

alternates– High delta-T water cooling and single/double tunnel– ‘value-engineering’

• Develop design and support TA Groups– Extensions of RDR and support of Minimum Machine

Initiative– Extend sample sites beyond ‘RDR 3’

• Build global collaborative resource network– CLIC, Dubna, XFEL specialists

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

Siting – • Lack of definite site weakens ILC project• ILC technical basis is conservative and very

strong– (although much R & D remains)

• ILC technology can be adapted to various linac configurations– (TESLA and RDR are 2 such configurations)

CFS Group Conclusion:• Adaptation should be studied and supported

through Technical R & D

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

Example studies:1. XFEL – HV pulse cables (meeting 12.03-04)2. Klystron Cluster – Overmoded waveguide3. Distributed RF sources – mod-anode klystrons• Basic rule for such studies:

– Technical R & D in support of particular site configurations must be performed through a fully GDE-wide open global perspective

• Each participant, turn-by-turn should take part, as resources and capabilities allow

• R & D Plan must include explanations of these activities Please help with these explanations

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

Cavity 開発

• Gradient remains our most challenging, most important R & D topic– (as defined in R & D Plan)

• What must we claim in 2010?• What will we be able to say in 2010?

• What is KEK’s role in gradient R & D?

081209 ILC Global Design Effort

Why and How Plug-compatibility ?

• Cavity– Necessary “extended research” to improve field gradient,– Keep “room” to improve field gradient,– Establish common interface conditions,

• Cryomodule– Nearly ready for “system engineering”– Establish unified interface conditions,– Intend nearly unified engineering design– Need to adapt to each regional feature and industrial con

straint

16081209 ILC Global Design Effort

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

Summary of WG3: Status and activities for S0 and S1 of ILC

Convenors: Detlef Reschke, Hitoshi Hayano, Hasan Padamsee

• The one vendor yields are quite encouraging progress for the 50% ILC yield goal for TDP phase I, except for the small number of tests (23) so far.

• The TDP phase I goal has been defined primarily as a process yield goal. – To eliminate cavity-to-cavity variations, the GDE may

wish to consider many repeated treatments on a select few good cavities.

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

Summary of WG3: Status and activities for S0 and S1 of ILC

Convenors: Detlef Reschke, Hitoshi Hayano, Hasan Padamsee

• For the yield from multiple vendors, Jlab and DESY reported 48 tests on 19 cavities from 5 vendors (including one cavity fabricated by Jlab).

• From this data set, the yield for gradients > 35 MV/m is about 25%.

• Clearly there are many more variables to bring under control when dealing with many vendors.

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

Qualification of Vendors

• Improving fabrication process– 2009 Priority

• How this can be done– 2008 Achievement

All Vendor Yield(A6, A7, A8, A11, A12, A15, AES 1- 4, Ichiro5, J2,AC115, AC117, AC122,

125, 126, Z139, 143)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

>15 >20 >25 >30 >35 >40

Gradient (MV/m)

Frac

tionOne Vendor Yield

(A6, A7, A8, A11, A12, A15, AC115, AC117, AC122, 125, 126)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

>15 >20 >25 >30 >35 >40Gradient (MV/m)

Frac

tion

48 Tests, 19 cavities ACCEL, AES, Zanon, Ichiro, Jlab

23 tests, 11 cavitiesOne Vendor

KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross

TTC WG3 recommended tasks:• a) General characterisation of identified defects and suspicious

sites.• b) Summarizing analysis of optical inspection results of various labs

including quench field, and T-mapping results.

• a) More EBW samples with different EBW parameters and successive surface treatments.

• b) As far as possible (limited by the company’s interest in confidentiality of EB parameters) comparison of EBW techniques applied in different labs and companies correlated to quench fields and surface “irregularities”

• a) Comparison of yield due to field emission between different labs,• b) Find a common measure for field emission loading as well as

common definition for usable gradient

• a) Excitation of lower modes at KEK + DESY (other labs ??): Comparative data analysis

TILC09 / AAP Review

• Friday 17 to Tuesday 21 April 2009 Tsukuba (downtown)– 5 days: 3 days of parallel sessions + open & closing

plenary

• Interim AAP review is PM’s highest-priority– Detailed in-depth critical review across entire project– Effectively a ‘parallel session’ running all three available

days

• Need discussion on additional parallel sessions– But they must be planned not interfere with Review.

• Plan for ~100 GDE participants– ~30-50 of which will be in review (at any one time).

AAP Review

• Focus of AAP will based on our published R&D Plan activities– SCRF Main Linac technology

• S0, S1 (S1 global), S2, plug compatibility• …

– Beam Test Facilities• ATF, ATF2, CesrTA, DAFNE, KEK-B,…

– Special emphasis on electron-cloud• TTF/FLASH (S2-related)

– CFS• Other (sub-topics) will include

– Technical R&D not covered in above– Project Management issues– …

• Expect ALL of our TAG leaders to attend and make presentations– Draft agenda proposal being made by PMs in consultation with

AAP chairs.– Available for comment before Christmas

AAP Review Preparation• Preparation started at ILC08

– Stated as part of charge / goals for workshop

• Real work starts now!

• AAP want to be well-prepared for review– Special website set-up with selected key documents / information to

specific themes of review– This will require your input– Proposed document submission to Max deadline 30th January– Please send PMs a list of proposed documents before then! (Early January)

• AAP plans to generate a list of questions that will guide our presentations

– We will be expected to answer them– When would these questions be available to us?

• Expect to have to supply something like 15 hours of presentation– Split approximately 50-50 between actual PowerPoint and

questions/discussion– Rule of thumb: understood not all presentations / topics will be equal.

Other (parallel) TILC09 Groups

• We need to plan (useful) meetings in parallel to the review itself.• Plan for additional ~50 people in parallel sessions• Organise so that there is not critical overlap with required

participation in review itself.– Strawman plan in preparation

• Proposals for parallel themes welcome (send to PMs)• Some ideas:

– SCRF (perhaps up to two parallel groups)– ATF & ATF2 (proximity to KEK)– MDI (proximity to physics & detector groups)– General Accelerator Physics & Design group

• Would include minimum machine aspects, but not exclusively• System-wide discussions

– …?

• Note PMs unlikely to be able to attend– They will be stuck in the review for the duration