plan for scrf btr january 19 -20, 2012 akira yamamoto, marc ross, and nick walker (pms) jim kerby,...
TRANSCRIPT
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 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 10 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
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 10 pages
6. Conclusions 10 pages
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
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
TTC: WG-1 Agenda (Indico Page)
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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)
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
EXFEL Cavity Deliverable in Specification
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
• 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. …
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
Status of Cost-estimate/Studyfor 9-cell cavity with LHe tank (example)
Relative cost RDREXFELCurrent estimate
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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 ??
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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 %
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
Cavity Integration
111208, GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR
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