The ILC Program

Office of Science

U.S. Department of Energy

1

The ILC ProgramThe ILC Program

Paul GrannisMarch 14, 2006

Much progress, much that could have gone wrong has not … but like Sisyphus we must continue to push the boulder up the hill. The ILC still has a long road ahead.

Office of Science


OutlineOutline

1. GDE Reference Design & cost estimate (3 – 12)

2. Global R&D program (13 – 18)

3. US R&D and regional interests (19 – 26)

4. Detector R&D (27 – 29)

5. Multiyear R&D/SCRF plan (30 – 39) (the main message)

6. International organization (40)

Office of Science


Barish, director

Dugan, Raubenheimer

Willis, chair Garbincius, chair

Phinney, chair

Mike Harrison will replace Dugan on May 1 as ART director

GDE has ~65 members, equally from Asia, Europe and Americas

GDE OrganizationGDE Organization

US scientists play key roles in the ILC

Office of Science


Main organization so far (e.g. for cost rollup, RDR) along area systems. Engineering design phase will have more emphasis on technical and global systems.

Civil and facilities support

GDE OrganizationGDE Organization

Office of Science


One positron damping ring. Reduced rf in DR; consolidate layout for civil constr. savings ($250M)

Electron source and damping rings from ends to central complex ($180M)

Modify rf unit – 24 → 26 cavities. Reduce rf and cryo static load overheads ($220M)

One IR with 14 mrad crossing – Two detectors push/pull. Remove 2nd muon wall. ($410M)

Single e+ target; combine e- source pre-accel’s ($80M)

Simplify RTML ($150M)

Relative to Baseline in July ’06, the RDR design reduced cost by 28%. Value engineering and preferential sources (capitalize on low labor costs in India, China etc.) to be done. Still to be considered – 1 tunnel; shallow construction, reduced rf…

Design changes for cost Design changes for cost controlcontrol

Office of Science


Use lowest reasonable tender world-wide for generally available items.

Estimate person-hrs of ‘explicit’ labor to be supplied through labs or contracts.

High tech components estimated in each region – many agree but cavity costs less in Europe than Asia, Americas.

Civil costs for 3 sample sites done in each region – they agree very well despite geological, regional differences.

International RDR/value cost review in May 23 – 25 (in Orsay).

DOE has deferred its plan to officially translate value estimate into US cost methodology.

Value EstimateValue Estimate

Total Value = $8.2B (FY07$) Little contingency included; no escalation; no detectors

Office of Science


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

MainLinac

DR RTML e+Source

BDS Common Exp Hall e-Source

VA

LUE

- $M

Maroon shaded areas are the civil construction components.

Value by area systemValue by area system

Office of Science


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

CF&S

Cavities

& C

M

RF Pow

er

Cryog

enics

Mag

nets &

PS

Contro

ls

Vacuum

Instr

umentati

on

Dumps & C

ollim

Insta

llatio

n

e+ sp

ecific

e- sp

ecific

DR spec

ific

Val

ue

- $M

CF&S

Cavities & CM

RF Power

Cryogenics

Magnets & PS

Controls

Vacuum

Instrumentation

Dumps & Collim

Installation

e+ specific

e- specific

DR specific

Confidential – contains vendor sensitive information

Value by technical/global Value by technical/global systemsystem

Office of Science


0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Insta

llatio

n (a

ll lab

or)

Man

agem

ent (

1/2

SSCL)

Cavities

& C

ryomodu

les

Contro

ls & C

ompu

ting

RF Pow

er Sys

tem

s

Alignm

ent

Cryog

enics

Instr

umentati

on

DR spec

ific

CF&S (con

struc

tion p

hase

)

e+ S

ource

spec

ific

Vacuum

RTML

spec

ific

Dumps & C

ollim

ator

s

e- S

ourc

e sp

ecific

exp

lici

t la

bo

r -

K p

erso

n-y

ears

“management” captures SWF overheads

Installation (all labor)

Management (1/2 SSCL)

Cavities & Cryomodules

Controls & Computing

RF Power Systems

Alignment

Cryogenics

Instrumentation

DR specific

CF&S (construction phase)

e+ Source specific

Vacuum

RTML specific

Dumps & Collimators

e- Source specific

Manpower distributionManpower distribution

Office of Science


Assume:Assume:

ILC sited in US

Construction funding starts in FY2013, lasts 8 years

Contingency: 10% on civil construction (Value Est has 20% already) 40% on shared M&S; 30% on explicit labor

Add overheads on M&S (GDE included SWF overheads)

US pays 50% -- site specific costs; 33% of shared; 63% of labor.

‘Project-like’ profile; civil construction front loaded.

Escalate to then year: 4.6% civil constr., 3% M&S, 3.5% SWF

US does 1/3 of 2 detectors @ $500M each (FY007)

OHEP (PG) value estimate OHEP (PG) value estimate conversionconversion

‼ Not a detailed value to cost translation (should do overheads, ‼ ‼ contingencies, escalation factors by work packages. ‼

Please keep confidential

Office of Science


OHEP conversion of value OHEP conversion of value estimateestimate

US portion inflated (AY $M) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Site specific 576 754 788 462 86 90 0 0 2756

Shared 158 345 382 610 703 651 454 35 3337

Explicit manpower 81 104 151 223 277 311 347 256 1750

TOTAL US with contngy, inflated 814 1202 1321 1295 1066 1052 800 291 7843

Above costs are TEC, not TPC. Table does not include $AY442M for detectors; graph does.

R&D and PED (see later) th

en y

r M

$

$1000M

Office of Science


GDE next stepsGDE next steps

With the RDR finalized in mid-summer, GDE will enter its engineering design phase, aimed at producing the EDR by beginning FY2010.

Produce comprehensive, global R&D plan (see below)

Add project management, engineering staff to GDE (grow the GDE by x2 to x3)

Value engineering, cost reduction, alternate technology choices

Develop work packages (started in Beijing); assign to laboratories. Need better defined authority for GDE to manage the EDR effort (see below)

EDR= full engineering design for key components (cavities, cryomodules, damping rings, civil construction etc.); detailed conceptual design for more straightforward systems.

Final engineering design requires site – geological, local infrastructure, safety and environmental regulations.

Office of Science


Global R&D planningGlobal R&D planning

OMB has indicated that ILC R&D budget increases will require an international R&D agreement (similar to the ITER EDA agreement).

FALC terms of reference include: “to work towards an appropriate organisational structure of the GDE for the engineering design phase.”

The DOE/NSF ART review of 4/06 requested a US R&D plan; this exists in draft, but it requires a global plan.

GDE advocates a sufficiently formal international organization that it has the authority needed to manage the global R&D and EDR activities. ITER had a rather formal MoU for its EDR phase. Getting this international R&D agreement is a key step, difficult to achieve.

Office of Science


Global R&D planningGlobal R&D planning

In 2006, the GDE R&D Board (RDB) prepared a list of all proposed R&D efforts and attached a general priority for each (on a 1 to 4 scale). These were used as a part of the US R&D planning process to prioritize the effort for FY07 to FY09. However, this list does not address the necessary decision points, deliverables, resource, coordination of international effort. Needs to be ‘projectized’.

Starting in mid-2006, RDB has set up task forces to prepare a more project-like R&D plan in each of the main ILC systems. These are now expected to report for GDE approval by mid-2007.

Taken together, these task force plans should constitute a reasonable R&D project plan.

A key ingredient of the plan is setting up work packages, and their assignment to specific labs or consortia.

Office of Science


R&D task forcesR&D task forces

S0 – Cavity gradient and yield demonstration

S1 – Cryomodule (8 or 9 cavities) demonstration

S2 – rf units (string) tests

S3 – Damping rings

S4 – Beam delivery system

S5 – Electron and positron sources

S6 – Global systems: controls, machine protection, BPMs etc.

S7 – High power rf systems

Office of Science


S0 R&DS0 R&D

The goal: demonstrate 35 MV/m gradient cavities with 95% yield in < 2 processes (and 10% gradient spread). The challenge is to demonstrate the surface processing method, and to migrate cavity fabrication to industry.

a) Tight loop – cavities processed in each region swapped, re-processed to demonstrate consistency and determine optimum process method.b) Industrial batches of 25 - 50: migrate learning to industry and provide cavity base for cryomodule tests.

Plan:

EDR gradient choice by mid 2009. If drop gradient to XFEL value, ILC cost up 7%.

← more tunnel, cavities more cryogenic plant →

Office of Science


S0 R&D in USS0 R&D in US

First US processed TESLA cavity (from ACCEL). JLab electropolish, rinse, bake cycle – on third process step – reached 42 MV/m with acceptable Q.

1st AES cavity now to 16 MV/m

New processing facility at ANL to double number of processes per year.

New electopolish technique in operation at Cornell.

Other R&D topics: materials properties, large grain Nb material, alternate shapes with low Bsurface.

Office of Science


Other task forcesOther task forces

Damping rings: control e-cloud via coatings, grooves, solenoids. Lab tests are promising; test in e+ beams underway. Proposal to use CESR as DR test facility.

Fast kicker: 2 ns rise time pulser demonstrated, need demo with real magnets.

Positron target: spinning wheel to control ΔT in high B field. Lab tests confirm calculations.

RF power: Marx modulator prototype works (120kV, 1.4 ms), potential $180M savings.

Toshiba MB klystron operates at full power, twice design rep rate. Sheet beam klystron R&D at SLAC. Simpler rf distribution under study.

Office of Science


US FY2007 R&D planningUS FY2007 R&D planning

ART budget process for FY2007 was driven by proposals from Labs – awkward as it brought ~$110M requests and prioritization process was tough with labs arguing for their piece of the pie.

Iterate with GDE RDB, Labs, DOE.

Did initial plan for $60M (President’s budget). Then $45M (Senate mark). Now have guidance of $42M ($45M case with reduced reserve since so far along in fiscal year).

DOE FY07

MACHINE AREA Total

Program direction and administration $2,532

Management $1,009

Global systems $2,649

Electron sources $793

Positron sources $1,521

Damping rings $1,994

Ring to Main Linac $253

Main Linacs: Optics, beam dynamics, instrumentation $716

Main Linacs: RF systems $7,421

Main Linacs: Cavities and Cryomodules $13,252

Beam delivery system $2,336

Conventional facilities $845

TDR Engineering Support $2,588

Reserve $3,000

Regional Interest $1,032

$41,940

Office of Science


For FY2008, re-organize to WBS structure with WBS managers prioritizing and managing each WBS level 2 project.

WBS x.y

x=1: Program Administration

x=2: Technical design

x=3: R&D

x=4: unused

x=5: Test facil, infrastructure

x=6: Reserve (& detectors)

x=7: Regional interest

y=1: Management – Dugan (Harrison)y=2: Global systems - Cawardine (Larsen)y=3: Electron sources - Brachmann (Poelker)y=4: Positron sources – Sheppard (Gronberg)y=5: Damping rings – Zisman (Palmer)y=6: Ring to main linac – Tenenbaum (Solyak)y=7: Main linac optics, bm dynamics (Tenenbaum, Solyak)y=8: Main linac rf systems -Adolphsen (Nagaitsev)y=9: Main linac cavities, cryomodules - Mishra, (Padamsee)y=10: Beam delivery system – Seryi (Parker)y=11: Conventional facilities – Kuchler (Asiri)y-=12: Pure regional interest – Kephart (Paterson)

US is active in every ILC area system.

US R&D project organizationUS R&D project organization

Office of Science


US R&D FY2008, FY2009US R&D FY2008, FY2009

In FY2008, initiated SCRF line for R&D, test infrastructure, industrialization of cavities, cryomodules, rf units, materials studies based on wider application of SCRF to DOE/SC facilities. ILC is the prime driver for SCRF in the near term.

SCRF line budget limited to cavity-related work; ILC specific line can contain SCRF as well as all other aspects of ILC.

Ask ART guidance for two targets spanning a range.

Target 1 Target 2

FY2008 FY2009 FY2008 FY2009

ILC SCRF ILC SCRF ILC SCRF ILC SCRF

$75M $0M $90M $0M $75M $45M $90M $45M

ART planned the 2+ year R&D program around these guidances, thus defining a US R&D plan. Extrapolation to out-years is relatively straightforward.

Office of Science


ART R&D planning – ART R&D planning – exampleexample

Cavity procure, process, cryomodule assembly/test, string test by FY (Target 1)

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010

Cavity procure/test

Cryomodule assembly/test

rf unit test

Office of Science


SCRF infrastructure – FNAL planSCRF infrastructure – FNAL plan

Surface Processing

Cavity Fabrication

Vertical Testing

He Vessel, couplers,

tuner

HPR or reprocess

Horizontal Testing

Cold String Assembly

Pass!

Pass!

Fail!

Fail!

Plan… Develop in labs then transfer technology to industry

Office of Science


Infrastructure M&S SWF Total with

Indirect

Cavity Fabrication Infrastructure $ 3,000 $ 675 $ 4,380 Cavity Processing Facilities $ 11,100 $ 4,590 $ 18,945 Vertical Test Stand (VTS 2 & 3) $ 2,625 $ 1,845 $ 5,475 Horizontal Test Stand (HTS 2) $ 1,220 $ 1,057 $ 2,805 Cavity/Cryomodule Assembly Facilties (CAF_MP9 & ICB) $ 690 $ 270 $ 1,158 NML Facility (ILCTA_NML) $ 18,270 $ 23,220 $ 51,700 Cryogenics for Test Facilities $ 10,690 $ 950 $ 13,692 Cryomodule Test Stand $ 5,400 $ 2,970 $ 10,180 Material R&D $ 870 $ 722 $ 1,960 Illinois Accelerator Research Center $ 20,000 $ 4,050 $ 28,605

Grand Total ($k) $ 73,865 $ 40,349 $ 138,900


FNAL SCRF Review Feb. 13-14. Develop the infrastructure needed to advance SCRF capability in US for broader use in new DOE facilities. A multiyear proposal for materials R&D, cavity fabrication, processing, testing, cryomodule tests, string tests. Funds for industrialization not included.

Recommendations: more engagement with other SCRF centers; attention to industrialization plan; raise priority of cavity processing facility.

Office of Science


Total M&S Cost with Indirects = $89,300

FY07 funds to finish VTS1, HTS1,…Not included in White Paper request

Technically limited

More real?


Office of Science


US specific activitiesUS specific activities

SCRF Industrialization:

Funds are needed to bring industry up to speed in SC cavity and cryomodule fabrication and test. Estimate (FNAL) was $5.5M in FY08 and FY09.

Site characterization:

ILC R&D funds must cover US site-specific effort – geological studies, environmental impact, site layout etc. GDE/FNAL estimates US site-specific need: $59M for Title I, and $137M for Title II, spread over several years (out to FY2012).

Also need some GDE sample site work – design shallow tunnel site, value engineering, etc. ($30M)

LCSGA subpanel (S. Ozaki chair) has considered these needs and advised on priorities and budget profile. ART has folded these recommendations into the overall budget guidance.

Office of Science


Generic detector R&DGeneric detector R&D

US detector R&D lags behind that in Europe, Japan

FY2006 funding: ~$5.5M at labs; $1.35M at universities (DOE $1.05M, NSF $0.3M).

New FNAL test beam; losing SLAC test beam (SABER transfer line?)

Funding in Japan has increased in past year. Eurodet in Europe for next 3 years.

Analysis from end 2005

Office of Science


Detector R&DDetector R&D

Planning detector R&D program is less advanced than for accelerator.

Asked for US R&D plan (goals, milestones, resource needs) coordinating labs and universities. DOE/NSF review June 19, 20. Expect request of ~$15M per year. University grants via Oregon umbrella.

Global detector R&D program is being reviewed by WWS (with GDE RDB observing) – gather information, give advice on coordinating and prioritizing the program. Tracking detectors in Beijing (Feb.); Calorimetry in Hamburg (June); Vertex detectors in FNAL (October); Muon/PID/LEP next year.

‘Supplemental requests’ for FY2007 totalling $1.5M. These provide deliverable hardware for tests in beam and labs. Still hope to fund about $0.8M of these. Also, third year of umbrella grant funds at universities: hoped to do at $2M level, will now scale back to last year level of ~$1.2M. Need help in finding FY2007 detector R&D funds (Not on the explicit ILC line).

Office of Science


Detector conceptsDetector concepts

The reference design provides for two detectors, moving on or off the IP in about 1 week (and several month intervals). The experimental community remains nervous about this arrangement, but it was supported by the ILCSC parameters group.

Four detector concepts have emerged (Detector Reference Document to come will summarize). LCD – TPC based tracking, SiW EM calorimeter;

GLD – TPC based tracking, Scintillator cal; largest concept SiD – silicon based tracking; fine grained SiW EM cal; smallest 4th – TPC, compensating coarse grain calorimeter, no flux return Fe

Transition from generic to full concept detectors is not well planned; concepts have more regional flavor than desirable. Detector effort is not incorporated into GDE, so no central management of process (e.g. transition from 4 to 2 detectors).

Office of Science


Actual Expected Proposed Request

MACHINE AREA FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Lab program direction and administration $2,892 $2,792 $3,300 $4,000

Management $1,039 $1,009 $1,400 $2,500

Global systems $1,158 $2,649 $5,600 $7,000

Electron sources $658 $793 $1,400 $3,000

Positron sources $1,988 $1,521 $2,300 $4,800

Damping rings $2,156 $1,994 $3,000 $6,500

Ring to Main Linac $214 $253 $500 $1,500

Main Linacs: Optics, instrumentation $1,096 $716 $2,500 $3,600

Main Linacs: RF systems $4,311 $7,555 $9,000 $14,800

Main Linacs: Cavities and Cryomodules $7,344 $13,252 $12,500 $16,300

Beam delivery system $2,883 $2,336 $4,500 $6,600

Conventional facilities $1,042 $845 $1,200 $1,500

Regional interest (siting only) $1,032 $2,800 $5,800

RDR/TDR engineering $1,665 $2,588 (in above) (in above)

Univ Program + Reserve $1,254 $2,366 $4,000 $5,100

TOTAL ILC line $29,700 $41,700 $54,000 $83,000

Detectors $2,000 $6,000 $7,000

SRF Infrastructure & Industrialization $12,000 $4,900 $23,400 $45,000

Overall total: ILC+SRF $41,700 $48,600 $83,400 $135,000

ART R&D/SCRF current ART R&D/SCRF current requestrequest

Office of Science


My synthesis of R&D, EDR design, My synthesis of R&D, EDR design, US-specific profileUS-specific profile

R&D / technical design (in AY$M)

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 TOT R&D

Administration and program mgmt 3.5 4.7 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 35.7

Global systems 2.9 5.6 7.0 7.0 3.0 3.0 28.5

Electron source 0.8 1.4 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 9.2

Positron source 1.6 2.3 4.8 5.0 2.0 2.0 17.7

Damping rings 2.1 3.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 29.6

Ring to ML 0.2 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.2

Main linac optics, instrumentation 0.7 2.5 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 15.8

RF power 7.9 9.0 14.8 13.0 15.0 30.0 89.7

Cavities and cryomodules 14.7 12.5 16.3 40.0 51.0 100.0 234.5

Beam delivery system 2.5 4.5 6.6 7.0 7.0 10.0 37.6

Generic civil and facilities 0.8 1.2 1.5 19.0 1.0 2.0 25.5

US site activities 1.0 2.8 5.8 30.0 70.0 116.0 225.6

Civil &facilities (global+US site) 1.8 4.0 7.3 49.0 71.0 118.0 251.1

Detectors 6.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 58.0

Reserve 3.3 4.0 5.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 42.4

TOTAL ILC R&D + design 42.0 60.0 90.0 160.0 192.0 311.0 855.0

$544M

Office of Science


Comments on proposed ILC R&D Comments on proposed ILC R&D planplan

The plan is predicated on a FY2013 start of construction funding.

FY2009 ILC R&D up to $90M as in guidance.

Major expenditure areas grow as project nears: Civil construction (incl. US site), cavities and cryomodules, RF power, detector R&D.

Other areas increase moderately with time as R&D and design effort ramps up to a plateau.

FY2012 accelerator is probably all PED. In that year, I put in a substantial increase in cavity and cryomodules and reduced the corresponding ‘Industrialization’ line under SCRF (below).

Integrated (FY2007 to FY2012) ILC line R&D funding:ILC accelerator R&D (2007 – 11): $364M (cf EPP2010 $300 - $500M)

ILC accelerator PED (2012): $165M

US site development: $226M

Detector R&D: $58M

Office of Science


$M

$5M

Many ILC areas ramp up to a plateau in preparation for the construction

phase.

Profile for smaller accelerator Profile for smaller accelerator areasareas

Office of Science


Profile for ILC major Profile for ILC major areasareas

$M

$100M

Includes final industrialization

The cost drivers for construction have a significant ramp in the PED

phase.

Office of Science


FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 TOTAL

SCRF Infrastructure 20.4 45.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 150.4

SCRF Industrialization 3.0 8.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 46.0

TOTAL SCRF infrastruct/industry 23.4 53.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 196.4

Superconducting rf lineSuperconducting rf line

Based on FNAL-proposed SCRF work to develop test facilities needed to develop ILC capability and provide infrastructure for future SC facilities.

Industrialization estimate from FNAL, extrapolated to out years; FY2012 industrialization captured on ILC line under cavities/cryomodules.

Placeholder $10M > FY2013

$30M

* Should SCRF management be divorced from ART?

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012

Office of Science


Profile: R&D, SCRF, PED, projectProfile: R&D, SCRF, PED, project

(Same plot as shown earlier)

$M

$1000M

Office of Science


ILC – proposed vs. SC guidanceILC – proposed vs. SC guidance$

M

ILC R&D proposed tracks guidance until FY2010. Effect of FY2011 and 2012 shortfall is hard to quantify – it depends on success of prior year R&D, and on worldwide effort.

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

∫ $ dt = $510M

in guidance.

∫ $ dt = $562M

in PG version.

07

11

11

07

Office of Science


SCRF – proposed vs. SC SCRF – proposed vs. SC guidanceguidance

SCRF budget is significantly lower than guidance; integral proposed to 2011 is $181M; guidance integral is $96M. At guidance level, based on SCRF review at Fermilab, the US would not obtain string test facility with beam injected. With SCRF line guidance, have to integrate to 2016 to reach $181M.

The string test facility is not needed 3 places in the world. But there should be one at

the host site, so each region plans such a facility to position itself as a potential site.

Failing to provide string test capability at Fermilab would jeopardize the US bid to host.

Stretching SCRF delays ability to validate ILC design.

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

$M

Office of Science


Stretch-out savings ?Stretch-out savings ?

Suppose that we stretch out the end of the R&D phase from 2011 to 2015 (thus the year of PED ramp-up is 2016).

Keep the integral of SWF fixed, but slower ramp up (I took SWF = 55% of total) but take into account inflation.

Don’t worry now about the SCRF and ILC division (it requires some transfer from ILC to SCRF infrastructure).

Evaluate how much savings relative to SC guidance is generated, assuming that the integral of M&S need (the other 45% of total) remains fixed.

ANSWER: Nothing (actual savings in my exercise was $15M, but that would be eaten by inflation).

INTERPRETATION: The guidance profile and the GDE/ART/PG estimates of need for ILC R&D and SCRF do not allow savings for ‘new interim initiatives’.

Office of Science


International issuesInternational issues

ILCSC has oversight responsibility for GDE (International review, parameters specification, Machine Advisory Committee etc.)

FALC discusses, promotes international cooperation – no management).

OMB stipulated that there should be international agreement for GDE EDR phase. FALC includes ‘work towards …’ in Terms of reference.

GDE needs more formal authority to execute MoUs for EDR work packages and coordinate the effort. Best if FALC could generate an international agreement for R&D phase over next 3 – 4 years. Some discussion of trying to do this via bilateral agreements.

Putting a site proposal and selection process is becoming critical.Getting international agreements and site process is

becoming the most critical issue for ILC progress.

Office of Science


Backups

Office of Science


ILC Technically Limited Timeline (GDE ‘plan’)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Global Design Effort Project

Baseline configuration

Reference Design

ILC R&D Program

Technical Design

Expression of Interest to Host

International Mgmt

LHC results: offramp opportunity

Office of Science


Cost information

Tesla TDR, and the subsequent US Options study report, give some indication of the expected cost. Translated into US accounting, all manpower, escalation, contingency, two tunnels, and detectors brings the Tesla estimate to $10 - $13B, depending on potential cost savings.

Experience shows that 10-20% of TEC should be spent in R&D phase (including PED?). By this rule of thumb, 15% translates to $400 – 800M on R&D in each region if this phase is equally shared across regions

Office of Science


2. R&D issues – cavities and cryomodules

The cost drivers for ILC are the main linac cavities and cryomodules, the rf delivery system, and the civil construction (tunnels and infrastructure).

1. Cavities and cryomodules:

The BCD acceptance criterion for cavities is 35 MV/m. The ILC will operate at EACC = 31.5 MV/M (10% operating margin).

A few cavities of this gradient have been fabricated for DESY; uniformity is not good (~30% spread);

Alternate designs (KEK, Cornell) with larger accelerating gradient (lower B at Nb surface) exist for single cell cavities (45 – 52 MV/m) ; however higher EACC comes with higher E field at Nb surface, hence more worry about field emission and dark current (radiation and cryo load).

The cost optimization curve vs. EACC is rather shallow; minimum around 40 MV/m is only a few % lower in cost than the 31.5 MV/m BCD.

Transfering the cavity production and processing to industry is key issue.

Office of Science


Optimize cost vs. gradient

2

0

$ lincryo

a Gb

G Q

C. Adolphsen / SLAC

Gradient (MV/m)

Relative cost

Office of Science


Need for improved cavity processing and reproducibility

TESLA cavities – grey after chemical polishing; black after electropolishing. Spread in gradient is too large.

Would like to get to ~10% spread; need work on processing control

Office of Science


R&D issues – cavities and cryomodules

A significant cost for cavities arises from the complex conditioning procedure – buffered chemical processing, high pressure rinse, ultrapure water rinse & electropolishing (not well understood). R&D to understand and limit the need for these steps is desirable so as to reduce costs. (Fermilab, ANL, JLab, Cornell)

Large grain Nb may allow reduced processing time – many surface issues seem related to grain boundaries. This is high priority R&D (JLab, FNAL)

High volume cavity production capability has not yet been achieved; it is probably necessary to fabricate the full set of cavities (~20,000) in all three regions. (Fermilab)

The cryomodule (eight 9-cell cavities) mechanical design needs to be redone; issues are the overall length, higher order mode beam monitors, quadrupole insertions, mechanical rigidity. (Fermilab)

Office of Science


R&D issues – rf power systems

There is one modulator (ac to dc converter) and one klystron (rf power amplifier) for every three cryomodules (24 cavities).

Klystron pulse is 1.5 ms at 10 MW. Three vendors exist but existing klystrons show breakdown at high power. Klystron R&D needs to be pushed more than it is at present.

BCD choice for modulator is switched capacitor design; large, prone to failure. An alternate Marx generator design holds promise for more reliability and lower cost (SLAC, LLNL R&D).

Klystron costs are high; need close interaction with industry to bring down cost. Long term project needed.

Office of Science


Test facilities

There need to be several large scale test facilities worldwide. Coordination is difficult because they also serve national needs that GDE does not take as its responsibility.

At present, each region is planning on such facilities for the basic main linac components – cavities, cryomodules, rf power. STF at KEK, TTF/XFEL at DESY, ILCTA at FNAL. Is this duplicative? Given the likely need to produce cavities in all regions, it may not be. In any case, each region wants to develop its SRF capabilities.

The US community believes that developing a mature SRF capability is key to making a credible bid to host.

Developing industrial capability is a key part of the US specific test activity.

Some part of the test facility development supports national priorities, and will buttress an eventual bid to host.

Office of Science


Test facilities, US bid to host

Potential test facilities:

Cavity tests in horizontal and vertical dewars, cryomodules, cryomodule strings – feedback on surface preparation, gradient reproducibility, reliability of operation, beam tests to study dark current, cryo loading etc. There should be a ‘string test’ of 1-2% of the full system.

Damping ring studies – low emittance preservation, instabilities, kickers, diagnostics, low level rf systems. Perhaps Cornell/NSF??

Klystron/modulator tests: SLAC has klystron test, not clear new need

Final focus studies (KEK ATF 2 aims at this.)

Without US capability in SRF production and testing, the US credibility as host would be impaired. US industry participation in the SC RF subsystems is a strong motivation in getting the support of Congress. ILC will likely need all three regions to produce cavities and cryomodules.

Office of Science


Worldwide spending – accelerators – 2006

In Europe, CARE, EuroTeV, national budgets are roughly at the US level. The numbers for Europe have not yet been disentangled from generic R&D and CLIC etc. Handling of SWF is not converted properly to US practice yet.

In Asia, information only exists for KEK. They do not include SWF, travel, Japanese expenditures in industry, or non-Japanese funding.

The qualitative impression is that for FY06, the regional expenditures are roughly comparable.

Funds for the Reference Design Report and cost estimating (engineering expertise) outside the US seem to be in short supply. This is a problem for GDE at present.

Office of Science


PG estimate of R&D need

FY R&D Bid host Test fac. Industr. Detect. Mgmt Total

2006 $29 $1 $30

2007 $40 $3 $15 $10 $10 $1 $79

2008 $45 $4 $25 $22 $15 $2 $113

2009 $45 $4 $15 $40 $15 $4 $123

2010 $40 $4 $10 $90 $15 $4 $163

2011 $40 $10 $20 $120 $15 $4 $209

total $239 $25 $85 $282 $70 $16 $717

Office of Science


PG Guess at need for FY07 – FY11

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

1 2 3 4 5 6

Managemnt

Detector

Industry

Test Fac.

Civil

R&D

FY06 FY08 FY09 FY10FY07 FY11

Office of Science


R&D profile comparison

The OMB profile falls short of the ‘desired’ in the critical years FY07 to FY09

FY06 FY08 FY09 FY10FY07 FY11

Desired profile integral = $717M

OMB profile integral = $585M

Office of Science


Budget impact on schedule

The ‘desired’ budget is consistent with having technical information and cost available in 2010 for a decision by governments to approve the ILC project. The detailed negotiation and establishing the organization would follow immediately. Given the time required to let contracts for tunnels, major technical systems, this would translate to construction start in 2012.

We estimate an 8 year construction period, so completion in ~2020.

The approximate impact of the OMB outyear guidance is to delay the technical readiness demonstration by about 1 year to permit a construction start in ~2013.

Office of Science


Detector R&D in FY06

We have advice from Laboratories on detector R&D spending in FY06

SWF ($K) M&S ($K)

SLAC 2007 460

FNAL 1635 420

ANL 355 150

LBNL 335 145

BNL 100 0

TOTAL 4332 1175

O’hds included

SWF ($K) M&S ($K)

DOE University 525 175

NSF University 88 30

Total University 613 205

University detector R&D

SWF/M&S splits are guesses

5507 total

818 total DOE+NSF

Office of Science


Preliminary & confidential detector R&D spending in various nations

High priority needs for detector R&D over the next 3 – 5 years (Damerell report). ‘Established’ funding that is thought to be in hand (dark blue), and the ‘total’ thought needed (light blue).

M&S FTE’s$10M 600

Office of Science


Detector R&D

There are two main areas of high priority need for detector R&D in the US, and worldwide.

Energy flow calorimetry tests and simulations: ILC calorimeters seek to measure charged particles by tracking and subtract charged particle energy deposits in the calorimeter. It requires fine segmentation and new algorithms to separate charged and neutral.

Vertex detectors are key to physics such as Higgs branching ratios, searches for new phenomena. They need to be kept thin (multiple scattering) and highly segmented and multiplexed. EM interference from the beam fields is an issue.

Both these high priority programs need high quality test beams. It would be good if Fermilab can provide this, and thus become the center for ongoing ILC R&D.

Other identified but unfunded needs are R&D on forward tracking (not presently covered) and particle ID.

Office of Science


Next steps for detector R&D

Test beam demonstration of particle flow calorimetry technique – so far its all on paper!

Establish choices for vertex detector technology – winnow the 10 candidates down to a few most promising.

Develop and test the new GEM/micromega detectors for TPC readout.

Test beam studies and make choices for detector technology for hadron calorimetry – RPC’s, scintillator tiles, GEMs. Experimental study of digital vs. analog hadron calorimetry.

Building the detectors takes almost as long as accelerator; should plan to have firm technical designs by end of decade.

Office of Science


5. Governmental activities – FALC and beyond

Funding Agencies for Linear Collider (FALC) formed in 2003

Typically Science Minister level, but variable (from DOE, Orbach and Staffin; NSF is Turner).

Nations involved:

US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, CERN (for smaller CERN member states), Japan, Korea, India, (China).

Roberto Petronzio of INFN Italy is the current chair.

FALC formed the FALC Resources Group to conduct more detailed discussions and fact finding.

ILCSC chair now sits on FALC and FALC RG; FALC Res. Gp. invited to ILCSC to give coordination. ILCSC (not FALC) is the responsible body for GDE oversight.

Office of Science


Toward ILC organization and site

Site and organization are interrelated – each action requires some input from the other.

Need an identified site to establish a real project cost.

Real cost and site are needed to engage governments in decision to proceed.

Thus propose a stepwise process:

a) Interim international ILC organization (FALC successor) to oversee GDE during the R&D and technical design phase – no commitment yet to project, but international agreement to pursue the R&D.

b) Develop the procedure for proposing and selecting site; aim for site selection (or 2) by 2008 if possible (to keep TDR pace).

c) Prepare final design & cost estimate based on proposed site, commit to ILC project with international agreement in ~2010 – 11. Construction start in 2012. (Consistent with technical schedule and cost profile above.)

Office of Science


Toward ILC organization and site

The ITER agreement is a good template for ILC organization. It has the advantage of being agreed to by many of the potential ILC partners (EU, US, Russia, Japan, India, Korea, China).

ITER provisions for the legal basis of the organization, personnel policy, financial sharing arrangements (not the details), intellectual property can be taken over with little change.

Different national shares for construction and operations.

Propose a Council to oversee ILC, with equal number of regional representative nations. (Not all nations – Labs or Consortia would not be on Council at any time). It may be necessary to establish regional councils to satisfy regional differences for selecting Council representation, adjusting intra-regional contributions …

A procedure for site proposals and selections should be put in place by FALC by 2007. Final technical design depends on knowing site.

Office of Science


Issues for US bid to host

Visa access for foreign nationals – those working directly for the ILC organization, those seconded by their government, experimental users, family members – must be rationalized. The visa issue is a strong concern of our potential partners in choosing a US site.

Work permits for spouses/partners of foreign nationals. Getting the best people often requires opportunity for spouses to work.

Relationship between ILC Laboratory and host lab (FNAL) needs to be regularized so as not to damage the fabric of either entity. There should not be large salary disparities. Arrangements for sharing infrastructure – shops, guest services, procurement departments – must be spelled out.

The norm is for international organization employees to pay no tax in the host country. Requires negotiation.

Waiver of customs on in-kind contributions.

Office of Science


Summary – International Organization

The ILC progress requires some effort now by potential international partners (through FALC):

Establish an interim organization to manage GDE though the R&D and TDR phase.

Establish predicted levels of R&D funding

Establish procedure for site proposals and selection process.

Dedicated US effort should be focussed on the US bid to host activities. LCSGA is undertaking a task force to prepare integrated national proposal.

Office of Science


Next steps for organization

By mid-2007, establish an intgerim oversight organization for GDE by funding agencies. Presumably this is done by an interagency MoU.

By early 2007, establish the timeline and procedure for site selection that aims at fixing two sites by early 2008 and a final site (subject to later project approval) by late 2008.

Office of Science


Backups

Documents

The ILC Program