1. Preparation for SCRF BTR to be held at KEK, January 19 -20, 2012 Akira Yamamoto, Marc Ross, and Nick Walker (PMs) Jim Kerby, and Tetsuo Shidara (SCRF-APMs) Updated, Jan. 16, 2012 120115 GDE-PMs1Plan for SCRF-BTR

2. Design Update in SB2009 2120115 GDE-PMs RDR  SB2009 Motivation: Cost containment Single accelerator tunnel Smaller damping ring e+ target location at high-energy end, SCRF: Gradient variation of 31.5 MV/m +/- 20 %, HLRF: KCS and DRFS with RDR-RF unit as backup Plan for SCRF-BTR

3. TDR Technical Volumes 120115 GDE-PMs Reference Design Report ILC Technical Progress Report (“interim report”) TDR Part I: R&D TDR Part II: Baseline Reference Report Technical Design Report ~250 pages Deliverable 2 ~300 pages Deliverables 1,3 and 4 * end of 2012 – formal publication early 2013 AD&I 3Plan for SCRF-BTR

4. TDR Part I: R&D - Outline 1.Introduction 5 pages 2.Superconducting RF Technology 75 pages 3.Beam Test Facilities 75 pages 4.Accelerator Systems R&D 50 pages 5.Post-TDR R&D 20 pages 6.Conclusions 10 pages 120115 GDE-PMs4Plan for SCRF-BTR

5. TDR Part I: R&D - Outline 1.Introduction 5 pages 2.Superconducting RF Technology 75 pages 3.Beam Test Facilities 75 pages 4.Accelerator Systems R&D 50 pages 5.Post-TDR R&D 10 pages 6.Conclusions 10 pages 120115 GDE-PMs 2.1 Overview (Yamamoto, Ross) 2.2 Development of world-wide SCRF R&D infrastructure (Kerby, Elsen, Hayano) 2.3 High-gradient SCRF cavity R&D and the yield evaluation (Geng, Gisburg) 2.4 Cavity Integration (Hayano) 2.5 The S1-Global experiment (Hayano, Kerby, Moeller ) 2.6 Cryomodule, cryogenics thermal balance, and Quad. R&D (Pierini, Peterson, Kashkin) 2.7 RF power generation and distribution(Fukuda, Nantista) 2.8 R&D toward mass-production(Kerby, Elsen, Saeki) 2.1 Overview (Yamamoto, Ross) 2.2 Development of world-wide SCRF R&D infrastructure (Kerby, Elsen, Hayano) 2.3 High-gradient SCRF cavity R&D and the yield evaluation (Geng, Gisburg) 2.4 Cavity Integration (Hayano) 2.5 The S1-Global experiment (Hayano, Kerby, Moeller ) 2.6 Cryomodule, cryogenics thermal balance, and Quad. R&D (Pierini, Peterson, Kashkin) 2.7 RF power generation and distribution(Fukuda, Nantista) 2.8 R&D toward mass-production(Kerby, Elsen, Saeki) 5Plan for SCRF-BTR

6. TDR Part I: R&D - Outline 1.Introduction 5 pages 2.Superconducting RF Technology 75 pages 3.Beam Test Facilities 75 pages 4.Accelerator Systems R&D 50 pages 5.Post-TDR R&D 10 pages 6.Conclusions 10 pages 120115 GDE-PMs 3.1 Over View (Ross, Walker) 3.2 FLASH 9 mA experiment (Carwardine, Walker) 3.3 Cesr TA and electron-could R&D(Palmer) 3.4 ATF2 final focus experiment (Tauchi, Burrows) 3.5 Fermilab-NML (Nagaitsev) 3.6 Quantum Beam at KEK(Urakawa, Hayano) 3.1 Over View (Ross, Walker) 3.2 FLASH 9 mA experiment (Carwardine, Walker) 3.3 Cesr TA and electron-could R&D(Palmer) 3.4 ATF2 final focus experiment (Tauchi, Burrows) 3.5 Fermilab-NML (Nagaitsev) 3.6 Quantum Beam at KEK(Urakawa, Hayano) 6Plan for SCRF-BTR

7. TDR Part II: ILC Baseline Reference 1.Introduction and overview 5 pages 2.General parameters and layout 15 pages 3.SCRF Main Linacs 60 pages 4.Polarised electron source 15 pages 5.Positron source 20 pages 6.Damping Rings 30 pages 7.Ring to Main Linac (RTML) 20 pages 8.Beam Delivery System & MDI 30 pages 9.CFS and global systems 30 pages 10... see later 120115 GDE-PMs Detailed section outline available here 7Plan for SCRF-BTR

8. TDR Part II: ILC Baseline Reference 1.Introduction and overview 5 pages 2.General parameters and layout 15 pages 3.SCRF Main Linacs 60 pages 4.Polarised electron source 15 pages 5.Positron source 20 pages 6.Damping Rings 30 pages 7.Ring to Main Linac (RTML) 20 pages 8.Beam Delivery System & MDI 30 pages 9.CFS and global systems 30 pages 10... see later 120115 GDE-PMs Detailed section outline available here 3.1 Main linac layout and parameters (Adolphsen) 3.2 Cavity performance and production specification (Yamamoto, Kerby) 3.3 Cavity integration, coupler, tuners,… (Hayano) 3.4 Cryomodule design including quad (Pierini) 3.5 Cryogenics systems (Peterson) 3.6 RF power and distribution systems (Fukuda, Nantista) 3.7 Low-level RF control (Carwardine, Michizono) 3.1 Main linac layout and parameters (Adolphsen) 3.2 Cavity performance and production specification (Yamamoto, Kerby) 3.3 Cavity integration, coupler, tuners,… (Hayano) 3.4 Cryomodule design including quad (Pierini) 3.5 Cryogenics systems (Peterson) 3.6 RF power and distribution systems (Fukuda, Nantista) 3.7 Low-level RF control (Carwardine, Michizono) 8Plan for SCRF-BTR

9. How to prepare for BTR and TDR? Technical discussion in TTC, Dec. 5 – 8, to evaluate technically satisfactory/acceptable design for projects. ILC Specific discussion in post-TTC, Dec. 8-9, to seek for cost- effective technical choice to prepare for BTR Consensus/Decision for TDR writing, BTR at KEK, Jan. 19 – 20, 2012 120115 GDE-PMs 9Plan for SCRF-BTR

10. TTC: WG-1 Discussion Summary 120115 GDE-PMs Tuner: finding, -Blade and slide-Jack tuners satisfy technical requirements - Accessibility to be important Input couplers: finding: -Tesla and KEK couplers satisfy technicalrequirements -Cu-plating to be improved -Warm-flange to be interface Cryomodule assembly: finding, -Alignment with EXFEL adaptable, -Magnetic field inside Lhe vessel, - 10Plan for SCRF-BTR

11. Important Step for Technical Guidelines proposed by PMs The first step to evaluate designs to satisfy the ILC technical requirements with: – Keeping ‘plug-compatibility’ at interfaces and defining the envelope The second step to choose the best cost- effective designs for: – the TDR baseline description and the cost- estimate 120115 GDE-PMs11Plan for SCRF-BTR

12. Technical Change Guideline Re-Proposed See Red parts (Further details with EXCEL sheets by Marc Ross ) Tech. AreaMain SubjectsDescription ML IntegrationParameters and beam dynamics Single tunnel-layout CM and Q periodicity: ML tunnel length Possible tilting of the tunnel Low-Power design as TDR baseline (SB2009), and alignment tolerance Circular tunnel in flat-land, and Kamaboko tunnel in mountain CM and Q periodicity: >> Stay at 9+4Q4+9 Reserved tunnel-extension of 400 m w/o or w/ utility ? >> More precise discussions for purpose required New request from CFS: < 0.5 % tunnel tilting RF powerHLRF Configuration LLRF operational overhead KCS in flat-land site RDR-RF unit in mountain site (DRFS to be withdrawn) ≥ 12% at G=31.5 MV/m +/-20% and RF power in RDR-unit CryomoduleEnvelope/interface String Unit 5 K radiation shield Piping interface with flange?, inter-connect condition, etc, Stay at 9 +4Q4+9 (no change to 8+4Q4+8) Simplification and accessibility for active components such as tuners CryogenicsUnit capacityStay at 5 units per linac Limit of tilting angle in ML tunnel Cavity integration and Cavity/CM test Envelope, baseline, compatibility Test conditions Tuner type, coupler warm-flange, beam pipe flange, magnetic shield (inside/outside), LHe tank etc. Test plan and fraction of CM to be tested Cavity performanceYield Gradient spread Degradation in CM module New recipe and cost-base scope: 1st pass: 60% and 2 nd pass: 70% ? G = 31.5 +/- 20 % confirmed (Assume ~ 1/10 cavities to degrade dG = ~ 20 % or more, and ) >> Adopt a statistical approach to cavity degradation; <> and rms CostCost containment Exchange rate and conversion Technical design base on SB2009 (updated) compared with RDR cost PPP 120115 GDE-PMs 12Plan for SCRF-BTR

13. High-Level RF Solutions Klystron Cluster Scheme, KCS (SLAC) Distributed RF Sources, DRFS (KEK) 2×35 10MW MB klystrons GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization13 ~4000×800kW klystrons

14. Tunneling Study for Mountain Regions in Japan 12/01/10, A. YamamotoGDE-Efforts for ILC Cost14 Courtesy: Enomoto/Miyahara Study supported by KEK-DG

15. ILC Design: RDR to TDR (SB2009) 15120115 GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR RDR2007  SB2009  TDR w/ mountain site Motivation: Cost containment Single accelerator tunnel Smaller damping ring e+ target location at high-energy end, SCRF: Gradient variation of 31.5 MV/m +/- 20 %, HLRF: KCS and DRFS with RDR- RF-unit as backup

16. Studies made for 8 cases These are cost-and time-effective in Japan 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR16

17. Studies made for 8 cases DRFS RF unit: 2 cavities operated by 800 kW Klystron RDR RF unite : 3 Cryomodule (9+8+9 = 26 cavity), operated by using 10 MW Klystron 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR17

18. Progress in Discussion and Consensus among HLRF and CFS experts, as of Jan. 5, 2012 ‘Kamaboko’ type tunnel for mountain region and RDR HLRF configuration may be fully adaptable, DRFS and RDR-backup may satisfy ILC requirements, RDR-backup configuration to be more cost-effective solution, 10 MW klystron may handle 26 (9+4Q4+9) cavities with gradient spread of 31.5MV/m+/- 20 % (25 – 38 MV/m) in case of RDR-RF or KCS-RF design, with minimum operational margin – Klystron power consumption spread corresponding to: - – 20 % at, and 12 % at assuming Gaussian distribution – Low-power baseline (for TDR) with 39 (1.5 x (9+4Q4+9) cavity string may absorb this problem, in TDR with SB2009-updated design, – (400 m tunnel backup needs to be well discussed again: what would be the purpose, and how it should be equipped or not) Requirements for CFS to stay and 10 MW klystron for RDR-RF and KCS configuration – Chilling water and power line unit can be extended to 2.3 km and everything may be well averaged. Then no extra requirements for CFS (except for the additional 400 m equipped or not). 120115 GDE-PMs18Plan for SCRF-BTR

19. A Proposal Revised Keep the concept of 9+8+9 cavity sting unit 9 4 + Q +4 9 8 8Q8 84 + Q +4 8 GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization19

20. Access Routes with Mountain-site GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization20

21. Layout of 2K Cryoplants ML BDS IP 2K Cryoplants RDR-based How about this? GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization21

22. Length of transfer line 2764m 2325m 2325m 2215m 2215m 2138m 2138m 2325m 2325m 2764m 1700m 2536m 2536m 2536m 2536m 2138m 2138m 2325m 2325m 2764m

23. Two shield model Simplified shield model ILC Cryomodule Plug-compatibility 120115 GDE-PMs Some difference from EXFEL -Length -Cavity pitch -Unit configuration -Access flanges -Etc. 23Plan for SCRF-BTR

24. 24 Quadrupole Cross-Section LHe tank for current leads connections Beam pipeIron yoke V. Kashikhin, FNAL Review, March 2, 2010 GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization

25. R&D/Demonstration Required Rapid response to beam handling – Study by K. Kubo and K. Yokoya R&D cooperation under discussion between Fermilab and KEK – Magnet by Fermilab and Conduction cooling by KEK Peak fieldResponse required Quadrupole30 T/m*m0.01 T/m*m/sec (0.03% /sec) Dipole0.05 T*m3E-4 Tm/sec (0.6 % /sec) GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization25

26. Plug-compatible Conditions Plug-compatible interface nearly established ItemPossibilitiesPlug-comp. Cavity shapeTeSLA/LL/RE LengthFixed Beam pipe flangeFixed Suspension pitchFixed TunerBlade/JackTBD Coupler flange (warm end) Nearly fixed (250 mm dia.) Coupler pitchfixed He –in-line jointNearly fixed as shown here, 120115 GDE-PMs26Plan for SCRF-BTR

27. ILC 建設費見積もり (ILC RDR) FIGURE 6.2-1. Distribution of the ILC value estimate by area system and common infrastructure, in ILC Units. The estimate for the experimental detectors for particle physics is not included. (The Conventional Facilities estimates have been averaged over the three regional site estimates. ) 27 Cavity & CM Ass. -13% -15% RF Sys. -36% -27% Effort In progress 12/01/10, A. YamamotoGDE-Efforts for ILC Cost

28. Updated Cavity Cost-study compared with RDR and E-FXEL (as of Oct., 2011) ILC: RDR EXFEL: Original 300 EXFEL: + 80 ILC: EAJ Prep.+Prod. Yrs. 2+31+2.5?2+6 Fraction 100%2 x 50%~ same20% # cavity 17,000300+803,2003,200,3,200 SC Material (supplied) 15.520+2~ same (~22x0.8*+2)) (~24*)(~2.4*) Mech. Fabrication including EBW Chemistry Ti He-Vessel Accept. Test (RT) Factory investment Fab. Cost/cavity (+ SC-mat.= Sum) Unit Cost Comparison in ILCU 28 Further mass production cost study with contracts in progress: -RI-DESY: 50, 100 % production cost including facility cost -AES-FNAL: 20 % (& more as option) facility investment cost -MHI-KEK: 20, 50, 100 % production cost w/ facility cost To be completed by spring, 2012. ILC コストを単純に EXFEL からエネルギーでスケーリング する事は無理がある。 但し、同様の技術となる SCRF 空洞について比較検討は意味あり。

29. Reference for Cavity Specification Technical guideline for ILC-GDE TDR and the cost estimate: –referring Specifications for E-XFEL SCRF 1.3 GHz Cavity, issued by DESY EXFEL/001 and associated documents :Rev.B, June 2009, by courtesy of W. Singer (DESY-XFEL)), The reference specification is available with ILC-GDE PMs, under permission of W. Singer (DESY-XFEL) URL: http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/event/ILC-SCRF-TRhttp://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/event/ILC-SCRF-TR GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011 SCRF Industrialization 29 scrf-treq Courtesy: W. Singer

30. EXFEL Cavity Deliverable (for a major reference for ILC Cavity) 120115 GDE-PMs From EXFEL specification: 02L BQM-Cavity in He Tank 30 Plan for SCRF-BTR

31. TDR Cavity Baseline Configuration 120115 GDE-PMs 31 Plan for SCRF-BTR

32. Cavity Fabrication Process He Tank GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011 SCRF Industrialization 32 Material/ Sub-component Cavity Fabrication Surface Process LHe-Tank Assembly Vertical Test = Cavity RF Test Cryomodule Assembly and RF Test

33. Cavity Test Procedure consideration (He tank-on test) Cavity Fabrication Inspections/ optical inspection Inspections/ optical inspection Bulk-EP (150µm) 800C heat treatment optical inspection cell RF tuning surface repair 2 fine EP (20µm) 120C baking He tank welding pick-up antenna inst., HOM tuning pick-up antenna inst., HOM tuning 2K field test OK if defect found surface repair 1 if defect found 4 Cavities Test in one cool-down > 28MV/m < 28MV/m 2 nd pass remove pick- up antenna, HOM antenna with He Tank in 2 nd pass with He Tank in 2 nd pass skip in 2 nd pass to cryomodule Cavity test facility

34. Coupler Fabrication clean-up pair assembly pumping/120C baking RF power process (RoomTemperature) disassembly in clean room disassembly in clean room assembly into cavities in clean room assembly into cavities in clean room RF power process (Room Temperature) RF power process (Room Temperature) RF power process with cavity (2K) 20hrs for two Coupler ProcedureCryomodule Procedure cryomodule assembly cryomodule test facility in tunnel RF power process (Room Temperature) RF power process (Room Temperature) RF power process with cavity (2K) Accelerator Operation reflection mode through mode reflection mode through mode Coupler test facility 2x peak RF power process Move to Tunnel and install into Accelerator cavities couplers Initial 20% cold-test The rest 10% sampling for cold-test 100% power test

35. How to organize SCRF BTR Co-organized by ILC-GDE and KEK LC office – Thanks for the cooperation – Open for ILC-GDE and KEK members (not for companies, this time) – http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/conferenceOtherViews.py?view=standard&c onfId=5444 Guidelines of design updates for TDR proposed by PMs, based on SB2009 design Responses, comments, and/or counter-proposals to be given by TA group leaders Discussions by everybody to reach consensus Decisions made by PMs for design updates in TDR Further action to be made for TDR 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR35

36. Agenda Proposed for SCRF BTR at KEK (1/19) DateTechnical AreaSubjects to be discussedConveners / - Presenters 9:00 - 19/AM-1 1. Introduction Welcome Address PM’s report a) Japanese status and scope for ILC b) Summary of design update proposal Ross - Suzuki - Yamamoto 10:15 - Break / photo 10:45 - 19/AM-2 2. ML Integrationa)Beam dynamics: -Quadrupole/BPM periodicity, Quad. Location, -Alignment and beam tunability, -Bunch spacing limit b) Availability, reliability, and backup CM -3 % longer (400 m) tunnel empty or equipped? c)ML CFS design and requests for ML and SCRF d)Comments from Cost Group Adolphsen -Yokoya/Kubo -List -Kuchler -Dugan 12:15 - lunch 13;30 - 19/PM-1 3. HLRF/LLRFa)KCS/RDR-RF-unit HLRF system configuration including backup PS and utilities with the single tunnel design, and low-power and full-power b)LLRF overheadw/gradient spread, and w/ (989 or 888) cavity-strings c)Marx generator d)AC power and cooling w/ gradient spreads e)Tunable power distribution system f)Comments from Cost Group Fukuda/Nantista -Michizono -Adolpphsen - - Dugan 15:15 - break 15:45 - 19/PM-2 4. Cryomodule and Cavity-string Assembly a) Cryomodule envelope/interface b) CM-string configuration w/ 989 cavity-st. assembly c) Simplification of 5K radiation-shield, accessibility, flow reversal or not d) Split-yoke and conduction-cooled SC quadrupoles e) Alignment scheme with EXFEL approach, f) Comments from Cost group Pierini -TBD -Dugan 18:00 - Reception/Dinner 36 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR

37. Subjects to be discussed and decided: ML Integration ML beam dynamics – SB2009 Low-power, 500 GeV Full-power, and 1 TeV upgrade parameters Lattice configuration with RDR RF unit periodicity, Bunch spacing Availability and reserved tunnel-extension – 3 % longer (400 m) tunnel emply or equipped? – CM module backup, for degradation and failures, to required or not ? ML-CFS design status and requests for ML & SCRF – Tilting tunnel with < 0.5 % for water handling and saving access tunnel length, – ML length to be fixed. 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR37

38. Subjects to be discussed and decided: RF Power System RF system configurations – KCS: in flat-land site – RDR RF-unit: in mountain site cost-effective solutions to satisfy SB2009 low-power requirements (39 cavities operated by a 10 MW klystron) – Marx generators – Tunable power distribution system – AC power and cooling requirements 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR38

39. Subjects to be discussed and decided: Cryomodule and the Assembly Cryomodule envelope and interfaces CM-string configuration – Matched to TDR RF units, (i.e.; 9+4Q4+9 unit) Simplification of 5 K radiation shield – Cost effective design and accessibility for maintenance, (flow reversal pending for future option) – Split-yoke and conduction-cooled SC Quad. – Alignment scheme with EXFEL approach 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR39

40. Agenda Proposed for SCRF BTR at KEK (1/20) DateTechnical AreaSubjects to be fixedPresenters/Conveners 9:00 - 20/AM-1 5. Cryogenics systemsa)Location and number of cryogenics plants b)Capacity optimization and heat balance with crymodule heat-load c)Tilting of cryomodule and the acceptable limit d)Comments from Cost Group Peterson - Dugan 9:40 - break 10:00 - 20/AM-2 6-1. Cavity integration 6-2. Cavity and Cryomodule test a)Cavity envelope/interface b)Tuner, coupler, beam-flange, magnetic shield, and LHe tank, c)Cavity delivery condition with LHe-tank d)Power coupler conditioning strategy e)Cold test: what fraction is to be cold-tested? What is to be tested? f)Comments from Cost Group Hayano -TBD - Dugan 12:15 - Lunch 13:30 - 20/PM-1 7. Cavity gradienta)Cavity production and process recipe b)Define production yield including new parameters such as radiation c)Gradient spread of 31.5 MV.m +/-20% d)Gradient degradation after assembly into the cryomodule Geng -Ginsburg -TBD 15:00 - break 15:30 - 20/PM-2 8. General Discussions and conclusion a)Current status for SCRF costing overview b)Summary of discussions and decisions - ML tunnel to be fixed including reserved extension a)TDR SCRF outline and writing task b)Closing remark Walker -Dugan -Yamamoto -Carwardine -Barish / Ross 17:30 SCRF BTR complete 120115 GDE-PMs40Plan for SCRF-BTR

41. Subjects to be discussed and decided: Cryogenics Location, numbers of cryogenics plants, Limit for tilting ML tunnel Capacity optimization and heat balance – Variation of the access tunnel position and the cryoplant capacity 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR41

42. Subjects to be discussed and decided Cavity Integration Cavity envelope and interfaces Design for the TDR cost-base: – Baseline configuration: Tesla-style cavity + Blade tuners – Associated design evaluated: Tuner, coupler, beam-flange, magnetic shield, LHe tank, alignment-base, etc. – Cavity delivery condition w/ LHe tank Plan needed for the 2 nd cycle process 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR42

43. Subjects to be discussed and decided: Cavity and Cryomdule tests Cavity performance test in vertical position – 100 % w/ LHe tank, and up to the 2 nd cycle Power coupler conditioning – 100 % before installation into the tunnel (or partly after the installation?) Cryomodule performance tests – What and which fraction to be tested: ~ 30 %? 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR43

44. Subjects to be discussed and decided: Cavity-Gradient Performance Cavity production and process recipe – Including plan for the 2 nd cycle process and handlin of LHe tank, Define production yield – including new parameters such as radiation, – Re-defining the yield for the production stage Gradient degradation after assembly into the cryomodule How to settle the gradient degradation? 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR44

45. Subjects to be discussed and decided: General Summary Design for the TDR and the cost base – ML parameters and ML-CFS condition To fix tunnel length including reserved tunnel – HLRF design and LLRF overhead – Cavity and Cryomodule design Plan for backup Cost overview and scope for cost-containment Plan for Technical Design Report Further homework 120115 GDE-PMsPlan for SCRF-BTR45

46. EDMS and Tech. Design Documentation Important goal to consolidate all technical documentation in EDMS in a structured fashion 15.11.2011Nick Walker - PAC, Prague

47. Tentative Schedule 15.11.2011 Korea GDE meeting 24.04 – Parts I & II first drafts US LC meeting (Arlington) 24.10 – final Drafts preparation 2011 2012 16 weeks 25 weeks Executive Summary Companion outreach document Very aggressive schedule! In parallel: -cost estimation -TDD for EDMS We like a challenge Nick Walker - PAC, Prague

48. Backup 120115 GDE-PMs48Plan for SCRF-BTR

49. SCRF-ML Technology Required RDR ParametersValue C.M. Energy500 GeV Peak luminosity2x10 34 cm -2 s -1 Beam Rep. rate5 Hz Pulse time duration1 ms Average current 9 mA (in pulse) Av. field gradient31.5 MV/m +/-20% # 9-cell cavity ~ 18,000 (14,560 +  x 1.11 # cryomodule (8+4Q4+8, in study) ~ 1,700 (1,680+  # RF units ~ (560+  49120115 GDE-PMs RDR  SB2009 Plan for SCRF-BTR

50. Cavity: Plug-compatible Interface Component interfaces are reduced to the minimum necessary to allow for system assembly 120115 GDE-PMs 50Plan for SCRF-BTR

51. 9-cell cavities: (17,325) production Required Production in ILC Cryomodule: (1,824) production Pre-production 2 years + Full production 6 years GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization51

52. Technical Change Guideline Re-Proposed See Red parts (Further details with EXCEL sheets by Marc Ross ) Tech. AreaMain SubjectsDescription ML IntegrationParameters and layout Confirmed including alignment tolerance CM and Q periodicity:  8+4Q4+8 requiring additional ML length ( ~ 100 m) >> back to 9+4Q4+9 How we shall keep additional backup 400 m w/o or w/ utility ? >> need more precise discussions for purpose New request from CFS: 0.5 ~ 1 % tunnel tilting RF powerConfigurationDRFS/RDR in mountain site, >> back to RDR-RF unit in mountain site KCS/RDR in flat land CryomoduleEnvelope/interface Unit 5 K radiation shield Piping interface with flange?, inter-connect condition, etc, 8+4Q4+8 (or original 9 +4Q4+9) Simplification and accessibility for active components such as tuners CryogenicsUnit capacity5  4 units / linac or not? Stay at 5 units Cavity integrationEnvelopeTuner type, coupler warm-flange, beam pipe flange, magnetic shield (inside/outside), LHe tank etc. Cavity performanceYield Gradient spread Degradation For example: 1st pass: 60% and 2 nd pass: 70% 31.5 +/- 20 % confirmed (Assume ~ 1/10 cavities to degrade dG = ~ 20 % or more, and ) >> Adopt a statistical approach to cavity degradation; <> and rms CostCost containment Exchange rate and conversion Technical design base on SB2009 (updated) compared with RDR cost PPP 120115 GDE-PMs 52Plan for SCRF-BTR

53. ILC 建設費見積もり (ILC RDR (GDE による )) Assumption in RDR: 1 ILC Unit = 1 US 2007$ (= 0.83 Euro = 117 Yen).  Plan in TDR: 物価上昇： ~ 10 % (in case of the US) を想定, 為替レート： Purchasing Power Parity を採用 (PPP: 購買力平価： OECD で 採用） 53 -11 % Except for ML Components in SB2009 Efforts in Progress 12/01/10, A. YamamotoGDE-Efforts for ILC Cost

54. RDR: Cavity Fabrication Model Noell (Dornier-Astrium) report studied three scenarios: 1.6 EBW machines with 1 chamber – 3 ‘centres’ either distributed or at central facility 2.7 EBW machines with 1 chamber – 4 centres, reduced shift operation at EBW 1-4 – (variant on option 1) 3.4 EBW with 3 chambers (loading, welding, cooling) – 1 centre (monolithic fabrication plant) Option 3 studied in detail 12/01/10, A. YamamotoGDE-Efforts for ILC Cost54

55. TDR に於けるコスト削減への努力 ILC 性能要求を満たした場合に経済性を優先 する – SB2009 での節約を基本、 – 空洞設計： Tesla Type を基本 – HLRF 設計： RDR-RF unit を基本 (10 MW klystron) – 工業化：量産における集約型製造と国際協力によ る製造、試験評価分担の最適条件を探る 12/01/10, A. YamamotoGDE-Efforts for ILC Cost55

56. Cryomodule Gradient Spread and Degradation Observed at DESY and KEK, as of Nov. 2010 FLASH: –3 PXFEL cryomodules ILC R&D: –S1-Global cryomodule –CM1 (S1-Local @ Fermilab) Current status: –12/40 degraded with ~ 20 % GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011 SCRF Industrialization 56 PXFEL-1 PXFEL-2 PFEL-3 S1-Global D. Kostin & E. Kako

57. Current statistics on cavity gradient degradation InstituteProject Fraction of Degradation DESY/FLASHPXFEL Prototype-12/8 PXFEL Prototype-22/8 PXFEL Prototype-31/8 Fermi LabCM-14/8 KEKS1-Global3/8 Total 12/40 GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011 SCRF Industrialization 57 Statistics, available now (see right table) Rate of degradation with > ~ 20 % ~12/40, which leads to ~30%. This is too high, and efforts of improving is required. How improved? Maybe up to ~10%. (acceptable?) Sorting after vertical test is planed in DRFS. Furthermore 10% decrease of gradient is likely occurred and this reality should included at the construction plan. This effect also results in cost-up. a.Numbers of cavities and rf units must be increased if total acceleration is short and it is not compensated by the overhead. b.Since DRFS employs one rf unit feeds powers to 2 or 4 cavities without using circulator, and therefore cavity gradient sorting is inevitable, effect of unexpected cavity gradient degradation is larger than other scheme such as RDR and KCS. Operational experiences

58. Estimate assuming 1/10 cavities degraded with 20 % Simple Calculation – 80 % pairs with full performance and 20 % pairs with 0.8 x full performance 0.8 x 1 + 0.2 x 0.8 = 0.96 without circulators, 0.8 x 1 + 0.2 x {(1 +0.8)/2} = 0.98 with circulators, Difference to be 0.02 = 2 % of {Cavity+HLRF} cost required to add/compensate this degradation, – Necessary study Full circulator + distributors cost to be evaluated in comparison with the additional cryomodule backup cost (additional extension of linac). Operational flexibility and better efficiency by circulators and power distributors to be evaluated GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization58

59. Standard Procedure Established for ILC-SCRF Cavity evaluation, in guidance of TTC Standard Fabrication/Process FabricationNb-sheet purchasing Component Fabrication Cavity assembly with EBW ProcessEP-1 (~150um) Ultrasonic degreasing with detergent, or ethanol rinse High-pressure pure-water rinsing Hydrogen degassing at > 600 C Field flatness tuning EP-2 (~20um) Ultrasonic degreasing or ethanol (or EP 5 um with fresh acid) High-pressure pure-water rinsing Antenna Assembly Baking at 120 C Cold Test (vertical test) Performance Test with temperature and mode measurement 59 GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011 SCRF Industrialization Key Process Fabrication Material EBW Shape Process Electro-Polishing Ethanol Rinsing or Ultra sonic. + Detergent Rins. High Pr. Pure Water cleaning allow twice

60. Cavity Deliverable assuming EXFEL cavity specification GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization60 From EXFEL specification: 02L BQM-Cavity in He Tank Courtesy: W. Singer

61. EXFEL Cavity and Tuner GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization61

62. Blade and Slide-Jack Tuners GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011SCRF Industrialization62