N. Walker, K. Yokoya LCWS ’11 Granada September 27 2011 TeV Upgrade Scenario: Straw man parameters.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
11/27/2007ILC Power and Cooling VM Workshop Mike Neubauer 1 RF Power and Cooling Requirements Overview from “Main Linac Power and Cooling Information”
Advertisements

The ILC low power option Andrei Seryi SLAC ILC08 and LCWS08 November 17, 2008 Photo: Dan Chusid, 2003.
Most slides from September 2006 MAC meeting ILC Cost Versus Performance (Parameter Choices) Tor Raubenheimer SLAC.
CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
TLCC Themes BAW-2, SLAC, 19 January 2011 Ross Walker Yamamoto 1.
Nick Walker (DESY/GDE) GDE Internal Cost Review FNAL ILC Design Overview N. Walker ILC PAC TDR review1.
CARE07, 29 Oct Alexej Grudiev, New CLIC parameters. The new CLIC parameters Alexej Grudiev.
Energy Extendibility of ILC Kaoru Yokoya (KEK) for the Group D T. Sanuki, B. Barish, H. Yamamoto, H. Hayano, Y. Yamamoto Tohoku Forum of Creativity,
CLIC Workshop 07 CERN, October 2007 Instrumentation Working Group In conference room Bldg Grahame Blair & Thibaut Lefevre.
Proposed machine parameters Andrei Seryi July 23, 2010.
Marc Ross Nick Walker Akira Yamamoto 1 st PAC Meeting 19 th October, 2008 Machine Design & Cost Reduction Activities 1.
Scaling of High-Energy e+e- Ring Colliders K. Yokoya Accelerator Seminar, KEK 2012/3/15 Accelerator Seminar Yokoya 1.
Christopher Nantista ARD R&D Status Meeting SLAC February 3, …… …… …… … ….
Summary of WG1 K. Kubo, D. Schulte, P. Tenenbaum.
Baseline Workshop Preparation At the close of each BAW, we would like to write down a summary that is based on our common understanding of the issues.
N. Walker (for PMs) ALCPG, Univ. of Oregon, Eugene TeV Upgrade.
Current CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1. Main Beam Generation Complex Drive Beam Generation Complex Layout at 3 TeV D. Schulte2.
SB2009/ Low energy running for ILC International Workshop on Linear Colliders 2010 Andrei Seryi John Adams Institute 19 October 2010.
Status of ILC BDS Design Deepa Angal-Kalinin ASTeC/Cockcroft Institute, Daresbury Laboratory Andrei Seryi SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory ILC-CLIC.
Optimization of L(E) with SB2009 Andrei Seryi, for BDS and other working groups LCWS 2010 / ILC 2010 March 28, 2010.
Status of the Rebaselining D. Schulte for the Rebaselining Team D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013.
Electron Source Configuration Axel Brachmann - SLAC - Jan , KEK GDE meeting International Linear Collider at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
Report of 2 nd ILC Workshop (Snowmass) Working Group Kiyoshi KUBO references: Slides of the plenary talks in the workshop by P.Tenembaum and.
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,
Proton Driver Main Linac Parameter Optimization G. W. Foster Proton Driver General Meeting Jan 19, 2005.
SINGLE-STAGE BUNCH COMPRESSOR FOR ILC-SB2009 Nikolay Solyak Fermilab GDE Baseline Assessment Workshop (BAW-2) SLAC, Jan , 2011 N.Solyak, Single-stage.
GDE questions, including one or two IRs Grahame Blair, Tomo Sanuki, Andrei Seryi for WG4 Snowmass, CO, August 25, 2005 Grahame Blair, Tomo Sanuki, Andrei.
Aug 23, 2006 Half Current Option: Impact on Linac Cost Chris Adolphsen With input from Mike Neubauer, Chris Nantista and Tom Peterson.
17 th November, 2008 LCWS08/ILC08 1 BDS optics and minimal machine study Deepa Angal-Kalinin ASTeC & The Cockcroft Institute Daresbury Laboratory.
CLIC Energy Stages Meeting D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
Nick Walker AD&I WebEx Meeting TeV Upgrade Study AD&I WebEx Meeting Nick Walker 1 Brief summary of ALCPG’11 discussions.
Cold versus Warm, parameters impacting LC reliability and efficiency contribution to the discussion on risk factors Giorgio Bellettini, Seul ITRP meeting,
ParameterL-bandS-bandX-band Length (m) Aperture 2a (mm) Gradient (Unloaded/Loaded) (MV/m)17/1328/2250/40 Power/structure (MW) Beam.
Minimum Machine Definition: Next Steps Nick Walker AS TAG leaders meeting
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.
ILC EXTRACTION LINE TRACKING Y. Nosochkov, E. Marin September 10, 2013.
23-April-13 ECFA LC2013 Global Design Effort 1 Barry Barish ECFA LC2013 DESY Hamburg, Germany 27-May-13 GDE The path to a TDR.
Progress and Plans for R&D and the Conceptual Design of the ILC Main Linacs H. Hayano, KEK PAC2005 5/18/2005.
@ Fermilab ILC bunch-compressor and linac rf requirements Sergei Nagaitsev Fermilab Feb. 9, 2006.
M. Ross, N. Walker, A. Yamamoto th ATF2 Project Meeting Accelerator Design and Integration – New Baseline Proposal for ILC – ‘Strawman Baseline.
24-July-10 ICHEP-10 Paris Global Design Effort 1 Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10 ILC Global Design Effort.
ML (BC) Studies update Nikolay Solyak Arun Saini.
CLIC Re-baselining CSC, October Possible CLIC stages studied 2.
Optics with Large Momentum Acceptance for Higgs Factory Yunhai Cai SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Future Circular Collider Kick-off Meeting, February.
HISTORY OF SNS DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY CHOICES PROJECT X WORKSHOP NOVEMBER 12-13, 2007 R. KUSTOM.
Minimum Machine Update Nick Walker Ewan Paterson AS TAG leaders meeting
WG1: Overall Design personal highlights report by Nick Walker First project meeting 2/12/2004 conveners: Kiyoshi Kubo (KEK) Tor Raubenheimer (SLAC)
From Beam Dynamics K. Kubo
ILC Power and Cooling VM Workshop
Estimate AC power for TeV Upgrade
ILC - Upgrades Nick Walker – 100th meeting
Summary of WG2 :CFS for staging
SC Quadrupole Magnets in ILC Cryomodules
Staging in the TDR.
CLIC Rebaselining at 380 GeV and Staging Considerations
CLIC Klystron-based Design
Linac possibilities for a Super-B
Luminosity Optimization for FCC-ee: recent results
Cost Comparison of Undulator and e-Driven Systems
Luminosity Optimization at 250GeV
Measurements, ideas, curiosities
XFEL Project (accelerator) Overview and recent developments
Electron Source Configuration
Nick Walker for the Project Management
Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10
AC Power for a Super-B Factory
CLIC Feasibility Demonstration at CTF3
ILC - Global Design Effort
CEPC SRF Parameters (100 km Main Ring)
Presentation transcript:

N. Walker, K. Yokoya LCWS ’11 Granada September TeV Upgrade Scenario: Straw man parameters

Two tentative parameter sets Document distributed on –ILC-EDMS D* Primary constraints: –P AC ≤300 MW –Baseline 500 GeV machine unchanged upgrade scenario: add more linac Two sets proposed for study –  BS ~5%,L ~2.8×10 34 cm -2 s -1 –  BS ~10%L ~4.7×10 34 cm -2 s LCWS - Granada

From 500 to 1000 GeV 2.2 km 1.3 km 10.8 km 1.1 km BDS Main Linac e+ src bunch comp. <26 km ? (site length <52 km ?) Main Linac = 31.5 MV/m G eff ≈ 22.7 MV/m (fill fact.= 0.72) IP central region <10.8 km ? Snowmass 2005 baseline recommendation for TeV upgrade: G cavity = 36 MV/m ⇒ 9.6 km (VT≥ 40 MV/m) Based on use of low-loss or re- entrant cavity shapes Assume Higher Gradient LCWS - Granada

Construction Scenario(s) BDS Main Linac e+ src IP BC BDS Main Linac e+ src IP BC BDS Main Linac e+ src IP BC BDS Main Linac e+ src IP BC start civil construction 500GeV operations Installation/upgrade shutdown civil construction + installation final installation/connection removal/relocation of BC Removal of turnaround etc. Installation of addition magnets etc. Commissioning / operation at 1TeV LCWS - Granada

Ramifications of upgrade scenario Beam pulse structure constrained by baseline 500 GeV machine –RF pulse length( ms) –Main linac current (≤ 9mA) –Cryogenics, CF etc. Original linac (5-250 GeV) must now transport GeV beam –Implications of quadrupoles, lattice and beam dynamics (emittance) Most cost-effective approach –least invasive schedule LCWS - Granada Assumes no major installation/upgrade of RF power source

Luminosity constrained P AC what are the options? LCWS - Granada

Luminosity Goes down with increasing gradient (longer fill time) Constrain to ≤220MW (linac) little to be gained here (factor <1.5) Constrained by physics? shorter increases stability (integrated lumi) LCWS - Granada

AC Power (RDR Linac) LCWS - Granada Wall Plug P beam = V acc ×I beam ≈ 20 MW P RF ≈ 32 MW

AC Power (RDR Linac) LCWS - Granada Wall Plug RF Power Generation (Modulator, klystron, Waveguide distribution) P beam = V acc ×I beam ≈ 20 MW P RF ≈ 32 MW P AC(RF) ≈ 76 MW  ≈ 44%

AC Power (RDR Linac) LCWS - Granada Wall Plug RF Power Generation (Modulator, klystron, Waveguide distribution) P beam = V acc ×I beam ≈ 20 MW P RF ≈ 32 MW P AC(RF) ≈ 76 MW  ≈ 44% to beam dump 56 MW to remove! +24 MW water (CF)

AC Power (RDR Linac) LCWS - Granada Wall Plug RF Power Generation (Modulator, klystron, Waveguide distribution) P beam = V acc ×I beam ≈ 20 MW P RF ≈ 32 MW P AC(RF) ≈ 76 MW  ≈ 44% to beam dump 56 MW to remove! +24 MW water (CF) Cryogenic Power 33 MW

AC Power (RDR Linac) LCWS - Granada Wall Plug RF Power Generation (Modulator, klystron, Waveguide distribution) P beam = V acc ×I beam ≈ 20 MW P RF ≈ 32 MW P AC(RF) ≈ 76 MW  ≈ 44% to beam dump 56 MW to remove! +24 MW water (CF) Cryogenic Power 33 MW 132 MW

Reducing the Repetition Rate P AC = 215 MW (RDR) Doubling linac: * = 355 MW Reduce rep. rate 5Hz to 4Hz: –2×4/5×P RF 130 MW –(1+4/5)×P CF 41 MW –(1+4/5)×P cry 60 MW Total313 MW LCWS - Granada RDR * 132×250/235 This scenario still assumes 31.5 Does not include: additional overhead for gradient spread (+12% RF power) new damping ring configuration

The (Upgrade) Gradient Question Primary a capital cost issue 45 MV/m ⇒ ~20% potential saving in upgrade linac costs Higher Q 0 beneficial –reduced cryo power ⇒ capital cost and power reduction Higher gradient ⇒ reduced efficiency –assuming same current and beam pulse length Hence influences AC power –and therefore luminosity if AC power is constrained LCWS - Granada

Gradient, Power & Luminosity LCWS - Granada Q0Q0 Luminosity reference: n b = 2625 n b scaled to give 300 MW 4Hz operation assumed chosen for straw man parameters n b = 2280 Note: simple scaling only!

Luminosity Parameters Have already reduced P beam –5 down to 4Hz –Reduced n b by 13% Increase  x →  x to constrain  BS Reduce bunch length  z (and  y →  y ) –assume two-stage compressor –(irrespective of decision for 500GeV baseline) Assume  y = 30 nm at the IP –Aggressive –Beam dynamics issues LCWS - Granada

Published Numbers For study purposes only –both machine and detector Machine parameters will be reviewed this workshop Subject to change! LCWS - Granada

Example: Vertical Emittance LCWS - Granada Original 500 GeV linac Assumed FFDD focusing for higher-energy beam BPM scale (calibration) error in conjunction with earth curvature 30 nm K. Kubo (KEK) Simulations of beam-based alignment Standard assumed alignment errors

Pair Angle Kaoru Yokoya Sep LCWS11 Granada, Spain 19

Out-coming Angle of Pairs Pair particle of energy Same sign of charge with the on-coming beam Horizontal angle is comparable to vertical angle Given by (very crudely) Ignore log factor 20

If bunch length is increased –Hourglass serious –But beamstrahlung loss decreases  can make horizontal beam size smaller  luminosity larger  can make vertical beam size larger e.g., 21

22

Very reliminary 10% 150  m 10% 300  m 23

24 Black: 10% 150  m Red : 10% 300  m

25 Black: 10% 150  m Red : 10% 300  m