Vladimir SHILTSEV
Accelerator Science and Technology (AST) working group meeting
16 March 2018
Accelerator Science in the US:high-level overview of HEP's strategic approach to
Advanced Technology R&D over the next ~20 years
2014 P5 Report – for General Accelerator R&D
3/16/2018 Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science2
• NB: Next European strategy update:
– proposals to consider expected late 2018 and discussions to
progress in 2019. The final plan is expected to be approved by
CERN Council in Spring of 2020.
• Next US Strategy Upgrade (Snowmass/P5) – ca 2020-2021
P5 (2014): US HEP Community Plan
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science3
0-10 yrs
10-20 yrs
20+ yrs
Accelerator R&D (GARD)Thrusts:
• Advanced Accelerator Concepts
• Accelerator and Beam Physics
• Particle Sources and Targets
• RF Accelerator Technology (NC and SRF)
• SC Magnets and Materials
HEP
AP
GA
RD
Pla
n (
20
15
)
GARD: Funding Distribution FY1671M$/yr = 27M$/yr Facil.Ops + 44 M$/yr Research
• RF Accelerator Technology (NC and SRF) 20.9M$ 29.4%
• Advanced Accelerator Concepts 18.5M$ 26.0%
• SC Magnets and Materials 14.9M$ 21.0%
• Accelerator and Beam Physics 13.7M$ 19.3%
• Sources/Targets/Other 3.1M$ 4.3%
• Support research efforts at:
– 7 DOE national labs
– 30 university grants
• OHEP GARD led by Dr. L.K.Len
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science4
HEP Strategy
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science5
GARD Budget Trend
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science6
#1: RF Technologies (NC and SRF)
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science7
SC RF (FNAL et al)NC RF (SLAC et al)RF Sources/Aux.
Test facilitiesAt FNAL (several, no beam*)At SLAC (NLCTA with beam)At Jlab
* see on FAST belowGuidance: HEPAP Accelerator R&D Subpanel’s
Recommendation 4: Direct appropriate investment
in superconducting RF R&D in order to inform the
selection of the acceleration technology for the
multi-MW proton beam at Fermilab; and
Recommendation 6: Increase funding for
development of superconducting RF (SRF)
technology with the goal to significantly reduce the
cost of a ~ 1 TeV energy upgrade of the ILC. Strive
to achieve 80 MV/m accelerating gradients with
new SRF materials on the 10-year timescale.
Feb 9-10, 2017
Integrated RF Roadmap
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science8
February 8-9, 2017 in Gaithersburg, MD.
R&D On Cost-Effective SRF Structures at FNAL
ILC prototype elliptical cell “p-cavity” (1.3 GHz): field alternates with each cell
3/16/20189 Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science
31.5-35 MV/m
New materials (Nb3Sn) –
higher gradients
New techniques (Nb on Cu) –
lower cost
Surface treatment (N2 doping) –
higher Q0 and lower operation cost
(ILC)
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
ILC cost vs. gradient and Q - 500 GeV
Q=4.0E+09
Q=6.0E+09
Q=1E+10
Q=2E+10
Q=3E+10
ILC surface processing
N doping
Eacc [MV/m]
Cost
(%
)
SRF R&D Effect on ILC cost 6-20%
Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science
8 cavities~10 m
ILC: 16,000 cavities in 31 km linac
European XFEL
Baseline design
Cost analysis by N. Solyak
Q0 still very important!
3/16/201810
( Yes or No ) = ( Physics × Feasibility )
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders11
• PHYSICS case of post-LHC high energy physics
machine depends on the LHC discoveries:
– it might call for a collider (if signals are clear)
– otherwise, search for signs of new physics in the
neutrino/rare decays (Intensity Frontier) or astrophysics
• FEASIBILITY of an accelerator is actually complex:
– Feasibility of ENERGY
• Is it possible to reach the E of interest / what’s needed ?
– Feasibility of PERFORMANCE
• Will we get enough physics out there / luminosity ?
– Feasibility of COST
• Is it affordable to build and operate ?
• ILC is fully feasible in “Energy” and “Performance”
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders12
LHC reference
“gap” in cost of technology:
~20-30% for Higgs facory~factor for 1 TeV ILC~factor of 3 for NC RF 3 TeV CLIC/I
LC-0
.25
#2: Advanced Accelerator Concepts
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science13
Laser-Plasma (LBNL et al)Beam-Plasma (SLAC et al)Dielectric WFA (ANL et al)
R&D facilitiesBELLA BELLA IIFACET FACET IIAWA ?
Laser-Plasma Research Roadmap
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science14
Advanced Concepts: Issues
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders15
• Feasibility of ENERGY
– Positrons can not be accelerated
– Staging needs to be demonstrated, eg 5 + 5 GeV
• Feasibility of PERFORMANCE
– Power efficiency O(0.1%) need to exceed ILC 10%
– Emittance matching in staging <1%
– FF and beam strahlung – not proven
• Feasibility of COST
– If scale from current cost of PW lasers and 100MW
beams: “cost gap” is ~3 for 3 TeV and ~5 for 10 TeV
#3 SC Magnets and Materials
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science16
From NbTi to Nb3Sn and beyond:
16T Canted cos-θ (LBNL)15-16T cos-θ (FNAL) *2T Bi2212/REBCO (NHMFL)
R&D/Test/Fabrication facilitiesFermilabBerkeleyBNLNHMFL(*also at CERN and Europe FCC)
SC Magnet-based Facilities: Issues
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders17
• Feasibility of ENERGY
– Guaranteed modulo actual max
field (15-16 T)
• Feasibility of PERFORMANCE
– Guaranteed modulo SR loss limit
on cryopower
• Feasibility of COST
– Not guaranteed unless either
lower energy, or reuse smth or
get outstanding R&D success
Driven by SC cable technology - NbTi – upto 10 T- Nb3Sn – upto 16 T- HTS – 20+T
Cost of SC conductor- NbTi – $$- Nb3Sn – $$ x 5- HTS – $$ x 25
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders18
Option 1: re-use LHC, inj, infrastr.
100 TeV pp : Qualitative Cost Dependencies
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders19
* fo
r ill
ustr
ation
pu
rpo
se
s o
nly
Need to Develop Technology to Lower Cost
#4 Accelerator and Beam Physics
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science20
Accelerator modeling and simulation tools:
Many labs (LBNL, SLAC, FNAL, etc)University groups( SBIR companies )
Experimental beam physics R&D: Fermilab et al
Unique facility: IOTA/FAST
(planning workshop)
2018 ??
Guidance: HEPAP Accelerator
R&D Subpanel’s Recommendations
“2. Construct the IOTA ring, and
conduct experimental studies of
high-current beam dynamics in
integrable non-linear focusing
systems… 3. Support a
collaborative framework among
laboratories and universities that
assures sufficient support in beam
simulations and in beam
instrumentation to address beam
and particle stability including strong
space charge forces.”
FAST/IOTA : Accelerator R&D Facility
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science21
• The Fermilab Accelerator Science and Technology (FAST)
facility contains 3 components
– 150-300 MeV Electron Injector, 70 MeV/c Proton Injector,
and the IOTA Ring capable of operation with e- and p+
Electron Injector
IOTA Ring
Proton Injector(Proton Injector RF Station)
135 m
1st e- beam in IOTA – 2018 1st IOTA experiments begin1st p+ beam in IOTA – 2019
Experimental R&D program For several (5-8?) years
Motivation for IOTA/FAST: (Race to) Multi-MW Beams
3/16/2018 Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science22
“ “
“ “
23 Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science
Booster Protons Per Pulse Challenge: PIP “PIP-I+” PIP-II “PIP-III”
PIP I+
PIP
PIP IIIPIP II
6%
4%
2%
Avg power loss limit (~500W):
ΔN/Nmax < W /(N γ)
Space-charge scaling:Nmax ~ ΔQsc×ε×βγ
2
6.3 12
3/16/2018
new RCS
R&D Program at FAST/IOTA
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science24
• IOTA ring - driven mostly by Fermilab:
– Integrable Optics
• With strongly nonlinear magnets
• With specially shaped electron beams in electron lens
– Space Charge Compensation
• With ~“Gaussian” electron lens
• With neutralizing “electron columns”
– Coherent Beam “Super”-Stability (NL & electron lenses, FB)
– Optical Stochastic Cooling
• Electron Linac - driven mostly by external users:
– Beam dynamics in SRF linacs (ILC, MARIE, EIC)
– Advanced electron sources, phase-space manipulations
– Novel e- and photon beam diagnostics (all)
– Inverse Compton scattering
– etc
Intensity Frontier Facilities: Issues
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders25
• Feasibility of ENERGY
– Guaranteed (NC Mag or SRF)
• Feasibility of PERFORMANCE
– “Guaranteed” with SRF
– Need R&D with RCSs (IOTA)
• Feasibility of COST
– If to assume 8 GeV PIP-III @ ~cost of 0.8 GeV PIP-II:
• Hard with SRF unless major R&D breakthrough (~3)
• Might be OK with RCS
– Beyond or instead of PIP-III - ?? – TBD by next P5
#5 Particle Sources and Targets
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science26
Partnerships :
In the US – FNAL et al (SNS)Int’l RaDIATE Collaboration (FNAL, SNS, CERN, ESS, MSU, et al)
US beam irradiation facility : BLIP at BNL ($$ thru FNAL)
Objectives : (1) to gain the ability to confidently design and predict the lifetimes of multi-MW neutrino
and next-generation muon target devices through well-justified modeling of high intensity beam/matter interactions using realistic, irradiated material properties;
(2) to develop advanced targetry technologies to meet these challenges; (3) to have the tools and material behavior data in place to enable the design, construction,
and operation of multi-MW target facilities,(4) and to point the way to new radiation and thermal shock compatible materials and
technologies.
(planning workshop)
2018 ??
Guidance: Subpanel
recommendation 1: Fund
generic high-power component R&D at a
level to carry out needed thermal shock
studies and ionizing radiation damage
studies on candidate materials that are
not covered by project-directed research
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science27
• GARD is facing severe budgetary challenges
– Things will not get better soon because of LBNF/DUNE and PIP-II
construction until 2030’s… still even 50M$ x 12 yrs = 600
• Roadmaps developed for GARD research thrusts are already
being used to align research efforts
– Time scale of these roadmaps depends on funding, hard to imagine
long-range milestones to be met (eg PWA-based collider CDR by
2035 (= R&D over)
• GARD directions ~2026 (after 2021 P5) are not predictable
– Subject of changes in the US and globally (ILC in Japan, European
strategy, etc)… some thrusts may diminish/go away
– We are all in the same boat and HEP future is VERY uncertain
• Chances are slim but non-zero if
– Re-use what we have (FNAL or CERN complex, LCLS-II/Upgr, etc)
– Switch to muons offer immediate gain (x10 in Physics@ same E)
– “Paradigm Shift”
Now, 3 years passed… comments (VS)…
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders28
“Dream” colliderLH
C
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP
2016 - Post LHC
Colliders
29
fundamental problem :
limited facility power
Pb=IbE Ib=Pb/EL ~ Pb/E
Paradigm Shift : Energy vs Luminosity
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science30
• If we are ever to get far beyond LHC
– 300-1000 TeV
• It will be linear accelerator
– Synchrotron radiation “kills rings” of e+e- >0.3TeV and pp >50TeV
• Electrons excluded >3 TeV
– Radiation at IP and in focusing channel γ2
– Left are protons and/or muons
• To stay within limits of <10B$, <10 km, <100 MW
– Need 30 GV/m avg - ! – only in very dense plasma
– Protons out (nuclear) muons only
• Need method to accelerate, focus and cool continuously
– E.g. channeling acceleration in crystals or CNTs
• If that’s the best we can do in “far” future can smth relevant
be done now?
Understand Horizon
1 PeV = 1000 TeV
n ~1000nB ~100frep ~106
L ~1030-32
“Dream” Collider = Muons + Acceleration in
Crystals + Continuous Focusing (Channeling)
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP 2016 - Post LHC Colliders
V.S
hil
tsev
, P
hys.
Usp
ekh
y5
59
65
(2
01
2)
n~1022 cm-3, 10 TeV/m
31
Back-Up Slides
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science32
FY 2016 GARD Research –% By Thrusts
3/16/2018Vladimir SHILTSEV | Accelerator Science33
Analysis:
34
• Actually built:– RHIC, MI, SNS, LHC
• Under construction:– XFEL, FAIR, ESS
• Not built but costed:– SSC, VLHC, NLC
– ILC, TESLA, CLIC, Project-X, Beta-Beam, SPL, ν-Factory
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP
2016 - Post LHC
Colliders
17 “Data Points” - Costs
of Big Accelerators:
34
V.S
hilts
ev, A
ph
en
om
en
olo
gic
al c
ost m
od
el fo
r hig
h e
ne
rgy p
artic
le a
cce
lera
tors
2014 JINST 9 T07002
• 4 orders in Energy, >1 order in Power, >2 orders in Length
• Almost 2 orders in cost• (normalized to US TPC)
Wide range :
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP
2016 - Post LHC
Colliders
35
αβγ - Cost Estimate Model:
Cost(TPC) = α L1/2 + β E1/2 + γ P1/2
a) ±33% estimate, for a “green field” accelerators
b) “US-Accounting” = TPC ! ( ~ 2 ×European Accounting )
c) Coefficients ( units: 10 km for L, 1 TeV for E, 100 MW for P )
– α≈ 2B$/sqrt(L/10 km)
– β≈ 10B$/sqrt(E/TeV) for SC/NC RF
– β≈ 2B$ /sqrt(E/TeV) for SC magnets
– β≈ 1B$ /sqrt(E/TeV) for NC magnets
– γ≈ 2B$/sqrt(P/100 MW)
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP
2016 - Post LHC
Colliders
36
The αβγ-model is good to +-30%
Total Cost vs Model (Log-Log)αβγ
-
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP
2016 - Post LHC
Colliders
37
Illustrations
Sqrt-functions are quite accurate
over wide range because such
dependence well approximates
the “initial cost” – effect :
Comment:
Take LHC as an Example:
V.Shiltsev | ICHEP
2016 - Post LHC
Colliders
38
• αβγ – Model:
– 40 km of tunnels
– 14 TeV c.o.m SC magnets
– ~150 MW of site power
TOTAL PROJECT COST : 14B$ ± 4.5B$
• CERN LHC Factbook (2009):– 6.5 BCHF, incl. 5 BCHF for accelerator
(European Accounting)
– x 2 to US TPC 10 BCHF=10B$
– Cost of existing injector complex ~30-40% 3-4 B$
TPC : ~13-14B$
(of which CERN paid 10 over ~8 yrs) 2009-003
Top Related