1. JLEIC Collaboration meeting highlights
JLEIC pre-CDR and project development
Fulvia Pilat
JLEIC 3rd Collaboration Meeting
JLAB March

2. outline Plans for the pre-CDR Project development
Collaboration meeting highlights
JLEIC 3rd Collaboration Meeting

3. EIC Timeline
Activity Name
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
12 GeV Operations
12 GeV Upgrade
FRIB
EIC Physics Case
NSAC LRP
NAS Study
CD0
EIC Design, R&D
Pre-CDR, CDR
CD1(Down-select)
CD2/CD3
EIC Construction
pre-project
on-project
Pre-CDR
CDR
CD0 = DOE “Mission Need” statement; CD1 = design choice and site selection (VA/NY)
CD2/CD3 = establish project baseline cost and schedule
JLEIC 3rd Collaboration Meeting

4. JLAB EIC Plan GOALS deliver pre-CDR by ~end FY17 (ready for CD0,
down-select)
deliver CDR by FY (ready for CD1)
Activities:
Baseline design optimization (cost reduction)
Pre-project R&D planning and execution
Enhance synergy and collaborations with labs, universities and industry
Completion of civil site development
JLEIC 3rd Collaboration Meeting

5. DoE Critical Decisions process
CD0: Approve mission need
Recommendation 3 of LRP provides basis for mission need
Review by the Academies (2016)
CD0 likely issued in 2017
CD1: Approve alternative selection and cost range
CDR is CD-1 deliverable
Typically after project down-select
CD2: Approve performance baseline
CD3: Approve construction start
CD4: Approve start of operations
A pre-CDR (preliminary Conceptual Design Report) will:
Be the document basis for DoE EIC project down-select proposal
Straightforwardly evolve from proposal basis document to CDR
Focus and organize design and R&D efforts

6. Key CDR Elements
From DOE at a minimum, the Conceptual Design shall develop the following:
Scope required to satisfy the Program mission requirements;
Project feasibility;
Attainment of specified performance levels;
Assessment of project risks and identification of appropriate risk mitigation strategies;
Reliable cost and schedule range estimates for the alternatives considered;
Project criteria and design parameters;
Impact on the site Sustainability Plan; and
Identification of requirements and features.
CDR includes a clear and concise description of the alternatives analyzed, the basis for the alternative selected, how the alternative meets the approved mission need, the functions and requirements that define the alternative and demonstrate the capability for success, and the facility performance requirements, planning standards and life-cycle cost assumptions. The CDR should also clearly and concisely describe the KPPs that will form the basis of baseline at CD-2.

7. Key CDR Elements Physics Program Scope of Physics Program
High level version of physics program and motivation
References/summarizes other reports/documents
Ties in with CD-0 – mission need
Physics program may have phases – e.g. Phase I and later upgrade to Phase II etc. – needs to be addressed
Facility requirements necessary to achieve Physics Program
Phase I scope delineation e.g.,
Number of Interaction Regions (IRs)
Beam (both electron & hadron) requirements at IR – tie to Physics program
IR experimental equipment requirements – tie to Physics program
Upgrade (Phase II) scope delineation etc.

8. Key CDR Elements Facility Design
Performance criteria (from Physics Program)
Possible solutions that meet performance criteria
Lower level performance criteria necessary to achieve facility performance criteria to support Physics Program (e.g. parameters per machine segment – i.e., hadron linac, hadron booster, etc.)
Analysis of these solutions in terms of cost, risk, and performance in support of Phase I physics program
Analysis of these solutions in terms of cost, risk, and performance for for future (e.g. Phase II) projects in support of Phase II physics program
Identification and documented basis of preferred solution for each facility segment
Risk evaluations lead to R&D plan – delineated in CDR (and proposal)
Initial baseline cost and schedule for preferred solution identified by alternative analyses

9. Key CDR Elements Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
Need it now & use it as framework for CDR
WBS is framework for project
WBS must be orthogonal basis set
WBS should be by MACHINE SEGMENT – e.g. hadron linac, hadron booster, hadron collider etc
WBS should NOT be by discipline – e.g. vacuum, rf, civil
Table of Contents (TOC)
Single volume, linear document – only higher level material
JLab has controlled document system including internal reports, committee reports, publications
These can be used to delineate full detail of any analysis – e.g. beam cooling, etc. that can referenced in CDR with only summary higher level results in CDR

10. Draft JLEIC CDR TOC
1. Front Matter - Contributors, Table of Contents, Acronyms, List of Figures, List of Tables
2. Executive Summary - Global overview (400 to 500 words) that includes the following:
Introduction,
Science horizon in terms of physics opportunities and time,
Science background and development including Jlab history/role in science development,
Scope NSAC (Jlab) EIC science objectives,
LEIC Project Plan to achieve objectives:
Capabilities
Critical parameters, location, size, and configuration
Acquisition Strategy and Alternative Analysis
Project Implementation Concept/Organization/Team Members
Cost and Schedule (TPC/TEC), Major Milestones, Transition to Operations
Advisory Committee's Recommendations
2.1 Introduction
2.1 Scope
2.2 Acquisition Strategy and Alternative Analyses
2.3 Cost and Schedule
2.4 References

11. Draft JLEIC CDR by machine segments
Baseline overview JLAB
Electron Injector - CEBAF JLAB
Electron Collider Ring JLAB, SLAC
Ion Injector (front end, linac, booster) JLAB, ANL, LBL, BINP
Ion Collider Ring JLAB, LBL, SLAC, TAMU
Interaction regions JLAB, SLAC, LBL, TAMU
Beam cooling and ERL Cooler JLAB
Detectors JLAB, BNL, ANL, LBL…….
Site and Infrastructures JLAB
Commissioning
Upgrades
Under development – listed are possible contributors

12. Project development Task list of technical work, including simulations
Timeline and responsibilities (names & institutions)
Configuration management and control
parameter lists, lattices, element databases, nomenclature, documents
Pre-CDR
Site Development
Development of DoE suite of documents
Refine cost estimate / TPC reduction
Funding profile
 CDR
JLEIC 3rd Collaboration Meeting

13. JLEIC Civil: Site Development
cs9
cs10 4
cs11
cs8
cs12
cs7
cs6 12
cs14 3
cs13
cs15
cs5 14 13 5 11
cs4 15 1
cs16
cs3
cs2
cs1 9
Funded by VA State 2 10
cs17 8 7
cs18
cs24 6
cs19
cs23
cs20
et5
cs22
cs21
et4
et3
et1
et2

14. JLEIC Site Development Scope
Engineering Services Contract – Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)
Site Characterization & Early Project Development for conventional facilities
Awarded in September 2015, Commonwealth of Virginia funds
Site Development - $1,000K:
Site plan with roads, parking, and structures*
Utility services & distribution
Traffic Study
Alternative analysis & feasibility studies
Project Planning - $1,000K:
Budgetary cost estimate*
Preliminary risk assessment*
Schedule development
Pre-conceptual design report
Design requirements document
Site Condition Surveys - $500K:
Topographic land surveys*
Property surveys
Geotechnical investigation - soil borings*
Groundwater studies
Environmental Services - $1,200K:
Environmental site assessments*
Wetland delineation
Preparation of NEPA documents
Ecological surveys
Stormwater management plan
*Current activities under Task Order #1

15. FTE needed for pre-CDR and CDR
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Design
JLAB 5 8 9 7
EXT
1.5 2 3
R&D
4.5
2.5
3.5 4
Engineering 6 1
TOTAL
16.5 25 27 29
actuals
plan

16. Next 6 months: accelerator goals
Outline pre-CDR March 31
Pre-CDR tasks-list, including simulation effort April 15
with names, institutions, timeline
Baseline review (footprints, linac energy, ~end of April
e-ring, BBC staging approach)
LDRD proposals for April 29
NP EIC Accelerator R&D FOA May 2
200 GeV cost estimate ~June 2016
Configuration management and control August 2016
parameter tables
lattices and element database
nomenclature
document
4th JLEIC Collaboration Meeting ~end of September (between LINAC’16 and NAPAC’16)
AAC Review, Feb , 2016

17. Highlights – cooling and cooler
Calculation/modeling of cooling rates (validation of models)
On the basis of present calculations and simulations: “weak” cooling (420 pC) not sufficient to fully cool the beam at high energy, “strong” cooling (2nC) could do the job assuming mixing of longitudinal and horizontal cooling
Single-pass ERL cooler specs are demanding (and even more so for 200 GeV)
 continue effort on re-circulator cooler ( especially in the light of good progress in the fast kicker R&D)
Optimize overall machine parameter sets and evaluate luminosity with staged approach to BB cooling (no cooling initially  weak  strong bunched beam cooling)
Dispersive and sweep techniques to optimize longitudinal and transverse planes  operational cooling manipulation to optimize beam lifetime?….possibility of experimental tests somewhere?
Collaborate with and leverage RadiaSoft Phase1 SBIR for e-cooling simulations
Excellent progress in the LDRD magnetized photo gun development (~35mA, limited by gun power supply)
Started planning and coordination for the Xcelera Research Ph1 SBIR on thermionic magnetized source
Critical to keep magnetized transverse beam size small through the low energy transport line to avoid nonlinearity
JLEIC 3rd Collaboration Meeting

18. Highlights IR - machine detector interface
IR design well advanced and work to be done well identified
Crossing angle reduction?  Reduction in luminosity, consequences for magnet design, 20% reduction probably OK but 50% affecting the detector performance
Space for IR non-linear triplet correction packages and spool pieces in the arcs
Option considered at BNL: divergence from IP asymmetric ….quadrupoles could be elliptical, much narrower in the horizontal direction
Detector design well advanced
Level of detail in detector design and R&D for the pre-CDR consistent set of requirements and possible technology choices
Vacuum modeling and coating to handle dynamic vacuum. Vacuum was the dominant factor in the interaction region performance (HERA experience)
JLEIC 3rd Collaboration Meeting

19. Highlights IR :magnets, dynamics
SF selected IR magnet designs hat can screen appropriately the field from the other beam
CORC Cable-in-Conduit using REBCO (50 K ops) or Nb3Sn or MgB2
QFFB1e lives in the of the spectrometer solenoid  quad with iron flux return that excludes the flux from the 3T solenoid
Good progress in chromaticity correction performance analysis for the ion and electron ring (DA, luminosity, Touscheck lifetime)
Emittance reduction options
FF quads end harmonics effects
Reference radius
Spool pieces in arcs and Irs
Super-KEKB will have a 86mrad crossing angle – operational experience
JLEIC 3rd Collaboration Meeting

20. Superconducting magnets
Innovation in cabling tools, needed because Lorentz forces are no longer negligible at 3T
3T for collider, 3.1 T for booster – essentially same design (based on a 3.5T design)
Fabrication of a 1.2 m model dipole
6T CIC dipole –cost 2.25x cost of 3T (cos –theta cost goes ~B2)
Nuclotron super-ferric dipoles, hollow cable design : 2T, fast ramps 4T/sec, all production in the lab (300m of cable per day) operational experience good, 2min quench recovery!
Improvements of nuclotron magnets for GSI SIS100, full scale prototypes tested successfully in 2010, production in progress
Fast ramped 2-4T dipole with hollow NbTi composite keystone cable, cos-theta design – design existing but no prototype
For fast ramped T dipole  double layer necessary
Field vs ramp rate: JLEIC ‘dots’ for booster and collider
Review of cos-theta magnets ( RHIC magnets adapted for fast ramping ~1T/sec SIS300, curvature possible ~64m/sagitta ~3cm)
For fast ramping you don’t want to be too close to critical current
Interaction region quads: LARP Ni3Sn
JLEIC 3rd Collaboration Meeting