Accelerator Review Report 2014

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ...... 2 2. Background ...... 3 3. Review Process ...... 3 3.1 Review Panel ...... 4 3.2 Meetings of the panel ...... 4 3.3 Areas of review discussions ...... 4 3.4 Information gathering ...... 5 4. Review ...... 5 4.1 Overview of the current accelerator programme ...... 5 4.2 Governance ...... 7 4.3 Neutron Sources ...... 11 4.4 Synchrotron Light Sources ...... 18 4.5 Free Electron Lasers ...... 24 4.6 High Energy Lepton Machines ...... 31 4.7 High Energy Hadron Machines ...... 36 4.8 Novel and Plasma Accelerators ...... 39 4.9 Underpinning Technologies, gaps and overlaps ...... 46 4.10 Global Challenges, Impact and Skills ...... 51 4.11 Optimal Accelerator Programme ...... 57 5. Concluding Remarks on the Programme ...... 62 Appendix 1. STFC Accelerator Review Panel Biographies ...... 63 Appendix 2. STFC Accelerator Review Terms of Reference ...... 66 Appendix 3. Review Data Collecting ...... 70 Appendix 4. STFC Accelerator Review Proforma Template ...... 71 Appendix 5. Glossary ...... 80

Page 1 of 81

1. Executive Summary

1. Accelerator science is a core component of the STFC programme underpinning much of what the organisation does. Accelerators have played a central role in many of the major discoveries made in particle and nuclear physics over the past century, and continue to provide the bedrock on which these fields rest. At the same time accelerators have developed into essential tools for discovery throughout science and engineering as a result of the development of techniques relying upon the diffraction, scattering and spectroscopy of beams of neutrons and X-rays. The development, construction and operation of accelerator-based neutron and light sources is therefore a major aspect of the STFC mission.

2. UK accelerator science has grown quickly from an extremely low level in recent years as a result of targeted strategic investment by STFC coupled with strong support from the wider science community. This rapid growth has created a strong and diverse programme encompassing world-leading research in a broad range of areas. The accelerator landscape is likely to evolve rapidly over the next decade and it is important that the UK programme develops in an appropriate manner in response to changing national and international priorities. With this in mind, the 2013 STFC Programmatic Review recommended1 that a focussed review of the STFC accelerator science programme be conducted which could assist in the development of a strategic plan for future investment. This report summarises the findings of that review.

3. The review sought input from a wide variety of stakeholders in the form of standardised pro-forma questionnaires and resource tables. The submissions to the review were synthesised by an ad hoc review panel of accelerator experts and facility users to produce a report that provides a narrative overview of the breadth and scope of the current accelerator programme. The report is intended to enable STFC Science Board (SB) 2 to develop a high level accelerator strategy and to guide the Accelerator Strategy Board (ASB) 3 as it develops a more detailed strategy and prioritised roadmap for the field.

4. The report focuses on accelerator R&D support for the wider STFC programme, including light sources, neutron sources and high energy particle and nuclear physics machines, as well as the development of novel accelerator techniques. Particular consideration is also given to the governance of the accelerator programme, the provision of essential underpinning technologies and the ability of the programme to deliver economic and societal impact through the development of industrial applications and the provision of training and skilled people. The optimum accelerator programme is considered, including the balance of the programme, its strengths and weaknesses, and how it might best respond to opportunities and threats.

1 STFC Programmatic Review 2013, recommendation R26. 2 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/696.aspx 3 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/703.aspx Page 2 of 81

5. The report makes a number of observations and provides recommendations to STFC, ASB and other stakeholders, with a view to developing and supporting an optimum programme best suited to the needs of the STFC science community and users of the STFC’s large facilities.

6. A key observation is that the breadth of the newly developed accelerator programme has allowed different research groups, in particular in the Cockcroft Institute (CI), the John Adams Institute (JAI), ASTeC4 and the UK large facilities, to develop differing portfolios of skills and technical strengths. This diversity allows the UK to make important contributions to many areas of accelerator science, however it also means that the skills required to design and build future accelerator facilities are distributed across a variety of groups. The report therefore recommends that the UK’s centres of accelerator excellence should be encouraged to collaborate closely to deliver the skills and technologies required by future accelerator projects in a coherent way.

7. A further key observation is that potential benefits from commercialisation and spin- out of accelerator R&D must be maximised. The report has highlighted a broad range of technologies which have potential commercial application or which could provide significant societal benefits. Examples include the application of proton accelerators for radiation oncology, the use of Terahertz and X-ray radiation sources for security scanning and the use of accelerator driven sub-critical reactors for energy production. More prominence must be given to developing these and other applications.

2. Background

8. The panel was created to review the accelerator programme and provide information on the breadth and scope of the STFC’s current accelerator R&D portfolio. The review’s prime driver is to underpin the development of the STFC accelerator landscape and strategy. The panel’s report will go to SB for comment and development of a high-level accelerator strategy, taking into account information from parallel reviews on neutron and photon activities. The ASB will then establish a more detailed accelerator strategy and prioritised roadmap based on the findings in the review report and high-level strategic direction from SB.

3. Review Process

9. This review is part of the periodic consideration of the accelerator landscape in the UK and the STFC’s accelerator programme. It seeks to understand the breadth and scope of the STFC’s current UK accelerator science programme and related activities and what needs to be in place to meet strategic goals. This included engagement and leadership involving scientists in all fields of accelerator R&D activities and the training of excellent scientists to ensure the UK continues to have access to, and influence over, the development of future world class accelerator facilities.

4 Accelerator Science and Technology Centre Page 3 of 81

10. This review does not formulate the STFC’s accelerator strategy. Instead, together with additional input (e.g. proton, neutron & photon strategies), it will feed into the STFC’s over-arching accelerator strategy development needed by mid-2015 in time for specific project and institute reviews. It comments on the current fit of the STFC’s accelerator investments with its science programme and facility needs. It highlights areas of expertise and strengths, as well as areas of need. Finally it makes recommendations to the ASB and SB.

3.1 Review Panel

11. This review panel included representatives from across the accelerator and facility communities5;

Prof Dan Tovey (Chair) University of Sheffield Dr Rob Appleby University of Manchester Prof Riccardo Bartolini John Adams institute, Diamond Light Source Dr Oliver Brüning CERN, Accelerators and beams physics group Prof Jim Clarke STFC ASTeC Mr Jonathan Flint Oxford Instruments Prof Sue Kilcoyne University of Huddersfield Dr John Thomason STFC ISIS Accelerator Group

12. All panel members were appointed ad personam and not to act as advocates for any particular science area or facility. The Terms of Reference can be found in Appendix 3. Within the review the panel members were assigned as rapporteurs in areas derived from the four areas set out in the ASB strategy and roadmap document; Frontier Machines, Neutron sources, Light Sources, Novel Accelerators.

3.2 Meetings of the panel

13. The Panel met four times during the course of 2014 as set out in the Terms of Reference6. The first meeting focused on outlining the report layout and methodology. By the second meeting the panel had received the submissions and the meeting was dedicated to evaluating this input and identifying gaps in the programme, highlighting areas that the panel might wish to include and comment upon in the final report. Each panel member reviewed the entirety of the information provided and all the supporting data before focusing effort on their given area. At the third meeting the rapporteurs presented their areas for discussion by the panel and following this produced their section. The final meeting brought all the components of the review together to finalise the report for consideration by SB at its meeting in December 2014.

3.3 Areas of review discussions

14. The report provides a narrative and commentary on the following aspects of the accelerator programme, initially identified as important and highlighted in the Terms of Reference:7

5 Panel member biographies can be found in Appendix 1 6 Appendix 2 7 Appendix 2 Page 4 of 81

 The current organisation and delivery of the accelerator programme  Details of individual projects and programmes  Areas of intrinsic excellence and global recognition  Cost effectiveness and value for money  Cross-cutting areas and any gaps or overlaps  Links with appropriate universities and facilities  Areas of synergy including with laser-related activities  Leadership and the key positions in international collaborations  Areas of added value, including technologies and industry  Areas and opportunities for the future engagement, providing the UK access to national and international facilities and cutting edge technologies.

3.4 Information gathering

15. Information was sought directly from the community by way of pro-formas together with a staff resource form aimed at gathering total staff effort over the last three years and the percentage effort assigned to each science area.8 The format of these was agreed by the panel. Three versions of the pro-forma were used; for experiments, for facilities and for departments/institutes. The information gathered formed the basis of the review.9 If any clarification was needed, the panel sought additional information from any parties involved.

4. Review 4.1 Overview of the current accelerator programme

16. The UK accelerator R&D programme includes the investigation of ground-breaking novel techniques as well as the development of near- and medium-term accelerator capability. It is delivered in STFC’s laboratories, facilities, universities and institutes. STFC funding for this is ~£14M and further resources come from industry, other grant schemes, the universities, EU etc.

8 Appendix 3 9 Information on the treatment of the data for the review can be found in Appendix 4 Page 5 of 81

17. STFC’s current accelerator programme evolved from the activities that existed within the two predecessor Research Councils, PPARC10 and CCLRC11. The former had its roots in the high-energy frontier machines for particle physics and the latter was more strongly associated with the construction, development and operation of UK facilities. Both benefitted from additional government funding in the 2004 Comprehensive Spending Review that was intended to enhance the UK’s capability to participate in the construction of a future linear collider and neutrino factory R&D. This additional funding allowed PPARC to establish the two University based accelerator institutes, the CI and JAI as well as to fund accelerator R&D projects MICE, LC-ABD and UKNF. CCLRC provided some additional staff support for the CI and JAI institutes and contributed to the MICE experiment. The universities provided significant funds for academic posts at the institutes.

18. The CI is a joint venture between the Universities of Lancaster, Liverpool and Manchester, the STFC (the Accelerator Science and Technology Centre at the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories) and the then North West Development Agency (NWDA), which was later abolished by government. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance in 2011 and the University of Strathclyde became an Associate Partner in 2013.

19. The JAI is a joint venture between the University of Oxford and Royal Holloway University of London and as of 2012, when the plasma physics group joined, of Imperial College London (ICL).

20. ASTeC is STFC’s in-house Accelerator Science and Technology centre. ASTeC and the CI share a common campus at Daresbury and the Daresbury Sci-Tech campus became home to the CERN Business Incubation Centre (BIC) in accelerator technology in 2012. ASTeC also operates at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL).

21. Accelerators are core to both STFC’s science programme and its laboratories and underpin much of what STFC does. Recognition of this gave impetus to having a more strategic approach to these activities, acknowledging that accelerators are more than just technology and that the associated cutting-edge science and research was also of key importance in developing concepts for future machines. This saw the introduction of an accelerator programme with allocated funding and the formation of the ASB.

22. The ASB held its first meeting in September 2010. At that stage membership was a mixture of international experts and UK facility and institute directors. Following a recommendation from the Programmatic Review in 2013 the membership was changed in 2014 and UK members are now appointed ad personam as representatives in specific accelerator fields. It meets at least twice a year and has worked to develop a strategy and roadmap to develop the skills and expertise needed in the UK to support STFC’s facilities and science programme. It reports to SB. It also receives Statements of Interest in this field and carries out reviews.

10 The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council 11 Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils Page 6 of 81

4.2 Governance

Findings

23. Accelerator R&D is funded by STFC through several different routes. Work carried out within the STFC laboratories, mostly focused on development of UK facilities, is funded and coordinated primarily through ASTeC, with additional work performed within the facilities themselves (Diamond Light Source and ISIS). The Central Laser Facility (CLF) provides laser facilities for novel accelerator R&D. In the universities, most work is carried out at partners in the two accelerator institutes (CI and JAI), with some additional work in other universities supported by project grants.

24. The role of ASB is to advise STFC on accelerator strategy and investment and to oversee and review the accelerator programme.

25. ASTeC is split between Daresbury Laboratory, where the work is focused mainly (but not exclusively) on the maintenance, research and development of electron machines and light sources (e.g. ALICE, CLARA and VELA), and RAL, where the focus is more on support and development of neutron sources (mainly ISIS) and proton machines. ASTeC management reports to STFC Executive Board via the National Laboratories Executive Director. A dedicated Accelerator Review Panel (ARP) reporting to the ASB reviewed ASTeC as part of a wider review of STFC funded accelerator R&D activity in 2012.

26. The work programmes of the accelerator institutes are supported by STFC, other external sources (e.g. CERN for the CLIC project, EU grants, etc.) and internal funds from partner universities. STFC support takes the form of core grants to each of the institutes together with funds from various project grants awarded to consortia of institutes and universities (e.g. AWAKE, CLASP awards, MICE etc.). Both the CI and JAI have STFC studentship allocations although they have chosen different methods of accessing them; in the case of the CI there is a separate allocation whereas the JAI accesses the quotas through the university departments.

27. The work programme of each accelerator institute is overseen by a management board, which comprises senior members of the participating institutes with additional STFC representation. The JAI board meets once a year while the CI board meets twice yearly. Both institutes also have external scientific steering committees, composed of national and international accelerator experts, which report to the respective management boards. The institutes provide regular informational updates to ASB regarding their programmes and strategy.

28. The most recent funding review for the JAI was in 2011 and was conducted by the ARP, reporting to ASB. Following this review core grant funding was confirmed for a 4-year period from April 2012 to March 2016.

29. The CI was peer reviewed prior to award of core grant funding in 2008. The current grant finishes in March 2017. The ARP, reporting to ASB, conducted a mid-term review in 2012 in conjunction with the ASTeC review. There was cross membership between the 2008 panel and 2011 (ARP) panel.

Page 7 of 81

30. The accelerator institutes have considerable freedom to define their own research programmes. This enables them in particular to pursue small-scale projects using institute funds without recourse to the usual STFC grant allocation and peer review process. The research supported by the STFC core grants to the institutes encompasses a broad range of topics ranging from ‘near-market’ development work for the STFC facilities to R&D on novel accelerators and related innovative techniques.

31. Large scale R&D projects related to UK facilities (in particular VELA) have received direct financial support from government12 following submission of a business case as they have accessed additional capital funding, and have been administered by ASTeC augmented by departmental funds. By contrast, other large-scale projects funded through the STFC baseline budget (e.g. FETS, MICE, Target Studies) have recently been reviewed by a dedicated STFC review panel with cross-membership with the STFC’s Projects Peer Review Panel (PPRP). One project (AWAKE) has been reviewed by the PPRP directly.

32. STFC oversight of individual projects is accomplished in a variety of different ways. Projects commissioned by Programmes Directorate (i.e. FETS and MICE, and Target Studies) report every 6 months to a dedicated oversight committee (OsC) unless the level of investment is small. In such cases (AWAKE, and Target Studies) progress reports are instead submitted directly to the Programme Manager. Projects receiving funding purely via institute core grants are overseen within the individual institutes with reporting to STFC via the institute’s regular report to ASB (see paragraph 27 above), and through STFC’s involvement in the institute governing boards.

33. Those universities that are not partners in the CI or JAI have received STFC funding via project grants (see paragraph 26). They can also bid for small-scale R&D funding related to the particle and astroparticle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics (PPAN) programme via the Project Research and Development (PRD) scheme13, as can the accelerator institutes. Limited funding for particle physics accelerator R&D is also available via Consolidated Grants in cases where the research is carried out in a particle physics group. These institutions do not however have a formal route for funding small-scale R&D projects related to future UK accelerator facilities.

Comments and Recommendations

34. The founding of the UK accelerator institutes has had a significant positive impact on the field worldwide and has enabled the UK to develop a strong reputation for making leading contributions to both basic accelerator science and specific accelerator projects and facilities. The accelerator institutes should be commended on their development of distinctive aspects of their research identities since their founding. The uniquely excellent aspects of their identities will be crucial for making a strong case for support for more than one such institute in future rounds.

12 Via the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) 13 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/1544.aspx Page 8 of 81

R1: The accelerator institutes should be encouraged to develop further their own unique research identities. This aspect of the institutes should be considered carefully during the next round of funding reviews in 2016.

35. Given the developing identities of the accelerator institutes it is inevitable that they will have strengths in different areas of basic accelerator science and underpinning technologies. The same is true also of ASTeC and the UK facilities. In light of this diversification it is important that these groups work closely together in a coherent fashion. Such collaboration minimizes duplication of skills and technology and enables the delivery of the UK accelerator programme in an efficient and cost- effective manner.

R2: The accelerator institutes, ASTeC, UK facilities and university groups should be encouraged to collaborate further and coordinate closely to deliver the skills and technologies required by STFC-funded accelerator projects.

36. The extent to which work on related topics is coordinated across universities and accelerator institutes appears to vary significantly. For instance, some projects, particularly those defined as such by STFC Programmes Directorate (e.g. AWAKE, MICE etc.), possess formally defined management structures and clear coordination roles. In other cases, particularly those where the project has developed in a more organic fashion (e.g. HL-LHC) the project is organized as a more informal collaboration of researchers working in similar areas.

37. For small-scale R&D projects informal collaborations may be appropriate. For larger- scale projects and those contributing to the capital phase of a facility or experiment, organisation of the work into a formally defined project with clear management structures would be desirable. Such practice would not only ensure coherence of activities across institutions and efficient use of funds but would also give STFC and other funders a clear reporting line to allow effective oversight. This would also enable UK contributions to international projects to obtain improved visibility and hence possibly unlock additional routes to funding. Good governance is important and should follow best practice. It should be noted, however, that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not desirable, and the community, in partnership with STFC, should drive the development of such structures where appropriate.

R3: The development of formal management structures and associated oversight for larger-scale and capital-phase projects as set out in STFC’s Project Management Framework14 should be enforced.

38. There is a clear reporting line from the accelerator institutes and ASTeC to STFC via their regular reports to ASB. It is less clear however that an effective mechanism exists through which STFC can influence the science strategy and work programmes of the accelerator institutes in a coherent manner.

14 https://www.stfc.ac.uk/files/1383/1383_res_1.pdf Page 9 of 81

R4: STFC should ensure that it maintains, through input and advice from ASB, a high-level strategic oversight of the entirety of the accelerator R&D programme, its content and balance, including that of the accelerator institutes and ASTeC, to ensure coherence and value for money of the activities it supports.

R5: This strategic oversight should also include an awareness of the international context and information from non-STFC funded projects, as and when appropriate.

39. A significant number of small projects are supported within the accelerator institutes. Many of these are basic accelerator R&D projects; however there are some projects for which the primary goals appear to be the detailed design, construction and/or operation of specific accelerator facilities for physics exploitation, rather than accelerator science. Examples include ALPHA, CASCADE and ELENA. There is a risk in such cases that STFC/UK support could be secured ultimately (via accelerator institute core grants) for exploitation-phase projects without the need for approval via the usual rigorous STFC peer-review process. It is important that the accelerator institutes have the flexibility to drive the basic accelerator R&D agenda, however where their research programmes extend beyond this remit, some form of direct STFC peer review is vital. Large projects should continue to be reviewed by PPRP or an equivalent body.

R6: STFC should consider whether the oversight mechanism for the Institutes and the laboratory departments should be updated to take account of occasions when core funding is used to support what would normally be considered to be ‘new projects’ such as the detailed design, construction and/or operation of specific accelerator facilities for physics exploitation or major upgrades to existing facilities. This recommendation is not intended to cover lower level, on-going activities (such as maintenance and minor upgrades) at facilities, which should continue to be monitored according to current practice.

40. Design, construction and/or exploitation projects in the particle physics and nuclear physics areas potentially include work packages focused on accelerator science. Given the extensive UK expertise in this area, and the central role played by accelerators in the STFC programme, it is important that proponents acknowledge this and that accelerator science work-packages in such projects are reviewed on an equal footing with other work-packages and are not discarded purely due to a desire to prioritise detector-related activities. To avoid the potential for unfairness PPRP should ensure that it seeks appropriate advice.

R7: When reviewing particle physics or nuclear physics projects with substantial accelerator science components, the PPRP should seek advice from accelerator experts, and should continue to ensure that such activities are considered fairly alongside other work-packages.

Page 10 of 81

41. It is notable that currently STFC has no mechanism for supporting small-scale basic accelerator R&D activities unconnected with the PPAN programme within universities outside the accelerator institutes. This policy is consistent with the goal of concentrating accelerator R&D funds in a small number of centres of excellence. Nevertheless, this policy risks impeding the development of novel ideas in universities unaffiliated with an accelerator institute. This omission could be addressed by the setting up of a dedicated Accelerator PRD (‘APRD’) scheme, administered by ASB and open to applications from any UK accelerator scientist, targeted at any area of accelerator R&D. With the APRD scheme in place, PPAN- related accelerator R&D activities would naturally no longer be eligible for support under the standard (PPRP-administered) Project Research and Development Scheme (PRD)15.

42. Conversely, partners in the accelerator institutes and ASTeC currently have the capability to bid for funds for PPAN-connected accelerator R&D from the PRD scheme, in addition to having access to funds supporting similar R&D within the institute STFC core grants. This disparity could be addressed by requiring that any bids to the new APRD scheme from partners in the accelerator institutes or ASTeC should provide strong justification as to why the funds cannot be provided via the appropriate institute core grant or ASTeC budget. Such justification could include the presence of a large component of collaborative work with non-institute university academics. This would have the benefit of encouraging collaborative activities.

R8: STFC should set up an Accelerator PRD (APRD) scheme, administered by ASB, to support small-scale accelerator R&D activities in any area of accelerator science.

4.3 Neutron Sources

Factual Overview

43. Within the UK accelerator community neutron source research is currently carried out at ASTeC, CI, ICL, ISIS JAI, University of Huddersfield, University College London and as part of the activity of the Target Studies project (comprising the STFC ISIS Target Group and High Power Target Group and university partners).

44. Specific areas of interest are:

 The ISIS spallation neutron source (which is a short pulse source driven by the UK’s only large proton accelerator, based on a 800 MeV rapid cycling synchrotron)  The European Spallation Source (ESS)  The Front End Test Stand (FETS) project  Fixed Field Alternating Gradient (FFAG) designs which could be applied to neutron sources  Targets for neutron production  The concept of a more realistic alternative to the IFMIF16 project

15 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/1544.aspx 16 International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility Page 11 of 81

45. ISIS, a well-established facility, has recently been recognised as “innovative and world leading” following a review by an international panel17. ISIS supports a national and international community of more than 3000 scientists and gives unique insights into the properties of materials on the atomic scale, providing information which complements that provided by photon-based techniques. ISIS accelerator R&D activities are currently18 principally aimed at:

 Facilitating the programme of equipment renewal and upgrades required to keep the present ISIS accelerators running optimally and sustainably for the lifetime of the facility (~10 FTE from ISIS)  Designing potential ISIS accelerator upgrades for increased capability (~3 FTE from ISIS, ~3 FTE from ASTeC plus support from CI and JAI)  Generic proton R&D (~2 FTE from ISIS)  Target upgrades (~4 FTE total from the Target Studies project)

46. The ESS started construction in Sweden in 2014 and aims to produce first neutrons in 2020. Like ISIS the ESS will be an accelerator-based facility, but will be a high power long pulse source based on a 2 GeV superconducting linac. It is one of Europe’s largest scientific projects and the UK will be a partner in construction of the ESS alongside around 16 other European countries. The UK government will invest £165 million in this project19. UK efforts to coordinate in-kind contributions to the ESS accelerators and target are on-going and led by STFC (~1 FTE led by ASTeC for accelerator activities and ~4 FTE total from the Target Studies project and ~1 FTE from University of Huddersfield for target work).

47. The Front End Test Stand (FETS) project is a generic proton accelerator R&D programme (~11 FTE20). The production of beams as envisaged with FETS could enable a significant increase in the flux of neutrons available for the neutron user community on ISIS and at similar facilities worldwide (SNS21, ESS, JPARC22, CSNS23).

48. The UK accelerator community has a significant interest in FFAG24 accelerator designs which could be applied to neutron sources (fraction of ~3 FTE25), and in particle production targets for neutron production for medical, security and energy applications, including Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactors (ADSR) and fusion materials research (a fraction of ~7 FTE total from Target Studies project).

17 http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2013/isis-praised-by-international- review14653.html http://www.stfc.ac.uk/files/161/161_res_1.pdf 18 FTE figures relate to 2014/15 19 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/3055.aspx 20 from ASTeC, ICL, ISIS, JAI, University College London and University of Huddersfield, University of Warwick and ESS Bilbao 21 Spallation Neutron Source, Oakridge US 22 Japan Proton Research Accelerator Complex 23 China Spallation Neutron Source 24 Fixed Field Alternating Gradient 25 from ASTeC and University of Huddersfield Page 12 of 81

Findings

49. The ISIS synchrotron is an important STFC asset and a unique and powerful tool for the experimental study of high intensity proton beams. ISIS and ASTeC are centres of excellence in high intensity proton machines and beam dynamics. ISIS upgrade studies into the MW regime will explore rapid cycling synchrotron and FFAG accelerators, multiple target options and other high-value innovative ideas.

50. A product and essential requirement of ISIS upgrade and high intensity R&D work is a team with international levels of expertise, able to run, optimise and design high intensity accelerators. This activity draws on twenty five years of ISIS operational experience, a knowledge base in Radio Frequency (RF) engineering, and H− ion source development.

51. Synergy with ASTeC is an integral part of ISIS upgrade studies, providing high power linac and FFAG expertise, and comparison of simulations and ideas for rapid cycling synchrotron designs. Similarly there is an overlap in the space charge phenomena studied in ISIS and those studied in ASTeC. ISIS studies of space charge related loss mechanisms are new and the subject of many invited talks at international conferences.

52. ISIS is involved in a number of collaborations with neutron sources, other accelerator laboratories and universities worldwide, covering most technologies and techniques (cutting edge or otherwise) currently necessary for neutron source and high intensity proton driver R&D.

53. ASTeC is committed to sustaining neutron provision and retaining ISIS international competitiveness by contributing to the design of appropriate upgrades to the facility, and contributing to the ESS as part of STFC coordinated activity on superconducting RF (SCRF) and beam dynamics design and simulations. CI scientists plan to work with ISIS and ASTeC and contribute to the national effort on ISIS and its upgrades and emerging developments in the international ESS collaboration. JAI research includes, as a high priority element of its programme, research toward neutron sources (ISIS upgrade and ESS). The ICL accelerator R&D programme in this area has developed in close collaboration with ISIS and ASTeC.

54. ASTeC is contributing to ESS, acting in an advisory capacity to recommend a medium energy beam transport line and beam chopper design and providing end-to- end quality assurance verification of the ESS in an alternative simulation code. ASTeC is also pursuing opportunities to take responsibility for the development of an advanced SCRF cryomodule design for the medium-beta acceleration stage up to 600 MeV. University partners at the CI will have the opportunity to contribute to many diagnostic components in the ESS.

55. The CI is contributing to the development of high power proton accelerators for the ESS as well as acting in an advisory capacity to recommend advanced RF sources.

Page 13 of 81

56. The CI and JAI have world leading expertise and strength in advanced beam instrumentation. The CI is developing beam diagnostics applicable to future research infrastructures including ESS, and for the JAI the expansion of beam instrumentation into proton accelerators will continue to be a fertile area of research.

57. Many activities in FETS are innovative, including ion source development, work on the beam chopper and the laser-based diagnostics. The design of the FETS RF quadrupole (RFQ) included the development of new techniques in the design as well as in the manufacturing process and the international community has expressed strong interest in the forthcoming results.

58. FETS has a strong collaboration with CERN on beam instrumentation and cavities, and an ongoing collaboration with ESS Bilbao. ISIS and FETS have contributed to ion source development in Bilbao and there have been collaborations on this subject with CERN, CSNS, FNAL26, SNS and the University of Jyväskylä in Finland. H− ion source and plasma studies at ISIS and FETS will fill a scientific knowledge gap, both for ISIS and for the international ion source plasma community.

59. ISIS linac tank replacement and H− ion source development have considerable staffing and expertise overlap with FETS. University College London (UCL) work to design and implement a series of beam diagnostic tools to characterise the recently installed three solenoid system designed to manipulate the chopped beam at PIP II27 at FNAL has clear parallels with FETS efforts.

60. HL-LHC work at ASTeC, the CI universities, JAI, and University of Huddersfield has built a core team with proton collider expertise that has strong synergies with existing UK neutron source programmes such as ISIS (e.g. collimation) and FETS (e.g. diagnostics) as well as establishing expertise and capabilities in key skills for future accelerator infrastructure such as SCRF. Superconducting linear accelerators are part of the STFC science roadmap and the HL-LHC project has developed key expertise to allow STFC to design, test and build SCRF technology in the future.

61. ASTeC are world leaders in FFAG accelerator design, one application of which is neutron sources. The CI universities and the ICL Accelerator Group also have particular expertise in the design and optimisation of FFAGs. ASTeC (in collaboration with the CI universities, ICL, JAI, BNL28, FNAL and TRIUMF29) led the development and commissioning of the EMMA30 test accelerator which was the first of a new generation of non-scaling FFAG accelerators which could be applied to, for instance, Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactors (ADSR). ASTeC and University of Huddersfield staff have taken out a patent on multi-beam accelerators for ADSR.

26 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, US 27 Proton Improvement Plan II 28 Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton US 29 Canadian National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics 30 The Electron Machine with Many Applications Page 14 of 81

62. Huddersfield is leading the field of ADSR and thorium studies in the UK and is a significant player globally. The MYRRHA31 ADSR project has been partially funded and is gaining momentum; Huddersfield has a loose collaboration with them that they are trying to build on.

63. ISIS swept-frequency RF expertise was contributed to the PAMELA32 FFAG project.

64. The Target Studies project is the only such target studies group in the world. It is making significant contributions to upgrades of the ISIS Target Station 1 target and neutron capture and moderation systems to 0.5, 1 and 5 MW in addition to contributing to studies of the 5 MW ESS target. The project also has an interest in particle production targets for neutron production for medical, security and energy applications, including ADSR and FAFNIR33.

65. Huddersfield’s range of target simulations is now extending to include backgrounds from targets and beamlines, possible activation in FETS, and studies for ESS (which they have been commissioned to perform by ESS).

66. The JAI (and ISIS, the Target Studies project and others) are involved in the development of a more realistic alternative to the IFMIF project along with Culham Fusion Centre colleagues. This has resulted in the eventual development of the FAFNIR proposal for a neutron source for fusion materials study.

67. The JAI submission notes that several proton-based accelerators (LHC upgrade, FAIR34, ESS, ISIS upgrade) will be built and commissioned at about the same time, which could result in a shortfall of the number of proton accelerator experts in a few years’ time. Similarly the CI RF Technology submission points out that if the UK wishes to build any linacs for neutron sources then RF engineers will be needed in large numbers.

68. Three ISIS staff members and one ASTeC staff member are pursuing DPhil degrees at JAI based on neutron source development work. A lecture course in Hamiltonian Dynamics to introduce new accelerator physicists to advanced theory has been developed by ISIS staff and delivered at the JAI.

69. The ICL submission comments that advances in particle physics rely on advances in accelerator technology. The department’s accelerator activities therefore focus on the development of the techniques required for the delivery of high power, pulsed proton beams and high intensity, pulsed muon beams. The techniques are also applicable to neutron sources and accelerators for medical applications. Conversely the expertise generated by the ICL proton accelerator R&D programme (that includes design of ISIS upgrades and FETS, as well as the technology developed within the FETS project) is also directly applicable to future facilities at the intensity and energy frontiers.

31 Belgian Nuclear Research Centre 32 Particle Accelerator for MEdicaL Applications 33 FAcility for Fusion Neutron Irradiation Research 34 Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research, GSI, Darmstadt Germany Page 15 of 81

70. Utilising synergies with other high intensity proton activities ASTeC, CI, FETS, ISIS, JAI, and ICL will seek to exploit new opportunities with FNAL in accordance with the recent Proton Accelerators for Science and Innovation (PASI) initiative.

71. The ASTeC resource form indicates that a number of their staff are employed on generic Future Technology programmes which have impact on neutron sources.

72. The pool of expertise accessible through ASTeC enables smaller university groups to play a significant role in international projects, potentially including ESS.

Comments and Recommendations

73. The target is an essential component of any future ISIS upgrade and hence a demonstration that it will work is crucial for such an upgrade to go ahead. Furthermore any optimised accelerator programme for an ISIS upgrade (or any future short pulse neutron source) should include target, neutronic, neutron instrument, detector and neutron user community considerations from the outset.

74. ISIS R&D projects have considerable synergy with the proton accelerator R&D programmes identified by the Proton Accelerator Alliance (PAA) being collaboratively developed in the UK.35

75. Some technology areas that are likely to be essential to any future short pulse neutron source (e.g. H− ion source development, stripping foils, swept-frequency normal conducting RF system development) are only being pursued at ISIS (and FETS) within the UK. Similarly ISIS is now the sole repository of UK technical knowledge for normal conducting proton linacs. Close connection of the ISIS and FETS team to all major international laboratories working in the field and a number of collaborations on topical subjects should be sufficient to cover some gaps in the UK knowledge and expertise base.

76. Any potential ISIS upgrade will be specified by the ISIS Department and therefore ISIS would need to take the lead in the accelerator design, but with significant contributions from all interested parties. It is not currently clear who is directing, coordinating and asking for contributions towards ISIS upgrades from the CI, the JAI, University of Huddersfield and others.

R9: ISIS should take the lead in specifying ISIS upgrades and then coordinating contributions from interested parties (with appropriate funding).

35 involving ISIS,CI (both ASTeC and universities), JAI, ICL and University College London. Page 16 of 81

77. It is hoped that the current UK shortage in proton SCRF expertise and infrastructure will begin to be addressed by ASTeC efforts towards ESS. Such an increase in expertise would be essential in the event of a high power superconducting linac being part of a major ISIS upgrade (and also has potential applications in L-FEL36, bERLinPro37, PIP II and LCLS-II38). However, if this plan is not realised an alternative strategy to grow this expertise on a timescale attuned to the UK neutron programme will be required.

78. ESS is currently the biggest opportunity for UK engagement in neutron science and it is important that the UK plays a leading role in a number of aspects of the project. However, it should be noted that significant accelerator and target contributions to ESS will have a considerable effect on the remainder of the landscape as it will put significant strain on everything else.

R10: STFC should establish the UK’s accelerator and target contributions to ESS as soon as possible and provide a clear process for accessing resources to ensure UK institutes are able to take leadership in ESS work.

79. FETS could be developed to serve the High Energy Physics (HEP) community by providing beam for intense sources of secondary and tertiary particles such as muons or neutrinos. Furthermore, such a beam would be required for energy production using ADSR technology or for waste transmutation. When finished, FETS could deliver a beam of world-leading brightness to a diverse range of experiments, spanning from target to material development, and providing a test bed for proton accelerator related questions where space charge is important. In addition industry has shown interest in using FETS to test a new direct-drive RF technology. The technologies that FETS will provide are directly applicable to LINAC4 and the injector upgrade projects at CERN, the ESS, the PIP II programme at FNAL and ISIS.

80. Non-scaling FFAG accelerator designs that could be applied to neutron sources may also find applications in compact proton therapy systems for healthcare and accelerating unstable particles such as muons.

81. A collaboration of ASTeC and the CI university RF groups has allowed the formation of a very large and influential RF group, which could perhaps become more involved in ISIS RF development.

R11: ISIS, CI and other partners should consider opportunities for collaboration in the area of RF technology development.

82. A number of institutes and facilities (CI, FETS, ISIS, JAI, etc.) have experts working on diagnostics for neutron sources, but there appears to be little communication between these groups.

36 See Section 4.5 37 Berlin Energy Recovery Linac Prototype 38 Linac Coherent Light Source II, SLAC US Page 17 of 81

R12: CI, JAI, ISIS, FETS and any other interested parties should look at whether there is scope for a more coordinated approach across the community to beam diagnostics for neutron source applications.

83. Neutron sources are not explicitly mentioned in any submission in conjunction with laser related acceleration, however there is a UK programme on laser-driven neutron sources with a EPSRC-funded fellowship held at Queens University Belfast (QUB), and several STFC-funded experiments devoted to this topics have been already scheduled on the VULCAN laser. A rapid advance in this technology would certainly be game-changing should it materialise in terms of current high power proton driver and neutron source thinking.

84. No UK group is currently knowledgeable or experienced in the production of the large, normal-conducting AC magnets which are likely to be essential to any future short-pulse neutron source and which, on a timescale of a few years, will be part of the equipment renewal programme required to keep the current ISIS synchrotron running sustainably.

R13: ISIS should investigate if there are suitable partners (possibly ASTeC, CERN, JPARC or CSNS) to produce drop-in replacements for the ISIS synchrotron dipole and quadrupole normal-conducting AC magnets.

85. Neutron source R&D has been of considerable interest to the HEP and other communities that are interested in similarly specified (or even shared) high-power proton drivers.

86. ASTeC, FETS, ISIS, and university engagement with UK industry is important in re- establishing the accelerator manufacturing base in a number of areas relevant to neutron sources.

87. ISIS and ASTeC expertise on high intensity proton machines and beam dynamics represents a significant national resource (that has been built up over many years) and must be fully exploited in setting out the future for neutron sources.

88. Understanding and minimising beam loss due to space charge and instabilities and establishing benchmarked computer models is essential for ISIS developments and also for similar work at CERN and GSI39.

89. The high intensity beam dynamics simulations necessary for studies of cutting edge neutron sources increasingly requires access to parallel computing infrastructures.

4.4 Synchrotron Light Sources

Factual Overview

90. Operation of Diamond, the UK’s national synchrotron facility operated by Diamond Light Source (DLS), and UK membership of the ESRF40 facility in Grenoble provide the UK user community with access to high brightness synchrotron radiation.

39 GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research, Germany Page 18 of 81

91. Submissions relevant to the STFC funded R&D on synchrotron light sources, were collected from the proformas of ASTeC, CI, DLS and JAI.

92. Diamond was commissioned in January 2007 and quickly reached the nominal operational parameters. The first seven years of operation have continuously delivered a high quality photon beam for users. Since 2007 new operating modes have been devised extending the capabilities of conventional third generation light sources (‘top-up’, short bunch operation, ultra-low vertical emittance, customised optics).

Findings

93. DLS is active in many areas of accelerator R&D of third generation light sources often in collaboration with other international accelerator laboratories. This R&D programme is supported with about 14 FTE (in 2014) from DLS with the support of PDRAs and PhD students from the JAI. Several MoUs are in place.

94. Notable projects include:

 Accelerator Physics studies for the ultra-low emittance upgrade to Diamond-II  The “Double-Double Bend Achromat” (DDBA) Project: shorter term lattice modifications to allow more insertion device beamlines to be accommodated  Electron and photon beam diagnostics development  Advanced fast orbit feedback schemes  Development and increased provision of cryogenic permanent magnet undulators  Development of super conducting undulators  Improvement of RF reliability and stability  Increased beam current  Studies and simulation of vacuum performance  Studies of linac and superconducting cavity operation  FEA stress analysis of vacuum vessel components under high heat load  Studies of ground stability and vibration of accelerator components.

95. The DLS team has been invited to give talks on the experience they have developed at international conferences and to participate in international panels and Machine Advisory Committees. DLS and the JAI are co-coordinators of the Low-Emittance Ring network of the Eucard2 project. DLS staff have taken part in accelerator training at the JAI, CI and international accelerator schools such as the CERN Accelerator School (CAS), the Joint Universities Accelerator School (JUAS) and the U.S. Particle Accelerator School (USPAS),

96. The JAI has been engaged in R&D towards new light sources including the development of third generation synchrotron light sources. The JAI in collaboration with DLS shares the leadership in development of methods for beam manipulation techniques for light sources – manifested by the 2009 world record for smallest vertical emittance in storage rings. This originated initially in a wider collaboration between the JAI, the CLIC damping ring and the SuperB collider groups.

40 European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, France Page 19 of 81

97. The JAI continues to be engaged with the future of Diamond through novel optics designs, which are now being used for Diamond-II upgrade. It has also developed a large number of diagnostics and beam instrumentation relevant to synchrotron light sources.

98. DLS has expertise in many aspects of accelerator science and technology, including controls, diagnostics, engineering, insertion devices, RF and vacuum. DLS has also maintained a level of expertise in free electron lasers (FELs) and has contributed to recent discussions with the FEL community in the UK on a possible future UK-based FEL facility.

99. The range of beam instrumentation activities relevant to synchrotron light sources at the JAI includes:

 Longitudinal bunch length measurement based on Coherent Smith-Purcell radiation, Coherent diffraction radiation (CDR), Coherent Cherenkov Diffraction Radiation (ChDR), Coherent Synchrotron Radiation (CSR)  Transverse projected and intrinsic profile and emittance measurement, Laser electron beam Compton scattering systems (non-invasive micron size)

100. DLS and the JAI collaborate on development of beam diagnostics development for synchrotron light sources in particular cavity beam position monitors and THz detectors.

101. DLS has provided informal support to STFC (ASTeC, CLF, ISIS and Technology Departments) on the development and application of the EPICS41 control system toolkit. Through the EPICS collaboration DLS has contributed to the development of the current (V3) and future (V4) versions of the EPICS software tool kit used to build distributed control systems for the control of particle accelerators. It has supplied designs for high stability power supplies for orbit corrector magnets to Alba42 and Elettra43 light sources.

102. DLS has developed expertise in the operation of linacs and the design of high brightness linac drivers for FEL. DLS staff were in leading positions in the New Light Source (NLS), being responsible for the design of the LINAC option for this project. Linac and FEL expertise has been retained and developed with:

 Construction of a low emittance, high repetition rate, S-band photocathode gun with potential application to UK-FEL and CLARA etc. High repetition rate and low intrinsic beam emittance performance from RF photo-injectors are the primary mechanism for improving large scale accelerator facility delivery. ASTeC is collaborating with DLS in the testing of an advanced RF photo- injector gun for future UK-FEL application.  Simulation of FEL schemes of relevance to a possible future UK-FEL and CLARA.  Advanced beam diagnostics with JAI for THz radiation generation and characterisation of micro-bunching instabilities, to improve the THz source.

41 Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System 42 Spain 43 electron storage ring Trieste Italy Page 20 of 81

103. ASTeC and Technology Department are developing Superconducting Undulators (SCUs) that will be of benefit to Diamond. This has led to collaboration with DLS on the design and fabrication of a superconducting undulator aimed at enhancing the wavelength reach of all light sources, which could bring compact light sources one step closer. DLS has in-house construction and measurements capabilities relevant to future light source projects including Diamond-II, UK-FEL and compact light sources.

104. DLS is working in collaboration with Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany on the COLDDIAG project to investigate beam heating on cryogenic surfaces close to a circulating electron beam. Through this collaboration KIT provided the diagnostic chamber, which was installed in Diamond. DLS has also participated in the analysis and interpretation of results that have provided valuable information for the development of future cold insertion devices (e.g. the SCU mentioned in paragraph 103).

105. In the last few years the CLF has established close links with conventional accelerators including ALICE and Diamond. While lasers have been used in photo- injectors so far, this collaboration, including university partners, is studying new approaches to beam-driven wakefield acceleration. The concept relies upon the use of a 20TW laser pulse to micro-bunch the 3 GeV electron beam from the booster section of Diamond. The CLF is providing support to develop this beam-driven wakefield accelerator concept for Diamond with EPSRC funding.

106. The DLS team, often in conjunction with the JAI, is collaborating with a number of groups, including:

 The ESRF upgrade team – synergies exist between the two projects in the field of beam dynamics, magnet design, vacuum and engineering.  University of Oxford Engineering Department in the application of advanced control theory to orbit stabilisation. This work resulted in the evaluation of the application of mode space control, the development of multi-array control and validation of controller robustness as applied to orbit stabilisation.  A number of light sources in the development of orbit feedback systems (Soleil44, Alba45, and ESRF) based on the low latency communication controller and a fast archiver (with Soleil, ESRF, and ASP) for high speed recording of accelerator beam position information.

44 Synchrotron facility France 45 Synchrotron radiation facility Spain Page 21 of 81

107. The CI supports research on the potential of novel third generation storage ring designs, involving 1 PhD student and several Masters students. Two storage ring concepts have been developed. The first is the non-equilibrium ring46, which overcomes the problems of Energy Recovery Linacs (ERL) used for soft x-ray production. Such a ring could be implemented on a suitable high-repetition rate FEL facility such as a possible UK-FEL. A second compact design has taken a separate approach to obtain diffraction-limited output for soft x-ray production using wiggler- dominated optics. Future plans are to develop a design as a possible user-led addition to a future free-electron laser facility.

108. DLS is collaborating with facilities that plan major upgrade like ESRF (magnetic measurement, low emittance ring network).

Comments and Recommendations

109. The DLS and JAI submissions to this review emphasise that a Diamond upgrade, and a 4th generation light source (i.e. a potential UK-FEL), both require new advances in accelerator science and technology. ASTeC, CLF, DLS and the JAI are strategically placed in this arena, and have expertise that can make valuable contributions to both of these projects.

110. Diamond has successfully operated for the last 7 years, underpinning the development of a strong user community in the UK with a level of oversubscriptions often reaching a factor of two or more.

111. Diamond is currently the lowest emittance medium energy synchrotron light source in operation worldwide. However, many facilities around the world are considering vigorous upgrade programmes, most notably the ESRF. Newer, lower emittance, sources are coming on-stream (NSLS-II47) or under construction (MAX-IV48, SIRIUS49). In addition a number of existing rings are planning major upgrades (ALS50, APS51, Spring-852). For Diamond to maintain its areas of competitiveness and recognition in the next decade it is essential that it continues to develop in the short- term and makes plans for a possible major upgrade in the longer term. Supporting the R&D programme will help maintain key skills and the excellence of the science delivered by the facility. The JAI submission notes that many international laboratories are considering upgrading their present accelerator-based light sources to diffraction limited storage rings or FELS.

R14: STFC should continue to support R&D in Diamond in order to allow it to remain competitive. The broad expertise developed at ASTeC, CI, Diamond and JAI in the accelerator science and technology required for light sources should be maintained by STFC with appropriate R&D programmes focussed on high brightness synchrotron light sources.

46 published 2013 in Physics Review Letters 47 National Synchrotron Light Source-II Brookhaven 48 the planned next-generation synchrotron radiation facility in Lund, Sweden 49 Brazil 50 Advanced Light Source Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 51 Advanced Photon Source Argonne 52 Japan Synchrotron Radiation Research Institute Page 22 of 81

R15: DLS should seek funding to support the conceptual design for a full upgrade of the Diamond-II lattice. Should Diamond-II be funded the DLS team should lead the upgrade of the facility.

112. The development of third generation light sources is being pursued worldwide. The DLS, with the support of the JAI, is leading work to improve the performance of such facilities, and the results of current work could therefore have international significance. The JAI R&D programme on third generation light sources is aligned with, and in many ways leading, the worldwide effort in the design and operation of the so called “Ultimate Storage Ring” sources, where the electron beam is harnessed to achieve ultra-small emittances with unprecedented stability. Diffraction limited radiation with full transverse coherence will be delivered by such new generation light sources opening up new, many previously unforeseen, scientific applications. Theoretical and experimental work carried out in this context is also relevant to many other areas of the STFC accelerator programme.

113. The JAI beam diagnostics and beam instrumentation activities have international visibility and standing, manifested by high level scientific collaborations in many accelerator projects.

R16: STFC should encourage further collaboration between ASTeC, CI universities, JAI and Diamond. In particular, expansion of the scientific links with ASTeC and CI could be beneficial for both parties.

114. Among the primary R&D activities upon which JAI focuses are research toward novel light sources (3rd and 4th generation, those based on plasma acceleration and advanced Compton sources), and advanced beam instrumentation. The JAI programme is naturally directed towards establishing and strengthening links with the Harwell and Daresbury Innovation Campuses and the laboratories they host. In particular, the JAI is engaged with CLF and DLS to develop laser-plasma acceleration compact accelerator light source using the DLS beams.

115. The co-location of research teams with diverse and sophisticated skills in accelerator and laser science and technology in the Harwell and Daresbury Campuses is a strong and unique feature that should be exploited and supported by STFC.

116. The design, commissioning and running of Diamond has generated a large team of physicists and engineers with expertise in many underpinning technologies related to accelerators. Similarly the research in advanced beam instrumentation, which is one of the key priority areas, and a traditional strength, of the JAI cross fertilises other research areas of interest for STFC-led projects and can be used to support or lead future programmes.

117. Accelerator R&D at DLS relies on, and helps maintain and develop, in-house expertise. Highly skilled and motivated staff are essential to maintain the position of Diamond as a world-class facility. The training and support provided by the JAI has been significant.

Page 23 of 81

118. Research towards novel light sources at DLS and JAI, has multiple synergies with other programmes, including improvement of Diamond, its upgrade, FEL, plasma based light sources and advanced compact Compton light sources. It benefits from collaboration with ESRF.

119. Research in novel synchrotron light sources would benefit from greater collaboration in many areas. The collaborative effort could follow a similar model to that developed for Super Conducting Undulators. ASTeC has the international lead in novel coatings for vacuum chambers that act as extremely efficient vacuum pumps and reduce surface gas desorption; this gives significant cost savings by reducing the number and size of vacuum pumps required and these are now used widely in particle accelerators.

120. The Diamond upgrade studies are mainly driven by DLS and the JAI. Despite having had the leading role in the original baseline design of the facility, ASTeC is now only involved at a minimal level. Support for the technical design of the new facility should also be drawn from the experts in ASTeC and the CI. There is wide scope for collaboration in both the accelerator design and the technology subsystems and engineering integration.

121. Lack of investment in the area of accelerator based light sources would be damaging for the development of the UK user community. The last major capital project investment is now ten years old and new projects usually require many years for planning, design and building. It is therefore timely to start thinking ahead now on the possibility of new facilities by 2020.

122. The STFC Programmatic Review recommended that the existing efforts at ASTeC, CI, DLS and JAI should be coordinated into a strategic programme towards next generation FEL technology. This would provide a credible route to allow UK accelerator and light source scientists to participate constructively with the existing FEL projects (including XFEL) as well as providing the strategic underpinning for a potential FEL based in the UK.

123. A review of strategy for future light source facilities would help to understand the requirements for R&D in this area.

4.5 Free Electron Lasers

Factual Overview

124. Accelerator R&D related to FELs is a distinct part of the accelerator programme with ASTeC, CI, CLF, DLS, JAI, and Strathclyde University all carrying out FEL R&D or making contributions to FEL projects.

Page 24 of 81

125. The UK FEL programme is primarily focussed around the major projects (ALICE53, CLARA54, L-FEL55 and SwissFEL56) and falls naturally under the management structures that have been implemented for each one. A potential UK national FEL facility is being actively discussed by the light source community and the accelerator R&D community would be pivotal in the design, construction, commissioning and operation of such a facility (termed ‘UK-FEL’ in this report).

126. The ALICE accelerator test facility at Daresbury Laboratory contains the first and only FEL in the UK, generating infra-red light in the region 5.5 to 11 μm. This FEL is an oscillator type which relies on highly reflecting mirrors to form an optical cavity and so is only readily applied at relatively long wavelengths. The ALICE FEL was commissioned in 2010 by ASTeC.

127. CLARA is a proposed single pass FEL test facility and would be a major upgrade of VELA (VELA is a high brightness electron photoinjector for use by industry and academia). This type of single pass FEL does not require any optical elements and so is applicable over all wavelengths and is the basis for all current short wavelength FELs (LCLS57, SACLA58, FLASH59, European XFEL60, etc.) and could be the basis for any future UK-FEL.

128. ASTeC makes direct contributions to SwissFEL (a Swiss national project that is currently being constructed at PSI61) on various topics including a collimation system to protect the FEL undulators, a self-seeding scheme for the hard X-ray FEL, design and fabrication of the modulator undulator for the laser heater system, 2 colour FEL modelling, mode locked FEL modelling, and X-band RF cavity design.

Findings

129. The ALICE FEL is operated and managed by ASTeC for the EPSRC-funded photon exploitation programme to advance the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of cervical, oesophageal, and prostate cancer. This three-year EPSRC programme is led by The University of Liverpool with the other collaborators being the Cardiff University, University of Manchester, Lancaster University and the Christie, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, and Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals.

130. ALICE has been used to develop and test new electron beam arrival monitors with 10 fs resolution and also new digital low level RF systems to maintain the RF field amplitude and phase stability requirements. Very similar systems are required by CLARA, L-FEL, SwissFEL and a potential UK-FEL.

53 Accelerators and Lasers In Combined Experiments 54 Compact Linear Accelerator for Research and Applications 55 A commercial project 56 X-ray free-electron laser currently under construction at the Paul Scherrer Institute 57 SLAC Linac Coherent Light Source 58 X-FEL in Japan 59 X-FEL at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY (German Electron Synchrotron) in Hamburg 60 Under construction at DESY 61 Paul Scherrer Institute Page 25 of 81

131. The CLARA Conceptual Design Report was published in July 2013, with contributions from ASTeC, CI, DLS, JAI, University of Huddersfield and University of Strathclyde. CLARA has been allocated some funding by STFC (up to 2015/16) which will enable the first accelerating sections to be installed, but the level of funding allocated is less than 10% of the total estimated project cost (£35m). The CLARA project is “shovel ready” and so could begin construction immediately.

132. The principle aim of CLARA is to test new FEL concepts for generating light with attosecond pulse lengths, narrower bandwidths, greater intensity stability, two colour pulses, and so on. The priority will be given to testing concepts which will have the maximum positive impact on the science that is possible with FELs.

133. CLARA could be a test bed for new accelerator technologies that could be applied to future FELs or other high brightness electron accelerators (e.g. electron-positron colliders, electron diffraction facilities, Compton sources, etc.). Such technologies include high repetition rate RF photoinjectors, novel undulators, RF accelerating, deflecting and linearizing structures and sources (S-, C-, or X-band), single bunch low charge diagnostics, novel photocathode materials, laser-RF synchronisation systems, tuneable permanent magnet quadrupoles and dipoles. All of these technologies are being actively developed by the UK accelerator community.

134. The availability of bright electron beams from CLARA for non-FEL related accelerator experiments would be a significant benefit to the UK accelerator community, who have proposed a number of interesting new ideas. The potential availability of a flexible electron accelerator with ready access to the electron bunches has stimulated the accelerator community to think of a number of novel concepts which would otherwise not be possible to test within the UK.

135. CLARA would enable new opportunities for engagement both nationally and internationally. For instance:

 A proposal from CI and the University of Strathclyde is to use CLARA for advanced beam driven plasma wakefield experiments and laser driven wakefield experiments that could also be possible utilising an existing 20 TW laser. These experiments could also make use of the FEL section of CLARA for coherent light generation, making CLARA an ideal test bed for future wakefield accelerator driven FEL experiments.  PSI has agreed to supply STFC with equipment for installation into the CLARA FEL Test Facility and would collaborate with ASTeC on a joint experimental programme on the test facility once it is operational. The programme would test new ideas and concepts aimed at improving the performance of short wavelength FELs in general and which will be directly applicable to the SwissFEL Facility in particular.  CERN are developing X-band (12 GHz) linac technology for applications beyond CLIC and they have identified FELs as the most synergetic area. CERN are now actively working on an RF accelerating structure design which is specifically matched to FEL facilities. They have proposed installing their first X-band FEL structure in CLARA in 2017/18 in order to prove with beam

Page 26 of 81

that this revised structure performs to the exacting requirements of a FEL facility and that the FEL can continue to generate coherent light.

136. A PhD student started in 2014 at the JAI on aspects of the CLARA FEL design, supervised jointly by members of ASTeC and JAI staff. The PhD is jointly funded by the ASTeC, DLS, and JAI under a formal agreement.

137. The CI Scientific Advisory Committee (an external peer review body of international experts) advised that “There is no facility anywhere in the world that has the flexibility and capabilities described for CLARA. It would therefore be a world-class facility”.

138. The provision of a national FEL user facility for the UK has been discussed a number of times. Two Conceptual Design Reports, 4GLS62 and NLS63 have been generated in the past, but facility funding was not forthcoming. Both design studies took a considerable effort from the accelerator community to generate (approximately 20 to 30 staff years), with the majority of the staff effort provided by ASTeC on both occasions, but significantly supplemented by CLF, DLS, STFC Technology Department and the University of Strathclyde. The contributions from the CI and JAI were smaller. Additional input was also provided by the science user communities to generate the science cases and to specify in detail the output requirements of the FEL facility. The UK science community has had some limited access to FEL generated X-rays since the LCLS64 was commissioned in 2009.

139. Any future UK-FEL facility would be an advanced accelerator but its primary purpose would be to serve the needs of the FEL science community and not accelerator R&D. However, FELs are intrinsically flexible in terms of physical re-configurability and variety of operating modes and so a UK-FEL would be able to take advantage of accelerator and FEL R&D developments that could be demonstrated on CLARA on an on-going basis over the operational life of the facility, not just during its design and construction. CLF have secured joint STFC/EPSRC grant funding (£8.4M) to deploy advanced laser technology (DiPOLE) on the Helmholtz International Beamline for Extreme Fields at the European XFEL 65in Hamburg.

140. ASTeC is collaborating with DLS on the high power testing of an advanced RF photo- injector gun, using the VELA infrastructure. The gun has been developed by DLS for potential future UK-FEL application.

62 4th Generation Light Source 2006 63 New Generation Light Source 2010 64 SLAC Linac Coherent Light Source 65 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/clf/CALTA/38825.aspx Page 27 of 81

141. STFC (ASTeC & Technology Department) has a commercial contract to supply assembled accelerator modules and other equipment to the ELI-NP project in Romania (a Compton scattering facility for generating gamma photons for nuclear physics studies). STFC will supply 22 accelerator modules which steer, control and measure intense electron beams. This involves integrating, aligning and testing the radio frequency structures, high field magnets, vacuum chambers and controls. The accelerator modules will be assembled and tested at STFC’s Daresbury Laboratory prior to delivery to the ELI-NP. The electron accelerator for ELI-NP is synergetic with FELs since many of the technical solutions, as well as the expertise gained, have direct relevance to CLARA and a UK-FEL. Specific areas of synergy include the use of normal-conducting photoinjectors and C-band linacs, ultra high stability LLRF systems, single pass electron bunch diagnostics, electron beam-laser interactions and the requirement for femtosecond-level synchronisation.

142. UCL are providing the clock and control system for the megapixel detectors for the European XFEL, this will be the interface between the accelerator timing and the X- ray detectors. They are also developing the simulation of the detectors, which will be generic such that any pixel-type detector can be included in the simulation and studied. This is funded primarily through a contract with European XFEL.

143. CLF and UCL have both secured external funding to deliver advanced technical solutions to the European XFEL beamline and detector systems.

144. The University of Strathclyde has written a so-called ‘non-averaging’ FEL simulation code (Puffin) which relies on fewer approximations than the other FEL codes which are used internationally. Currently it is the only code of its kind and it has attracted considerable attention because it allows the user to simulate ever more complex electron-photon interaction processes and gain a deeper understanding of FEL physics for all types of interaction. Several international groups are now using this code to simulate emerging concepts such as multi-colour FELs or FELs driven by extreme beams (such as from laser wakefield accelerators). The Puffin code requires access to high performance computational facilities in order for the simulations to be completed in a timely manner.

145. There has been a formal Memorandum of Agreement between STFC (ASTeC) and the University of Strathclyde since 2002 (renewed every 3 years). This has been instrumental in transferring FEL skills from the University into ASTeC, enabling STFC to design and propose potential new user facilities such as 4GLS and NLS and has also led to productive, joint, two-way underpinning FEL R&D between University of Strathclyde and ASTeC. Two full time ASTeC staff have studied for part-time PhDs in advanced FEL concepts under the supervision of an academic from University of Strathclyde.

146. In a similar arrangement, a PhD was awarded to a member of DLS staff who studied advanced FEL concepts under the supervision of an academic member of the JAI.

Page 28 of 81

Comments and Recommendations

147. UK-based FEL physicists are highly regarded internationally, showing clear technical leadership, as evidenced by their many invited talks at workshops and conferences, their well-regarded conceptual design solutions for 4GLS and NLS, solicited contributions to international projects such as SwissFEL and NGLS66 and also they have an impressive number of high impact journal publications (such as in Nature Photonics and Physical Review Letters).

148. CLARA is recognised internationally as a potentially unique resource for the FEL community in terms of being able to prove the latest concepts for improving the ultimate FEL output performance for the international base of FEL user scientists. Furthermore, CLARA could enable the UK accelerator and FEL design community to develop the skill base to the highest level prior to the possible major investment in a UK-FEL. FEL user facilities are very challenging to design, commission, and operate, and so reducing the risk by increasing the practical “hands-on” expertise and experience of the UK accelerator community is a sensible strategy to adopt.

149. The same strategy has previously been successfully adopted by other countries that have invested in, or are currently investing in, FEL user facilities for example FLASH & European XFEL in Germany and SCSS & SACLA in Japan.

150. Whilst ideas for the concepts CLARA seeks to test exist, the experimental facilities to prove them do not and user facilities do not have the freedom to devote time to test such ideas. Many of the schemes considered could be implemented into existing and future FELs with minimal hardware changes once they have been proven on CLARA. In order to achieve these aims CLARA would have to implement advanced techniques, such as laser seeding, laser-electron bunch manipulation, and femtosecond synchronisation. These challenges can only be met by a state-of-the-art accelerator with the capability to drive current FEL designs. The design is flexible and able to operate in a number of different modes to ensure that it is able to adapt to new schemes as they are proposed in the future.

151. The high profile collaboration between PSI and STFC, including the provision of significant accelerator hardware, provides strong evidence that CLARA would be internationally relevant as an FEL test facility and demonstrates that national and international FEL user facilities expect to continue to evolve and improve over their operating lifetime as new ideas and concepts are proven elsewhere.

152. The request from CERN for their X-band technology to be installed into CLARA is again recognition of the status and relevance of CLARA internationally.

R17: Should construction of CLARA be approved a suitable mechanism should be established to evaluate the merit and feasibility of any accelerator experiments proposed to be carried out, to set the priorities, and to allocate appropriate beam time.

66 Next Generation Light Source at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Page 29 of 81

153. The FEL skills and technologies developed on RF accelerator-based FELs will be essential for the development of laser wakefield accelerator-based FELs. Particular challenges which will require these skills and technologies include transporting and conditioning the dense electron bunches from the accelerator to the FEL, simulating the FEL process with these extreme bunches (large energy spread, ultra short bunches), single bunch low charge diagnostics, femtosecond timing and synchronisation systems, and novel undulators. The University of Strathclyde has demonstrated technical leadership with their FEL simulation code.

154. Given the consistently high impact across the various projects with relatively limited resources it is clear that the FEL programme offers very good value for money. There are no obvious skill gaps but vulnerabilities have been identified where there are limited resources spread rather thinly (e.g. FEL design and simulation, low level RF, timing and synchronisation, and FEL photon diagnostics).

155. The commercial contracts awarded to STFC for L-FEL and ELI-NP demonstrate the international reputation of the UK in this area. Both contracts will commit people with key expertise for a time and this could impact on the timescales of other programmes such as CLARA and a potential UK-FEL.

156. The provision of access by the UK accelerator community to bright electron bunches of modest energy (up to 250 MeV) has stimulated an impressive number of ideas and concepts (unrelated to FELs) that would otherwise not have been possible to try in the UK. Internationally, there are very few facilities which are able to provide such access and so this would be a significant asset for the UK.

157. There are considerable opportunities for the CI, JAI, and other university groups to have a significant impact in the UK-FEL programme area, especially given the prominence of CLARA and a potential UK-FEL.

R18: The accelerator institutes and other university groups should consider further engagement with FEL projects to take advantage of the associated opportunities.

158. The design study for a UK-FEL will place a significant demand on the accelerator community (as did the NLS study previously). Were a UK-FEL to be funded to construction the impact on the accelerator community would be very significant.

Page 30 of 81

4.6 High Energy Lepton Machines

Factual Overview

159. CLIC-UK is a collaboration between five UK universities (Dundee, Lancaster, Manchester, Oxford and RHUL) ASTeC and CERN, with the aim of providing key deliverables to a future linear collider project. The main areas of work are drive beam phase stabilisation, permanent magnets, efficient RF sources and beam instrumentation, and to provide input to the CLIC project plan in 2018. Several UK groups have been involved in the International Linear Collider (ILC) over the past decade: ASTeC (Beam Delivery Systems (BDS), positron source, damping rings), CI (BDS, damping rings, positron source, crab cavity). CLIC-UK arose from the LC-ABD collaboration, which had an initial focus on beam delivery, and received around £17M in investment between 2004 and 2011.

160. The CLIC-UK effort consists of 18 faculty and ASTeC staff, 16 PDRAs, 6 engineers and 12 students. CLIC-UK part 1, which received £3M from CERN, ran for a 3-year period from April 2011 and CLIC-UK part 2 will run until March 2017 with £2.25M from CERN. Further funding has come from EUCARD67, European Initial Training Networks (ITNs) and STFC via institute grants. The groups have leveraged CLASP, PNPAS and industrial (e.g. Tech-X) funding using the expertise developed in the CLIC-UK programme. There is some contact between CLIC-UK and UK companies for X-band RF components, with possible industrial prototype development. A cavity prototype was developed with Shakespeare Engineering.

161. A large part of the work is focused around the institutes and ASTeC. The CI effort is orientated towards normal conducting accelerating cavities and cavity diagnostics (mainly at Manchester, but Liverpool diagnostics work is also relevant) and crab cavities and klystrons (Lancaster). The JAI effort is primarily focused on feed-forward systems and diagnostics. The ASTeC effort is orientated towards diagnostics, permanent magnets and RF.

162. MICE (international Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment), being built at RAL, is the proof of principle experiment for the ionisation-cooling of muon beams. MICE-UK comprises 10 institutes (Brunel, STFC Daresbury, Glasgow, ICL, Liverpool, Oxford, STFC RAL, Sheffield, Strathclyde and Warwick). The UK effort is 11 faculty staff, 16 PDRAs, 38 technical staff and 10 PG students. There is some related nuSTORM work in the UK (ICL, Manchester), with a strong synergy to MICE and neutrino factories.

163. MICE step IV will show passage of muons through matter, with measurements, and will be performed in 2015. MICE step V will show cooling with re-acceleration. In a recent review (April 2014) of the MICE programme and its schedule carried out by the international MICE Project Board (MPB), it was recommended to expedite the MICE Step V schedule so that it should be ready for data-taking by 2017. Originally a MICE step VI was foreseen (with further cooling and acceleration), but now will only be simulated.

67 The European Coordination for Accelerator Research and Development an EU FP 7 project Page 31 of 81

164. The UK has been active for several years in COMET68, with ICL, Manchester and UCL, supported by individual universities, and RAL target groups. The ICL and UCL groups are involved in data acquisition (DAQ) and software. The UK has leadership in the COMET collaboration through collaboration board chair and work package leadership (DAQ, software). The CI (Manchester) was a key part of the 2013 UK proposal for COMET, focusing on beamline modelling and beamline detector and providing accelerator physics leadership. This proposal was not funded although SB recognised the scientific case and the strength of the UK team. The RAL Targets Group is developing targets for muon production for the COMET experiment and mu2e69.

165. CI (Liverpool) is active in g-270, modelling the transfer line to improve injection efficiency.

Findings

166. A large fraction of the UK work in linear colliders is generic in that it can be applied to ILC, CLIC or any future lepton collider. For example the ASTeC contributions on magnets, CI on RF and JAI on beam diagnostics are all generally applicable in this field.

167. The UK is also active in important linear collider test facilities, namely the Accelerator Test Facility (ATF2) facility at KEK and CLIC Test Facility (CTF3) at CERN.

168. The European Strategy on Particle Physics update 71 notes the importance of R&D for a post-LHC accelerator and a potential Japanese ILC as a Higgs factory. Japan is expected to take a construction decision within the next 2-3 years. The CLIC-UK programme addresses key accelerator system challenges that are relevant for CLIC and ILC and so addresses two of the top-priority accelerator areas in the European Particle Physics Strategy. UK engagement with ILC via CLIC-UK during this phase could help secure both the success of the project and a leading UK role in it. A CLIC Project Plan is being prepared to guide the European Strategy update in 2018, around which time a decision is expected on the direction for the post-LHC energy frontier accelerator at CERN.

169. The UK had a high level of leadership in ILC, including several Global Design Effort (GDE) members (including BDS, positrons) and work package leadership. In February 2014 the CLIC-UK PI was elected spokesperson of the CLIC accelerator collaboration, made up of 70 institutes.

170. The JAI work relevant to CLIC is in the areas of feed-forward systems and diagnostics. CLIC-UK as a whole is addressing key technology issues for demonstrating the feasibility of CLIC, with cross-cutting applications. A large fraction of generic diagnostics work can be applied to future linear collider machines.

68 COherent Muon to Electron Transition experiment proposed in Japan 69 muon-to-electron-conversion experiment at FNAL 70 Muon g-2 experiment at FNAL 71 http://council.web.cern.ch/council/en/EuropeanStrategy/esc-e-106.pdf Page 32 of 81

171. UK expertise also exists in Machine Detector Interface (MDI), Beam Delivery Systems (both from LC-ABD), magnets, RF instrumentation, collimation, beam dynamics and beam dump R&D. The expertise is well positioned for future machines, is a strategic UK capability and relevant for CERN, KEK and STFC (through light sources). Quoting the review submission "It is our long-term aim to deliver, as part of a (CERN-) coordinated European team with UK leadership, major contributions to a linear collider Beam Delivery System."

172. There are also opportunities emerging in circular e+e- machines such as FCC72-ee and CEPC73.

173. MICE is UK led, has wide UK participation, and is a flagship for the muon community. The UK provides much of the MICE leadership, including the MICE Spokesperson. The international contributions to MICE have a value in excess of £40M. The USA and the UK have already provided about 70% of the required funding to finish the now modified MICE Step V, and the European and Asian partners have already supplied 100% of their hardware commitments.

174. The MICE Muon Beam, the beam-line instrumentation and the related infrastructure were designed and built in Phase 1, which was largely funded by the government’s Large Facilities Capital Fund (£7.5M of the £10.09M total of this phase). Phase II encompasses the construction of the MICE experiment and to date UK resources have been provided in two, four-year allocations (£12.51M was for the period 2008 – 2012 and a further allocation of £12.03M has been provided for the period 2012 – 2016. The collaboration has attracted additional resources to support the project through the EU Framework Programme (FP)7 TIARA Preparatory Phase project (£135k over the three years 2011 to 2013).

175. MICE is the only domestic accelerator-based particle physics experiment funded by STFC in the last few decades. It is a part of the UK PASI74 programme, and includes a post jointly funded with FNAL and partly working on nuSTORM. MICE has resulted in a number of large contracts that have been placed with UK firms. Initial funding for the implementation of the “Ionization Cooling Test Facility” (ICTF) has been provided by the European FP7 Preparatory Phase project TIARA. Beyond MICE Step V, there exists the possibility of developing the ICTF to test a linear accelerator with neutrino factory level cooling performance or to host an engineering demonstration of 6D cooling.

72 Future Circular Collider at CERN 73 Circular Electron Positron Collider 74 Proton Accelerators for Science and Innovation Page 33 of 81

176. The High Power Targets group at RAL has extensive experience designing high power targets for neutrino and neutron sources. The group designed and supplied the T2K target, beam window, collimator and beam dump, advised and supplied FNAL on the NuMI75 target, made a reference design for the 2.1 MW LBNE target, is currently working on the Mu2e target, and together with FNAL is a founding member of the Radiation Damage In Accelerator Target Environments (RaDIATE) materials collaboration.

Comments and Recommendations

177. It is not clear as yet if any linear collider will be built so, at the present time, generic linear collider R&D is the sensible strategy. The generic linear collider programme, which encompasses CLIC and ILC, is important in raising the UK’s visibility in the international community. The physicists involved have an international reputation and provide international leadership. The UK is well placed, through CLIC-UK, to make a significant contribution to ILC or CLIC in the future, including Beam Delivery Systems, Machine Detector Interface, diagnostics and hardware delivery. Maintaining a leading position in these activities is essential in positioning the UK as a major participant in a possible Japan based facility. Not continuing at the present time with R&D activities for linear collider accelerators would potentially waste years of investment in CLIC and ILC.

R19: STFC should carefully watch the international situation for future lepton colliders, to understand if the UK funding profile should decline or increase.

178. The scope of the CLIC work is well motivated historically and well aligned to the needs of the CLIC collaboration, reflected in the funding of CLIC-UK part 2. There are cross-cutting applications to other programmes, reflecting the importance of the project to the UK programme.

179. The CLIC-UK crab cavity work is world leading and strongly tied to the UK LHC upgrade work. It is cross cutting and provides prominent expertise. The UK involvement in test facilities like the ATF2 at KEK and the CTF3 is impressive and visible.

180. The support of national laboratories allows the university groups to take on the often very visible roles that they have established for themselves in major projects such as CLIC, ESS, ILC, LHC, and Neutrino Factory.

181. The UK has expertise in RF, with direct applicability to UK, European and global projects. Building up this expertise is very relevant for the future.

182. Linear Collider beam dynamics and diagnostics would benefit from closer links to light source and FEL people. The technologies are very relevant and there are significant synergies. Experience on ATF2 and CTF3 is important for any future linear collider as well as for FEL and light source projects.

75 Neutrinos at the Main Injector experiment at FNAL Page 34 of 81

R20: STFC should encourage closer interaction between linear collider and FEL and light source communities.

183. MICE is of direct benefit to the muon collider and neutrino factory programmes. There is scientific benefit in moving beyond step IV and demonstrating cooling. In the US this is currently funded within the Muon Accelerator Program (MAP) and was considered in the US P576 report, which was published in 2014. Subsequently MAP was reviewed by the U.S Department of Energy in July 2014, and preliminary discussions endorse the strategy of deploying a modified MICE Step V in order to prove the concept of ionization cooling for future muon-based accelerators. Timely implementation of MICE offers the UK a substantial opportunity to develop the MICE infrastructure into a muon cooling test facility.

184. Failure to complete MICE through to this modified Step V would squander the investment by the UK and the US without reaping the scientific rewards and risk UK reputational damage.

R21: STFC and MICE-UK should align the UK programme with the plan emerging from the U.S. Department of Energy review77.

185. Synergy between MICE and nuSTORM should be exploited: muon physics is cross- cutting across several projects. This includes development of generic muon expertise.

186. The skills in handling a large emittance, high intensity muon beam could be leading and transferable to many future projects and facilities, such as LBNE78 and neutrino factories. Considerable opportunity exists for high impact contributions to COMET and Mu2e, including beamline modelling and beamline detectors for COMET (both phases), exploiting strong links between the accelerator and particle physics communities.

187. The UK g-2 accelerator physics work package was not funded in 2013, but many opportunities exist for high profile contributions.

188. The High Power Targets group has relevant expertise for LBNF, including identifying the causes of premature failures of low energy NuMI water-cooled graphite targets at beam powers of up to 375 kW in 2010-12. FNAL are now further developing this as the reference target design for LBNF operating at 1.2 MW. In 2009 the group carried out a conceptual design study of targets and beam windows for LBNE operating at up to 2.3 MW, investigating a number of different concepts using beryllium as a potential target material as an alternative to the baseline graphite.

189. The High Power Targets group have joined the LBNF collaboration with the intention to eventually contribute to the beam design and physics optimisation studies as part of the overall UK effort.

76 Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel report “Building for Discovery” http://science.energy.gov/~/media/hep/hepap/pdf/May%202014/FINAL_P5_Report_053014.pdf 77 This has happened following further meetings in 2014 78 Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment Page 35 of 81

4.7 High Energy Hadron Machines

Factual Overview

190. This section covers studies related to the LHC machine and the LHC Injector complex, upgrades related to these facilities and for Future Circular Colliders (FCC) under a newly launched (beginning of 2014) FCC design study. The LHC upgrade work is organized and funded by two project structures: The EU funded HiLumi Design Study (DS) and the CERN coordinated HL-LHC project. The HiLumi DS is funded until the end of 2015 and is part of the larger and overarching HL-LHC project structure.

191. Even though not strictly speaking addressing the high-energy frontier, this section also covers work related to the HIE-ISOLDE upgrade project, the new ELENA ring extension for the AD79 anti-proton complex and accelerator studies for Bio-Medical applications and comments on studies related to a potential electron-proton collider utilizing one of the 2 proton rings of the HL-LHC.

192. All the above studies and projects entail a highly international collaboration effort. The studies related to the HL-LHC upgrade and the FCC studies are directly linked to the recommendations and prioritization of the last European Strategy on Particle Physics update80 and are aimed at the delivery of design reports (Preliminary Design Report for the HL-LHC, Technical Design Report for the LIU81 and Conceptual Design Report for the FCC studies) in time for the next update of the European Strategy on Particle Physics i.e. by 2018.

Findings

193. High energy hadron machine studies and developments are carried out by: ASTeC, the CI and the JAI. The UK has a strong national collaborative framework in the context of high energy hadron machines, e.g. through the alliance of ASTeC in the CI and the PAA with the involvement of JAI and ICL.

194. ASTeC has a leading responsibility in several hadron accelerator related projects, including HL-LHC upgrade (collimation, crab cavities, optics), LINAC482, LIU, beam diagnostics.

195. The CI (via University of Liverpool) is engaged in European funded Marie-Curie Training Network Initiatives (e.g. oPAC and LA3NET for Accelerator Design Studies and Beam Diagnostics). These initiatives provided substantial non-STFC funding for beam diagnostics R&D, which is an area that has relied heavily on non-STFC funding. The CI and ASTeC hosted one of the annual joint HighLumi and US LARP83 meetings at Daresbury.

79 Antiproton Decelerator 80 http://council.web.cern.ch/council/en/EuropeanStrategy/esc-e-106.pdf 81 LHC Injectors Upgrade project CERN 82 A new linac at CERN 83 US LHC Accelerator Research Programme Page 36 of 81

196. The JAI contributes to the HL-LHC upgrade and FCC studies (advanced beam instrumentation: high bandwidth Beam Position Monitors) and has contributed to the ALICE ERL project.

197. The accelerator institutes and ASTeC have strong international ties (e.g. with CERN, PSI, and EU funded Frameworks like FP6 and FP7) and fulfil leading roles in international studies and projects for high-energy hadron machines (e.g. HL-LHC, ILC and CLIC and FCC studies).

198. The CI involvement in the HL-LHC upgrade is part of the EU funded HiLumi LHC project. The CI contributes to the HL-LHC upgrade studies in 3 key research areas: beam dynamics, collimation and SCRF (in particular novel crab cavity designs including Higher Order Mode (HOM) dampers, couplers and cryostat). STFC support, via the CI core grant, for the EU funded HiLumi study led to a significant influx of EU funding distributed over the CI partner universities (the UK total of the EU funding corresponds to 20% of the total EU HiLumi funds [ca. €1M]).

199. The CERN AD facility and its ELENA upgrade are the only currently operating anti- proton facilities in the world.

200. The ELENA project is supported by a dedicated team of students and PDRAs funded or part-funded from the CI core grant. An EU FP7 programme funds the design, construction and operation of ELENA through beam dynamics studies.

201. The CI (Manchester) is involved in the CERN HIE-ISOLDE facility with 1 faculty, 1 PDRA and 1 PhD student (Beam Instrumentation, specification and estimates for tolerances for the linac).

202. Close collaborations have been formed around the HIE-ISOLDE project between CI (Liverpool and Manchester) and the CERN ISOLDE group. The HIE-ISOLDE upgrade together with the Rex complex provides a unique user facility.

Comments and Recommendations

203. The European Strategy group identified the full exploitation of the LHC and its upgrades as the highest priority for High Energy Physics until 2018 and encouraged the accelerator community to develop conceptual design studies for potential post- LHC large-scale accelerator infrastructures. This encouragement led at CERN to the kick-off of a study on FCC with the goal of delivering a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) by 2018. The STFC Roadmap and accelerator R&D work is well aligned with this European Strategy and there are unique opportunities for the UK to contribute to the FCC studies.

204. Results from the LHC Run 2 are expected to have a key impact on setting the direction and priority for future high energy hadron beam accelerator projects. The LHC Run 2 will start in 2015 and is scheduled to run until 2018. Studies for future high-energy hadron beam accelerators should therefore plan for a strategic global re- evaluation of the HEP needs by the end of 2018.

Page 37 of 81

R22: STFC should undertake a strategic re-evaluation of UK contributions to international high energy hadron colliders by the end of 2018 in light of the LHC Run 2 results and developments in the global landscape (e.g. ILC approval in Japan or circular e+/e- collider approval in China).

205. The spectrum of activities and engagement of the CI in international projects for future High Energy Hadron accelerators is impressive (e.g. HL-LHC, LHeC84 and FCC) and the contributions are of very high quality. The CI program is well aligned with the European Strategy Update for High Energy Particle Physics through re- orientation of ILC activities towards LHC upgrade related studies.

206. The CI submission states it is a Tier-1 satellite of CERN. It is not clear what this function entails, but the close collaboration of CI with CERN in the development of future facilities certainly provides opportunities for external funding for accelerator research in the UK (e.g. from EU Network activities and Design Studies). However, it is less clear to what extend the CI expertise can in general be used for ‘contractual work’ with international partners that could generate external revenues. The submission did not provide examples for this mode of collaboration. It is also not clear to what extent such a ‘business’ plan fits with the STFC Accelerator Strategy & Road Map.

207. UK contributions to the HL-LHC upgrade project do not seem to be fully consistently coordinated. For example, while JAI states it is involved in the HL-LHC studies (high bandwidth Beam Position Monitors) it is not mentioned in the CI summary of UK institutes working on the HL-LHC upgrade (while Huddersfield, not a partner of CI, is listed).

208. The CI submission states that it is the strongest partner of the HiLumi project outside CERN. This applies only to the EU funded HiLumi project of which the US laboratories are not an official partner. For the general HL-LHC project the USLARP85 alliance of 4 US laboratories (BNL, FNAL, LBNL and SLAC) plus Old Dominion University and the KEK and Russian hardware contributions represent a significant fraction of the total HL-LHC upgrade project.

209. It is not clear at the moment how UK involvement in the HL-LHC upgrade project will continue once the EU funded HiLumi Project reaches the end of its funding period in 2015. A natural source of funds would be the STFC accelerator funding line.

R23: The UK HL-LHC accelerator community should prepare to seek funding for this project from STFC after the end of the EU funded HiLumi Design Study. These preparations should include the formal definition of a UK project with a nominated contact person and management structure.

R24: The UK accelerator community should prepare a coherent plan for UK participation in FCC studies that takes into account potential EU funding.

84 Large Hadron electron Collider 85 US LHC Accelerator Research Project Page 38 of 81

210. There are still several new opportunities for further accelerator institute and ASTeC involvement and leadership in new future high energy hadron machines, including FCC and LHeC studies at CERN. Enabling ASTeC and the accelerator institutes to take on a leading role in such new studies requires engaging at an early stage.

211. ALICE at Daresbury is the only operational ERL in Europe (£25M STFC investment from 2003 to 2013) and the UK has gained significant expertise over the last years thanks to its investment. There are now several ERL projects at an advanced stage of conceptual development and ALICE provides the UK with an opportunity to take a leading role in any related ERL test facility. For example, the CERN LHeC project, if approved, would use an ERL to generate the required electron beam. The international interest in ERL projects (e.g. at CERN, Germany, Japan and USA) demonstrates the international relevance of the ALICE ERL and its associated research. If ALICE were to close the opportunities for collaboration and influence in the area of ERL based High Energy Hadron accelerators (e.g. LHeC, eRHIC86 and MEIC87) will rapidly diminish with a loss of this leading position.

212. SCRF technology is a critical item to the design of any future high energy hadron accelerator project with many international centres of excellence for this activity (e.g. DESY, France, US). The CI SCRF studies at Lancaster University, in particular the development of compact Crab Cavities, are of the highest world class standard, are internationally recognised and Lancaster University has an impressive list of international collaborations in this domain. Collaboration within CI between ASTeC and university partners would allow the UK to make key contributions in this domain for future high energy hadron accelerator projects.

4.8 Novel and Plasma Accelerators

Factual Overview

213. The projects that are covered in this section of the report are those involving research into non-scaling fixed field alternating gradient (ns-FFAG) accelerators, ERL, the ONIAC and wakefield acceleration.

214. ns-FFAG work is carried out in the UK by research groups within ASTeC, CI, ICL and University of Huddersfield. The leading project is EMMA88, built at Daresbury Laboratory. In addition to EMMA there are several other research projects investigating potential developments of ns-FFAG technology being carried out at CI, Huddersfield, JAI, STFC. These are described in more detail below.

86 high energy electron-ion collider proposed in the US 87 Medium energy electron-ion collider proposed at Jefferson Lab 88 Electron Machine with Many Applications Page 39 of 81

215. Research on ERLs is being carried out at Daresbury Laboratory predominantly through the ALICE89 project. The ONIAC90 is a novel accelerator currently under construction at RAL by Siemens and its collaborators. The Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment, AWAKE, is an accelerator research and development project based at CERN. The project is being carried out by an international scientific collaboration of 14 institutes and involving over 50 engineers and physicists. Other Plasma Wakefield (PW) projects are being carried out in the UK at JAI, ICL, and University of Strathclyde.

216. In addition to this, work is being undertaken on laser-driven ion acceleration funded by EPSRC, with two national projects led by QUB (LIBRA91 and A-SAIL92). This work has a specific focus on accelerator development for medical applications. Imperial College, RAL and the University of Strathclyde were partners in this UK project.

Findings

217. The flagship project in the ns-FFAG program is the 20MeV, electron ns-FFAG, EMMA, built at Daresbury Laboratory by a team led by ASTeC with collaborators from the CI, the University of Huddersfield, ICL and co-workers from several international laboratories (FNAL and Brookhaven National Laboratory in US, TRIUMF in Canada, and CERN). EMMA was funded through RCUK & EU grants (CONFORM (Huddersfield) and EU-CARD, (STFC and Huddersfield)). The initial funding for EMMA was ~£8M, with a substantial amount of in-kind contribution in addition. There have been 15 students working on EMMA, and a number of papers relating to EMMA, including a paper in Nature93, have been published since 2008

218. In addition to EMMA there are several other research projects investigating potential developments of ns-FFAG technology, with the main focus being upon the successful development of FFAG accelerator technology towards novel energy alternatives based on Accelerator-Driven Sub-critical Reactors (ASTeC, CI, Huddersfield); the development of ns-FFAGs for medical physics and medicine e.g. isotope production, radiotherapy and imaging (CI, Huddersfield, STFC); the design of the medical FFAG, PAMELA, and the development of novel gantry designs to reduce gantry weight, cost and particle losses. (JAI); and the development of ns-FFAGs for high power science facilities e.g. ISIS (ASTeC).

89 Accelerators and Lasers In Combined Experiments 90 ONIon ACcelerator 91 Laser Induced Beams of Radiation and their Applications, funded under the Basic Technology programme, 2007-12 92 Advanced Strategies for Accelerating Ions with Lasers, Programme Grant, 2013-19 93 http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v8/n3/full/nphys2179.html Page 40 of 81

219. The flagship project in the ERL area is ALICE, an accelerator formerly known as ERLP (Energy Recovery Linac Prototype). ALICE was designed and built at Daresbury Laboratory between 2003 and 2010 by ASTeC. An additional Cryomodule project for ALICE was completed by a large international collaboration managed by STFC. Major stakeholders of ALICE include: CERN and the international ERL Cryo- module collaboration, CI, Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus, ESS/STFC, STFC RCUK, the user community of a future FEL facility. ALICE has been a user facility since 2012 for a wide range of projects from FEL studies, to protein folding and is also the subject of an investigation into the potential of using ERLs as a diagnostic for oesophageal cancer. ALICE has been funded through a variety of RC grants including £25M STFC investment from 2003 to 2013, £2.9M from NWDA, £1.5M EPSRC grant (Liverpool) plus over £1M of in-kind contributions from the CI and international contributions. In total almost £30M has been invested in ALICE since 2003. Currently all operations on ALICE are funded solely by EPSRC. ALICE is reported to be an integral part of a number of research projects in several UK institutions and has been used for student training and as part of several PhD theses and dissertations. There have been 20 (mostly undergraduate) students working on ALICE and a number of papers relating to ALICE, including major papers (see paragraph 217) in leading journals, have been published since 2008.

220. The aim of the ONIAC project is to develop a working proof-of-principle compact electrostatic tandem accelerator for medical isotope production for PET94 and SPECT95 scanners. The project is fully funded by Siemens and is being carried out in collaboration with ISIS, JAI, and the Universities of Cambridge and Huddersfield.

221. The Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment, AWAKE, is an accelerator research and development project based at CERN. The project is being carried out by an international scientific collaboration of 14 institutes involving over 50 engineers and physicists. The UK plays a major role in this collaboration; the Deputy Spokesperson is from University College London, and a substantial number of UK- based researchers are involved in the experiment. (CI, ICL, JAI, Lancaster, Liverpool, Oxford, Manchester, Strathclyde, UCL) . A number of papers have been published, including in Nature Physics96 or Nature Photonics97-98.

222. Research toward plasma acceleration is one of the key priority areas within JAI, where a substantial group of fourteen academics, several PDRAs and a team of graduate students are concentrating upon (i) energy frontier accelerators (ii) light source applications and (iii) dense energetic proton and ion beams.

223. A collaboration between JAI, ICL Faculty of Medicine, ICL Healthcare NHS Trust and the MRC Mammalian Genetics Unit at Harwell is investigating the use of coherent hard x-rays generated from laser driven plasma wakefield accelerators for biomedical imaging applications.

94 Positron Emission Tomography 95 Single Photon Emission Computed Tomograph 96 M Fuchs, R Weingartner et al, ‘Laser-driven soft-X-ray undulator source’, Nature Physics, 5, 826- 829 (2009) 97 Norreys, PA, ‘Laser-driven particle acceleration’, Nature Photonics, 3(8), 423-425 (2009) 98 SM Hooker, ‘Developments in laser-driven plasma accelerators’, Nature Photonics, 7, 775-782 (2013) Page 41 of 81

224. Over the last 15 years laser-plasma interactions and its application in advanced particle accelerator based research at the University of Strathclyde has included the RC-UK ALPHA-X and LIBRA Basic Technology projects, and a Centre for Doctoral Training (CDT) on next-generation accelerators, funded by the EPSRC. The ALPHA- X facilities include a state-of-the-art laser plasma wakefield accelerator with an electron and radiation beam-line, undulators, a 40 TW laser and advanced diagnostics. The ALPHA-X project led to the formation of the Scottish Centre for the Application of Plasma-based Accelerators (SCAPA), which consists of a 1200m2 laboratory with 7 beam-lines in 3 separate shielded areas suitable for supporting collaborative research programmes. In addition to RCUK support, all universities in the SUPA collaboration99 are supporting SCAPA, with a total investment of over £12m.

225. The group at University of Strathclyde is a member of Laserlab Europe, EuroNNAc100, CERN (AWAKE) and a collaboration partner of the ELI projects and HiPER101. It has established a wide international collaboration with teams in China, the EU, India, Japan and US. A number of papers including one in Nature Physics have been published102.

226. CLF facilities (VULCAN and ASTRA/GEMINI) have played a fundamental role in plasma accelerator development in the UK (both wakefield and ion acceleration). A significant fraction of scheduled beamtime at these STFC facilities is devoted to accelerator development.

Comments and Recommendations

227. One of the strengths of the EMMA project was the successful worldwide collaboration which was formed to design, build and commission EMMA. EMMA contains many examples of innovative design, such as the pulsed injection and extraction magnets, the RF cavities and waveguide distribution system, and extremely sensitive beam position monitors which are crucial for characterising the performance of the accelerator.

228. While the development of scaling-FFAGs (s-FFAG) for Accelerator Driven Subcritical Reactors (ADSRs) and cancer therapy continues in Japan, no other countries have succeeded in building either s-FFAG or ns-FFAG accelerators. The UK can therefore claim leadership and global recognition in ns-FFAG technology and hence there is great potential for the UK to assume a significant role, both technologically and commercially in this area of accelerator science, particularly if funding is made available to transfer the lessons of EMMA to prototype and potentially commercialise proton ns-FFAGs.

99 Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, St Andrews and West of Scotland 100 The European Network for Novel Accelerators 101 European High Power laser Energy Research facility 102 H. P. Schlenvoigt et al, 'A Compact Synchrotron Radiation Source Driven by a Laser-Plasma Wakefield Accelerator', Nature Physics, 4, 130-33 (2008)

Page 42 of 81

229. EMMA is a new type of accelerator that could be extended to new technologies and applications. Therefore the cost effectiveness has the potential to be high. EMMA was originally funded by the RCUK Basic Technology Program and the EU. However, if funds are not made available to continue the programme and expand the facility to protons the initial investments will not be capitalised upon and therefore the cost effectiveness will be low.

230. Non-scaling FFAGs could be utilised and applied in many scientific areas including medical physics, condensed matter science, muon sources, nuclear waste management and isotope production. Designs already exist, for example, for table- top ns-FFAGs for radioisotope production (e.g. PIP103), and for larger machines for cancer therapy (e.g. PAMELA104), power generation, nuclear waste management and fundamental science. This is clearly an important area in which the UK’s expertise and technical and scientific lead is internationally recognised, but which could be lost if the technology is not allowed to progress with appropriate levels of funding and industrial engagement. For effective translation into any of these opportunities the researchers, technologists and industrialists would need to focus their efforts together as outlined above.

231. Funding streams outside STFC could be sought for these applications through industrial investments, e.g. Siemens or Jacobs for ADSR projects, or other non- RCUK research funding, e.g. Innovate UK. For projects at an earlier stage of development the Follow-on funding105, or responsive mode Innovation Partnership Scheme (IPS)106 schemes are available within STFC, which would enable projects to move to a sufficiently high Technology Readiness Level to seek funds through an industrial led proposal from Innovate UK. It is clear however, that Research Council funded proof of concept and demonstrators are needed before a project will be of interest to industry, and, in order to receive industrial funding must be novel, different from anything they can develop internally and already at Technology Readiness Level 6 or above.

R25: Funding should be sought to enable some ns-FFAG projects to reach the demonstrator stage to optimise the potential for links between UK industry and this field of research.

232. ALICE has been built and is a genuinely novel accelerator. It is unique as the first FEL to operate in the UK, and the first FEL based on an ERL accelerator in Europe. As Europe’s only ERL-FEL facility ALICE has enabled ASTeC to attract funding to develop the L-FEL project. ALICE was chosen as an injector for EMMA due to the suitability of its beam parameters. The experience gained from ALICE will be essential in planning and de-risking future international ERL projects such as the ASTeC- L-FEL project, BERLin Pro in Germany and the CERN test ERL. If ALICE were to close, the consultation and opportunities for collaboration and influence in the area of ERL based High Energy Hadron accelerators (e.g. eRHIC and MEIC) will rapidly diminish.

103 a compact recirculating accelerator for medical isotopes 104 Particle Accelerator for MEdicaL Applications 105 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/1474.aspx 106 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/712.aspx Page 43 of 81

233. ALICE advances critical research in multiple areas, not least because there is potential for making the next generation accelerators more energy efficient by recovering and recycling energy. ALICE also provides the UK scientific community with access to a long wavelength photon source in the Infrared and Terahertz to advance research on solar cells and medical imaging for cancer and can be used to carry out basic research for a possible UK-FEL, CLARA and VELA. VELA in particular will provide the potential to tap into international commercial companies.

234. The CI and Strathclyde have proposed utilising CLARA, should it be funded, for advanced beam driven plasma wakefield experiments. These experiments could also utilise the FEL section of CLARA for coherent light generation, making CLARA an ideal test bed for 5th generation light source experiments. However, resources are already spread very thinly across the UK FEL programme. The research would be eligible for funding though PRD (or APRD, see R8:), but a strong case demonstrating that the focus was on the accelerator aspects would be needed to ensure support.

235. Since the development of CLARA and a potential UK-FEL would rely completely upon RF-based acceleration this must be the priority area for the FEL programme. Should STFC also choose to establish a programme aimed at the development of laser wakefield accelerator-based FELs then a formal collaboration should be established containing experts from the laser wakefield, accelerator physics, and FEL designer communities with a clear set of goals and milestones.

236. When looking at new technologies and applications a similar situation exists with ALICE as exists with EMMA, although ALICE is much closer to applications than EMMA and much of the technology has been used as a basis for the designs of other FELs. However, if ALICE had a guaranteed future, and a healthy user program, its cost effectiveness could be extremely high. If closed some potential opportunities such as those provided by using ALICE as a test facility for advancing UK skills and expertise in high brightness DC photoinjectors, SCRF linacs, large scale 2K cryogenic systems, combining high power lasers with relativistic particle beams, or to advance the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of cancers, could be lost.

237. ALICE is an important asset for the UK in the field of accelerators and it gives the UK significant influence. However, it is the current EPSRC support of ALICE which keeps it viable as an operating facility and it is vital that STFC supports the FEL user communities’ bid for ALICE to become an EPSRC mid-range facility.

R26: STFC should consider, with appropriate peer review and tensioning, allocating further funds to support ALICE operation and seek additional funding from a broad range of external bodies for continued operation of ALICE as a user facility and as a test-bed for future SCRF and ERL related activities.

238. The ONIAC was noted by the panel as a successful novel accelerator being designed and built through collaboration between Siemens, ISIS and the academic community. It is not clear how close the ONIAC is to realisation, and as a Siemens-funded and co-ordinated program the cost-effectiveness will be determined by Siemens.

Page 44 of 81

239. AWAKE will be the world’s first proton-driven PW acceleration experiment and uses facilities only available at CERN. The project is on the STFC Roadmap as part of the Under Construction / R&D Phase category, and as the technology is aimed at future high energy colliders, it underpins those challenges related to particle physics at the energy frontier, and will demonstrate how protons can be used to generate plasma wakefields. It will also develop the technologies required for long-term, proton-driven plasma acceleration projects. UK scientists show significant leadership within this collaboration.

240. The AWAKE collaboration has a well-defined structure with a wide section of the community working together towards a combined goal. This is likely to be of benefit to them as the project moves forward. A broad collaboration would be valuable as without a team with a wide breadth of knowledge in all aspects of accelerator physics the ability to carry out an effective research program there may be a risk of making numerous (potentially expensive) mistakes.

241. In addition to the substantial roles played by UK scientists in the AWAKE project, there have been several important firsts and scientific highlights associated with the UK’s PW research programme carried out at the CLF. These include: The first demonstration of mono-energetic electron beams from the blow-out/bubble regime in a laser wakefield accelerator (CLF, ICL, Strathclyde, UCLA) in 2004107 (the highest cited paper from any facility within STFC’s national facilities portfolio); the first demonstration of the formation and saturation of large amplitude plasma waves via the beat-wave process; the self-modulated laser wakefield concept; ion acceleration using relativistic laser pulses from the front and rear surfaces of laser irradiated foil targets; signatures of radiation pressure acceleration, and fast neutron generation and phase contrast imaging from betatron oscillations. In recognition of some of this work Professor Peter Norreys, (Oxford and CLF) was awarded the 2013 Payne- Gaposchkin Medal and Prize for his pioneering contributions to the physics of fast particle generation and energy transport in relativistic laser- plasma interactions.

242. There is some evidence that the UK laser plasma wakefield accelerator community is losing leadership due to relatively modest investment in this area compared with international competitors in the US and Europe. In addition, research into plasma based acceleration covers many distinct areas of physics, (e.g. lasers and optics, accelerator and high-energy physics, diagnostics, computational physics, materials and fluids (for targetry), pulse power and high power electronics). This can lead to collaborations forming without a sufficient breadth of expertise. In order to address this it is important that a coherent plan for support of, and collaboration in this area be developed rapidly.

243. Work by researchers at the JAI and UCL suggest that a potential game changer is presented by laser plasma wakefield accelerators, which could eventually replace present RF technology. Furthermore their calculations suggest that the performance of existing third generation light sources could be greatly enhanced by undulating their beams within plasma wakefields, e.g. Diamond.

107 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/abs/nature02939.html Page 45 of 81

R27: The UK laser plasma wakefield groups proposing to work towards wakefield accelerator based FELs should consider working more closely with ‘conventional’ RF accelerator based FEL designers to ensure that their efforts are effectively targeted.

4.9 Underpinning Technologies, gaps and overlaps

Findings

244. The panel chose to define ‘underpinning technologies’ as basic, often, but not always, mature, technologies which cut across several science areas and underpin national capability in those areas. This definition is intended to be distinct from that of ‘areas of synergy’ (considered in Sections 4.3 – 4.8), which are defined to be novel technologies developed for a single or limited range of applications, which find use, often serendipitously, in additional areas.

245. The UK has expertise in the following underpinning technologies:

 Beam dynamics design and simulation (experience from CTF3 and ATF2);  Beam instrumentation and diagnostics, including Beam Position Monitors (BPMs) (experience from CTF3 and ATF2);  Beam control systems (experience with EPICS toolkit from Diamond, MICE, ALICE, EMMA, CLARA and VELA);  Superconducting RF, including crab-cavity design (experience from ISIS, ALICE and MICE);  Normal-conducting RF (experience from ISIS, VELA, CLARA, Diamond, CLIC, EMMA, MICE and ISIS);  Electron Recovery Linac (ERL) design and operation (experience from ALICE);  Magnets: permanent / normal-conducting / AC / superconducting (experience from CLIC, ISIS and Diamond);  Hadron and neutron-production targets (experience from ISIS, Target Studies and MICE);  Electron and ion sources (experience from ALICE, VELA, NLS, CLARA, FETS, ESS Bilbao and CSNS);  Lasers for beam diagnostics, electron sources and wakefield acceleration (experience from photoinjectors, various diagnostics techniques, FEL seeding, etc );  Cryogenics (experience from DLS, ALICE and HL-LHC).  Vacuum system design (experience in UK industry, Diamond and ISIS).  Parallel computing (experience from local clusters at universities and the Hartree Centre).

Page 46 of 81

Comments and Recommendations

246. In order to maintain a vibrant and competitive UK accelerator R&D programme STFC must provide base support for the technologies that underpin the programme. The panel assessed the strength of UK capability in these technologies. Broadly speaking one might expect areas of strength to be those where opportunities exist to leverage additional funding from non-STFC sources. By contrast, areas of weakness, where critical to the wider programme, require additional investment or else collaboration with international partners or industry.

247. Beam control systems – strong: DLS has provided informal support to STFC ASTeC, CLF and Technology Department on the development and application of the EPICS control system toolkit, with EPICS being used to control ALICE, DLS, EMMA, CLARA, and VELA. EPICS is also used on ISIS instrument beamlines, although the ISIS accelerator uses Vsystem software. MICE is developing its EPICS based control system in collaboration with ASTeC.

248. Beam dynamics design and simulation – strong: The UK has several centres of excellence in beam dynamics, notably in the institutes, facilities and ASTeC. The high energy accelerators area in the UK provides strong expertise in colliders and storage rings, including the design of Beam Delivery Systems (BDS) and Machine Detector Interface (MDI) at linear colliders and LHC, with a strong test programme at the ATF2 and CTF3 facilities. ASTeC Intense Beams Group and ISIS are world-class centres of excellence on high intensity proton machines and associated beam dynamics. The high intensity beam dynamics simulations require access to parallel computing infrastructures (see below).

249. Beam instrumentation and diagnostics – strong: The UK has a strong and diverse programme in advanced beam instrumentation, covering the most critical devices required at proton and electron facilities and including longitudinal bunch length measurement based on Coherent Smith-Purcell radiation, Coherent Synchrotron Radiation (CSR), transverse projected and intrinsic profile and emittance measurement, gas based diagnostics and laser electron beam Compton scattering systems. The CI is considered one of the world leaders in beam diagnostics developments applicable to future research infrastructures including ESS and research into advanced beam instrumentation is one of their key priority areas and traditional strengths for JAI.

Page 47 of 81

250. Electron and ion sources – strong: High brightness electron sources have been constructed and operated at Daresbury on ALICE and VELA. They employ different technologies (DC acceleration and RF acceleration) and different cathodes (GaAs and Cu). The RF photoinjector was developed by the University of Strathclyde in partnership with international institutes, and implemented by ASTeC. DLS has designed a high repetition rate RF photoinjector cavity, originally for NLS, which is planned to be high power RF tested at Daresbury later this year using the VELA infrastructure. ASTeC and the CI are also developing a high repetition rate RF photoinjector for implementation on CLARA. In addition there is a significant programme of offline theoretical and experimental studies of alternative photocathode materials carried out by ASTeC and CI. Accelerator ion source expertise in the UK is primarily within the ISIS Low Energy Beams Group, which has considerable overlap with FETS. The ISIS surface plasma H- ion source is one of the world’s best operational sources, in terms of H- current and reliability, and has been used as the basis for recent ion source development work at CSNS and ESS Bilbao. Ion source and plasma studies at ISIS and FETS seek to extend the capability of the ISIS source for the next generation of high power proton drivers and UK expertise in source operation and modelling is in demand in on-going collaborations with CERN, FNAL, SNS and the University of Jyväskylä in Finland.

251. Electron Recovery Linacs (ERL) – strong: The ALICE test facility has generated UK skills and expertise in high brightness DC photo-injectors, SCRF linacs, large scale 2K cryogenic systems, combining high power lasers with relativistic particle beams. CLF support for ALICE has been via its technology and assistance with the development of the Compton source. Work on ALICE has enabled ASTeC to develop a deep understanding of single pass electron beam dynamics, energy recovery processes, sub-picosecond electron bunch generation and measurement, emittance preservation and single pass low charge diagnostics. Further operational experience with ALICE is currently dependent upon the EPSRC-funded grant which supports exploitation of the FEL for cancer research.

252. Hadron and neutron-production targets – strong: The Target Studies project (comprising Huddersfield, the ISIS Target Group, JAI, Sheffield and the STFC High Power Target Group) is the only such target studies group in the world and is undertaking generic studies of the factors limiting the performance and lifetime of targets, developing instrumentation to work in the hostile environment of a target station and making significant contributions to a number of specific targets (in particular for ISIS upgrades and potentially for the ESS). The project also has an interest in targets for neutron production for medical, security and energy applications. Huddersfield’s range of target simulations is now extending to include backgrounds from targets and beamlines, possible activation in FETS, and studies for ESS.

Page 48 of 81

253. Normal-conducting and permanent magnets – strong: The ASTeC Magnetics and Radiation Sources Group has many years’ experience in designing, procuring and testing normal-conducting electromagnets for particle accelerators and has expertise in DC and pulsed electromagnets. The group has also designed, built and tested a wide variety of permanent magnet undulators and wigglers, and has also built tuneable permanent magnet quadrupole prototypes for CLIC and is now developing tuneable dipoles as well. ISIS has recently designed and procured many new DC and pulsed electromagnets for its extracted proton beam lines, and DLS has maintained magnet expertise from the construction of the facility and continues to develop advanced insertion devices.

254. Vacuum system design – strong: STFC vacuum science is centred on the ASTeC Vacuum Science Group, which has wide experience in the design and operation of large vacuum systems for particle accelerators and particular strength in the development and use of advanced modelling techniques and also novel vacuum coatings. Both DLS and ISIS have strong operational vacuum teams, and ISIS has recently been putting significant effort into re-establishing the ability to manufacture ceramic vacuum vessels. The UK industrial supply and manufacturing base is particularly strong in the vacuum field, with more than 20 UK companies active.

255. Lasers – strong but vulnerable: Lasers are now used in conventional particle accelerators in a number of different areas (photoinjectors, various diagnostics techniques, FEL seeding, etc) and the UK has expertise spread across a number of institutes (ASTeC, CI, CLF, Dundee, JAI) especially in photoinjectors and diagnostics. Particular areas to highlight would be in electron bunch length determination with the electro-optic technique (ASTeC, University of Dundee) and transverse size measurement with laser wire (JAI). This has been identified here as a vulnerable area since although the UK has demonstrated ability in this area the skill base is spread across several projects with very little spare capacity. This assessment excludes laser wakefield acceleration which typically has only a small overlap with the above mentioned application of lasers and is also an area of strength for the UK.

256. Normal-conducting RF – strong but vulnerable: Normal-conducting RF is used on CLARA, CLIC, Diamond, EMMA, ISIS, MICE and VELA. The UK has the capability and experience to design RF cavities for acceleration, deflection, linearisation, and for photoinjectors with groups in ASTeC, CI, DLS and ISIS. There is also considerable experience in the development and operation of high power RF infrastructure. This has been identified as a vulnerable area since although the UK has demonstrated ability in this area the skill base is spread across several projects with very little spare capacity.

257. Parallel computing – emerging strength: Provision of continued access to parallel computing infrastructure is vital for a variety of beam dynamics simulations. In most cases this is currently provided by local clusters, but for particularly computing intensive fields such as laser plasma this requires access to world-class supercomputing capabilities such as those provided by the Hartree Centre.

Page 49 of 81

258. Superconducting RF (SCRF) – emerging strength: Any possible increase in ASTeC RF Group SCRF capability linked to ESS would be welcome in the event of a high power superconducting linac being part of a major ISIS upgrade, and also has potential applications in bERLinPro, the FCC studies at CERN LCLS-II108, L-FEL, and studies related to the HL-LHC upgrade (e.g. the development of Higher and Lower Harmonic RF systems). It is hoped that the current UK shortage in proton SCRF expertise and infrastructure will be addressed by ASTeC efforts towards ESS. However, if this plan is not realised an alternative strategy to grow this expertise on a timescale attuned to the UK neutron programme will be required. A collaboration of ASTeC and CI universities’ RF groups has allowed the formation of a very large and influential RF group. ALICE is the only UK test facility which employs SCRF and it has been used as a test bed for a new SCRF module designed and assembled by an international collaboration, led by ASTeC. SCRF is an important underpinning accelerator technology and is required by a number of accelerator projects with direct UK involvement (e.g. ESS, HL-LHC crab cavities, ISIS upgrades, L-FEL). Gaining real experience with SCRF on ALICE would be invaluable for future projects (ESS, ISIS upgrades, PIP II). The new cryomodule should be commissioned in ALICE to prove its capabilities. There are very few locations that can carry out such beam tests.

259. Cryogenics – Vulnerable: The application of cryogenics to accelerators for superconducting magnets or RF is another essential underpinning technology. Large scale liquid helium systems are operated at Diamond (4K) and ALICE (2K) for SCRF. ASTeC has designed cryostats for the new ALICE linac and HL-LHC crab cavity. Specialist superconducting magnets within UK accelerators are limited to wigglers on Diamond, the MICE solenoids, and the development of short period undulators for light sources. These magnets all utilise standalone cryogenic systems which rely upon cryocoolers. STFC Technology Department have expertise in this area developed over a number of years and across a wide range of applications. Cryogenics has been identified here as vulnerable because there is significant reliance on key individuals.

260. AC and superconducting magnets – weak: No large, normal-conducting AC magnets have been manufactured in the UK since those procured for ISIS 30 years ago. Such magnets are likely to be essential to any future short-pulse neutron source and will be part of the equipment renewal programme required to keep the current ISIS synchrotron running sustainably. MICE has a contract with Tesla Engineering for unusually large superconducting solenoid magnets, but there is little evidence of current production capability of high field magnets elsewhere in the UK. Although novel superconducting magnets have been designed for FFAGs in the PAMELA project and for the Neutrino Factory, these have yet to be developed into prototypes. ASTeC, DLS, and Technology Department have an active collaboration on the development of an advanced superconducting undulator.

R28: STFC should seek to leverage new funding streams in areas of strength in underpinning technologies.

108 Light source located at SLAC Page 50 of 81

R29: STFC should consider prioritising areas where lack of capability is compromising the UK accelerator programme.

4.10 Global Challenges, Impact and Skills

Findings

261. The CLF has a long heritage in providing commercial impact. Its submission states that early work enabled laser eye surgery and that activities commercialised through Cobalt Light Systems have been successful in enabling detection of liquid explosives. Current work at CLF is at a smaller scale. However, commercial success is usually only evident with the benefit of hindsight. Work on three dimensional phase contrast imaging for biological assessment, appears to be proceeding to the pre-clinical state and, as such, has significant commercial potential. Other activities are only peripherally commercial. It should be noted that, whilst these are significant achievements, the impact is often not the result of accelerator activity on the CLF.

262. The DLS contributed to work on advanced control theory for orbit stabilisation, supporting the commercial space global challenge. Other cited developments are modest. There is extensive materials and biological work done through the DLS, which is not referenced here as they do not relate directly to accelerator activities. Such spinouts have not been included as part of this review as it focused solely on spinouts from accelerator R&D activities. However the impact is real and should not be ignored.

263. ISIS work principally benefits others in the spallation neutron community with some spin out to the broader particle physics domain. However, collaboration with a commercial organisation, National Instruments (NI) is referenced in conjunction with a development kit for an unspecified application. As with the DLS, there are extensive economic and societal impacts, but they were not presented as they do not relate directly to accelerator activities. The spinout potential from all ISIS neutron facility activity is addressed comprehensively in the report “Neutron scattering: Materials research for modern life”109.

264. ASTeC has extensive collaboration with other researchers in the UK, Europe and globally. They have worked with Shakespeare Engineering to develop SCRF cavities110. The timescale is unquantified in their submission.

265. The ALICE programme has developed a sub diffraction limited infrared micro spectroscopy system for cancer diagnosis. This has attracted additional funds from EPSRC and the potential for future large scale facilities using FEL is being assessed. The market for this is quoted to be multi billion pounds worldwide.

109 http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2012/impact-of-neutron-scattering- brochure13478.pdf 110 Capability funded through STFC mini-IPS and IPS Page 51 of 81

266. No societal impact is quoted for the CLARA project. As a test facility any impact benefits are likely to accrue through any national FEL facility itself, rather than this test facility.

267. ASTeC VELA has a collaboration with a security company Rapiscan Systems on time of flight Compton Scatter and is said to promise a “step change” in security screening.

268. The CI submission says that it produces £3 of external funding for every £1 of STFC support. Through partnership with industry, there are technology developments in proton therapy and microwave components. The CI blue-sky work does not have immediate commercial spin offs. The CI electron and proton facilities have some collaboration with European Science partners and with Shakespeare Engineering and Thales on X-Band cavities111.

269. No commercialisation activity is presented for the CI EU training and beam diagnostics work. However, some technologies are developed. It is not clear what the application of the four technologies cited would be beyond accelerators themselves.

270. The hadron facilities of the CI quote the use of anti-protons for industrial processing. The CI RF technology programme has done some collaborative work with e2v on RF subsystems and Rapiscan Systems on linacs for security applications. The size of the programme is not given.

271. No commercial spin outs are identified from the CI terahertz/photonics activity.

272. The JAI has carried out some applications work on proton therapy through unspecified collaborations with Elekta and Siemens, and work that enables materials research for nuclear fusion facilities and biological applications through the light sources. There are similar long term fusion applications in the area of new materials in the instrumentation project.

273. There is a lot of good engineering practice at CLIC. Many technological products are cited as having been developed, though not sold commercially. X-Band accelerating technologies are said to have medical applications which are being actively pursued. No details have been given.

274. FETS has international collaboration with researchers on spallation sources and associated staff exchange. There is a small scale example of FETS helping industry with a unique technical capability.

275. For HiLumi-LHC there has been some technology produced, though only for applications in other science research facilities. There has been no commercialisation or spin outs.

111 http://www.cockcroft.ac.uk/news/compact_electron.htm Page 52 of 81

276. MICE has a £1m contract with Tesla Engineering for superconducting magnets and other smaller contracts for target work and RF amplifiers. This work involved collaboration in design and development. Thus technical capability is transferred to industry, as well as the commercial benefit of a sizable contract.

277. The Target Studies activity has developed much technology, though most of this is specifically for targets rather than spin outs. Some potential commercial spin outs in healthcare are cited though it is not clear whether these are current implementations, or future potential.

Comments and Recommendations

278. In general, wild claims and unsubstantiated projections were not presented. On the contrary, most submissions were pragmatic about the likelihood and uncertainty of any eventual spinout. Impact was assessed using a hierarchy in terms of how broadly the impact is felt. Six levels of impact were defined:

 Impact to the UK science base, but excluding STFC programmes.  Impact to the European science base.  Impact to the global science base.  Product with a commercial value outside the science base, which could be realised in the long term (greater than five years).  Impact outside the science base, which could be realised in the short term (less than five years).  Commercial impact which has already been realised, either currently, or in the past.

279. This is not a calibrated scale, but items in the latter part of the list may be considered to have a broader, or at least, more measureable, impact. Although this measures the breadth of the impact from the original research, it does not measure the total impact on GDP.

280. The following list of Global Challenges, based on the Government 8 Great Technologies were measured against:

 Big data  Synthetic biology  Regenerative medicine  Agricultural science  Energy storage  Advanced materials  Robotic systems  Commercial space

281. Very few of the submissions referenced these challenges. Much more common were security, medical imaging and energy production. These are items of global significance and it was noted where impact was provided in these three additional areas.

Page 53 of 81

282. Many of the technologies involved were extremely specialised and it was difficult to judge what the long term applications could be. Researchers themselves were rightly reticent in claiming applications too early.

283. It was quite rare for projects to quote timescales or values for any commercial spin out. This is understandable, but makes qualitative comparisons difficult. For example the CLIC-UK submission states: ‘X-Band accelerating technology to produce compact medical accelerators and FEL light sources are being actively pursued and offer near term UK industrial opportunities.’ It is difficult to calibrate, quantify and verify statements like this. Long term applications are justifiably not quantified. Short term applications are sometimes covered by confidentiality agreements with commercial partners and therefore also are similarly difficult to pin down.

284. In the current climate the claims about the multibillion pound market for a sub diffraction limited infrared micro spectroscopy system for cancer diagnosis is questionable, but the potential is without doubt large and real progress has been made with ALICE.

285. The ASTeC VELA collaboration with Rapiscan Systems seems to be an excellent commercial spin out in addition to supporting other accelerator science.

286. The CI’s ratio of £3 of external funding for every £1 of STFC support is impressive which would be useful to see from other projects. The commercial potential of the CI’s electron and proton facilities collaboration with European Science partners and with Shakespeare Engineering and Thales on X-Band cavities has been underplayed and could be very interesting.

287. The idea of using anti-protons for industrial processing is novel and difficult to calibrate at this stage, but is intriguing. The CI medical protons activity is clearly of great public interest It is not clear whether the programme (including EMMA) supports current proton therapy work, which is already a relatively mature market with a number of companies producing products, or is a potential contribution to future developments in this field. Either way it is a good example of societal impact from the accelerator programme.

288. The JAI seems to be reasonably well coupled into commercial and society applications. However, applications and technologies are mainly long term rather than immediate.

289. The JAI Light Sources activity has long term indirect impact through future light sources although the commercial applications are not explained in its submission. Commercialisation of high resolution cavity Beam Position Monitors (BPMs) is interesting, but details are unclear.

290. Similarly, the plasma acceleration activity within JAI could yield compact accelerators which may have wide spread application in security and/or medical imaging, though this is likely to be some time in the future.

Page 54 of 81

291. There may be some commercial potential for reduction in the size and cost of particle accelerators arising from the AWAKE project, though exactly what these may be is unclear. Spin offs for diagnostic instrumentation are more immediate, though this market must be small.

292. Accelerator Driven Sub Critical Reactors (ADSR) represent an important possible future technology that could address the UK’s energy requirements, without some of the environmental risks associated with conventional nuclear reactors. The EMMA programme (see paragraph 229) could now be a useful step in developing the technology for any such ADSR. The beam intensity is low at the moment and could not be used as a practical ADSR demonstrator. However, the skills and capabilities developed have an important long term application. Work at the University of Huddersfield on accelerators also has potential long term relevance to ADSR. However, the capability is relatively immature at the moment and any impact must be considered a long term prospect.

R30: Interest in ADSR systems has grown as a by-product of accelerator research, rather than a demand driven, energy programme. Decisions in this area should only be made after consultation with other funding bodies to ensure co- ordination of effort nationally and internationally.

293. There is good engineering practice at CLIC. It is not clear whether this could have been done elsewhere, (i.e. in industry) and yielded the same educational/skills benefit.

294. Some research organisations (for example the European Space Agency) have well- defined programmes for advertising contracts, to encourage industrial involvement. Similarly STFC works through its Tenders Opportunity service112 to notify companies of contracts related to its national and internationally funded facilities. It might be possible to arrange for this to be extended so that all industrial opportunities in the accelerator programme were published. This would add to the potential pool of industrial providers for the accelerator programme and indicate to industry at large the value of this research topic.

295. There are some show case activities for accelerator programmes. These should be made more comprehensive. Industrial representatives should be invited.

112 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/28.aspx Page 55 of 81

296. Almost all of the submissions included a list of training activities aimed at post graduate or post-doctoral level. The raising of general skill levels is the main near term mechanism whereby impact from the accelerator R&D programme can be felt and is immediate where these PhD’s move to industrial jobs. For example, the CLF provided 1000 PhD training days last year, although not all in accelerator R&D, and ASTeC claim that over 100 professional engineers have undertaken activities at ASTeC. Most of these PhDs are in physics and engineering. A recent study that was part of the EU TIARA programme113 looked specifically at education and training for accelerator sciences114. This stated that engineering skills are more in demand than physics. In this context the CI provides an engineering PhD in accelerator activities.

297. Almost all the submissions quote some form of outreach. Many are involved in activities like the Big Bang Science Fair and the Particle Physics Masterclass. Many also provide opportunity for schools to view the facilities and motivate young people towards a science based career.

298. Perhaps the most quantifiable staffing impact is from staff who have benefited from accelerator science and STFC funding and who then leave and deploy the skills that they have acquired in industry. The submissions indicate STFC are currently funding 183 full time equivalent members of staff in accelerator science. This constitutes the majority of UK accelerator funding, though approximately 40 staff are funded from other sources.

299. Some statistics have been gathered regarding skilled staff spun out of the UK accelerator activity into the broader community. In the 3 year period under review, 9 members of staff were said to leave to join UK industry. A further 19 joined UK academia. An additional 20 members of staff joined academia and industry elsewhere in the world. On this basis around 5% of STFC funded staff have found industrial jobs in the UK, in a 3 year period. A further 10% have found academic jobs in the UK. In addition there is a benefit to the science community, both academic and industrial, in other nations.

300. The staff figures involved are relatively small and have been measured during a short window. Because of this, it is not possible to meaningfully assign relative staff transfer performance to individual projects and institutes. It is probable that staff turnover increases at the end of an accelerator project and the three year data window may not be fully representative of the process. In recognition of this, data has been gathered from the CI and JAI on the destination of all PhD students who have come from the institutes over their lifetimes. Of the 70 where destinations are known 23 students have found work in industry or other private sector employment in the UK, and a further 14 outside the UK. It is clear that there is a significant flow of highly skilled people enriching UK and worldwide industry as a result of STFC funding of the accelerator programme.

R31: Peer review panels and oversight committees of accelerator projects should continue to include engineering representation.

113 http://www.eu-tiara.eu/ 114 http://www.eu-tiara.eu/support/index.php?id=39 Page 56 of 81

R32: The STFC should put in place a method of collecting data regarding the eventual employment of staff and students who have worked on the accelerator programmes. This should be in a standard format and indicate whether they operate in the UK or elsewhere.

301. It is clear from the submissions that many opportunities exist for societal and commercial impact from accelerator R&D. Nevertheless it is not uniformly clear that all such opportunities are being fully exploited by the community, despite the importance of impact and Global Challenges within the STFC programme. More emphasis should therefore be given to maximally exploiting impact opportunities by the accelerator science community.

4.11 Optimal Accelerator Programme

Findings

302. The STFC accelerator R&D programme is delivered in its laboratories, facilities, universities and institutes. Funding has remained flat at ~£14M, of which £10.7M is resource and £3M capital, for a number of years.

ASTeC support AWAKE from PD 1% 9% MICE 20%

FETS 6% ASTeC Target Studies 36% JAI 3% 10% CI 15%

Figure 1: Accelerator Programme Funding

303. The UK accelerator R&D programme is augmented by additional funding from a number of routes, e.g. EU, STFC grant schemes.

Page 57 of 81

300

250

200 University STFC Project

STFC Other e.g. IPS 150 FTE STFC Institution Grant/Direct Vote Other Research Council 100 Industry External Organisations

50 EU

0 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Year

Figure 2: Full time equivalent (FTE) from different funding sources

304. There are 257 FTE posts associated with accelerator R&D of which 204 FTE is funded directly by the UK accelerator R&D programme. It supports 71 FTE post graduate students each year.

305. The UK accelerator R&D programme covers accelerator science and technology development and is spread across 5 different science areas.

Page 58 of 81

Global Frontier Chalenges Machines 15% 22%

Novel Accelerators Neutron 23% Machines 16%

Light Sources 24%

Figure 3: Distribution of FTE across the 5 science areas

306. One major area of future activity for ASTeC is the Compact Linear Accelerator for Research and Applications (CLARA), a proposed upgrade to the Versatile Electron Linear Accelerator (VELA) RF photo injector facility.

307. STFC is coordinating the UK participation in the ESS project and is now working with ESS and other partners to start identifying potential UK work packages. Up to 70% of the contribution can be in-kind so there are opportunities for STFC, HEIs and industry to contribute to various work packages (also see paragraph 77, 78 and R10:).

Comments and Recommendations

308. The accelerator institutes were originally founded as a result of a one-off investment in accelerator R&D, (including linear collider and neutrino factory) by central government. As a result the programme of the institutes was initially focused on high energy accelerator R&D. More recently however the balance of the programme of the institutes has shifted to include basic R&D in support of a broad range of present and future UK facilities115.

309. The Institutes should consider strengthening their membership. Closer ties with the ASTeC, CI and other institutes would strengthen the community’s position and provide the possibility for a more coordinated strategy.

115 ‘UK facilities’ is defined to include facilities which are funded by the UK but which are not located in the UK, for instance CERN and ESRF. Page 59 of 81

310. The panel believes that the balance of the accelerator R&D programme across the science areas discussed above is reasonable given the current funding landscape. Significant changes to the programme will however be required should major UK capital investment in one or more future accelerator facilities be forthcoming or if the global HEP community refocuses its goal (e.g. an ILC in Japan or an e+/e- circular collider in China are approved) or if results from the LHC RunII require a reorientation (e.g. a drive for future energy frontier machine). In this case the requisite skills to deliver the project must be found from within the UK accelerator R&D community, most likely requiring a change in the focus of the programme. This should be driven and monitored by ASB.

R33: The balance of the UK accelerator R&D programme should evolve to match UK priorities for accelerator facilities. ASB should be responsible for monitoring the balance of the programme.

311. Funds for major R&D and capital phase projects have been secured directly from government through the Department of Business Innovations and Skills (BIS) in some cases. Such calls can be released with very little notice and short deadlines, which can work against the development of a strategically planned programme. Advanced identification of strategic priorities for future investment would help to ameliorate this problem.

R34: ASB should be able to provide advice on a prioritized list of major investment opportunities in different price brackets, based on the community’s priorities for future facilities and projects identified by the Advisory Panels, in preparation for any future BIS capital funding opportunities. This list should be considered by SB to ensure optimum fit with STFC science priorities.

312. The role played by ASTeC in the CI appears to be unclear. ASTeC has a very specific mission (development and support of UK facilities) that overlaps with, but does not fully cover, the mission of the CI. It is conceivable that these differing missions could lead to internal tensions within the CI between the need for ASTeC to focus solely on the facilities mission and the need for the CI to support basic accelerator R&D.

R35: The role of ASTeC in the CI should be clarified by the Directors and STFC prior to the next CI funding review. This should help with future requests for funding to STFC and the development of strategy by the CI management.

313. Should capital funds be found for a UK-FEL then it is likely that much of the design work will be carried out by ASTeC. However, considerable expertise also exists in the universities, especially those affiliated with the accelerator institutes. It is therefore desirable that university academics engage with any UK-FEL programme, in order both to train future accelerator experts and exploit STFC-funded expertise most efficiently. Increased UK academic involvement in CLARA, especially by CI and JAI, would be beneficial for achieving this goal in the future.

Page 60 of 81

314. Similar comments apply to other potential future UK funded facilities. In the case of ESS, the level of UK participation in the accelerator is still unclear. Although UK capital funds have yet to be released for this project it is difficult to see currently how the UK university academic community can engage with this project. The prompt development of a national project structure, incorporating identified contact people would be beneficial. This lesson should be learned for projects further in the future such as the upgrades to both ISIS and Diamond so that appropriate structures are developed as soon as participation is proposed.

R36: The UK accelerator community should develop formal national project structures, in partnership with STFC, early in the life-cycle of major projects in order to prepare for timely bids for capital funds if/when resources become available.

315. Current UK work on high energy accelerators is largely focused on CLIC and HL- LHC, both of which are supported by substantial external funding. The HL-LHC programme is a cornerstone of the European Strategy for Particle Physics and the CERN Medium Term Plan and is of very high priority for particle physics. Plans must therefore be made to continue the UK contributions to this project upon completion of the EU-funded project (HiLumi-LHC) in 2015. In the spirit of R8: a project proposal covering the required effort within the accelerator institutes together with ‘new-money’ funds (capital and staff) should be submitted to STFC via ASB for peer-review by PPRP augmented by additional accelerator experts.

316. The future programme for other high energy machines is less clear, and will most likely follow from funding decisions made outside the UK. A key input to these decisions will be physics results from Run 2 of the LHC, expected in 2015-18. For this reason it would be appropriate for the strategy and priorities of the UK high energy accelerator R&D programme to be re-assessed in 2018, in light of LHC physics results, international funding decisions and international strategy reviews (e.g. the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics in 2018).

R37: The UK accelerator R&D programme supporting particle physics facilities should be reviewed by STFC in 2018 in alignment with the European Strategy for Particle Physics update.

317. Should a significant decrease in STFC funding for accelerator R&D occur ASB would play a crucial role in tensioning the different components of the programme. A key consideration should be the alignment of projects with the UK’s strategic priorities for accelerator facilities. However, it is nevertheless important that support for more speculative, potentially game-changing, R&D is not lost entirely in such a scenario.

R38: In scenarios of flat or reduced funding for accelerator R&D ASB should consider the balance between ‘near-market’ R&D supporting UK facilities in line with STFC strategy and more speculative work.

Page 61 of 81

318. Should increased funding for accelerator R&D become available from STFC the optimum areas in which to invest will depend upon the magnitude of the increase. For small increases in funding (<10%) additional investment in underpinning technologies in which the UK is vulnerable should be considered. For larger increases consideration should be given to expanding the programme into new areas and projects. In preparation for such an eventuality ASB should prepare a costed and priortised list of key opportunities for future investment.

R39: In scenarios of small increases in funding for accelerator R&D investment to further strengthen underpinning technologies should be considered. For larger increases new projects should be considered.

5. Concluding Remarks on the Programme

319. The breadth and strength of the accelerator science programme which has developed over the past decade is extremely impressive. The programme has allowed the UK community to obtain international leadership both in terms of scientific excellence, and in terms of coordination of major projects.

320. The programme has benefited immensely from the significant investments that have been made by the STFC and other funders over this period. These investments have allowed the programme to grow and diversify into many different areas of research. The resulting diversity represents both a strength and a risk to the programme however, as it can inhibit the effective collaboration and sharing of resources required to deliver major projects. Many of the recommendations of this review have therefore focused on encouraging and enhancing collaboration across the UK accelerator community to ensure a coherent and well-focused programme targeted on areas of strategic need for both the field itself and the wider STFC science community.

321. It is certain that the accelerator landscape will continue to evolve over the coming years. It is therefore very important that the UK accelerator science programme be monitored closely by the STFC to ensure that it develops in an appropriate manner to meet the needs of accelerator users. A number of major opportunities for future accelerator facilities have been identified in this report, for instance ESS, upgrades to Diamond and ISIS, a possible future UK-FEL and future high energy lepton and hadron machines. It is clear that should these facilities go ahead further investment in accelerator science will be required. At the same time however, this report has highlighted areas of UK leadership in basic accelerator science which must not be forgotten when allocating future funding.

Page 62 of 81

Appendix 1. STFC Accelerator Review Panel Biographies

Dr Robert Appleby

Rob Appleby is an accelerator physicist from the University of Manchester and the Cockcroft Institute, whose research interests span charged particle beam dynamics, particle colliders, the physics of machine-detector interfaces, medical accelerators and ultra-cold electron sources.

He is a member of the LHCb and COMET experiments, and many international accelerator collaborations. He sits on the STFC Particle Physics Advisory Panel and is deputy leader of beam collimation for the HiLumi-LHC project.

Professor Riccardo Bartolini

Riccardo Bartolini Is Professor of Accelerator Physics and the University of Oxford in the John Adams Institute for Accelerator Science and Head of the Accelerator Physics Group at the Diamond Light Source. He was nominated Diamond Research Fellow in 2012. His current research interests spans beam dynamics, free electron Lasers, advanced beam diagnostics and application of laser plasma accelerator to novel radiation sources. He is responsible for the design of Diamond II. He is member of several international advisory committees and conference scientific boards. He is co-author of about 40 publications in International peer reviewed journals and about 160 conference proceedings.

Dr Oliver Brüning

Dr. Oliver Brüning is currently the Deputy Project Leader for the HL-LHC upgrade project and the Deputy Department Head for the Beams department at CERN. From 2005 to 2014 Oliver Brüning was leading the Accelerator and Beam Physics Group at CERN, a group looking after the conceptual design of new accelerator projects (e.g. LHC and CLIC) and the performance optimization of the existing CERN accelerator complex. Since 1995 Oliver Brüning has been deeply involved in the design and commissioning preparation for the LHC, both through his functions in key LHC committees as well as through his personal scientific work (e.g. electron cloud studies and optics and lattice design). During the final design phase of the LHC Oliver Brüning was in charge of the LHC optics development and commissioning development within the Beams department from 2003 to 2005. Since 2003 he is responsible for the CERN USLARP coordination of accelerator systems R&D activities for the LHC. During the initial machine commissioning, he was one of the six initial LHC Machine Coordinators that were looking after the initial LHC commissioning from 2008 to 2011. Since 2008 he is also the LHeC Study leader for the Accelerator Systems.

Professor Jim Clarke

Professor Jim Clarke is Head of the Magnetics and Radiation Sources Group within the ASTeC Department of STFC. His group is responsible for all research within STFC directed

Page 63 of 81

at the generation of electromagnetic radiation through the interaction of highly relativistic electrons with complex magnetic fields. He is also responsible for the realisation of these complex magnets and other magnets required by particle accelerators. He has chaired several international workshops and also the Free Electron Laser Conference. He is a member of the International Advisory Committee for the Synchrotron Light Research Institute, Thailand, and a member of the Editorial Board for the journal PRST-AB. He served for three years on the STFC Projects Peer Review Panel and is currently a non-core Member of STFC’s Science Board. He is an Honorary Visiting Professor at Liverpool University.

Mr Jonathan Flint

Jonathan Flint, CBE, has been Chief Executive of Oxford Instruments since 2005. Oxford Instruments is one of the UKs top technology companies employing 2400 people. The business specialises in the research sector and in industrialising new technologies. Prior to 2005 he held senior management positions within Vislink plc, BAE Systems, GEC Marconi and Matra-Space Systems. Jonathan holds a BSc in physics from ICL and an MBA from Southampton University. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Institution of Engineering and Technology. He was awarded the CBE in the 2012 New Year’s Honours for services to science and business. Jonathan is a non- executive director of Cobham plc.

Professor Sue Kilcoyne

Professor Susan Kilcoyne is Professor of Biomaterials at the University of Huddersfield. She has over 30 years’ experience in the application of neutron, muon, x-ray and Mossbauer techniques to studies of intermetallic alloys, phase formation and transformation in the crystallisation of amorphous materials, and the structure and dynamics of biological materials. More recently she has expanded her research portfolio to include studies of archaeological materials. Her work relies heavily upon the use of STFC’s neutron, muon and synchrotron x-ray facilities at ISIS, ILL, and ESRF. She has been both member and chair of several Facility Access Panels at ISIS, Chairman of the ISIS User Committee and ISIS Ombudsman.

Dr John Thomason

John Thomason is Accelerator Division Head for the ISIS spallation neutron source, responsible for ISIS accelerator operations and the R&D which will support running optimally and sustainably for the lifetime of the facility. He also coordinates efforts towards the design of potential ISIS accelerator upgrades and more generic high power proton drivers. John is a member of the Chinese Spallation Neutron Source Accelerator Technical Advisory Committee, has acted as a working group coordinator for the Proton Accelerators for Science and Innovation initiative between the UK and Fermilab, and is a member of the IoP Particle Accelerators and Beams Group Committee.

Page 64 of 81

Professor Dan Tovey

Dan Tovey is Professor of Particle Physics at the University of Sheffield and leads the Sheffield team working on the ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Dan completed his PhD at the University of Sheffield in 1998 working on searches for relic dark matter particles from the Big Bang with the UK Dark Matter Collaboration. During a subsequent PPARC Post-Doctoral Fellowship he became interested in searches for the production of dark matter particles in collisions at the LHC, leading him to join the ATLAS collaboration in 2000. Within ATLAS his main physics interest is the search for dark matter particles predicted specifically by supersymmetry theory (SUSY), having previously led the ATLAS SUSY Working Group and contributed to the development of several of the analysis techniques now used to search for SUSY at the LHC.

From 2010 to 2012 Dan was Spokesperson and Principal Investigator of ATLAS-UK. He has previously served as a member of a number of PPARC and STFC committees including the Particle Physics Advisory Panel, Particle Physics Grants Panel and PPAN Science Committee. He chaired the UK CERN Fellowships Panel from 2009 to 2012 and led the 2012 Science Board review of UK Dark Matter strategy. He is currently Deputy Chair of Science Board.

Page 65 of 81

Appendix 2. STFC Accelerator Review Terms of Reference

1. Background, aim and outcome of the review

In 2010 the STFC recognised the strategic importance of accelerator technology as a key enabler across a large fraction of its research portfolio. As a result, the Accelerator Strategy Board (ASB) was established to understand the accelerator landscape and establish a strategy for future engagement.

Science Board (SB) endorsed a review of the accelerator programme to provide information on the breadth and scope of the STFC’s current UK accelerator science programme to underpin the development of STFC’s accelerator strategy. The review report will go to SB for comment and development of a high-level accelerator strategy, taking into account information from parallel reviews on neutron and photon activities. The ASB will then establish a more detailed accelerator strategy and prioritised roadmap based on the findings in the review report and high-level strategic direction from SB.

2. The review

This review seeks to provide a narrative and commentary on the following aspects of the accelerator programme:

 The current organisation and delivery of the programme;

 Details of individual projects and programmes;

 Areas of intrinsic excellence and global recognition;

 Cost effectiveness and value for money;

 Cross-cutting areas, and any gaps or overlaps;

 Links with appropriate universities and facilities;

 Areas of synergy, including with laser-related activities;

 Leadership and the key positions in international collaborations;

 Areas of added value, including technologies and industry;

 Areas and opportunities for future engagement, providing the UK with access to national and international facilities and cutting edge technology.

The review will not seek to construct a detailed, budgeted programme but will examine all accelerator R&D activities that receive STFC funding. These are:

 The Accelerator Science and Technology Centre (ASTeC);

 Advanced Wakefield Experiment (AWAKE);

Page 66 of 81

 The Cockcroft Institute (CI);

 The Front End Test Stand (FETS);

 The John Adams Institute for Accelerator Science (JAI);

 Muon Ionisation Cooling Experiment (MICE);

 Target Studies.

The review will also consider experimental and R&D activities of the operating national laboratories:

 Diamond Light Source;

 ISIS.

In order to provide some context to the programme under review, input from accelerator- related areas that are not currently directly funded by STFC, such as laser-plasma acceleration and accelerators for medicine, will also be invited.

3. The review process

Professor Dan Tovey (University of Sheffield), a core member of SB, will chair the panel, which will comprise ~8 members, including at least one member from each of the following:

 Science Board;

 UK accelerator community;

 International accelerator experts;

 STFC science community;

 Facility users;

 Industry;

 Research laboratories (e.g. Culham, NPL).

The review will take place in 2014, with the first meeting in February at which the following will be provided:

 Review panel terms of reference;

 A draft of the pro-forma to be sent out to the accelerator groups and institutes under review for comment;

Page 67 of 81

 A rough outline of areas that the report is expected to cover for comment;

 Background information on accelerator groups and institutes;

 Information on accelerator programme funding cycles, including past, current and future commitments;

 Background information on STFC’s photon and neutron facilities (based on input to the programmatic review);

 Information on next steps and how data will be gathered.

Figure 1 provides a flow diagram illustrating the review process.

Page 68 of 81

Panel reviews input to the review to identify March 2014 – 1st gaps. Panel agrees Panel Meeting template proforma and report.

Data Collection from institutes, facilities and STFC departments

Current projects and science areas reviewed. July 2014 – 2nd Areas and opportunities Panel Meeting for future engagement identified.

Breadth of programme, cost effectiveness, etc. September 2014 – discussed. Scale and 3rd Panel Meeting balance of realistic, optimal programme reviewed.

November 2014 – Review Panel report 4th Panel Meeting finalised.

December 2014 - Review Panel report considered by Science Board.

Figure 1: Flow Diagram for the review process.

Page 69 of 81

Appendix 3. Review Data Collecting

Accelerator Review Panel 2014

FTE Statistics

1. The panel requested completion of a staff resource form from each institute, department, facility and project within the accelerator review. Not all institutes, departments, facilities and projects submitted a staff resource form with their proforma, which should be taken into account while reviewing the data.

2. FTE statistics were generated using the submitted staff resource forms created by the associated projects, programmes and themes and Institutes, Departments and Facilities. All FTE statistics that are presented in this document are derived from the information gathered by the staff resource forms provided.

3. Each staff member was requested to have an assigned percentage of their FTE allocated towards each of the science areas: 1 - Frontier particle and nuclear physics machines 2 - Development of world class neutron sources 3 - Development of world class light sources 4 - R&D activities for novel accelerators 5 - Global challenges (e.g. energy, medicine)

4. Each Staff member FTE was multiplied by their percentage effort corresponding to each Science Area.

Skilled Staff and Student Numbers

5. Annex 3 of all proformas requested a complete list of skilled staff that have left the respective institutes and projects over the three years looked at within in the report. To accompany this information the panel requested additional student destination data from the two major institutes, Cockcroft and John Adams Institute. These numbers combined were used to generate the statistics of the flow of expertise in the accelerator community.

Page 70 of 81

Appendix 4. STFC Accelerator Review Proforma Template

Three proforma templates were used to gather information for the purposes of the review. A template was made for experiments, Institutes and departments and Facilities. Each proforma was tailored to each of the three destinations but all followed the same format and were designed to extract similar information. Shown below is the proforma template produced for Facilities as an example for all three of the proformas.

STFC Accelerator Review 2014

Questions for Facilities that engage with the Accelerator R&D Programme

STFC is conducting a review to provide information on the breadth and scope of the STFC’s current UK accelerator science programme to underpin the development of the STFC’s accelerator strategy.

This review will report to STFC Science Board in December 2014.

In order to review the STFC-funded accelerator R&D programme, the review panel requests the completion of a proforma outlining the Accelerator R&D activities of the facility and the individual projects being undertaken. The focus is solely on the accelerator-related activities and not the facility as a whole so please answer all questions in that context. You are also requested to complete a Staff Resource Form for all staff involved in Accelerator R&D in the Excel spread sheet provided.

Proformas have been sent to the Principal Investigators of STFC funded accelerator projects, programmes and research themes as well as to the institutes, departments and facilities which are involved in accelerator R&D.

Projects with a UK PI, i.e. AWAKE, FETS, MICE and Target Studies and some programmes, e.g. CLIC will receive their own proforma. A full list of items under review is available on the STFC website.

The review seeks to understand the distribution of effort for each institute, department and facility as well as for each project.

All staff members should be accounted for against the relevant project or theme either in the dedicated Project / Programme / Theme Staff Resource Form or, in the case that the project, programme or research theme does not have its own proforma, in the relevant Department / Institute / Facility Staff Resource Form.

Page 71 of 81

Where a staff member is allocated partly or fully to a project which will submit a proforma their effort should be detailed both in the Project / Programme / Theme Staff Resource Form, which will be completed by the project PI, and in the Institute / Department / Facility Staff Resource Form against the relevant project.

This proforma is based on the template used for the 2012-13 Programmatic Review. If you returned a proforma as part of the Programmatic Review this will be provided to you for information. You may wish to use your previous input as a basis for your input to this review.

You should return your proforma by the 3rd June 2014 to Lisa Kehoe ([email protected]). If you have any questions please contact Lisa or Charlotte Jamieson ([email protected]).

The panel will notify you on publication of the report.

Please ensure that your submission is concise and that all acronyms are written out in full before being shortened. Your response should address all of the sections listed below, although not all questions in each section may be relevant.

STFC will retain the information provided in order to inform other reviews. Where detailed information will be reproduced you will be given the opportunity to review your submission.

Please only answer the questions applicable to your facility. As described above, information specific to project, programmes and research themes will be captured separately.

Please provide your response in the table below, ensuring that you have not exceeded the word limit. The Annexes do not contribute to the total word count.

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Please answer this section using font type Arial, size 10, without exceeding 400 words.

a) Please provide an overview of the facility’s accelerator Research and Development activities.

b) Please provide a list of the existing accelerator R&D related projects your facility is working on.

Page 72 of 81

c) For each project listed please provide a brief description of the project, its goals, how long it has been running, how many people from your facility are involved (facility staff, engineering, technical, student) and what external (non-facility) support has been/will be provided.

2. EXCELLENCE

Please answer this section using font type Arial, size 10, without exceeding 1400 words.

a) What is the scientific and technical importance of the projects to your and other facilities? Your answer should focus on the current importance of the projects and give a brief outline of the vision for the future.

Please explain if the technology developed is or will be of strategic importance, either for this or other areas.

b) Please comment on the timeliness of the accelerator research carried out at the facility.

Your answer should include a view on the areas of the science and technology currently being funded, including any UK lead that should be capitalised on, and any technological developments that have allowed these areas to progress and the lost scientific and technical opportunities if this research was not pursued. Please give an indication of the timescale for this activity.

c) Please list any refereed publications and invited presentations at conferences since 2008.

The panel recognises the importance of posters and presentations at the International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC). Please include these in the list as necessary.

Page 73 of 81

Please exclude publications which are included in the proforma submission for another institute or project. Please complete the table provided at Annex 1

3. ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL IMPACT

Please answer this section using font type Arial, size 10, without exceeding 500 words for any single project.

a) Collaborations Have any collaborations or partnerships been established in relation to the accelerator R&D programme? Please describe who you have collaborated with, any direct financial contribution and non-financial contributions to your programme from the collaboration, the contribution you have made to the collaboration, and any outputs or outcomes that have resulted.

Please complete the table provided at Annex 2.

b) Further Funding from other sources

Has STFC support for this activity led to additional peer-reviewed, competitively- awarded funding for the activity? Please describe this funding giving a value where possible. Please describe any barriers which prevent you from securing additional funding.

4. General information

Please answer this section using font type Arial, size 10, without exceeding 700 words.

a) Skilled people related to Accelerator R&D activity What is the impact in the development of skilled people? For example how the Accelerator R&D programme influences the development of engineering and technical staff, PhD students (including those who go into other fields), or continued professional development of industrial partners.

Page 74 of 81

Do you know the next destination of any staff members that have left the facility in the past 12 months?

Please complete the table provided at Annex 3.

b) Technology Development

Have any technologies been developed wholly or partly from accelerator R&D activities been used for other applications/facilities? Please describe the technology, its potential applications (including to the following challenges Energy; Environment; Healthcare; Security). Briefly describe any notable impacts or potential resulting from the development of this technology. Please include potential applications as well as possible contributions to future research. Please describe any barriers which prevent you from furthering this research.

c) IP/Licensing

Has any intellectual property arisen wholly or partly as a result of accelerator R&D carried out within the facility that has been made public and is fully protected or that requires no such protection? If yes, please describe the discovery, its protection, whether the intellectual property been formally licensed to others on a commercial or non- commercial basis, and any notable impacts of the discovery.

d) Spin Out Companies

Has the accelerator research led to the formation or significant development of a spin out company? Please give details of the company including the name, number of employees and any notable impacts of the company.

Page 75 of 81

e) Knowledge and Other

Please describe any other significant knowledge that has arisen from the accelerator R&D activities of the facility that has not been recorded in other sections and describe how this knowledge has been progressed.

5. SYNERGIES

Please answer this section using font type Arial, size 10, without exceeding 300 words.

a) To what extent will the facility benefit from or contribute to coherence and synergies with other programmes / departments / institutes funded by STFC? This should include how the accelerator R&D in the facility complements other STFC investments in either science output or technology development of other programmes; does the facility make use of previous investments in other areas of STFC supported accelerator research and does the facility maintain skills that are relevant to a wider range of scientific / technological areas.

Page 76 of 81

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE ARP.14.03.02 – Accelerator Review Report Draft

ANNEX 1 – PUBLICATIONS

Author Title Journal / Conference Volume Issue Pages Date (Month/Year)

A. N. Other1 Full title of the publication Nuclear Instruments and 01 01 01-02 April 2014 Methods in Physics Research Section A

A. N. Other2 Full title of the presentation IPAC invited presentation n/a n/a n/a April 2014

A. N. Other3 Full title of the poster IPAC poster n/a n/a n/a April 2014

Please include publications in refereed journals, lead author technical reports and lead conference proceedings as well as IPAC publications and presentations.

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE 77 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE ARP.14.03.02 – Accelerator Review Report Draft

ANNEX 2 – COLLABORATIONS

Collaborator Period of Collaboration Value of financial Outputs/ Outcomes contributions (£)

Start Finish Direct Indirect (MMM/YYYY) (MMM/YYYY)

A. N. Other1

A. N. Other2

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE 78 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE ARP.14.03.02 – Accelerator Review Report Draft

ANNEX 3 – SKILLS

Gender Role prior to departure Duration of Sector moved to Country moved to Year of appointment Departure

A. N. Other1 Male Student, Computational 3.5 years Industry, Google UK 2012 Scientist

A. N. Other2 Female PDRA, RF Engineer 4 years Medical, Medaustron, Austria 2014

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE 79 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE ARP.14.03.02 – Accelerator Review Report Draft

Appendix 5. Glossary

Acronym Description (Location) ADSR Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactor ALICE Accelerators and Lasers In Combined Experiments (Daresbury Laboratory) ASB Accelerator Strategy Board ASTeC The Accelerator Science and Technology Centre ATF2 Accelerator Test Facility (KEK) AWAKE Advanced Wakefield Experiment (CERN) BDS Beam Delivery Systems bERLinPro Berlin Energy Recovery Linac Prototype (proposed: Helmholtz Zentrum, Berlin) BIS The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills CERN The European Organization for Nuclear Research (Geneva, Switzerland) CI The Cockcroft Institute CLARA The Compact Linear Accelerator for Research and Applications (Daresbury Laboratory) CLASP Challenge Led Applied Systems Programme CLF Central Laser Facility (RAL) CLIC The Compact Linear Collider (CERN) COMET The Coherent Muon-to-Electron Transition (J-PARC) CSNS China Spallation Neutron Source (proposed: Dongguan, near Hong Kong) CTF3 The CERN linear Collider Test Facility or CLIC Test Facility (CERN) DLS Diamond Light Source (RAL) ELENA The Extra Low Energy Antiproton (CERN) ELI-NP The Extreme Light Infrastructure – Nuclear Physics (Proposed: Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania) EMMA The Electron Machine with Many Applications (Daresbury Laboratory) EPICS The Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System ERL Energy Recovery Linear accelerator ESRF The European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (Grenoble, France) ESS The European Spallation Source (Lund, Sweden) ESS Bilbao The European Spallation Source, Bilbao (Bilbao, Spain) EuCARD Enhanced European Coordination for Accelerator Research & Development FACET Facility for Advanced Accelerator Experimental Tests (SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory) FAFNIR Facility for Fusion Neutron Irradiation Research FAIR The Facility for Anti-Protons and Ion Research (GSI, Darmstadt). FEL Free Electron Laser FETS The Front End Test Stand (RAL) FFAG The Fixed-Field Alternating Gradient FNAL Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (US) FTE Full Time Equivalent GSI GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research facilitates (Darmstadt, Germany) HEP High Energy Physics HIE-ISOLDE High Intensity and Energy -ISOLDE (CERN) ICTF The Ionisation Cooling Test Facility (RAL) IFMIF International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE 80 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE ARP.14.03.02 – Accelerator Review Report Draft

ILC International Linear Collider ITNs European Initial Training Networks JAI John Adams Institute J-PARC The Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex (Tokai campus, JAEA) KEK The High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (Tsukuba, Japan) LC-ABD Linear Collider: Accelerator and Beam Delivery LCLS-II Linear Coherent Light Source (SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory) LBNE Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (proposed: FNAL) LHC The Large Hadron Collider (CERN) LHeC The Large Hadron-Electron Collider (CERN) Linac Linear accelerator LINAC4 Linear Accelerator 4 (CERN) LLRF Low Level Radio Frequency LWFA Laser plasma Wakefield Accelerator MDI Machine Detector Interface MEIS The Medium Energy Ion Scattering (Daresbury Laboratory) MICE The Muon Ionisation Cooling Experiment (RAL) MPB MICE Project Board Mu2e Muon to electron MYRRHA Multi‐purpose Hybrid Research Reactor for High‐tech Applications (Mol, Belgium) nuSTORM Neutrinos from STORed Muons (FNAL) ONIAC ONIon ACcelerator (RAL) OsC Oversight Committee PAA Proton Accelerator Alliance PAMELA The Particle Accelerator for MEdical Applications PASI Particle Accelerators for Science and Innovation PDRA Postdoctoral Research Assistant PIP II Proton Improvement Plan II (FNAL) PPAN Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics PPRP The Projects Peer Review Panel PRD Projects Research and Development scheme PW Plasma Wakefield RAL Rutherford Appleton Laboratory RF Radio Frequency RHUL Royal Holloway, University of London SACLA SACLA (Japan) SB Science Board SCRF Superconducting Radio Frequency SNS The Spallation Neutron Source (Oak Ridge, Tennessee) SPECT Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography SwissFEL Swiss Free-electron laser user facility (Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland) TIARA Test Infrastructure and Accelerator Research Area TRIUMF Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics UCL University College London US LARP The U.S. LHC Accelerator Research Program UK-FEL Potential UK Free Electron Laser facility VELA The Versatile Electron Linear Accelerator (Daresbury Laboratory)

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE 81