1. F. Gianotti, FCC-hh WS, 26/5/2014 Challenges for Future Circular Colliders F. Zimmermann, CERN BE/ABP Beam Dynamics Meets Magnets Bad Zurzach, 1 December 2014 Work supported by the European Commission under Capacities 7th Framework Programme, Grant Agreement 312453 special thanks to Michael Benedikt, Johannes Gutleber, Bastian Haerer, Yannis Papaphilippou J. Wenninger

2. LEP – highest energy e + e - collider so far maximum c.m. energy 209 GeV maximum synchrotron radiation power 23 MW

3. Large Hadron Collider (LHC) design: c.m. energy 14 TeV (pp); luminosity 10 34 cm -2 s -1 ; 1.15x10 11 p/bunch; 2808 bunches/beam; 360 MJ / beam now is the time to plan for 2040!

4. With the discovery of a Higgs boson in 2012, we have completed the Standard Model (almost 80 years of theoretical and experimental efforts !) However : SM is not a complete theory Several outstanding questions (e.g. composition of dark matter, cause of universe’s accelerated expansion [dark energy / inflation], origin of matter-antimatter asymmetry, neutrino masses, why 3 families?, lightness of Higgs boson, weakness of gravity, … ) which cannot be explained within the SM. These questions require NEW PHYSICS Prospects for Particle Physics Present knowledge is insufficient to determine energy scale of new physics ; LHC will provide new information from pp collisions at higher cm energy (13 TeV) by 2017-18 F. Gianotti et al.

5. Run 2Run 3 Run 4 LS 2 LS 3 LS 4LS 5Run 5 LS2 starting in 2018 (July)=> 18 months + 3 months BC LS3LHC: starting in 2023 =>30 months + 3 months BC Injectors: in 2024=>13 months + 3 months BC LHC roadmap: schedule until 2035 Beam commissioning Technical stop Shutdown Physics Run 2Run 3 Run 4 LS 2 LS 3 LS 4LS 5Run 5 (Extended) Year End Technical Stop: (E)YETS EYETS YETS 300 fb -1 3’000 fb -1 30 fb -1 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 F. Bordry Phase 2: HL-LHC  rebuilding more than 1.2 km of LHC tens of Nb 3 Sn dipoles & quadrupoles

6. technology transition: Nb-Ti →Nb 3 Sn O. Bruning

7. MBHSP02 (1 m) passed 11 T field during training at 1.9 K with I = 12080 A on 5 March 2013 FNAL: Nb 3 Sn dipole demonstrators US-LARP

8. European Strategy Update 2013 “CERN should undertake design studies for accelerator projects in a global context, with emphasis on proton-proton and electron-positron high-energy frontier machines.” strategy adopted by the CERN Council http://cds.cern.ch/record/1567258/files/esc-e-106.pdf

9. Future Circular Collider Study: CDR and cost review for the next ESU (2018) In response to 2013 ESU forming an international collaboration to study: pp-collider (FCC-hh)  defining infrastructure requirements 80-100 km infrastructure in Geneva area e + e - collider (FCC-ee) as potential intermediate step p-e (FCC-he) option ~16 T  100 TeV pp in 100 km ~20 T  100 TeV pp in 80 km

10. FCC topography Plaine du genevois 350 – 550 m/mer Mont Salève 550 - 1380 Lac Léman 300 – 372 m/mer Plateau des Bornes 600 – 850 m/mer Valée de l’Arve 400 – 600 m/mer Mandallaz Mont Vuache 550 - 1100 Massif du Jura 550 – 1720 m/mer Bornes – Aravis 600 – 2500 m/mer Plateau du Mont Sion 550 – 860 m/mer Pré-Alpes du Chablais 600 – 2500 m/mer Vallon des Usses 380 – 500 m/mer Vallée du Rhône  330 m/mer J. Osborne

11. general tunnel configuration 11 Ph. Lebrun 11 FCC circumference is a multiple of LHC : –80 km –87 km –93 km –100 km

12. Qinhuangdao ( 秦皇岛） 50 km 70 km easy access 300 km from Beijing 3 h by car 1 h by train Yifang Wang CepC, SppC CepC/SppC study (CAS-IHEP), CepC CDR end of 2014, e + e - collisions ~2028; pp collisions ~2042 “Chinese Toscana”

13. CepC/SppC project – recent news in Nature 24 J U LY 2014 | VO L 511 | NAT U R E | 3

14. “BeMa” challenges for FCC FCC-hh:  high-field magnets, 16 T Nb 3 Sn –feasibility –field quality –cost FCC-ee:  low-field magnets, 0.003-0.05 T –field quality –cost  IR quadrupoles - field quality, model, integration FCC-he:  IR quadrupoles - field quality, model, integration

15. FCC-hh key parameters parameterFCC-hhLHC energy100 TeV c.m.14 TeV c.m. dipole field16 T8.33 T # IP2 main, +24 normalized emittance 2.2  m3.75  m luminosity/IP main 5 x 10 34 cm -2 s -1 1 x 10 34 cm -2 s -1 energy/beam8.4 GJ0.39 GJ synchr. rad.28.4 W/m/apert.0.17 W/m/apert. bunch spacing25 ns (5 ns)25 ns Preliminary, subject to evolution

16. ring optics for alternative layouts R. Alemany, B. Holzer, R. Tomas, D. Schulte  x,y [m] D x [m] LHC-like circular SSC-like race- track C=99.13 km C=100.8 km L insertion ~7.4 km work in progress FODO arc optics, cell length ~200 m

17. types of SC dipoles S. Caspi (+ Q. Xu) Block with stress management Managed coil blocks, plates and laminar spring Direction of current Canted-Cosine-Theta (CCT) with stress interception TAMU 3D view LBNL field errors? larger bending radius and lower the strain level ; easier ? coil fabrication Common Coil with lower end strain and easier production (?) IHEP/SPPC

18. only a quarter is shown 15-16 T: Nb-Ti & Nb 3 Sn20 T: Nb-Ti & Nb 3 Sn & HTS L. Rossi, E. Todesco, P. McIntyre “hybrid magnets” example block-coil layout cost-optimized block coil magnets

19. from ITER- to HEP-class Nb 3 Sn ITER US-CDP CARE-NED EuCARD HL-LHC HL-LHC specs FCC FCC specs L. Bottura

20. FCC-ee key parameters parameterFCC-eeLEP2 energy/beam45 – 175 GeV105 GeV bunches/beam98 – 167004 beam current6.6 – 1450 mA3 mA hor. emittance~2 nm~22 nm emittance ratio  y /  y 0.1%1% vert. IP beta function  y * 1 mm50 mm luminosity/IP1.8-28 x 10 34 cm -2 s - 1 0.0012 x 10 34 cm -2 s -1 energy loss/turn0.03-7.55 GeV3.34 GeV synchr. power100 MW23 MW RF voltage2.5 – 11 GV3.5 GV Preliminary, subject to evolution

21. pre-CDR magnets for CEPC Main Ring two designs of CepC dipole magnets pure solid iron core easier than steel-concrete core ； thin solid iron core magnet does not need cement mortar, so that its total weight is only 50% of that of a steel-concrete core magnet; the new thin solid iron core magnet can save ~10%-20% of the cost ; prototype magnet will be developed. K. Wen pure solid iron core steel-concrete core

22. orbit & emittance 150  m quad misalignments, no low-beta insertions, MAD-X 1 st turn after 3 orbit corrections after closure & final correction with sextupoles incl. SR & RF B. Haerer ε x = 1.23 nm, ε y = 1.05 pm ✔ w/o low-  & beam-beam

23. ever smaller emittances Y. Papaphilippou

24. ZWH crab waist & improved parameters baseline FCC-ee luminosity vs energy M. Benedikt, A. Blondel, A. Bogomyagkov, E. Levichev, D. Shatilov, J. Wenninger, F. Zimmermann,…

25. FCC-ee injection beside the collider ring(s), a booster of the same size (same tunnel) must provide beams for top-up injection o same RF voltage, but low power (~ MW) o top up frequency ~0.1 Hz o booster injection energy ~5-20 GeV o bypass around the experiments injector complex for e + and e - beams of 10-20 GeV o Super-KEKB injector ~ almost suitable A. Blondel

26. A. Milanese, H. Piekarz, L. Rossi twin-aperture iron-dominated, compact hybrid “transmission line” dipoles - for injector synchrotrons in FCC tunnel resistive cable for lepton machine superconducting for hadron operation required dynamic range ~100 hadron extraction 1.1 T lepton injection: 10 mT hybrid NC & SC arc magnets

27. to avoid poor field quality at booster injection four bending magnets per half cell, two outer bends with bipolar supply; magnetic field of bends is properly set so as to keep the total bending angle constant during the ramp C. Zhang “Wiggling Bends”

28. K. Ohmi, H. Koiso, “Dynamic Aperture Limit caused by IR Nonlinearity in Extremely Low-beta B Factories,” Proc. IPAC’10 Kyoto (2010) p. 1548-1550 obstacles towards low  *

29. beam commissioning will start in 2015 top up injection at high current  y * =300  m (FCC-ee: 1 mm) lifetime 5 min (FCC-ee: ≥20 min)  y /  x =0.25% (similar to FCC-ee) off momentum acceptance (±1.5%, similar to FCC-ee) e + production rate (2.5x10 12 /s, FCC-ee: <1.5x10 12 /s (Z cr.waist) SuperKEKB goes beyond FCC-ee, testing all concepts SuperKEKB = FCC-ee demonstrator K. Oide et al.

30. RR LHeC: new ring in LHC tunnel, with bypasses around experiments LR LHeC: recirculating linac with energy recovery similar two options for FCC: (1) FCC-ee ring, (2) ERL – from LHeC or new LHeC CDR, published in 2012 high-energy lepton-hadron collider

31. eh IR with parallel pp operation R. Tomas, M. Klein

32. http://indico.cern.ch/e/fcc-kickoff http://cern.ch/fcc FCC Kick-off Meeting University of Geneva 12-15 February 2014 >340 participants

33. presently signing FCC MoUs with partners

34. FCC MoU’s, status 30 Nov. 2014 ALBA/CELLS, Spain BINP, Russia CASE (SUNY/BNL), USA CBPF, Brazil CIEMAT, Spain CNRS, France Cockcroft Institute, UK CSIC/IFIC, Spain DESY, Germany Duke U., USA EPFL, Switzerland Gangneung-Wonju Nat. U., Korea Goethe U. Frankfurt, Germany GSI, Germany Hellenic Open U, Greece HEPHY, Austria IFJ PAN Krakow, Poland INFN, Italy INP Minsk, Belarus IPM, Iran Istanbul Aydin U.,Turkey JAI/Oxford, UK JINR Dubna, Russia KEK, Japan King’s College London, UK Korea U. Sejong, Korea MEPhI, Russia Northern Illinois U., USA NC PHEP Minsk, Belarus PSI, Switzerland Sapienza/Roma, Italy UC Santa Barbara, USA TU Darmstadt, Germany TU Tampere, Finland U. Geneva, Switzerland U. Iowa, USA U Silesia, Poland

35. Study Coordination Hadron Collider Physics and Experiments Lepton Collider Physics and Experiments Hadron Injectors Hadron Collider Lepton Collider e-p Physics, Experiments, IP Integration Infrastructures and Operation Lepton Injectors Accelerator R & D Technologies F. Gianotti, A. Ball, M. Mangano A. Blondel, J. Ellis, C. Grojean, P. Janot M. Klein, O. Bruning B. Goddard D. Schulte, M. Syphers, J.M. Jimenez Y. Papaphilippou J. Wenninger, U. Wienands, J.M. Jimenez M. Benedikt, F. Zimmermann P. Lebrun, P. Collier F. Sonnemann, P. Lebrun M. Benedikt FCC Study Coordination Group Costing Planning M. Benedikt, F. Zimmermann

36. FCC Collaboration Board preparatory meeting 9-10 September 2014 at CERN (~80 participants, 1 / inst.) Leonid “Lenny” Rivkin (EPFL & PSI) unanimously elected as interim Collaboration Board Chair

37. FCC Horizon 2020 Design Study Proposal submitted to Brussels on 2 September 2014 key aspects of 100 TeV energy frontier hadron collider: conceptual design, feasibility, implementation scenario

38. Physics and Experiments Accelerators Infrastructures and Operation Implementation and Planning Study and Quality Management Hadron Collider Physics Hadron Collider Experiments Lepton Collider Physics Lepton Collider Experiments Lepton-Hadron Collider Physics Lepton-Hadron Collider Experiment Hadron Injectors Hadron Collider Lepton Injectors Lepton Collider Lepton-Hadron Collider Technology R&D Civil Engineering Technical Infrastructures Operation and Energy Efficiency Integration Computing and Data Services Safety, RP and Environment Project Risk Assessment Implementation Scenarios Cost Models Study Administration Communications Conceptual Design Report M. Benedikt Work Breakdown Structure M. Benedikt, J. Gutleber

39. Physics and Experiments Accelerators Infrastructures and Operation Implementation and Planning Study and Quality Management Hadron Collider Physics Hadron Collider Experiments Lepton Collider Physics Lepton Collider Experiments Lepton-Hadron Collider Physics Lepton-Hadron Collider Experiment Hadron Injectors Hadron Collider Lepton Injectors Lepton Collider Lepton-Hadron Collider Technology R&D Civil Engineering Technical Infrastructures Operation and Energy Efficiency Integration Computing and Data Services Safety, RP and Environment Project Risk Assessment Implementation Scenarios Cost Models Study Administration Communications Conceptual Design Report M. Benedikt WBS – H2020 EU DS proposal M. Benedikt, J. Gutleber

40. HEP time scale 198019851990199520002005201020152020202520302035PhysicsPhysics 25 years Today CDR & Cost Construc- tion PhysicsPhysicsUpgrUpgr LEP ConstructionConstructionPhysicsPhysicsProtoProtoDesignDesign LHC ConstructConstructPhysicsPhysicsDesignDesign HL-LHC ConstructionConstructionProtoProtoDesignDesign Future Collider

41. First FCC Week Conference Washington DC 23-27 March 2015 http://cern.ch/fccw2015 ++... draft poster hoping to see you there!

42. “Leistung ensteht vor allem dadurch, daß man die eigenen Ansprüche und seine Erwartungen ständig erhöht.” Präsidentin Kinderhort Bad Zurzach

43. appendix EU co-funded accelerator R&D projects

44. Accelerator R&D in Europe (History and today’s Organization) ESGARD mandate: develop and implement a Strategy to optimize and enhance the outcome of the Research and Technical Development in the field of accelerator physics in Europe byto optimize and enhance the outcome of the Research and Technical Development in the field of accelerator physics in Europe  promoting mutual coordination and facilitating the pooling of European resources  promoting a coherent and coordinated utilization and development of infrastructures  promoting inter-disciplinary collaboration including industry http://esgard.lal.in2p3.fr R. Aleksan (CEA,Chair), M. Cerrada (CIEMAT), R. Edgecock (STFC), E. Elsen (DESY), S. Guiducci (INFN), M. Jezabek (IFJ)*, O. Kester (GSI), B. Launé (CNRS/IN2P3), K. Osterberg (HU)**, L. Rivkin (PSI), M. Vretenar (CERN,secretary) This developed strategy led to the preparation and implementation of a coherent set of collaborative projects using the incentive funding EC Framework Programme. * Representing consortium of Polish institutes ** Representing consortium of Nordic institutes Established in 2002 from the initiative of several labs. Roy Aleksan

45. 2003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Accelerator R&D CARE (IA) 3 Networks (e,, p) EuCARD (IA)EuCARD2 (IA) CARE (IA) SRF EuCARD (SRF) CARE (IA) PHIN EuCARD (SRF, ANAC)EuCARD2 (RF) CARE (IA) HIPPI EuCARD (SRF, ColMat)EuCARD2 (COMA) CARE (IA) NED EuCARD (HFM)EuCARD2 (MAG) SLHC (PP)SLHC-PPHiLumi (DS) EUROTEV DS: ILC+CLIC ILC-HiGrade (PP) EURISOL DS: Neutrino  -beam DS Fact Scoping study DS-EuroNu EUROLEAP e in plasma EuCARD2 (ANAC2) SuperB TIARA (PP)R&D-RI & program EuCARD (ANAC) FP6 FP7 Altogether EC has partially financed projects in FP6 and FP7 with a total budget of ~228 M€ (68 M€ from EC) ESGARD developed and implemented a strategy to promote Accelerator R&D with the incentive of the EC Framework Programme within ERA Roy Aleksan

46. Step 1: Design Studies First step to be visible at the EC level and to enter the strategic infrastructure Roadmap of the European Union Be included in the ESFRI roadmap Step 2 : Preparatory Phase Technical, managerial and Political Preparation Phase for the construction of the infrastructure Step 3: Implementation Launch of the construction including technology transfer and industry involvment To build future accelerators, a strong and sustainable effort is indispensable during which it is important to get the EC involved through the EC calls issued within European the Framework Programmes (the present FP is called Horizon 2020) For each of these steps, there are EC calls Step 0: Integration activities Basic R&D Roy Aleksan