Global Design Effort - ILC-Asia

Dubna Workshop に関する
不完全なレポート
横谷
GDE活動報告会 2008.6.9
Focus Groups
A. Shallow solutions: Explore features and
develop reduced-cost, shallow tunnel solutions.
Both CLIC and ILC. Includes single tunnel.
B. Infrastructure: Review infrastructure
requirements and develop cost-effective
solutions for accelerator infrastructure – power,
water, air etc. Both CLIC and ILC.
C. Siting: Examine possible sites and evaluate
possible design differences that accommodate
features. Includes staging, design modifications
and upgrade issues.
D. Accelerator Systems: particular focus on the
central injection complex, BDS and RTML.
Global Design Effort
Progress This Year (Highlights)
• Cavity optical inspection system (Kyoto, KEK)
– Major breakthrough in S0 program
• Progress on cryomodule plug compatibility specifications
• Securing S1-global commitment
– 31.5 MV/m cryomodule
– Collaboration DESY, FNAL, KEK
• RF distribution system tests
– determining the power overhead
• 9mA tests at TTF2/FLASH (DESY)
– Planning & preparatory work for full beam-loading experiments
• CesrTA initial phase installation work
– First beam July
• Positron source undulator tests at RAL, UK (STFC)
• ATF-2 installation – towards first beam end 2008
Opening, N.Walker
R&D Plan Release 2
• Look! NO
DRAFT!
• Released today
• Next review and
release:
December 08
Global Design Effort
PIP (Project Implementation Plan) の導入
• Spans entire 4 year period
• Phases:
–
–
–
–
Definition of elements (2008)
(SCRF) Mass-production models (2009)
(SCRF) Cost models (2010)
Remainder of PIP elements (2012)
Design / Cost Reduction / PIP
Opening, N.Walker
Conventional Facilities Plan
• RDR based on “sample sites”
– Accounts for about 1/3 of costs
– Much specific information, but not cost minimized
• TD Phase proposed to produce “uniform” site study
– Work together on siting to apply “value engineering” to
minimize costs
– Investigate shallow sites, single tunnel, etc.
– Define uniform site
• Develop Siting strategy
– Desired features, requirements, cost and other information for
potential hosts
– What is asked from hosts?
Opening, Barish
Uniform Site ????
• Barry (opening talk)
– “Uniform” site study
– Define uniform site
• Albrecht (siting strategy meeting)
– Uniformという名称はよくない
• PM (Marc’s summary talk)
– the ‘uniform’ (teamwork-based) site development approach –
• working closely together /
• consolidating resources
• 私見
– Barryの当初の考えは、
• shallow siteを代表的なものとしてstudyし、LCは安いということを示し、
• あわよくばshallowからの差額をホストが支払うことにしてホストの負担を減
らす、ということであったのではないか
– PMの意見は要するに
• サイトについて各国別々にスタディするのでなく協力することによってリソー
スを有効に使おう
というもので、これまでやってきたのと大差ないだろう
Dubna Shallow Site
• To replace 20m deep TBM
tunnel with on-surface gallery
for services (following land
contours) would be substantially
cheaper
• Pre-cast concrete modules
would be fabricated (planning
advantages)
• Once site investigation reports
are available, Dubna experts
could execute detailed costing
exercise in 2 to 3 months…
• Approx 10% saving on total
CFS costs for replacing one
bored tunnel with surface
gallery
Summary.A. Osborne
CFS Conclusions
•
Dubna solution looks very promising, but Site Investigation needed to allow
detailed costing (using same RDR principles)
•
CFS will develop ‘Requirement Matrix’ over coming months
•
Ground rules need to be defined by PM team eg which solutions do we
pursue the most given resource levels, which safety legislation do we
adopt…..site stragey
•
XFEL progress to be followed closely, particularly during installation phase
•
3d Integration studies for ILC need to developed to allow CFS to better
determine underground volumes
•
ILC/CLIC collaboration is a promising development in CFS field
Summery.A. Osborne
Cost Saving Possibility in DR
• 3km Ring
– Possible staging (あとで4-ring)
– 3km ポッキリの意見は（多分）なかっ
た
• Dogbone
injection
– 以前から難題いろいろあり
– 6kmにすればいくつかは回避できる
（しかしdogboneの長所を失う）
extraction
• その他
– Shorter wiggler length (staging)
– Reduced RF
現在のデザイン
Cost Saving Possibility in RTML
• DRML tunnelのtransport tunnelを短縮
– KASはundulatortargetのdrift空間に移動
– DR-BDSのレベル差を減らす（10m6m）
–  450m短縮
• If 6mm0,3mm only,
– Shorter 2nd stage （2-300m短縮）
– Single stage （ 400m短縮）
ML
~ 400
m
RTML/e+
DR
~100
m
500
m KAS
~100
m
• Omit 15GeV dump （両側）
~400
m
RTML/e-
Service Tunnel
BDS
300 m
ML
BDS
• Merge main dump and
tuning dump by microtunnel
• Simplified MD interface
by longer L* (easier
push-pull)
• Staging of energy
Positron
• KAS
– Remove KAS, move undulator at linac end
– Small KAS between undulator & target
(Paterson)
– Thick WRe target for small KAS  KAS (Kuriki)
• Liquid lead target (BINP)
– For undulator or conventional source
DR+BDS Layout
• Same elevation for DR+BDS
今後の会合
• GDE全体会合は年2回程度
– 1回は次回のChicagoのような総合的
– 1回は今回のDubnaのようなthematic
• 次回 early2009, Asia
– AAPを招く
– 全体をplenaryで
• AAPによるreview
Homework for LCWS 08 Chicago:
based on Dubna priorities:
• CFS / Accelerator Design updates
– Cost reduction
• CFS change requests
– complete Value Engineering cycle started here
• Collaboration work and reports (e.g. CLIC – ILC)
• R & D Plan updates
– trade offs developed here
– (the basis of value engineering is cost/performance
trade off)
Closing, Marc Ross

Download Report