Plan for SCRF BTR January 19 -20, 2012 Akira Yamamoto, Marc Ross, and Nick Walker (PMs) Jim Kerby,...

Plan for SCRF BTRJanuary 19 -20, 2012

Akira Yamamoto, Marc Ross, and Nick Walker (PMs)Jim Kerby, and Tetsuo Shidara (SCRF-APMs)

Presented and discussed at GDE-EC, Dec. 1, 2011

111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR

TDR Technical Volumes

111208, GDE-PMs

Reference Design Report

ILC Technical Progress Report (“interim report”)

TDR Part I:R&D

TDR Part II:BaselineReferenceReport

Technical Design Report

~250 pagesDeliverable 2

~300 pagesDeliverables 1,3 and 4

* end of 2012 – formal publication early 2013

2007 2011 2013*

AD&I

Plan for SCRF-BTR

TDR Part I: R&D - Outline1. Introduction 5 pages

2. Superconducting RF Technology 75 pages

3. Beam Test Facilities 75 pages

4. Accelerator Systems R&D 50 pages

5. Post-TDR R&D 20 pages

6. Conclusions 10 pages








111208, GDE-PMs

2.1 Overview (Yamamoto, Ross)

2.2 Development of world-wide SCRF R&D infrastructure (Kerby, Elsen, Hayano)2.3 High-gradient SCRF cavity R&D and the yield evaluation (Geng, Gisburg)2.4 Cavity Integration (Hayano)2.5 The S1-Global experiment (Hayano, Kerby, Moeller )2.6 Cryomodule, cryogenics thermal balance, and Quad. R&D

(Pierini, Peterson, Kashkin) 2.7 RF power generation and distribution (Fukuda, Nantista)2.8 R&D toward mass-production (Kerby, Elsen,

Saeki)

Plan for SCRF-BTR







111208, GDE-PMs

3.1 Over View (Ross, Walker)3.2 FLASH 9 mA experiment (Carwardine, Walker) 3.3 Cesr TA and electron-could R&D (Palmer) 3.4 ATF2 final focus experiment (Tauchi, Burrows) 3.5 Fermilab-NML (Nagaitsev)3.6 Quantum Beam at KEK (Urakawa, Hayano)

Plan for SCRF-BTR

TDR Part II: ILC Baseline Reference

1. Introduction and overview 5 pages

2. General parameters and layout 15 pages

3. SCRF Main Linacs 60 pages

4. Polarised electron source 15 pages

5. Positron source 20 pages

6. Damping Rings 30 pages

7. Ring to Main Linac (RTML) 20 pages

8. Beam Delivery System & MDI 30 pages

9. CFS and global systems 30 pages

10. .. see later111208, GDE-PMs

Detailed section outline available here

Plan for SCRF-BTR

TDR Part II: ILC Baseline Reference

1. Introduction and overview 5 pages

2. General parameters and layout 15 pages

3. SCRF Main Linacs 60 pages

4. Polarised electron source 15 pages

5. Positron source 20 pages

6. Damping Rings 30 pages

7. Ring to Main Linac (RTML) 20 pages

8. Beam Delivery System & MDI 30 pages

9. CFS and global systems 30 pages

10. .. see later111208, GDE-PMs

Detailed section outline available here

Plan for SCRF-BTR

3.1 Main linac layout and parameters (Adolphsen)3.2 Cavity performance and production specification (Yamamoto, Kerby)3.3 Cavity integration, coupler, tuners,… (Hayano)3.4 Cryomodule design including quad (Pierini)3.5 Cryogenics systems (Peterson)3.6 RF power and distribution systems (Fukuda, Nantista) 3.7 Low-level RF control (Carwardine, Michizono)

How to prepare for BTR and TDR?

• Technical discussion in TTC, Dec. 5 – 8, to evaluate technically satisfactory/acceptable design for projects.

• ILC Specific discussion in post-TTC, Dec. 8-9, to seek for cost-effective technical choice to prepare for BTR

• Consensus/Decision for TDR writing, BTR at KEK, Jan. 19 – 20, 2012


Plan for SCRF-BTR

GDE-SCRF Meeting as a post-TTC meeting, Dec. 8-9

• Based on the cryomodule test results and on technical discussions made in TTC, – Present PM’s guidelines (as Introduction)

• Current view for the baseline design

– Discuss baseline technology for the ILC TDR and the cost estimates

• Project-oriented, cost-effective technology choice for the TDR

• Group leaders respond to the current view of the baseline

111208, GDE-PMs

Important Step and Guideline

• 1st step: – We evaluate technology to satisfy the ILC

requirements• We keep ‘plug-compatibity concept’ and define

envelope and interface

• 2nd step: – We need to choose one of designs for the cost

estimate base in TDR


TTC: WG-1 Agenda (Indico Page)


Technical Change Guideline Proposal(preliminary)

ML Integration

Parameters and layout

Confirmed including alignment toleranceCM and Q periodicity: 8+4Q4+8 requiring additional ML length ( ~ 100 m)How we shall provide additional backup length and utility of 400 m?

Cavity performance

YieldGradient spread Degradation

1st pass: 50 (or 60) %, 2nd pass: 80 (or 70) % 31.5 +/- 20 % confirmed Assume 1/10 cavity to degrade 20 %

Cavity integration

Envelope Tuner type, coupler warm-flange, beam pipe, magnetic shield (inside/outside), Lhe tank etc.

Cryomodule Envelope/interfaceUnit 5 K radiation shield

Piping interface, inter-connect condition, etc,8+4Q4+8 Simplification

Cryogenics Unit capacity 5 4 units / linac

RF power Configuration DRFS in mountain site, KCS in flat land

Cost (Conversion) (PPP)


Agenda for SCRF Meeting, Dec. 8

Time Group Subjects Speaker/Convener

13:30 PM’s reports 1. Technical guideline with current view2. Specific subjects to be studied

YamamotoRoss

14:30 Cavity gradient Scope for improving the gradient, - Production Yield and the variation assumed,- Degradation after the cavity string assembly- Scope for 1 TeV

Geng

15:10 Cavity Plug-compatible envelope - Tuner, Input-coupler, beam-flange, magnetic shield, etc.- LHe tank, suspension scheme and alignment, etc.

Hayano

15:50 Cryomodule Cryomodule envelop and interface (flanges etc..) with plug-compatility- Simplification of 5 K radiation shield- Assembly, alignment, tolerance, and deliverable conditions - Cryomodule unit: desired to be (8+4Q4+8)- Conduction cooled, splittable SC quadrupole - Others: High-pressure-code issues , and Interface to CFS

Pierini

16:30-16:45

Coffee break


Agenda for SCRF Meeting,Dec. 8 Time Group Subjects Speaker- 16:45 Coffee break16:45 Cryogenics Thermal balance with cryomodule thermal load,

- Cryogenics unit and locations: hopefully to be reduced (5 to 4 units / linac)- Interfaces to CFS

Peterson

17:10 HLRF - Baseline design and backup solutions for KCS and DRFS, and RDR backup for each case- Consistent baseline design in ML and BDS (booster) - Power balance and mechanical installation Interfaces to CFS- Specially because of gradient spreads, degradation after installation into cryomodule, and their influence (difference) to the cost,

Fukuda/Nantista

18:00 MLI - Beam dynamics, alignment tolerances, possible tilting allowance etc... - Interfaces to CFS: additional tunnel length, - backup length (~400 m?), and - additional length for compensating the degradation. - additional length for CM unit change to 8 +4Q4+8,- 1 TeV extension (assumption and consideration)

Adolphsen

(Yokoya, Kubo)

18:30 - 18:45

Summary To prepare for the 2nd day Kerby


EXFEL Cavity Deliverable in Specification


• From EXFEL specification: 02L BQM-Cavity in He Tank

Cavity Cost-study compared with RDR and E-FXEL, in progress

ILC:RDR

EXFEL:Original 300

EXFEL:+ 80

ILC estimate

Prep.+Prod. Yrs.

Fraction 100 % 300+80 20, 50, or 50%

# cavity

SC Material (supplied) Supplied Supplied

Mech. Fabrication including EBW

Chemistry

Ti He-Vessel sub-component

(Supplied) (Supplied)

Accept. Test (RT)

Factory investment

Sum

Tuner (A / B) A A A (B / C)

Coupler etc. …


Status of Cost-estimate/Studyfor 9-cell cavity with LHe tank (example)

Relative cost RDREXFELCurrent estimate


LHe T + Tuner Relative cost ABC

ML IntegrationRDR Change to TDR Effect on the cost

Actions,D- cost

Beam Parameters

Lattice design

Cryomodule unit 9+4Q4+9 8+4Q4+8 ML-dL = ~70 m

Degradation in cryomodule

0 1/10 cavities: - 20 % gradient

Circulator


Cavity Gradient PerformanceRDR Change to TDR Effect on the cost D- cost

Gradient spread 0 35+/- 20 % Add. HLRF power 10 ~15 %

Production Y. 80 % 90 %

Success scenario 1st: 50 %, 2nd, 80 %1st: 60 %, 2nd, 70 %

Backup length 400 m ?

Backup for degradation

0 ??


Cavity IntegrationRDR Change to TDR Effect on the cost D- cost

Plug-compatible interface/envelopeBeam flange Diamond

HelicoInput coupler 40 phi

60 phiTuner Blade

Slide -Jack

Magnetic shield InsideOutside

Lhe tank Ti Ti (study SUS for future)

Deliverable w/ LHe tank


CryomoduleRDR Change to TDR Effect on the cost D- cost

Envelope/interfae

Unit 9+4Q4+9 8+4Q4+8

Interconnect + 8 %

5 K radiation shield yes Simplification - ~ several %


RF Power RDR Change to TDR Effect on the cost D- cost

HLRF basic scheme RDR KCSDRFS + circulator

Klystron 10 MW 10 MW0.8 MW

Modulator Marx


Agenda for SCRF Meeting, Dec. 9Time Group Subjects Speaker9:00 Discussion Summary of the 1st day

Define and assign home-workSchedule for meeting to prepare for the BTR

YamamotoRossKerby

10:30 - Coffee break

11:00 S1-Global report

Status reportDiscussion for finalizing the report

Hayano

12:00 end


Plan for SCRF-BTR

General Scope for SCRF-BTR at KEK, Jan.19-20, 2012

• For each Subject, we must have 1) presentation of the proposal with a description of what is to be changed and why, 2) summary of the R&D in support of the change, 3) summary of the interfaces and the impact on related systems and components, especially CFS, and4) thorough explanation of the cost impact.

• This format– followed with the previous Reviews.

• While items 1) and 2) are to be presented by the appropriate group leader, • items 3) and 4) must also have comment from the CFS team and the cost engineers. • In some cases there is no impact on CFS. But in all cases there must be a cost impact evaluation.

• Most of the topics have more than one interface with technical area groups within SRF technology and many have an impact on beam dynamics.

• The BTR agenda should therefore include, in addition to the comprehensive presentations by the group leaders, presentations by the CFS team, the cost engineers and the beam dynamics group.

111208, GDE-PMs

Agenda Proposed for SCRF BTR at KEK Jan. 19 – 20, 2012

Date Technical Area Subjects to be fixed Presenters/Conveners

19/am-1 Welcome AddressGuideline for SCRFand ML

KEK’s status and scope for ILC Technical guideline and homework

Suzuki Yamamoto/Ross/Walker

Am-2 ML IntegrationCFS

Parameters, LayoutProgress and requests from CFS

Adolphsen Kuchler

Pm-1 Cavity performance and production Production and process recipeProduction yield definition in production stage Gradient spread, margin, and sortingCavity performance test requirements

Geng et al.Yamamoto/Kerby tbd

Pm-2 Cavity integration

CFS and Cost

Cavity envelope/interfaceTuner design for the cost base in TDRInput coupler, Magnetic shield Beam flange with gasket type Acceptance criteriaComments

Hayano et al.

Dugan

20/am-1 Cryomodule

CFS and Cost

Cryomodule envelope/interfaceCM unit configuration 8+4Q4+8, Simplification of 5 K shieldTest procedure and fraction Comments

Pierini et al.

TBDTBD

Am-2 Cryogenics systemsCFS

Cryogenics capacity/units 5 4 units/Linac Utility conditions

Peterson et al.

Pm-1 RF power system

CFS and cost

KCS/DRFS configuration and power marginMarx generator, power supply, Comments

Fukuda/Nantista et al.TBDTBD

Pm-2 Cost Summary

SCRF and CFS cost Decision summary

DuganYamamoto/Ross/Walker


Cavity Integration


Plan for SCRF-BTR

Technical Issues toward TDR• Cavity gradient : (discussion led by R. Geng)

– Update and fix the cavity production and process recipe.

– Update and fix the successful production yield definition in production stage, • including new parameters such as radiation, and the process w/ tumbling

– Gradient spread of 31.5 MV/m +/-20 %, with sorting method,

– Gradient degradation after assembly into the cryomodule (see: HLRF/DRFS w/ circulator)

• Cavity Integration (discussion led by H. Hayano)– A baseline design chosen for the TDR cost-estimate base,

• Including selection of tuner, coupler, beam-flange, magnetic shield, and LHe tank

– Plug-compatible design to be allowed in case of cost equivalent or more cost effective.

– Cavity delivery condition with LHe-tank, and cold-test sequence/monitor,

• Cryomodule and Cavity-string Assembly (discussion led by P. Perini) – Cryomodule string configuration with 8 + (4+Q+4) + 8 cavity-string assembly

– Simplification of 5K radiation-shield: simplification of bottom, and removal at inter-connect.

– Split-yoke, conduction-cooled quadrupoles

– Efficient alignment

• Cavity and Cryomodule Test (discussion led by H. Hayano)– Warm conditioning of Input Coupler: before or after installation into the tunnel

– Cold performance test: How much fraction to be cold tested? Subjects to be tested?

111208, GDE-PMs

Continued

• Cryogenics (discussion led by T. Peterson) – Location and the options (reducing the number of station) of cryogenic

systems,– Capacity optimization and heat balance with cryomodule heat-load

• HLRF (discussed led by S. Fukuda and C. Nantista) – KCS/DRFS/RDR-unit HLRF system configuration including backup power supply

and utilities with the single tunnel design– Marx generator to be a baseline modulator, – AC power capacity optimization with gradient spreads, – Adaptability against cavity degradation after installation into cryomodule, by

using circulator and power distribution system, – Optimizations for low-power and high-power option. – Tunable power distbribution system

• ML Integration (discussion led C. Adolphsen) – Beam dynamics

• Quadrupole/BPM periodicity, locations, alignment, and beam tunability, • Bunch spacing limit specially on KCS (requirement of DR beam dynamics)

– Availability, reliability, and backup of cryomodules to be required 111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR

Plan for SCRF-BTR

Technical Discussions on S1-Global Test Results at TTC, Dec. 5-8

• Working Group 1: Cryomodule Test Results and Analysis • Date: Dec. 7, (the third, full day)• Sessions; 1 (2 hrs), 2 (1.5 hrs), 3 (1.5 hrs), 4 (1.5 hrs)

• Focusing on cryomodule RF tests and problems observed– Tuner: LFD and control, and failure modes in operation– Input coupler: discharge and excessive heat-load – Cavity-string: alignment, magnetic shield and others)– Cavity: Degradation of field gradient after cavity-string assembly

111208, GDE-PMs

Plan for SCRF BTR January 19 -20, 2012 Akira Yamamoto, Marc Ross, and Nick Walker (PMs) Jim Kerby,...

Documents

Transcript of Plan for SCRF BTR January 19 -20, 2012 Akira Yamamoto, Marc Ross, and Nick Walker (PMs) Jim Kerby,...