1. 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

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

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

4. 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

5. 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:
CLIC Physics study and detector development:
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

6. World-wide CLIC&CTF3 Collaboration
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

7. 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

8. CLIC critical issues R&D strategy and schedule
Critical issues classified in three categories: Risk register
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

9. CLIC feasibility issues and critical parameters
Novel
Scheme
LHC

10. 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 ns
High current, full-loaded linac operation
95 % RF to beam efficiency measured
No instabilities

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. Towards CLIC feasibility demonstration

15. 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 ( )
Timescales:
By end 2011: aim to have Vol 1 and 2 completed
Spring/mid 2012: Vol 3 ready for the European Strategy Open Meeting

16. available as final or draft
Vol1:Accelerator The linked documents (in blue) are all the drafts
90% sections of Vol 1
available as final or draft
being addressed
by Editorial Board

17. You are all kindly invited to subscribe

18. (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

19. J.B.Jeanneret
Preliminary
L =

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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Concept Staging
Concept! Not to scale

24. 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
– 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

25. 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 to
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

26. 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.

27. Work-packages

28. Welcome to
participate
….. and to
contribute!

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

30. “Batton” accepted

31. Celebrating !

32. Conclusion
Well on track for successful completion of CLIC present phase ( )
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 ( )
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

33. 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

34. Spares

35. R&D Objectives – Next Phase
S.Stapnes 35

36. 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)

37. 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

38. MB+BD production & transport, services, infrastructure
Power 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