Case-1, case-2 and case-4 have good agreement with the ANSYS calculations, while case-3 disagreed with the calculation. Reason of the disagreement was understood by imperfection or uncontrollable errors of two "identical" structure of cantilevers. A thin plate was turned out to be very effective to recover the "predictable or controllable" property(vibration) in the both end support system. It must be important to calculate this recovery quantitatively as a function of stiffness of thin plate since thinner structure is very preferable in the actual detector. A series of measurements can conclude that amplitude caused by ground motion is very small at f > 100Hz with a support tube and cultural noise must be problem because it dominates at f>10Hz.

Future efforts will be (1) measurement of oscillating amplitude with different phases at both ends, (2) manufacturing of 1/10 model with realistic structures and (3) stiffness test of the model and study of a vibration isolation system.

Toward the goal of (1), he recently succeeded to simulate the vibration of two ends with different "magnitudes" (although not phases) in ANSYS.

For (2), he started to design the 1/10 model with and without tapered connections, whose@technical drawing was shown at this meeting . He will order the manufacturing within a month.

He found that apertures of spoiler and absorber (SPE and ABE, respectively) must be made wider than originals at the energy collimation as follows because of additional bending magnets for small crossing angle; SPE: A_{x}=1.6mm to 3.1mm and ABE: A_{x}=3.4mm to 5.8mm, where the momentum acceptance at the final focus system is assumed to be &&sigma_{p}/p=0.9%.

After this adjustment of apertures, he calculated the acceptance of beam-transverse profile. The results are 16 &sigma_{x} x 51 &sigma_{y} and 11 &sigma_{x} x 46 &sigma_{y} with ON and OFF of TFO, respectively, where the smallest apertures are AB9 (the last betatron collimator, 911m from IP) and SP2 and 4(final focus collimator, 76 and 228m from IP, respectively) with ON and OFF, respectively. The ON-configuration must be safer than the OFF-one in terms of background problem (muons and synchrotron radiations) at IP.

He also tried to calculate synchrotron profile at IP. However, his method was doubtful. He will re-calculate it considering that the largest source is the final doublet.

There were following suggestions; (1) to verify the momentum acceptance of 0.9% at the final focus system, (2) to calculate the synchrotron profile at IP in order to determine the apertures of the collimation system.

Future effort will be (1) estimation of muon background by MUCARLO in cooperation with Namito-san, (2) calculation of wake field at the spoilers and absorbers and (3) understanding of TFO-role quantitatively and optimization of the collimation system so on.

Tracking along the 1.4km beam line, particles horizontally scooted down at 100 micron m from the collision point and focal spot sizes were RMS_{x}=3.0 micron m and RMS_{y}=370nm while the design values are RMS_{x}=211nm and RMS_{y}=2.7 nm, where tracking in magnetic field was used original GEANT4 routine. Beam envelops were very similar to the beta-function. Therefore, he speculated that the reason must be "error" in GEANT4. He will improve the tracking in magnetic field by consulting CLIC study.

He also studied synchrotron radiations emitting from magnets. He found that the average number of photons and energy are 3.4 per electron and 1.9MeV, respectively. Even with this performance, the synchrotron radiations will not hit beam pipes of 10mm radius if beams are Gaussian. Beam with flat fail could be simulated with and without absorbers.

Future effort will be (1) improvement by employing the CLIC method, (2) simulation of muon pairs created at collimators, (3) study on dump line, and (4) estimation of backgrounds at detectors.

In his calculation, the nearest final focus magnet of 1.1m length is assumed to consist of 99 pieces with the same length of about 1cm. Pattern of K-values of pieces is arranged (K-KKKK-KKK......) so that the integrated strength is the same as the usual configuration as kkkkk..... ., where K=2k.
Without any other change, beam sizes were calculated to be &sigma_{x}=537nm and &sigma_{y}=34.5nm, while nominal values are &sigma_{x}=211nm and &sigma_{y}=2.7nm, respectively. Q magnets at upstream have been adjusted in order to recover the beam sizes. Resultant sizes were &sigma_{x}=350nm and &sigma_{y}=3.64nm.

He also studied a case of half beam energy by doubling the emittance. At this moment, beam sizes were calculated to be &sigma_{x}=439nm and &sigma_{y}=7.08nm, which would be compared to be &sigma_{x}=305nm and &sigma_{y}=3.99nm, respectively.

- Final focus system (S.Kuroda )
- Assessment of effects due to errors in positions and rotations of each magnet at the FF system
- Study on feedback methodiorbit corrections)
- Estimation of momentum acceptance in terms of luminosity and background (cooperation with T.Ohgaki)

- SLEPT projectiK.Kuboj
- Inteface to SAD and CAIN for a unified program routine
- Assessment of Ground motion effect on main linac and BDS

- Others ( fast feedback, Super-FF magnets, magnet designs especially at the dump line, etc. )