for the CLIC Study team and CLIC Collaboration CLIC machine summary and future prospects status J.P.Delahaye/CERN for the CLIC Study team and CLIC Collaboration

LCWS11 very timely for CLIC @ Transition Phase Completion of first phase (2004-2011) towards CLIC technology feasibility study and Conceptual Design Report Launch of new phase (2012-2016) towards preparation of CLIC Project Implementation Plan (PIP)

(Lisbon, July 2006) T.Nakada ECFA chair & Scientific Secret. EU PP strategy.

CLIC mission @ CERN Council (March 04) Council’s summary of conclusions: CERN/2554 In line with the conclusion of the SPC (CERN/2552), the Council expressed strong support for accelerating the R&D on CLIC Recommendation of a world-wide multi-lateral collaboration of volunteer institutes for tests of feasibility of the CLIC concept for Multi-TeV Linear Collider to arrive before 2010 at a firm conclusion on its possible use Major goal: R&D of most appropriate technology to extend linear colliders into Multi-TeV energy range Exploration up to 3 TeV beam collision energy Max energy chosen without any strong Physics motivation Compatible with LHC energy range (about 2 TeV) with margin High enough to identify the limits of scheme & technology

CLIC study present phase towards (more than) a Conceptual Design Demonstrate feasibility of novel CLIC technology Address all feasibility issues Design of a (staged) Multi-TeV Linear Collider based on CLIC technology: http://clic-study.web.cern.ch/CLIC-Study/Design.htm CLIC Physics study and detector development: http://clic-meeting.web.cern.ch/clic-meeting/CLIC_Phy_Study_Website/default.html Estimation of its cost (capital investment & operation) Conceptual Design Report (CDR) including: Physics, Accelerator and Detectors R&D on critical issues and results of feasibility study, Preliminary performance and cost estimation LCD project L.Linssen

World-wide CLIC&CTF3 Collaboration http://clic-meeting.web.cern.ch/clic-meeting/CTF3_Coordination_Mtg/Table_MoU.htm CLIC multi-lateral collaboration 42 41 Institutes from 21 countries Chairman:K.Peach, Spokesperson:RCorsini ACAS (Australia) Aarhus University (Denmark) Ankara University (Turkey) Argonne National Laboratory (USA) Athens University (Greece) BINP (Russia) CERN CIEMAT (Spain) Cockcroft Institute (UK) ETHZurich (Switzerland) FNAL (USA) Gazi Universities (Turkey) John Adams Institute/RHUL (UK) JINR (Russia) Karlsruhe University (Germany) KEK (Japan) LAL / Orsay (France) LAPP / ESIA (France) NIKHEF/Amsterdam (Netherland) NCP (Pakistan) North-West. Univ. Illinois (USA) Patras University (Greece) Polytech. University of Catalonia (Spain) PSI (Switzerland) RAL (UK) RRCAT / Indore (India) SLAC (USA) Thrace University (Greece) Tsinghua University (China) University of Oslo (Norway) Uppsala University (Sweden) UCSC SCIPP (USA) Helsinki Institute of Physics (Finland) IAP (Russia) IAP NASU (Ukraine) IHEP (China) INFN / LNF (Italy) Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular (Spain) IRFU / Saclay (France) Jefferson Lab (USA) John Adams Institute/Oxford (UK) 6

Extremely fruitful CLIC /ILC Collaboration Common working groups on technical subjects with strong synergy between CLIC & ILC making the best use of the available resources Physics & Detectors, Beam Delivery System (BDS) & Machine Detector Interface (MDI), Civil Engineering & Conventional Facilities, Positron Generation, Damping Rings, Beam Dynamics, Cost & Schedule Developing common knowledge of both designs and technologies on status, advantages, issues and prospects Preparing together by the Linear Collider Community made up of CLIC & ILC experts: proposal(s) best adapted to the future HEP requirements Joint Working group on General Issues Joint LC workshops: IWLC10 and LCWS11

CLIC critical issues R&D strategy and schedule Critical issues classified in three categories: Risk register https://edms.cern.ch/nav/CERN-0000060014/AB-003093 To be addressed: novel schemes and components/systems with specifications above present state of the art CLIC design and technology feasibility Fully addressed by specific R&D in the present phase with results in Conceptual Design Report (CDR) including preliminary Performance & Cost by end 2011/spring 2012 Performance, Power and/or Cost Being addressed now by specific R&D to be completed with results in next phase towards Project Implementation Plan (PIP) including consolidated Performance & Cost tentatively by 2016

CLIC feasibility issues and critical parameters Novel Scheme LHC

CLIC Test Facility (CTF3) CTF3 team Feasibility demonstration of novel schemes Drive beam generation Beam driven RF Power production Two Beam Acceleration Delay Loop Combiner ring 150 MeV e-linac Thermionic source 3.5 A – 1200 ns Photo injector Experimental area 28 A - 140 ns High current, full-loaded linac operation 95 % RF to beam efficiency measured No instabilities

Achieved Accelerating Gradient CLIC RF team Shining example of successful Collaboration Between CERN, KEK and SLAC Measurements scaled according to: Two nominal structures including damping, TD24, under tests now 4 structures tested before the end of the year Same input power as 100MV/m loaded Nominal loaded Accelerating Gradient (100 MV/m) & Breakdown Rate (3.10-7/m)

Two Beam Acceleration above 100 MV/m nominal specification CTF3 & TBTS teams Maximum gradient 145 MV/m Consistency between produced power drive beam current test beam acceleration TD24

Importance of Generic Test Facilities on Linear Colliders Common Issues ATF/KEK: ultra low emittance and nanometer beam sizes CESR-TA/Cornell:Electron cloud e+ e- CLIC Damping Ring

Towards CLIC feasibility demonstration

Conceptual Design Report: Input to European Strategy for PP (2012-13) Vol 1: The CLIC accelerator and site facilities (H.Schmickler) CLIC concept with exploration over multi-TeV energy range up to 3 TeV Feasibility study of CLIC parameters optimized at 3 TeV (most demanding) Consider also 500 GeV, and intermediate energy ranges Vol 2: The CLIC physics and detectors (L.Linssen) Vol 3: CLIC study summary (S.Stapnes) Summary and available for the European Strategy process, including possible implementation stages for a CLIC machine as well as costing and identification of power and cost-drivers Proposing objectives and work plan of post CDR phase (2012-16) Timescales: By end 2011: aim to have Vol 1 and 2 completed Spring/mid 2012: Vol 3 ready for the European Strategy Open Meeting http://clic-study.org/accelerator/CLIC-ConceptDesignRep.php

available as final or draft Vol1:Accelerator http://project-clic-cdr.web.cern.ch/project-CLIC-CDR/ The linked documents (in blue) are all the drafts 90% sections of Vol 1 available as final or draft being addressed by Editorial Board

You are all kindly invited to subscribe https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=136364

(Personal) assessment of present CLIC phase Major CDR conclusions CLIC technology, although challenging, demonstrated to be feasible up to 3 TeV and therefore allows to extend LC into Multi-TeV energy range with promising performances Possible extension in energy will certainly be limited by practical considerations (power consumption or cost) Cost and power drivers clearly identified Performance, cost and power issues not addressed yet Limitations possibly upgraded in next CLIC phase

J.B.Jeanneret Preliminary L = 2.1034

Cost drivers: Two Beam Modules & Conventional Facilities Main Beam Drive Beam 20760 modules (2 meters long) 71460 power production structures PETS (drive beam) 143010 accelerating structures (main beam) EPAC 2008 CLIC / CTF3 G.Geschonke, CERN 20

Progress on CLIC staging and energy scan D.Schulte Progress on CLIC staging and energy scan Limitation of energy scanning by a factor 3 Intermediate energies required

Fruitful discussion on Energy staging strategy based on Physics model (to be updated) Stage1 Energy E1 Stage1 Energy E2 Stage3 Energy E3 Scanning from E2 to E2/3 Scanning from E3 to E3/3 Scanning from E1 to E1/3 J.Wells from J.Strube’s model of cross-sections

Concept Staging Concept! Not to scale

CLIC next phases S.Stapnes Final CLIC CDR and feasibility established European Strategy for Particle Physics @ CERN Council S.Stapnes Need to define fly ins After 2016 – Project Implementation phase: Including an initial project to lay the grounds for full construction (CLIC 0 – a significant part of the drive beam facility: prototypes of hardware components, validation of drive beam quality &main beam emittance preservation, facility for reception tests – and part of the final project) Finalization of the CLIC technical design, taking into account the results of technical studies done in the previous phase, and final energy staging scenario based on the LHC Physics results, which should be fully available by the time Further industrialization and pre-series production of large series components with validation facilities 2011-2016 – Goal: Develop a project implementation plan for a Linear Collider : Addressing the key physics goals as emerging from the LHC data With a well-defined scope (i.e. technical implementation and operation model, energy and luminosity), cost and schedule With a solid technical basis for the key elements of the machine and detector Including the necessary preparation for siting the machine at CERN Within a project governance structure as defined with international partners

Welcome to send your nominations Discussed procedure for preparation of LC input to the European Strategy for PP Prepare common LC (ILC-CLIC) document as input to the European Strategy Process Small working group … (4 Europeans, 1 Americas, 1 Asia): – the main feedback in the discussion was that the composition should be changed to better reflect the global nature of the LC project (and the physics)- Document (not too long – max 20 pages)  Physics key questions and the LC potential (Assume LHC + lum. upgrades will happen, focus on complementarity) Short “summary” and reference to other documents (CDRs and TDRs) Include something with format compatible with European Strategy draft (short statement(s), including extra page per statement). Draft by ILCSC February ? Final document by end July 2012 allowing final discussion during/right after ICHEP in Melbourne? Nominations by 15.10 to b.foster1@physics.ox.ac.uk, steinar.stapnes@cern.ch who will make sure the names and composition - and revised balance - are agreed by consensus in the ILC and CLIC areas. Welcome to send your nominations

The next steps – focusing points S.Stapnes The next steps – focusing points In order to achieve the overall goal for 2016, the follow four primary objectives for 2011—16 can be defined and are to be addressed by: activities (studies, working groups, task forces) or work-packages (technical developments, prototyping and tests of single components or larger systems at various places)   Define the scope, strategy and cost of the project implementation. The evolution of the physics findings at LHC and other relevant data Findings from the CDR and further studies, in particular concerning minimization of the technical risks, cost, power as well as the site implementation. A Governance Model as developed with partners. Define and keep an up-to-date optimized overall baseline design that can achieve the scope within a reasonable schedule, budget and risk. Identify and carry out system tests and programs to address the key performance and operation goals and mitigate risks associated to the project implementation. Develop the technical design basis. i.e. move toward a technical design for crucial items of the machine and detectors, the MD interface, and the site.

Work-packages

Welcome to participate ….. and to contribute!

Passing the “batton” (July 1rst, 2011)

“Batton” accepted

Celebrating !

Conclusion Well on track for successful completion of CLIC present phase (2004-2011) CLIC technology feasibility Envisageable for multi-TeV Linear Collider Limitations by practicalities (power and cost drivers identified) Draft CDR available, final version by end 2011 (Vol 1,2) and summary (Spring/mid 2012) as input for EU strategy for PP. Welcome to subscribe and express your support Launching of next CLIC phase towards Project Implementation Plan (2012-16) Program and Work-Packages defined Collaboration meeting on Nov 3-4 at CERN (Work-Packages) Thanks to effective CLIC multi-lateral Collaboration and fruitful collaboration with ILC

Final personal remarks Warm thanks to all of you for great pleasure I had working closely with you for many years in a fruitful global collaboration on the LC technical challenges and for number of friendly exchanges. Wishing the best to Linear Colliders looking forward towards a LC project (technology independent) to be launched as soon as window of opportunity opened by LHC Physics (if nature kind enough!) Please to see CLIC & ILC experts joining smoothly together towards a single LC community and hopefully a common LC project

Spares

R&D Objectives – Next Phase S.Stapnes 35

The next steps – focusing points S.Stapnes The next steps – focusing points In order to achieve the overall goal for 2016 the follow four primary objectives for 2011—16 can defined: These are to be addressed by activities (studies, working groups, task forces) or work-packages (technical developments, prototyping and tests of single components or larger systems at various places)   Define the scope, strategy and cost of the project implementation. Main input: The evolution of the physics findings at LHC and other relevant data Findings from the CDR and further studies, in particular concerning minimization of the technical risks, cost, power as well as the site implementation. A Governance Model as developed with partners. Define and keep an up-to-date optimized overall baseline design that can achieve the scope within a reasonable schedule, budget and risk. Beyond beam line design, the energy and luminosity of the machine, key studies will address stability and alignment, timing and phasing, stray fields and dynamic vacuum including collective effects. Other studies will address failure modes and operation issues. Indentify and carry out system tests and programs to address the key performance and operation goals and mitigate risks associated to the project implementation. The priorities are the measurements in: CTF3+, ATF and related to the CLIC Zero Injector addressing the issues of drivebeam stability, RF power generation and two beam acceleration, as we as the beam delivery system. (other system tests to be specified) (technical work-packages and studies addressing system performance parameters)   Develop the technical design basis. i.e. move toward a technical design for crucial items of the machine and detectors, the MD interface, and the site. Priorities are the modulators/klystrons, module/structure development including testing facilities, and site studies. (technical work-packages providing input and interacting with all points above)

Full scale drive beam injector complex and significant main beam linac CLIC 0 Full scale drive beam injector complex and significant main beam linac 100 m TBA DBA 0.48 GeV, 4.2 A DL CR2 CR1 Compression 2 x 3 x 4 DB Turn around 0.48 GeV, 101 A 6.5 GeV, 1.2 A 0.2 GeV, 101 A CALIFES type injector 0.2 GeV, 1.2 A “CLIC Zero” - Footprint Valid first CLIC stage (if and when decided) and built on selected site

MB+BD production & transport, services, infrastructure Power flow @ 3 TeV 1/’cosφi’ 650 MVA +5% network losses 622 MW ‘wall plug’ 594 MW 337 MW 266 MW Modulator hMOD = 0.9 hrise = 0.875 MB+BD production & transport, services, infrastructure and detector Power supplies klystrons hK = .65 173.0 MW 256 MW Drive beam acceleration hKlys→ struct→beam = .86 cosφs = .94 Wall plug 100% To DB-RF 57% To DECEL 41% To PETS_out 73% To Main Beam 28% Overall η 4.7% 140 MW 23.8 MW F(s) = .97  .96 hD = .84 Drive beam power extr. Dumps 109 MW hTRS = .98 PETS hT = .96 102 MW (2 x 101 kJ x 50 Hz) hRF = .277 Main linac 28 MW Main beam