1 / 45

CLIC Overview

CLIC Overview. Andrea Latina (APC/FNAL) for the CLIC/CTF3 Collaboration June 10, 2009 - Low Emittance Muon Collider Workshop, FNAL. Outline. Introduction Physics Case Linear Colliders CLIC Introduction and main challenges The two beam accelerator scheme CLIC technological issues

wilmet
Download Presentation

CLIC Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CLIC Overview Andrea Latina (APC/FNAL) for the CLIC/CTF3 Collaboration June 10, 2009 - Low Emittance Muon Collider Workshop, FNAL

  2. Outline • Introduction • Physics Case • Linear Colliders • CLIC • Introduction and main challenges • The two beam accelerator scheme • CLIC technological issues • CTF3 – CLIC Test Facility • Recent achievements • Summary

  3. High Energy Physics after LHC ICFA: International Commitee for Future Accelerators

  4. Linear Collider e+e- Physics • Higgs physics • Tevatron/LHC should discover Higgs (or something else) • LC explores its properties in detail • Supersymmetry • LC will complement the LHC particle spectrum • Extra spatial dimensions • New strong interactions • . . . => a lot of new territory to discoverbeyond the standard model • Energy can be crucial for discovery • “Physics at the CLIC Multi-TeV Linear Collider”CERN-2004-005 • “ILC Reference Design Report – Vol.2 – Physics at the ILC” www.linearcollider.org/rdr

  5. Linear versus Circular Colliders Linear Collider • One-pass acceleration+collision • RF used only once • Particles dumped at each collision  need high acceleration gradient  need small beam sizes at IP Storage Rings • Acceleration+collision every turn • “re-use” RF • “re-use” particles  efficient  Synchrotron Radiation Losses Luminosity  Event rate ~40MHz ~10 Hz nb = bunches/train N = particles per bunch frep = repetition frequency x,y = sizes of the beam at IP HD = beam-beam enhancement factor ~1034 cm-2 s-1 m2 nm2

  6. Main Challenges for a LC • High Ecm : long linac / high gradients • nanometer beam sizes at the Interaction Point • Small emittance generation and preservation e • Stabilization and Final Focusing

  7. pulsed RF Power source RF load d 1st challenge: High Gradients Main linac • Super conducting SW cavities : high efficiency, long pulse, gradient ~35 MV/m, but long filling time • Normal conducting cavities : high gradients (with traveling wave structures), high frequency, short filling time, short pulse RF ‘flows’ with group velocity vG along the structure into a load at the structure exit

  8. 2nd challenge: interaction point beam sizes IP In order to maximize the luminosity we need very small beam sizes at the interaction point and a flat beam (picture from A. Seryi, ILC@SLAC) (values for CLIC, 11/2008 ) 1 Vertical size is smallest 45 44000

  9. 3nd challenge: emittance e Damping Rings Source Beam Delivery Main linac RTML Key concept in linear colliders: Generation and preservation of very small emittance! Generation of small emittances: synchrotron radiation damping -> damping rings Preservation of small emittances: precision alignment and steering, limitation of collective effects (synchrotron radiation, wake fields) RMS beam size Beam quality Lattice

  10. CLIC: Compact Linear Collider Goals of the study: Key parameters:

  11. ~20 km CLIC at different energies Linac 1 I.P. Linac 2 0.5 TeV Stage Injector Complex 4 km 4 km ~14 km 1 TeV Stage Linac 1 I.P. Linac 2 Injector Complex 7.0 km 7.0 km 3 TeV Stage Linac 1 I.P. Linac 2 Injector Complex 3 km 3 km 20.8 km 20.8 km 48.2 km

  12. CLIC schematic layout @ 3 TeV Drive beam

  13. The CLIC Two-Beam Accelerator DRIVE BEAM main beam 1 A, 156 ns 9 GeV - 1.5 TeV PROBE BEAM

  14. Why a two-beam scheme? • Luminosity scales as wall-plug-to-beam efficiency. Need to obtain: high-gradientacceleration and efficient energy transfer. • High-frequency RF maximizes the electric field in the RF cavities for a given stored energy. • However, standard RF sources scale unfavorably to high frequencies, both in for maximum delivered power and efficiency. • A way to overcome such a drawback is to use standard low-frequency RF sources to accelerate the drive beam and then use it to produce RF power at high frequency. • The drive beam is therefore used for intermediate energy storage.  Luminosity

  15. Short RF Pulses PA = P0 N1 tA = t0 / N2 nA = n0 N3 Electron beam manipulation Power compression Frequency multiplication Long RF Pulses P0 , n0 , t0 ‘few’ Klystrons Low frequency High efficiency Power stored in electron beam Power extracted from beam in resonant structures Accelerating Structures High Frequency – High field Drive Beam Idea • Very high gradients possible with NC accelerating structures at high RF frequencies (30 GHz → 12 GHz) • Extract required high RF power from an intense e- “drive beam” • Generate efficiently long beam pulse and compress it (in power + frequency)

  16. Two Beams scheme

  17. CLIC acceleration system

  18. Why 100 MV/m at 12 GHz?

  19. Accelerating structures

  20. Best Result so far..

  21. Power Extraction Transfer Structures - PETS

  22. CLIC Accelerating Module

  23. Getting the Luminosity (>2 x1034 cm-2s-1)

  24. Low emittance generation Many other issues besides intra-beam scattering : fast-ion instability and e-cloud (being mitigated using different coating for the vacuum chamber, tests at CESR-TA summer 2009), wiggler design..

  25. Damping Ring Emittances

  26. Rings to Main Linac • RTML includes: • BC1 stage: bunch length from 5 mm to 1.5 mm at 2.4 GeV • Booster linac from 2.4 to 9 GeV • Transfer line and turnaround loops • BC2 stage: from 1.5 mm to 44 microm • => max 5 nm vertical emittance growth is allowed 20 km booster First partcle tracking through the complete system

  27. Emittance Preservation in the Main Linac Vertical emittance growth bugdet is 10 nm

  28. Emittance Preservation in the ML Example for cavity misalignment • Cavities misaligned - sy = 100 μm rms - sy’ = 100 μradrms - no quadrupole misalignments • Final cavity position distribution - sy = 85 μm rms • Alignment method 1. one-to-one correction 2. structure alignment 3. repeat from 1. three times

  29. Static Imperfections in the ML

  30. Beam Delivery System Optics design for the 3 TeV option (alternative design for 0.5 TeV exists)

  31. Interaction Region

  32. Final Focus QD0 Stabilization QD0 must be stabilized to 0.15 nm for frequencies above 4 Hz

  33. Active Stabilization Studies B. Bolzon, L. Brunetti, N. Geffroy and A. Jeremie 0.13 nm have been reached in laboratory, the challenge remains to prove 0.15 nm within the detector

  34. Conceptual Design Report (CDR) - end 2010 The CLIC CDR should address the critical points: • Accelerating structures at 100 MV/m • Power Extraction and Transfer Structures (PETS) • Generation of the 100 A drive beam with 12 GHz bunch frequency • meeting the phase, energy and intensity stability tolerances • Main beam low emittances • Stabilization of main quads. to 1nm and FD quads to 0.15nm (freqs>4 Hz) • Machine protection issues => Test facilities at CERN: CTF3 / CLEX

  35. CTF3: Drive Beam Test-Bench Drive beam

  36. CLIC R&D issues: CTF3/CLEX CTF3 is a small scale version of the CLIC drive beam complex: • Provide the RF power to test the CLIC accelerating structures and components • Full beam-loading accelerator operation • Electron beam pulse compression and frequency multiplication • Safe and stable beam deceleration and power extraction • High power two beam acceleration scheme

  37. Current Status of CTF3

  38. CLEX building Two Beam Test Stand (University Uppsala) June 2008 June 2006 September 2006 Probe Beam linac Jan 2008 Jan 2008 June 2008 Equipment installed (except TBL), Beam foreseen from June 2008 EPAC 2008 CLIC / CTF3 G.Geschonke, CERN 39

  39. CTF3: full beam loading

  40. Delay Loop

  41. Combiner Rings

  42. CTF3: x 4 combination in CR

  43. CTF3: Power Extraction and Recirculation • The first 12 GHz PETS was tested with BEAM in November and December last year • Recirculation of the output field was used, to produce more power from the 5A CTF3 current • 30 MW of RF power were generated (plot shows 25 MW) • RF signal was reproduced using BPM intensity signal • PETS shows excellent behaviour and agreed with design performance • This also means that the this is a very good test-bench to test PETS in two-beam acceleration

  44. LHC results Summary • Excellent progress towards the CLIC CDR (2010) • Technical program is on track • but lots of work still to be done. • Challenging work and tight schedule!

  45. The CTF3 – CLIC world wide collaboration 28 institutes involving 18 funding agencies from 16 countries Ankara University (Turkey) BINP (Russia) CERN CIEMAT (Spain) Cockcroft Institute (UK) Gazi Universities (Turkey) IRFU/Saclay (France) JLAB (USA) Karlsruhe University (Germany) KEK (Japan) LAL/Orsay (France) LAPP/ESIA (France) NCP (Pakistan) North-West. Univ. Illinois (USA) Oslo University (Norway) PSI (Switzerland), Polytech. University of Catalonia (Spain) RRCAT-Indore (India) Royal Holloway, Univ. London, (UK) SLAC (USA) Uppsala University (Sweden) Helsinki Institute of Physics (Finland) IAP (Russia) IAP NASU (Ukraine) Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular (Spain) INFN / LNF (Italy) J.Adams Institute, (UK) JINR (Russia) EPAC 2008 CLIC / CTF3 G.Geschonke, CERN 46

More Related