1 / 37

Barry Barish PAC – Valencia, Spain 13-May-10

Introduction. Barry Barish PAC – Valencia, Spain 13-May-10. Technical Design Phase and Beyond. TDR. TDP Baseline Technical Design. RDR Baseline. TDP-1. TDP-2. Change Request. New baseline inputs.

avi
Télécharger la présentation

Barry Barish PAC – Valencia, Spain 13-May-10

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Introduction Barry Barish PAC – Valencia, Spain 13-May-10 Global Design Effort

  2. Technical Design Phase and Beyond TDR TDP Baseline Technical Design RDR Baseline TDP-1 TDP-2 Change Request New baseline inputs RDR ACD (alternate concepts) R&D Demonstrations design studies 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Global Design Effort

  3. ILCSC Science Goals – 2003, 2006 • Ecmadjustable from 200 – 500 GeV • Luminosity ∫Ldt = 500 fb-1 in 4 years • Ability to scan between 200 and 500 GeV • Energy stability and precision below 0.1% • Electron polarization of at least 80% • The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV The RDR Design meets these “requirements,” including the recent update and clarifications of the reconvened ILCSC Parameters group! Global Design Effort

  4. RDR Design Parameters Global Design Effort

  5. RDR Design & “Value” Costs Summary RDR “Value” Costs Total Value Cost (FY07) 4.80 B ILC Units Shared + 1.82 B Units Site Specific + 14.1 K person-years (“explicit” labor = 24.0 M person-hrs @ 1,700 hrs/yr) 1 ILC Unit = $ 1 (2007) • The reference design was “frozen” as of 1-Dec-06 for the purpose of producing the RDR, including costs. • It is important to recognize this is a snapshot and the design will continue to evolve, due to results of the R&D, accelerator studies and value engineering • The value costs have already been reviewed three time • 3 day “internal review” in Dec • ILCSC MAC review in Jan • International Cost Review (May) • Σ Value = 6.62 B ILC Units Global Design Effort

  6. Evolving Design  Cost Reductions July 2006 Some possible cost reductions (e.g. single tunnel, half RF, value engineering) deferred to the engineering phase Global Design Effort

  7. RDR Complete • Reference Design Report (4 volumes) Physics at the ILC Executive Summary Detectors Accelerator Global Design Effort

  8. 2009 – 2012: Resource Outlook • Flat year-to-year resource basis • Focused on technical enabling R & D • Limited flexibility to manage needed ILC design and engineering development • Well matched between ILC technical and institutional priorities with some exceptions: • Positron system beam demonstrations • CF & S criteria optimization and site development Global Design Effort

  9. The ILC SCRF Cavity • Achieve high gradient (35MV/m); develop multiple • vendors; make cost effective, etc • Focus is on high gradient; production yields; cryogenic • losses; radiation; system performance Global Design Effort

  10. Global Plan for SCRF R&D 7 January 2010 SCRF AAP Review Global Design Effort Global Design Effort 10

  11. TTF/FLASH 9mA Experiment Full beam-loading long pulse operation  “S2” • Stable 800 bunches, 3 nC at 1MHz (800 ms pulse) for over 15 hours (uninterrupted) • Several hours ~1600 bunches, ~2.5 nC at 3MHz (530 ms pulse) • >2200 bunches @ 3nC (3MHz) for short periods Global Design Effort

  12. Making Very Small Emittance (Beam Sizes at Collision) Global Design Effort

  13. R & D Plan Resource Table • Resource total: 2009-2012 • Not directly included: • There are other Project-specific and general infrastructure resources that overlap with ILC TDP Global Design Effort

  14. Updated ILC R&D / Design Plan Major TDP Goals: • ILC design evolved for cost / performance optimization • Complete crucial demonstration and risk-mitigating R&D • Updated VALUE estimate and schedule • Project Implementation Plan Global Design Effort

  15. Major R&D Goals for TDP 1 SCRF High Gradient R&D - globally coordinated program to demonstrate gradient by 2010 with 50%yield; ATF-2 at KEK Demonstrate Fast Kicker performance and Final Focus Design Electron Cloud Mitigation – (CesrTA) Electron Cloud tests at Cornell to establish mitigation and verify one damping ring is sufficient. Accelerator Design and Integration (AD&I) Studies of possible cost reduction designs and strategies for consideration in a re-baseline in 2010 Global Design Effort Global Design Effort 15

  16. Why change from RDR design? • Timescale of ILC demands we continually update the technologies and design to be prepared to build the most forward looking machine at the time of construction. • Our next big milestone – the technical design (TDR) at end of 2012 should be as much as possible a “construction project ready” design with crucial R&D demonstrations complete and design optimised for performance to cost to risk. • Cost containment vs RDR costs is a crucial element. (Must identify costs savings that will compensate cost growth) Global Design Effort

  17. Cost Containment is essential for ILC • Our problem is worse than comparable projects • International Space Station was dominantly a US project that was heavily supported by US industry, so it could absorb large increase without cancellation • LHC has a large well-funded host laboratory that could absorb cost increase by stretching schedule and paying for it from future years • ITER has more trouble and more jeopardy! A significant (~ 25-30 % increase) is causing enormous problems for the project. • We need governments to take ILC seriously. That requires 1) science goals that are important enough to convince making the investment; 2) a technical design and project that is considered robust and worthwhile; 3) and finally, costs that are considered affordable and UNDER CONTROL. Global Design Effort

  18. TDR vs RDR Costs • Will a ~ 15% cost savings make a difference for project approval? • We are on record for a cost of 6.6 BILCU (2007 US$) for the ILC. That cost has frightened governments! • 15% savings corresponds to $1B, not a negligible amount • We will have unavoidable areas of cost growth, probably greater than the anticipated savings. • Significant net cost increase for the TDR over RDR will be considered (by some) as a signal of another ‘out of control’ project. Global Design Effort

  19. PAC Report – Nov 09 • “The PAC supports the “Minimum Machine” activities to carefully review the RDR design, although it is not enthusiastic about the use of the term “Minimum Machine”. The Committee believes that this activity should not compromise the existing ILC physics goals, and reiterates its belief that the 1 TeV upgrade option should be maintained.” Global Design Effort

  20. AAP Review - Conclusion (1) • “The SB2009 exercise was carried out to save cost and consolidate the design. The cost savings in SB2009 amount to 12.6% and are composed of several savings at the few per cent level. The AAP recognizes that a cushion of savings at this level will have to be identified to contain the cost of the project which is likely to change because of both a better understanding of the cost composition, of progress in optimization and of external influences such as the variations in cost of raw material and external services until the end of Technical Phase II.” Global Design Effort

  21. Recommendations of GDE EC (1) • After review and subsequent discussion of the AAP SB2009 Review Report, the GDE EC agreed and confirmed: • That containment of the capital cost (VALUE) estimate at the RDR level is a primary TD Phase 2 goal. Our design activity is now aimed at making the project more robust against possible (expected) unit cost increases. • To move forward with studies aimed at the possible adoption of the themes in SB2009 proposal, but not necessarily the exact details. • To establish a formal process to make these changes to the baseline in an open and transparent fashion, and where necessary after due process and consultation with all stakeholders. Global Design Effort

  22. SB2009 Themes Cost Savings ~ 13% N Walker Global Design Effort

  23. Proposed Design changes for TDR RDR SB2009 • Single Tunnel for main linac • Move positron source to end of linac *** • Reduce number of bunches factor of two (lower power) ** • Reduce size of damping rings (3.2km) • Integrate central region • Single stage bunch compressor Global Design Effort

  24. Achieving ILC Cost Containment • We must continually balance science performance with cost and risk to propose a convincing construction project. • We must have continuing close GDE / detector / physics studies and interaction to evaluate science impact of proposed changes to ILC baseline. Global Design Effort

  25. 7.5 m Diameter Single Tunnel • Egress passageway not needed; • 7 m Ø ok Global Design Effort 25

  26. 7.5 m Diameter Single TunnelHigh-Level RF Solution • Critical technical challenge for one-tunnel option is the high level RF distribution. • Two proposed solutions : • Distributed RF Source (DRFS) • Small 750kW klystrons/modulators in tunnel • One klystron per four cavities • ~1880 klystrons per linac • Challenge is cost and reliability • Klystron Cluster Scheme (KCS) • RDR-like 10 MW Klystrons/modulators on surface • Surface building & shafts every ~2 km • Challenge is novel high-powered RF components (needs R&D) Global Design Effort 26

  27. Technical Design Phase and Beyond change control process AAP PAC Physics TDP Baseline Technical Design TDR RDR Baseline SB2009 evolve TDP-2 TDP-1 Beijing Workshop CERN Workshop Change Request RDR ACD concepts R&D Demonstrations AD&I studies 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Global Design Effort

  28. Top Level Change Control Process keywords: open, transparent Global Design Effort 28

  29. TLCC Process • Issue Identification • Planning • Identify further studies • Canvas input from stakeholders • … Albuquerque, PAC (Nov 09), DESY, AAP, Beijing, PAC (May) Builds on and extends work done during 2009 ADI process Generate plans/studies to be done in preparation for the BAWs Global Design Effort 29

  30. TLCC Process • Baseline Assessment Workshops • Face to face meetings • Open to all stakeholders • Plenary • Open plenary meeting • Two-days per theme • Two themes per workshop • Two four-day workshops • Participation (mandatory) • PM (chair) • ADI team / TAG leaders • Agenda organised by relevant TAG leaders • Physics & Detector Representatives • External experts • Achieve primary TLCC goals • In an open discussion environment • Prepare recommendation Global Design Effort 30

  31. TLCC Process Physics and detector input / representation mandatory • Beamline Assessment Workshops • Face to face meetings • Open to all stakeholders • Plenary Global Design Effort

  32. TLCC Process • Formal Director Approval • Change evaluation panel • Chaired by Director • Final formal step (recommended by AAP) • Change Evaluation Panel • Chaired by director • Experts to evaluate impact on performance, cost, schedule, risk • Decision by Director • Accepts – becomes baseline • Rejects – sent back for further work Global Design Effort 32

  33. Technical Design Phase and Beyond change control process AAP PAC Physics TDP Baseline Technical Design TDR RDR Baseline SB2009 evolve TDP-2 TDP-1 Beijing Workshop CERN Workshop Change Request RDR ACD concepts R&D Demonstrations AD&I studies 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Global Design Effort

  34. Project Implementation Plan ILCSC Global Design Effort

  35. ILC R&D Beyond 2012 ? • The AAP points to uncertainties beyond 2012 in their conclusions: • “Some aspects of the R&D for the ILC will have to continue beyond 2012.” • “The milestone 2012 is however timely placed. The LHC will be providing operating experience of a large facility and with some luck the first physics discoveries will emerge.” • “The HEP community is thus well prepared for the decision for the next facility. In a sense the construction of the ILC seems the natural evolution of that process, in which case the efforts for the ILC have to be ramped up without delay.” • “Nature may be less kind or science policy makers not ready for a decision on the next big HEP project. In this case the large community must be engaged to facilitate the decision for the construction of the next HEP project.” • We need to prepare for uncertainties in the path to the ILC after 2012, including what LHC tells us. Global Design Effort

  36. Timescales: TDR to ILC(or beyond 2012) • Steps to a Project – Technical (2-3 years) • R&D for Risk Reduction and Technology Improvement • Systems Tests (e.g. S2 completion – ILC-like beam tests) • Engineering Design • Industrialization • Project Implementation • Government Agreements for International Partnership • Siting and site-dependent design • Governance • Time to Construct • 5-6 years construction • 2 years commissioning • Project Proposal / Decision keyed to LHC results • ILC Could be doing physics by early to mid- 2020s Global Design Effort

  37. Five Themes to Develop N Walker Remains special case Industrialisation in-kind contribution models Site requirements Project Schedule Remaining Technical activities Project Implementation Plan >2012 Global Design Effort

More Related