Main Linac Magnet Systems and Instrumentation Work Packages for EDR

1
Main Linac Magnet Systems and Instrumentation
Work Packages for EDR

• Nikolay Solyak,
• John Tompkins, Vladimir Kashikhin
• Graham Blair, Phil Burrows
• Marc Ross, Manfred Wendt
• Junji Urakawa

2
Guidance from RD Board (Mark Ross)

• What RD priorities are indicated by RDR cost? Are
  these different from ongoing priorities and
  efforts? Are the cost interactions of ACD known
  well enough to allow this prioritizations?
• Is the RDR baseline cost estimate useful for this
  process or is more work needed simply to refine
  the RDR estimate in order to prioritize the RDR?
  Much of the RDR technical is immature.
• How do the above interact with the design work
  now underway at DESY?
• When is down-selection information needed? What
  is the latest possible moment at which
  decisions can be taken that minimizes the
  disruption to the most effort intensive parts of
  EDR?
• Each RD task can be categorized, based on the
  answer to item 4. How is this best done?
• Each RD task will be funding limited, many
  severely. Are there some which will then
  necessarily come too late to be part of EDR? What
  does this mean for RD funding prioritization and
  for the EDR schedule?

3
The ILC EDR (Engineering Design Report)

• What is it?
• Detailed design report as basis for approval to
  proceed as a project
• Scope
• Early rumors 30 design level
• Sufficient detail to establish technical design
  package
• Magnetic design (field, forces, heating, quench
  protection, etc - calculations)
• Define all interfaces pedestals, stands, power,
  lcw, sensors, etc.
• Develop accurate beamline layouts with real space
  allocations
• Estimate of tooling requirements, design concepts
• Sufficient information for detailed cost estimate

4
EDR Scope, cont.

• Scope, cont.
• Recent discussions complete design package for
  all magnets
• All RD completed (models, prototypes tested)
• Detailed design of all components completed
• Tooling design completed
• Drawing packages completed
• Ready to begin procurement
• In either case, the resources required are a
  factor of (310)x more than have been used in
  the RDR
• Magnet physicist/engineers
• Design/drafters
• Tooling designers
• Test stands,
• Etc.

5
Organization

• Independent Work Packages issued by Area Systems
• Consistent with organization of RDR
• What missing in this approach? Coordination
• Management structure above Area Leaders still to
  be developed
• Program/Project manage sought
• Quasi-independence of work packages leaves some
  concerns on uniformity of approach, duplication
  of effort, enforcement of standards
• There needs to be a work package for coordinating
  the Magnet Systems work
• Application of design standards-operational
  characteristics and availability/reliability?
• Minimization of the number of individual magnet
  styles?

6
Work Package Organization, cont.

• Funding mechanisms most likely to remain very
  similar to those at present
• No significant ILC (i.e., area/country
  independent) funds
• Funding through governmental agencies to
  laboratories and universities
• No information about how funding for work
  packages might be structured
• Could a work package be divided into sub-packages
  for groups from different areas?
• Tiered work package management structure?

7
Magnets and magnet types at RDR
TABLE. Numbers of conventional and SC Magnets in
ILC Areas
Includes SC magnets in 12 additional CMs in
electron linac to compensate energy losses in
undulator section RTML SC magnets
8
Work Packages - a Magnet Systems View

• Three distinct components
• Magnets
• Power Systems
• Test and Measurement Facilities
• Magnets and Power Systems divide among Area
  Systems in a natural fashion
• Exception pulsed magnet systems are still RD
  intensive and have significant commonality across
  several areas it is not sensible to split it up

9
Magnet Work Packages
Magnet System Work Packages
Power System WPs

• Incl. magnet interfaces to Controls System
• Does not include Pulsed Magnets

Magnet Facilities WPs

• Separate special magnets from more routine
  conventional designs
• A separate WP for pulsed magnets

Cold magnet test facility design shared with
cryomods/SRF test measurement systems
10
Main Linac Cryomodule
Central support
300 mm pipe
SCRF
BPM
Quadrupole and Corrector
SCRF
ILC
TESLA TDR
11
Quadrupoles for Main Linac (TESLA)

• ILC Main Linac Quadrupoles specs
• Low current 50100 A
• Aperture 78 mm
• Gradient 54 T/m
• Length 0.66 m
• Adjustable field - 20
• Magnetic center stability better than 2 µm
• Low fringing fields 1/10µT cooldown/operat

Possible issues magnetic center motion fringing
field trapped in SCRF CIEMAT quad will be tested
at SLAC in 2007
Calculated 2-4 µm magnetic center displacement in
quadrupole with dipole correctors because of
superconductor magnetization
12
Dipole Correctors for Main Linac

• Three versions of correctors
• Combined with main quadrupole (TESLA,CIEMAT)
• Stand alone shell type dipolesskew correctors
• Stand alone window-frame type dipolesskew
  correctors

Proposal 1. Separate main quadrupole and
dipole correctors to eliminate coupling
effects 2. Move quadrupolecorrector in space
between cryomodules (Deferred)
13
Window-Frame type
Dipole Correctors
Shell Type
Flux density and flux lines at max current in
both dipole coils
Field homogeneity at max current in both dipole
coils (/- 1 at Rlt 30mm)
14
Summary of preliminary magnet studies

• Linac superconducting magnets are feasible
• RD and prototyping are needed to confirm the
  specified performance and efficiency
• Main issues
• - Optimal place for quadrupole package (center,
  end or separate cryostat)
• - Optimal quadrupole configuration
• - Integrated field range (highlow)
• - Magnetic center stability during 20 field
  change
• - Combined or stand alone correctors
• - Fringing fields in SCRF areas from magnet
  package
• - Effective current leads

15
EDR Magnet Design and Cost Effort Preliminary
Staffing Estimate for 100 Design 070202
SC magnets include e,e- sources, RTML, ML, BDS
16
ART FY08/09 Budget proposal
Target 2
Total 0.75 FTEyears 0 MS
Total 4.75 FTEyears 214 k MS
Total 1.8 FTEyears 285 k MS
17
Now lets get realistic

• Support for EDR (US view)
• Funding for FY07 is already extremely difficult
  without adding EDR
• Funding for FY08-FY09 was planned w/o EDR
• Guidance is already below levels needed to carry
  out full RD programs
• Addition of EDR design effort is not at levels
  necessary to support even the 30 design
• EDR magnet design and cost estimate cannot be
  carried out without sufficient funding
• Funding cannot compete with Area System RD
  needs, it will always lose

18
Getting real, cont.

• This is not the RDR cost estimate
• Detailed drawings required
• All external interfaces need to be determined
• Magnet engineers, physicists, alignment engineers
• Tooling designers
• Design/drafters
• Buyers (for estimates)
• No estimates based on engineering experience
• Drawing packages, bills of materials, etc.,
  needed for estimates
• Availability/reliability needs to be
  designed-in
• FMEA studies must be conducted
• Management expectations must be consistent with
  resources allocated to the task

19
Instrumentation Overview
Beam instrumentation needs in the Main Linacs, as
listed in the RDR
Further RD is required on the HOM coupler signal
processing for beam orbit, cavity alignment and
beam phase measurement purposes! Work package
proposal MS 200 k, FTE 3 ManYears.
20
Instrumentation RD packages

• L-band cavity BPMs (Linacs, RTML and BDS, in both
  warm and cold sections)
• Cavity BPM
• A set of analog and digital read-out electronics
• Trigger timing hardware to time-resolve
  position for individual bunches
• A system for calibration and self-diagnosis
  tests.
• Digital data acquisition and control
  hard/software, incl. a system interface.
• Auxiliary systems (racks, crates, power supplies,
  cables, etc.).
• Laserwire (Linacs, RTML and BDS)
• Laser (one can feed many IPs)
• Distribution
• Deflector (scanner)
• IP (multi-plane)
• e /? Separation
• Detector
• Beam Feedback Systems
• stabilize beam trajectories/emittance/dispersion
  in the Linacs.
• Trajectory Feedback (several cascaded loops) -
  5Hz
• Dispersion measurement and control
• Beam energy (several cascaded sections) (5Hz)

21
Cold BPM HOM RD

• DESY plans to use button-style BPMs (3050 µm
  single bunch resolution) together with HOM-based
  signal processing ( 5 µm macropulse resolution)
  for their XFEL project.
• CEA-Saclay improves the read-out system for their
  resonant re-entrant cavity BPM to achieve 1 µm
  single bunch resolution.
• SLAC successfully tested their 35 mm aperture
  S-Band CM-free cavity BPM at the ESA (beam
  verified 0.8 µm single bunch resolution) in a
  warm environment.
• Fermilab develops a cold L-Band CM-free cavity
  BPM with integrated monopole mode normalization.
• A FPGA-based HOM-signal processor is studied in
  collaboration between Fermilab, DESY and SLAC
  (and Daresbury Lab?). Further HOM signal
  processing techniques have to be developed for a
  high resolution beam phase detection.

22
S-band BPM Results
N 1.41010 electrons BPM_res 0.8 micron, Q
500 for clean bunch separation
36 mm ID 126 mm OD
23
Cold Cavity BPM RD _at_ FNAL
Window Ceramic brick of alumina 96 ?
9.4 Size 51x4x3 mm
N type receptacles, 50 Ohm,
24
Laserwire RD

• Laserwire RD activities are an ongoing
  collaboration between Royal Holloway University
  of London, KEK and DESY.

KEK-ATF extraction line laser wire IP single
scan dimension

• Laserwire basics
• Laser (one can feed many IPs)
• Distribution
• Deflector (scanner)
• IP (multi-plane)
• e/? Separation
• Detector

DESY-PETRA two scan planes
25
ART FY08/09 Budget proposal
Target 2
Total 3.25 FTEyear 270 k MS