The ILC Program

1. Paul Grannis March 14, 2006 The ILC Program 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.

2. Outline • GDE Reference Design & cost estimate (3 – 12) • Global R&D program (13 – 18) • US R&D and regional interests (19 – 26) • Detector R&D (27 – 29) • Multiyear R&D/SCRF plan (30 – 39) (the main message) • International organization (40)

3. GDE Organization Mike Harrison will replace Dugan on May 1 as ART director GDE has ~65 members, equally from Asia, Europe and Americas Barish, director Dugan, Raubenheimer Willis, chair Garbincius, chair Phinney, chair US scientists play key roles in the ILC

4. GDE Organization 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

5. Design changes for cost control Single e+ target; combine e- source pre-accel’s ($80M) Simplify RTML ($150M) One IR with 14 mrad crossing – Two detectors push/pull. Remove 2nd muon wall. ($410M) Electron source and damping rings from ends to central complex ($180M) One positron damping ring. Reduced rf in DR; consolidate layout for civil constr. savings ($250M) Modify rf unit – 24 → 26 cavities. Reduce rf and cryo static load overheads ($220M) 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…

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

7. Value by area system Maroon shaded areas are the civil construction components.

8. Value by technical/global system Confidential – contains vendor sensitive information

9. Manpower distribution “management” captures SWF overheads

10. OHEP (PG) value estimate conversion Please keep confidential • 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) ‼ Not a detailed value to cost translation (should do overheads, ‼‼ contingencies, escalation factors by work packages. ‼

11. OHEP conversion of value estimate Above costs are TEC, not TPC. Table does not include $AY442M for detectors; graph does. $1000M then yr M$ R&D and PED (see later)

12. GDE 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.

13. Global 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.

14. Global 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.

15. R&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

16. S0 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. Plan: 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. ← more tunnel, cavities more cryogenic plant → EDR gradient choice by mid 2009. If drop gradient to XFEL value, ILC cost up 7%.

17. S0 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.

18. Other 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.

19. US 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).

20. US R&D project organization For FY2008, re-organize to WBS structure with WBS managers prioritizing and managing each WBS level 2 project. WBSx.y 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) 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 US is active in every ILC area system.

21. US 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. 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.

22. ART R&D planning – example 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

23. Fail! Cavity Fabrication SurfaceProcessing Vertical Testing Fail! Pass! Horizontal Testing HPR orreprocess He Vessel, couplers, tuner Pass! Cold String Assembly SCRF infrastructure – FNAL plan Plan… Develop in labs then transfer technology to industry

24. SCRF infrastructure – FNAL plan 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.

25. SCRF infrastructure – FNAL plan More real? Technically limited FY07 funds to finish VTS1, HTS1,… Not included in White Paper request Total M&S Cost with Indirects = $89,300

26. US 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.

27. Generic detector R&D US detector R&D lags behind that in Europe, Japan Analysis from end 2005 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.

28. Detector 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).

29. Detector 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).

30. ART R&D/SCRF current request

31. My synthesis of R&D, EDR design, US-specific profile $544M

32. Comments on proposed ILC R&D plan 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

33. Profile for smaller accelerator areas Many ILC areas ramp up to a plateau in preparation for the construction phase. $M $5M

34. Profile for ILC major areas The cost drivers for construction have a significant ramp in the PED phase. $M Includes final industrialization $100M

35. Superconducting 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 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 * Should SCRF management be divorced from ART?

36. Profile: R&D, SCRF, PED, project (Same plot as shown earlier) $M $1000M

37. ILC – proposed vs. SC guidance 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. 11 ∫ $ dt = $510M in guidance. ∫ $ dt = $562M in PG version. 07 11 $M 07 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

38. SCRF – proposed vs. SC guidance 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. $M FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

39. 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’.

40. International 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.

41. Backups

42. ILC Technically Limited Timeline (GDE ‘plan’) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Global Design Effort Project Baseline configuration LHC results: offramp opportunity Reference Design Technical Design ILC R&D Program Expression of Interest to Host International Mgmt

43. 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

44. 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). • 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.

45. Optimize cost vs. gradient Relative cost Gradient (MV/m) C. Adolphsen / SLAC

46. 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

47. 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)

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. 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.