Transcript ppt - KEK

KEK 訪問
Minimum Machine, CFS, Cavity開発
AAP Review, つくば、２００９．０４.１７－２１
M. Ross
2008.12.15
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
The ‘R & D Plan’ is our basis
document  explains activities
• Input from:
– Project Managers
– Regional Directors
– Technical Area Group
Leaders (14 - 早野、大内、
福田、久保。。。)
• To be used by:
– GDE (us)
– Funding Agencies and
Leadership (FALC and
ILCSC/ICFA)
– Review Panels
– Partner projects and
institutions
山本さま, ILC Project Manager：
• TDP R&D plan (Release 2, DRAFT)
• FALC-RGに提出したTDP R&D Plan を再度、アッ
プデートし
• 『Release 2 DRAFT 』として、全てのTDP-GLs まで
• 広く配布した(5/31). 今週のGDE Dubna meeting
• の期間中に、再度、コメントを求め、6/6には、
• Release 2としての最終版をさらに広く配布する。
• 皆様のご協力をお願いする。（随時改訂は行う – 6
months）。
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
TD Phase 1
• TD Phase 1 will conclude in mid-2010 with the
publication of the TD Phase-1 Interim Report.
• The emphasis of TD Phase 1 is on:
– high-priority risk-mitigating R&D – (most notably the
Superconducting RF linac technology) – and
– quantifying the scope for potential cost reduction of the current
Reference Design.
• The end of TD Phase 1 will also see a re-baseline of the
conceptual machine design, in preparation for more
detailed technical design work in TD Phase 2.
• The re-baseline will take place after careful consideration
and review of the results of the TD Phase 1 studies and
the status of the critical R&D.
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
TD Phase 1 Priorities:
• １）Technical R＆D:
– SRF (Main linac technology)
– Beam Test Facilities
– Specialized R & D (components)
何時も第一
R & D Plan
explains both
1) and 2)
• 2) Cost reduction studies / Design studies
• 3) Project Preparation (increases in TDP2)
– Communication, Reviews, Governance and
Siting studies, Mass-production scenarios,
Document preparation,…
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
2) Cost reduction studies / Design
studies:
•
Two Components:
1. Technical Area Group Work Packages
– Within each group; managed by TA Group Leader
– Goals  Performance, Cost reduction, Design
Development…
2. Minimum Machine Initiative
– Between Groups; managed by Nick / Ewan
– Goal  Cost Reduction through CFS scope
reduction
– Good Potential 
•
Priority: Technical Area Work
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
横谷
Minimum Machine Initiative
RDR Baseline (VALUE est.)
MM def
MM studies
2009
Re-Baseline
• RDRのbaselineはそのままにして、当面のstudy目
標としてのmachineを定義する必要
• 2009年中のstudy
• TDP1の終り（2010年7月）にむけてre-baseline
2010
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
New baseline
engineering studies
2012
横谷
方針
• Conceptual sketchのみ. (latticeの詳細のよ
うなものはナシ）
• 人的資源・時間が限られているので、できる
だけ各選択肢の１つに絞る
Hopefully – the cost reduction
achieved by each Minimum Machine
item will exceed 0.1 B ILCU (mcr)
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
Definition of Minimum Machine
• 物理からの要請（WWS document）は満たす
こと（energy, luminosityはそのまま）
• overhead, margin, design conservatismは
最小限にとどめる
• Categories
– General layout （e.g., DRの位置）
– Technical component specs (e.g. 冷却水)
– Accelerator performance specs（e.g., 電源数
の節約、許容誤差の見直し）
横谷
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
advanced R&D for positron
production at KEK:
•
(discussion held at DESY on Thursday 2008.12.04,
concerning the possible approach to advanced R&D for
positron production at KEK, and in particular the
proposal for a ‘conventional’ source for ILC)
1. Kuriki to prepare a technical presentation of e+
system parameters for the Accelerator Systems
TAG leaders meeting to be held on 2009.02.04
2. Clarke to explicitly include the proposed KEK
source-related R&D plans into the next release of
the formal ILC Technical Design Phase R&D Plan
– R&D Plan is our highest-level document
– (unlike the Minimum Machine document, which is essentially an
internal document)
Nick Walker
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
栗木
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
CFS Goals / Mission:
• Identify cost drivers, justify these and develop
alternates
– High delta-T water cooling and single/double tunnel
– ‘value-engineering’
• Develop design and support TA Groups
– Extensions of RDR and support of Minimum Machine
Initiative
– Extend sample sites beyond ‘RDR 3’
• Build global collaborative resource network
– CLIC, Dubna, XFEL specialists
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
Siting –
• Lack of definite site weakens ILC project
• ILC technical basis is conservative and very
strong
– (although much R & D remains)
• ILC technology can be adapted to various linac
configurations
– (TESLA and RDR are 2 such configurations)
CFS Group Conclusion:
• Adaptation should be studied and supported
through Technical R & D
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
Example studies:
1.
2.
3.
•
XFEL – HV pulse cables (meeting 12.03-04)
Klystron Cluster – Overmoded waveguide
Distributed RF sources – mod-anode klystrons
Basic rule for such studies:
–
Technical R & D in support of particular site
configurations must be performed through a fully
GDE-wide open global perspective
•
•
Each participant, turn-by-turn should take part, as
resources and capabilities allow
R & D Plan must include explanations of these
activities  Please help with these
explanations
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
Cavity開発
• Gradient remains our most challenging,
most important R & D topic
– (as defined in R & D Plan)
• What must we claim in 2010?
• What will we be able to say in 2010?
• What is KEK’s role in gradient R & D?
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
Why and How Plug-compatibility ?
• Cavity
– Necessary “extended research” to improve field
gradient,
– Keep “room” to improve field gradient,
– Establish common interface conditions,
• Cryomodule
–
–
–
–
081209
Nearly ready for “system engineering”
Establish unified interface conditions,
Intend nearly unified engineering design
Need to adapt to each regional feature and industrial
constraint
ILC Global Design Effort
16
Summary of WG3: Status and activities for S0 and S1
of ILC
Convenors: Detlef Reschke, Hitoshi Hayano, Hasan
Padamsee
• The one vendor yields are quite encouraging
progress for the 50% ILC yield goal for TDP
phase I, except for the small number of tests
(23) so far.
• The TDP phase I goal has been defined
primarily as a process yield goal.
– To eliminate cavity-to-cavity variations, the GDE may
wish to consider many repeated treatments on a
select few good cavities.
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
Summary of WG3: Status and activities for S0 and S1
of ILC
Convenors: Detlef Reschke, Hitoshi Hayano, Hasan
Padamsee
• For the yield from multiple vendors, Jlab
and DESY reported 48 tests on 19
cavities from 5 vendors (including one
cavity fabricated by Jlab).
• From this data set, the yield for gradients >
35 MV/m is about 25%.
• Clearly there are many more variables to
bring under control when dealing with
many vendors.
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
One Vendor Yield
(A6, A7, A8, A11, A12, A15, AC115, AC117, AC122, 125, 126)
1.2
1
Fraction
0.8
Qualification of
Vendors
23 tests, 11 cavities
0.6
One Vendor
0.4
0.2
0
>15
>20
>25
>30
>35
>40
Gradient (MV/m)
All Vendor Yield
(A6, A7, A8, A11, A12, A15, AES 1- 4, Ichiro5, J2,AC115, AC117, AC122,
125, 126, Z139, 143)
1.2
• Improving fabrication
process
– 2009 Priority
• How this can be done
– 2008 Achievement
1
Fraction
0.8
0.6
48 Tests, 19 cavities
0.4
0.2
ACCEL, AES, Zanon, Ichiro, Jlab
0
>15
>20
>25
>30
Gradient (MV/m)
>35
>40
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
TTC WG3 recommended tasks:
• a) General characterisation of identified defects and suspicious
sites.
• b) Summarizing analysis of optical inspection results of various labs
including quench field, and T-mapping results.
• a) More EBW samples with different EBW parameters and
successive surface treatments.
• b) As far as possible (limited by the company’s interest in
confidentiality of EB parameters) comparison of EBW techniques
applied in different labs and companies correlated to quench fields
and surface “irregularities”
• a) Comparison of yield due to field emission between different labs,
• b) Find a common measure for field emission loading as well as
common definition for usable gradient
• a) Excitation of lower modes at KEK + DESY (other labs ??):
KEK 訪問, 2008.12.15 M. Ross
Comparative data analysis
TILC09 / AAP Review
• Friday 17 to Tuesday 21 April 2009 Tsukuba
(downtown)
– 5 days: 3 days of parallel sessions + open & closing
plenary
• Interim AAP review is PM’s highest-priority
– Detailed in-depth critical review across entire project
– Effectively a ‘parallel session’ running all three available
days
• Need discussion on additional parallel sessions
– But they must be planned not interfere with Review.
• Plan for ~100 GDE participants
– ~30-50 of which will be in review (at any one time).
AAP Review
• Focus of AAP will based on our published R&D Plan activities
– SCRF Main Linac technology
• S0, S1 (S1 global), S2, plug compatibility
• …
– Beam Test Facilities
• ATF, ATF2, CesrTA, DAFNE, KEK-B,…
– Special emphasis on electron-cloud
• TTF/FLASH (S2-related)
– CFS
• Other (sub-topics) will include
– Technical R&D not covered in above
– Project Management issues
– …
• Expect ALL of our TAG leaders to attend and make
presentations
– Draft agenda proposal being made by PMs in consultation with
AAP chairs.
– Available for comment before Christmas
AAP Review Preparation
•
Preparation started at ILC08
– Stated as part of charge / goals for workshop
•
Real work starts now!
•
AAP want to be well-prepared for review
– Special website set-up with selected key documents / information to
specific themes of review
– This will require your input
– Proposed document submission to Max deadline 30th January
– Please send PMs a list of proposed documents before then! (Early January)
•
AAP plans to generate a list of questions that will guide our
presentations
– We will be expected to answer them
– When would these questions be available to us?
•
Expect to have to supply something like 15 hours of presentation
– Split approximately 50-50 between actual PowerPoint and
questions/discussion
– Rule of thumb: understood not all presentations / topics will be equal.
Other (parallel) TILC09 Groups
• We need to plan (useful) meetings in parallel to the review itself.
• Plan for additional ~50 people in parallel sessions
• Organise so that there is not critical overlap with required
participation in review itself.
– Strawman plan in preparation
• Proposals for parallel themes welcome (send to PMs)
• Some ideas:
–
–
–
–
SCRF (perhaps up to two parallel groups)
ATF & ATF2 (proximity to KEK)
MDI (proximity to physics & detector groups)
General Accelerator Physics & Design group
• Would include minimum machine aspects, but not exclusively
• System-wide discussions
– …?
• Note PMs unlikely to be able to attend
– They will be stuck in the review for the duration 