Status of the Rebaselining D. Schulte for the Rebaselining Team D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Most slides from September 2006 MAC meeting ILC Cost Versus Performance (Parameter Choices) Tor Raubenheimer SLAC.
Advertisements

CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
CARE07, 29 Oct Alexej Grudiev, New CLIC parameters. The new CLIC parameters Alexej Grudiev.
1 Latest CLIC FFS Tuning Results Americas Workshop on Linear Colliders Thanks to: Rogelio Tomas Garcia, Yngve Inntjore Levinsen, Andrea Latina, Oscar Roberto.
NLC - The Next Linear Collider Project  IR background issues and plans for Snowmass Jeff Gronberg/LLNL Linear Collider Workshop October 25, 2000.
Future Very High Luminosity Options for PEP-II John T. Seeman For the PEP-II Team e+e- Factories Workshop October 13-16, 2003.
Compensation of Transient Beam-Loading in CLIC Main Linac
CLIC Staged Design October 2012 D. Schulte for the CLIC collaboration.
CLIC Cost & Schedule WG: mandate, organization, activities 2009 Ph. Lebrun CERN, Geneva, Switzerland TILC’09 Tsukuba, Japan.
Providing Beams for Power Production What has been done Problems and Boundary Conditions Future improvements and possibilities.
Summary of WG1 K. Kubo, D. Schulte, P. Tenenbaum.
Comparison between NLC, ILC and CLIC Damping Ring parameters May 8 th, 2007 CLIC Parameter working group Y. Papaphilippou.
Analytical considerations for Theoretical Minimum Emittance Cell Optics 17 April 2008 F. Antoniou, E. Gazis (NTUA, CERN) and Y. Papaphilippou (CERN)
Simulations Group Summary K. Kubo, D. Schulte, N. Solyak for the beam dynamics working group.
CLIC cost estimate Hans-H. Braun, CLIC-GDE meeting, February 8, 2008  Cost model goals  Methodology  Cost distribution  Future improvements.
1 Tunnel implementations (laser straight) Central Injector complex.
Current CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1. Main Beam Generation Complex Drive Beam Generation Complex Layout at 3 TeV D. Schulte2.
Luminosity expectations for the first years of CLIC operation CTC MJ.
CLIC Beam Physics Working Group D. Schulte
Permanent magnet wiggler based on NdFeB material. This wiggler type uses the same design principles as the wigglers which have been developed for PETRA.
Recent news from CLIC C&S WG and CLIC-ILC WG on General Issues Ph. Lebrun CLIC Project Meeting 1 June 2011.
Cost Model including Civil Engineering and Conventional Facilities Hans-H. Braun, CLIC ACE, June 20, 2007  Cost model goals  Methodology  Scaling assumptions.
CLIC main activities and goals for 2018 Design and Implementation studies: CDR status: not optimized except at 3 TeV and not adjusted for Higgs discovery,
CLARA Gun Cavity Optimisation NVEC 05/06/2014 P. Goudket G. Burt, L. Cowie, J. McKenzie, B. Militsyn.
SINGLE-STAGE BUNCH COMPRESSOR FOR ILC-SB2009 Nikolay Solyak Fermilab GDE Baseline Assessment Workshop (BAW-2) SLAC, Jan , 2011 N.Solyak, Single-stage.
1 Physics Input for the CLIC Re-baselining D. Schulte for the CLIC collaboration.
1 Update on Q2 Main linac starting gradient, upgrade gradient, and upgrade path Results of WG5 discussions after feedback from plenary on Tuesday New Option.
CLIC Energy Stages Meeting D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
Injection Energy Review D. Schulte. Introduction Will review the injection energy So could answer the following questions: Which injection energy can.
ParameterL-bandS-bandX-band Length (m) Aperture 2a (mm) Gradient (Unloaded/Loaded) (MV/m)17/1328/2250/40 Power/structure (MW) Beam.
CLIC Machine-Detector Interface Working Group (MDI) Emmanuel Tsesmelis CERN TS/LEA CLIC-ACE of 3 September 2008.
Rebaselining Progress D. Schulte for the CLIC rebaselining team Davide Aguglia, Roberto Corsini, Steffen Doebert, Konrad Elsener, Alexej Grudiev, Erk Jensen,
Beam Dynamics WG K. Kubo, N. Solyak, D. Schulte. Presentations –N. Solyak Coupler kick simulations update –N. Solyak CLIC BPM –A. Latina: Update on the.
CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
Inputs from GG6 to decisions 2,7,8,15,21,27,34 V.Telnov Aug.24, 2005, Snowmass.
Low Emittance Generation and Preservation K. Yokoya, D. Schulte.
BDS Lattice Design : EDR plans GWP03 Meeting 04/12/2007.
N. Walker, K. Yokoya LCWS ’11 Granada September TeV Upgrade Scenario: Straw man parameters.
X-Band Technology, requirement for structure tests and its application for SASE FEL D. Schulte for the CLIC collaboration Special thanks to A. Grudiev,
S. Bettoni, R. Corsini, A. Vivoli (CERN) CLIC drive beam injector design.
Oleksiy Kononenko CERN and JINR
Main and Drive Beam Dynamics Working Group Caterina Biscari, Daniel Schulte Attending people ~ 20 ± 5 Presentations ~ 18 (7 from CERN) CL IC 07.
Vacuum specifications in Linacs J-B. Jeanneret, G. Rumolo, D. Schulte in CLIC Workshop 09, 15 October 2009 Fast Ion Instability in Linacs and the simulation.
CLIC Re-baselining CSC, October Possible CLIC stages studied 2.
Parameter scan for the CLIC damping rings July 23rd, 2008 Y. Papaphilippou Thanks to H. Braun, M. Korostelev and D. Schulte.
X-band Based FEL proposal
HP-PS beam acceleration and machine circumference A.LachaizeLAGUNA-LBNO General meeting Paris 18/09/13 On behalf of HP-PS design team.
Positron Source for Linear Collider Wanming Liu 04/11/2013.
Progress in CLIC DFS studies Juergen Pfingstner University of Oslo CLIC Workshop January.
A CW Linac scheme for CLIC drive beam acceleration. Hao Zha, Alexej Grudiev 07/06/2016.
Status of the sub-harmonic bunching system for the CLIC DB injector front end Hamed Shaker School of Particles and Accelerators, Institute for Research.
TBL experimental program, evolution to RF power testing in TBL ACE 2011, February 2-3Steffen Döbert, BE-RF  Current status of TBL  Experimental program.
WG1: Overall Design personal highlights report by Nick Walker First project meeting 2/12/2004 conveners: Kiyoshi Kubo (KEK) Tor Raubenheimer (SLAC)
ILC - Upgrades Nick Walker – 100th meeting
Wake field limitations in a low gradient main linac of CLIC
Optimisation of single bunch linac for FERMI upgrade
CLIC Rebaselining at 380 GeV and Staging Considerations
CLIC Klystron-based Design
Other beam-induced background at the IP
Update of CLIC accelerating structure design
CLIC Detector studies status + plans
LCLS Commissioning Parameters
Status of the CLIC Injector studies
LCLS Commissioning Parameters
Damping Ring parameters for the new accelerating structure
CLIC Feasibility Demonstration at CTF3
LCLS Commissioning Parameters
ERL Director’s Review Main Linac
Damping Ring parameters for the new accelerating structure
Kicker specifications for Damping Rings
Presentation transcript:

Status of the Rebaselining D. Schulte for the Rebaselining Team D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013

Model Availability Const model exists for most critical parts (based on cost WG, Ph. Lebrun) – Drive beam generation complex (R. Corsini, I. Syratchev) – Main linac (A. Grudiev) – Civil engineering and infrastructure for these (Ph. Lebrun) – This review highlighted already some cost savings Power model exists but needs to be validated (B. Jeanneret) Structure database exists (K. Sjøbæck, A. Grudiev) – But waiting for improved data with better RF boundary description – RF limits have changed, old CLIC_G not acceptable any more Parameter and beam model exists (input from Y. Papaphilippou, R. Tomas) – Some improvement of the BDS has been made recently (β x =4mm, Hector Garcia, Rogelio Tomas), if no issue with toerlances is found this will improve beam parameter flexibility Optimisation code exists that derives machine parameters and cost for each structure and gradient D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013

Choices In Optimisation Code Assume 50Hz operation – To minimise magnetic stray field effects – Only harmonics would be possible, but suffer from pulse-to-pulse variation Target for one specific luminosity – Use only the pulse length good for this luminosity Only consider 350GeV machine – Neglect impact of upgrade – i.e. gradients below 100MV/m are allowed – Charge scaling is for local stability Emittance growth can vary but stays below 3TeV limit Beam parameters at IP are – β x ≥8mm, β y ≥0.1mm, ε x ≥660nm ∧ ε x ≥1200nm (N/ ), ε y =25nm – L 0.01 /L≥0.6 RF constraints are from Alexej Grudiev – Safety margin added if mentioned D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013

Algorithm Go through different combinations of L structure, a 1, a 2, d 1, d 2 and G For each – Identify highest bunch charge and use it – Determine minimum bunch distance and use it – Calculate input power, fill and rise time and maximum available beam time – If luminosity is below target got to next structure – Adjust beam pulse time according to luminosity – Determine number of drive beam sectors for n f =24 and f DBA =1GHz – Adjust to next larger integer – Calculate cost – While stretching linac by one decelerator is cheaper, stretch – Store parameter set D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013

Cost vs. Bunch Charge D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013

Cost vs. Bunch Charge D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013 Optimum bunch charges around 4x10 9 Difference between L=0.5x10 34 cm -2 s -1 and L=2x10 34 cm -2 s -1 is about 1GCHF -> Need to decide what to aim for

Cost vs. Luminosity Quality D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013 Will go close to the limit for the luminosity spectrum quality

Luminosity and Bunch Charge D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013 Get full L/I beam for N>4x10 9, RF pushes the other way New BDS design can reduce this limit to about 2.5-3x10 9

Impact of RF Constraints D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013

Impact of RF Constraints on Beam D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013

Conclusion Tool is mostly ready – Final RF database being developed – Some consolidation of cost estimate – Power model needs to be validated and used Decide on how to treat the upgrade – Different options can be considered Decide on luminosity target – Significant cost impact – Significant impact on upgrade Decide on required structure robustness – Which parameters should we be able to vary by how much – Which robustness do we need for the beam parameters Plan to be ready be next CLIC workshop D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013

Conclusion II Would not expect large impact on physics – Given that most effects are a correction to the physics potential – They were considered not to bind the optimisation Luminosity spectrum should remain similar – Single bunch energy spread – Beamstrahlung Bunch charge could remain similar – 4x10 9 – But background rates may change somewhat Bunch spacing can vary slightly – But can only go up Luminosity goal is the only real knob D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013