1. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 1 Accelerator Design How can Fermilab leverage strengths for the ILC design effort? How can Fermilab best contribute to the ILC design effort? Start with a top down look at staffing…

2. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 2 Lab strength: Accelerator System and Component Engineering –General –RF and controls –Magnet systems  Cryogenic Accelerator Engineering –TTF / TESLA cryo and cryomodule participation  Accelerator Design and RF Design - Physics Civil Engineering –Recent NUMI construction and MI project Technology expertise integrated throughout lab –e.g. each division works on / has experts in cryo systems

3. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 3 Leaders in the ILC RDR effort with their supporting staff (2006): Accelerator design (Solyak – linac) –3 FTE Cryomodule and component design (Carter) –3 FTE Conventional Facilities design (Kuchler) –4 FTE + contracts Cryogenic system design (Peterson) –1 FTE Magnet systems (warm + linac cold) design (Tompkins) –2 FTE Controls, Instrumentation and LLRF design (McBride, Wendt/Ross, Chase – J. Carwardine (ANL), lead) –10 FTE Management (Peter Garbincius) – one of the three ‘cost engineers’ –1 FTE Continue into TDR / EDR phase. RDR (05/06) has brought ILC design ‘home’ to Fermilab

4. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 4 Secondary efforts – in support of RDR RF and beam dynamics code development –2 FTE collimation studies, –1 FTE damping ring design, –2 FTE Key aspects of the controls, instrumentation and LLRF work is done in collaboration with other institutions, especially ANL and SLAC. Total 30 FTE physicists and engineers on RDR 2006 –about equal to R and D effort (total ILC professional FTE ~30 in TD alone) –About 40 names in the design effort; more than half are engineers

5. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 5 Today’s Fermilab ‘professional’ staff distribution (not formal labels) Scientists180 Engineering Scientists130 Research Associates (entry)110 Engineers210 Engineers (entry)30 Computing professional290 TOTAL 950

6. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 6 GDE Americas Regional Team informal Policy ‘the bulk of the engineering effort needed for the Americas part of the ILC design (TDR) will come from Fermilab'. This policy is clearly to our advantage and should be interpreted as strongly as possible in order to have a healthy program here. Lab challenge: how best to deploy staff for the ILC design effort? Effective inter-lab design teams? Support for GDE ? Bottoms up look at what is ‘planned’… (For this presentation, stick with the 7+ RDR groups listed Other design effort distributions could be considered)

7. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 7 ILC design effort – key milestone Primary goal of the TDR: –Step toward production of a 'biddable' design package There are therefore two basic stages beyond the RDR: –1) the TDR design effort which will be complete in 3 years and –2) a roughly 2 year project preparation stage which follows that. In these 5 years… equivalent to ‘Title II’ " Title II design includes all work necessary to control the final design configuration for the project, incorporating all necessary details, and then to review, check, approve and accept the documentation into the procurement and construction packages. It also includes preparation of the acceptance test requirements and Project cost estimates to support bid evaluation.“ –Step 2 goes beyond the current GDE charter –2007 to 2012 Reasonable time frame for a project which has been under development since 1988.

8. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 8 Level of effort required for ILC design – in one region, examples Cryo estimate –5 engineering FTE through TDR –Matched with design staff –1/3 of global effort –5 x RDR ‘06 AP estimate –8 FTE through TDR –(important) inter-regional, inter-lab ‘matching’ and coordination –3 x RDR ‘06 Civil/conventional estimate –5 FTE average to manage contractors –5 x RDR level of effort; Cryomodule, Magnet, Controls, Management – best guess –5 x RDR ‘06

9. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 9 Cryogenic System Definition includes cryogenic plants for the main linac, RTML, sources, damping rings, and beam delivery systems. 2 K bath cooling for cryomodules –Also 4.5 K cooling for 650 MHz DR RF, undulators, wigglers, special –1.8 K cooling for crab cavities in the BDS. cryogen distribution and –cryogenic "boxes" on the surface and at tunnel elevation

10. Scope of TDR cryo work - example Integrated cryogenic system thermodynamic cycle design –cryoplant conceptual designs - temperature levels, pressure ranges, flow rates, and capacity variability –contracts with industry –1 FTE engineer to specify and manage the contracts, interface with industry Analysis of non-steady and off-design conditions Need to consider: –Emergency venting, frequency of vent valves, need for helium has headers external to the cryomodules –Cool-down, warm-up, inventory management –Options for segmentation for warm intervention in the main linac –Load shifting and/or sharing for partially or fully disabled cryoplant –Possible commercialization Possible significant impact on ILC main linac layout There are literally hundreds of cryogenic distribution componets. –require at least 3 FTE. In total, about 4-5 FTE engineers and designers for ILC cryogenic system TDR

11. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 11 Qualifications for TDR cryo work All aspects of cryo technology: experience from the Tevatron, magnet test facility, Fermilab's experimental areas, SSC, TESLA TTF, and the LHC project. Technical Division, Accelerator Division, and Particle Physics Division all have experienced cryogenics/cryostat engineering and design staff.

12. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 12 Civil Engineering and Conventional Facilities TDR effort will include a site specific design; –Included –On-site Contract engineering & SLAC also included –Do not include A/E contracted effort (most of these staff manage that) Average 5 FTE

13. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 13 ML Accelerator Physics: FY06 Scope: Acc. Physics Simulations to support RDR Status: –Design of engineering ML Lattice –Static tuning studies –Failure models and analysis –Sensitivity Studies –Wakefields for LL and reentrant cavities (w/DESY) –Tools development (MatLiar, CHEF) –Upgrade computing capabilities 20 nodes in grid computer for AP simulations Two fast servers for EM simulation FY06 budget: ILC Americas + FNAL Resources

14. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 14 FY07 goals: –Engineering Lattice design –Continue Static tuning studies –Start Dynamic tuning studies –Integrated DR-to IP Simulation –Continue Tools development (CHEF) –Developing computing capabilities –Support design of the accelerator components –Beam instrumentation issues Cold BPM design (0.3 um resolution, clean technology) Manpower: –To reach goal we need: ~ 8 FTE Increase fraction of time, spent on project by current players Involve new resources Expand existing collaboration (Cornell, BINP,..), Split work with other collaborators ML Accelerator Physics: FY07-09

15. ILC Main Linac Simulation w/ LIAR- Dispersion Free Steering (1) Corrected normalized emittance (nm) BPM index Cavity pitch sensitivity BPM resolution sensitivity CM offset sensitivity Quad roll sensitivity Dispersion Free Steering : (mean of 50 seeds) Straight Curved Sensitivity Studies 50 seedsmean90% Nominal5.26 ± 0.389.47 Dispersion only1.99 ± 0.244.22 Wakes only1.8 ± 0.173 Quad roll only1.47 ± 0.132.83 Total5.2610.05 Individual contributions

16. BPM in every CM All the seeds have < 10 nm emittance growth ~4nm Case 2: Failed Corrector NOT used in finding the correction-settings; Failed Corrector / BPM Corrected normalized emittance (nm) After DFS After DFS + 1 Bump Corrected normalized emittance (nm) Using dispersion bump ILC Main Linac Simulation w/ LIAR- Dispersion Free Steering (2) Effect of BPM Scale Error Corrected normalized emittance (nm)  Case 1: Failed Corrector used in finding the correction- settings; but correction is not applied to the failed corrector BPM index

17. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 17 Cavity Design, simulation, testing  ILC Base-line cavity studies High order modes and wakes Multipactor, Dark current, Lorentz detuning, Heat loads Production, tuning, treatment, tests  Alternative ILC designs: LL and Reentrant (coll. with KEK/SLAC/Cornell/JLAB) Same studies as for baseline design High order modes in ICHIRO copper cavity  3 rd harmonic accelerating 3.9GHz  ILC Crab-cavity 3.9 GHz EE-44 EE-45 EE-46 EE-47 EE-48 Fields in TESLA cavity end Example of HOM simulations in TESLA cavity

18. Accelerator Physics: Work plans for FY07 and beyond FY07 will be spent mostly on work related to RDR document Beam studies are in collaboration with SLAC/DESY/CERN/KEK Lattice and optics design –Work mostly on “engineered ML” lattice design ( (now available on Wiki page): Matching to RTML, undulator section and BDS Beam diagnostics Static tuning studies –Jitter studies (beam/quad position jitter, quad/corrector field jitter) –Development of the static tuning algorithm for ML launch region. Sensitivity studies Failure mode analysis (BPM, correctors, quads, RF) Investigate other tuning methods (Kick minimization, Ballistic alignment, Quad shunting, Adaptive alignment) –Global bumps tuning studies Dynamic tuning studies –Develop conceptual design and models for intra-train and inter-train Feed-back loops. –Introduce models for ground motion, jitter (RF, power supply, etc.) in CHEF,Liar, Lucretia Code development –Transition to use of CHEF (FNAL) and Lucretia (SLAC) for most LET work –Develop parallel processor computing efforts (grid computing) First look for upgraded 1TeV machine –Lattice design (matching section, diagnostics, etc) –Some Static Tuning studies

19. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 19 AP Goals for FY08-FY09 (TDR stage)  Complete “Engineered ML” optics Based on engineering design of the linac components Iterative process with technical/engineering groups - Developing full specifications for all components - Implementing necessary changes for cost minimization/buildability  Develop engineering drawings of certain components Warm section with vacuum components and beam diagnostics Cold BPM with submicron resolution Quad and corrector designs  Static/Dynamic tuning continues (ML,RTML,BDS) Iterations with the tuning procedure – review tolerances and performances Move towards “best practices” on independent reproduction of simulation results  Code development continues  Expand simulation / computing capabilities (grid computer)  Integrated Cradle to Grave simulation (DR-to-IP)  Machine Protection System (MPS) Studies ( incd Dark current studies)  Develop Linac Commissioning Strategy

20. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 20 Wrap up: RDR to TDR Possible plan Develop cohesive design team, building on collaboration, in-house strength. natural, adiabatic progression –to build on 7 RDR groups –consistent with RD strategy Total ‘TDR’ effort: –140 ‘professional’ FTE From 3 to 15% of Fermilab

21. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 21 Building Collaborations The biggest challenge: –ILC will be the world’s first truly global large science project –(“The First Truly National Laboratory: The Birth of Fermilab, Catherine Westfall, Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1988”) –Community invented the GDE and has begun to empower it to face this challenge Connections with primary ILC labs and institutions –DESY – August 2006 Interconnection with XFEL –KEK – November 2006 –US Labs Development of small projects Managing large ones –R and D described by GDE Task Forces  S# Effective leadership at home is a key ingredient to building collaborations and trust

22. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 22 Challenges for Fermilab: Transition from a single mission lab Transition to a different ‘core’ technology Deployment of a cohesive team Development of effective partnerships

23. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 23 R and D issues How is Fermilab’s R and D program obligated to the ILC GDE Partnership? Where are Fermilab’s opportunities within the partnership?

24. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 24 SCRF Cavity Gradient RD “S0 / S1” GDE charge: Provide the information needed to make a gradient decision for TDR. Challenge: Cavity surface processing variability (yield) –Secondary: the rest of the fabrication effort From the mine to the cryomodule (‘production-like RD’) Focused charge, well defined deliverable, broad base, expensive task with excellent cost / benefit

25. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 25 Processing R & D … (2006-09) S0 ‘tight loop’ plan: –3 cavities from each region; –Each processed 3x; tested and retested in each region Rotation –27 total processing cycles (each cycle 7 to 10 days in full assembly line mode) S0 ‘tight loop’ questions: –Which cavities? –EP Process capacity/ Vertical test capacity –Exchange and compatibility constraints –What are the required resources and impact on participants? How will it be managed? –How to ensure success (i.e.  good advice in mid 08) Our role: –US resources scattered between several centers: J-Lab, ANL, FNAL, Cornell, LANL, MSU…

26. S0 issues: US –~ 4 Accel cavities in process –New vendor qualification underway –2007 EP only at J-Lab, 2008 add ANL Limited processing capacity in 07 –FNAL Vertical Test from summer 07; HP rinse? –Need cavities for NML module assembly EU –XFEL production cycles starting –XFEL needs yield assessment also –EP system in steady use – most ‘industrial’ system existing Tight loop work must be fit into busy schedule Japan –‘Ichiro’ & STF baseline cavities  different… Limited number of cavities until 10.07 –good EP process capacity at KEK/Nomura Plating –Need cavities for STF cryomodule assembly –Ichiro HOM improvements needed –Flange gasket material incompatible with DESY practice expert SRF leadership from all 3 regions

27. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 27 String test and industrialization ‘gap’ (S2) Charge: –Recommend a string test strategy; –follow up responsibility not defined; S2 and TTF/XFEL –Interaction with design effort Extremely expensive Poorly quantified deliverables Duplication / competition / standardization Cross threaded with mass-production issues and ‘regional interest’ issues R or D? Fermilab role – develop constructive, practical string test –Score success for GDE / ILC community: can we do it?

28. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 28 S2 is a referendum on the readiness of SRF ‘systems’ for ILC Also on the interdependencies of ILC / XFEL –XFEL system design / projectization effort now underway The more CM changes we make, more we need S2 for technical v/v development reasons For example: –XFEL will develop and test cryomodule type 3’ –ILC is designing CM type 4 Cost reduction may mandate additional design effort – CM5 –Is a separate string test needed for the new type? Why? –Are the changes cost effective, including the cost / risk of the system test?

29. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 29 Interaction between RDR and R & D RDR should provide a new focus on needed ‘development’; –e.g. cryomodule cost –also need to revisit alternates Present RD priorities come from Snowmass era evaluation –With fresh cost information, we will be able to reassign priorities In the next ~ months, update strategy and identify: –Gaps –Poor cost/benefit RD Reconsider priorities using RDR project schedule

30. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 30 Extra Material

31. December 4, 2006 Marc Ross - Global Design Effort - Fermilab 31 Professional Staff Details