ILC cryomodule design task list

1
ILC cryomodule design task list

• Tom Peterson, Fermilab
• ILC Cryomodule Meeting
• CERN, 16 - 17 January 2006

2
ILC cryomodule design task list introduction and
tasks 1-3 (start 3-D CAD model, consider pipe
sizes and segmentation)
3
Introduction TTF cryomodule is our reference
4
TTF Module end
5
CERN meeting goals

• Technical
• Definition of what a T4CM is
• Identification of a comprehensive list of tasks
  to be accomplished in working toward the T4CM
  design
• Review the definition of the BCD module
• Organizational
• Formation of an international T4CM design team
• Identify who will do what
• Establish a timeline for T4CM design completion
• Future meetings---discuss when, where, frequency,
  etc.

6
Module design tasks

• Module design issues were collected by working
  groups at meetings, including but not limited to
  
• SLAC (14 - 16 Oct 2004)
• KEK (13 - 15 Nov 2004)
• DESY (6 - 8 Dec 2004)
• Snowmass (August 2005)
• SMTF collaboration meeting (5 - 7 Oct 2005)
• These issues were assembled into a draft list for
  this meeting

7
Draft list of technical issues and tasks for
discussion at CERN

• See MS Word document task summary
• This is just an attempt to organize the ILC
  module design effort into separate tasks which we
  can fairly independently pursue
• The list already includes a few names of people
  who have expressed interest in those topics
• The list is not intended to be in any way
  exclusive in terms of what we do or who does
  what!

8
Draft list of technical issues and tasks for
discussion at CERN, tasks 1 - 3

• Task 1 Begin a type IV 3-D model and drawing
  set by importing those features that will remain
  the same as type III.
• Task 2 Decide on pressure drop criteria and
  pipe sizes for the modules
• Task 3 Design of a segmentation spool piece
  and other cryogenic boxes (included here to
  mention that a designs are needed and will
  interface with modules)

9
(No Transcript)
10
Task 1 Type III ---gt Type IV

• We have a general consensus regarding what needs
  changing
• Based largely on TTF experience, but also Jlab
  and others
• Consensus collected by working groups at
  meetings, including but not limited to
• SLAC (14 - 16 Oct 2004)
• KEK (13 - 15 Nov 2004)
• DESY (6 - 8 Dec 2004)
• Snowmass (August 2005)
• SMTF collaboration meeting (5 - 7 Oct 2005)

11
Features of type III cryomodule

• Allows for fixed couplers
• Invar rod and roller bearings allow cavities to
  remain axially fixed while the 300 mm tube
  shrinks
• Smaller cross section results in standard pipe
  size for outer vessel
• Axial position of last support changed to stiffen
  structure near quadrupole

12
Type IV cryomodule will include the following
features from Type III

• 8 cavities per module
• Same cooling scheme and cryogenic system concept
• Same vacuum vessel diameter and 300 mm pipe
  diameter
• Nearly the same pipe locations and arrangement
• Same cavity centerline location relative to
  vacuum vessel
• Same support posts
• Same thermal shields concept, although coupler
  port locations move
• Same cavity support detail (300 mm header as
  structural backbone with cavities held by roller
  bearings and invar rods)
• Same input coupler (at least in terms of mounting
  and interface to vacuum vessel, cavity, and
  thermal shields)

13
Cryomodule III model -- helium vessels in the
vacuum vessel
CAD model based on DESY design imported and
modified by Don Mitchell, Fermilab
14
Cryomodule III model -- helium vessels in the
vacuum vessel with input couplers and quadrupole
CAD model based on DESY design imported and
modified by Don Mitchell, Fermilab
15
Helium vessel supports
16
Support posts
17
Thermal shield installation
18
(No Transcript)
19
Task 2 Module pipe sizes

• Compared to TESLA 500, heat loads for ILC are
  larger
• Larger flow rates
• Pressure drops and pipe sizes need review
• The review should include pressure drop criteria
  -- what pressure drops to allow

20
ILC cryogenic system overview

• Saturated He II cooled cavities _at_ 2 K
• Helium gas thermal shield _at_ 5 - 8 K
• Helium gas thermal shield _at_ 40 - 80 K
• Two-phase line (liquid helium supply and
  concurrent vapor return) connects to each helium
  vessel
• Two-phase line connects to gas return once per
  module
• A small diameter warm-up/cool-down line connects
  the bottoms of the He vessels (primarily for
  warm-up)
• Subcooled helium supply line connects to
  two-phase line via JT valve once per string
  (12 modules)

21
Cryo-unit (bcdmain_linacilc_bcd_cryogenic_chapt
er_v3.doc)
22
Cryo-string
23
Module predicted heat loads
24
ILC cryogenic system much larger than TESLA 500

• 8 cryogenic plant locations
• Approximately 5 km spacing
• Each location with 2 cryogenic plants of about
  the maximum size -- each plant equivalent to
  about 24 kW at 4.5 K
• Each plant about 6 MW wall plug power
• ILC cryogenics about 100 MW total

25
Module pipe sizes increase
26
(Increase diameter beyond X-FEL)
(Increase diameter beyond X-FEL)
(Review 2-phase pipe size and effect of slope)
27
Task 3 Cryogenic unit segmentation and other
cryogenic boxes

• Segmentation issue is ultimately tied to
  reliability
• To be conservative, BCD should include features
  for cryogenic unit and vacuum segmentation
• Arbitrarily assume 5 segments per 2.5 km
  cryogenic unit, so about 500 m long on average
• Cryogenic string supply and end boxes, which may
  be separate from modules, are also required
  within the ILC lattice
• These all must be integrated with the module
  design

28
Segmentation concept

• A box of slot length equal to one module
• Can pass through cryogens or act as turnaround
  box from either side
• Does not pass through 2-phase flow, so must act
  as a supply and/or end of a cryogenic string
• Includes vacuum break for insulating vacuum
• Includes fast-acting isolation valve for beam vac
• May contain bayonet/U-tube connections between
  upstream and downstream for positive isolation
• May also want external transfer line for 4 K
  standby operation (4 K only, no pumping line)

29
Segmentation box concept
30
ILC cryomodule design task list tasks 4 - 6
(cavity interconnect and tuners)
31
Draft list of technical issues and tasks for
discussion at CERN, tasks 4 - 6

• See MS Word document task summary
• Task 4 Design the intercavity connecting flange
  and bolting arrangement, detail the new spacing
• Task 5 Modify the slow tuner design to allow
  closer cavity-to-cavity spacing
• Task 6 Modify the fast tuner design for proper
  piezo function

32
(No Transcript)
33
Task 4 cavity interconnect

• Shorten cavity slot length
• Cavity beam pipe length change
• Bellows section -- minimum necessary
• Flange bolt installation is a problem
• Analyze slotted bellows flanges
• Consider cleanliness of bolt installation
• Consider effect on tuner (blade tuner ok?)
• 283 mm iris-to-iris (from TDR) is baseline
  (chosen for BCD and type IV)

34
Existing Desy Interconnect Design
Salman Tariq
Interconnect Tesla TDR 283mm Currently 344mm

• Flange/Bellows Design Specs
• Bolted flange (12 bolts/flange)
• Convoluted SS Bellows (10 waves, 54mm free
  length, 25mm)
• -Length of bellows dictated by bolt length, old
  elastic parameters
• Bellows elastic requirements 4mm (1mm
  thermal 3mm tuning)
• Aluminum Alloy 5052-H32 Diamond Hex Seal
• 7 Ton (15,000 lbs) clamping force, 35 N-m
  torque/bolt
• Mechanical analysis done _at_ Desy, INFN
• (Cornelius Martens, Roberto Paulon)

Need to be verified
35
TDR 344 mm reduced to 283 mm (110 63 110)
36
Cavity iris-to-iris length 1036 mm. Cavity
flange-to-flange now 1283 mm, TDR 1256 mm due to
shorter ends
37
Cavity slot length

• Now 1036.2 105.6 97 141.6 1380.4
• Suggest (from Helen Edwards) 1036.2 105.6 77
  105.6 1324.4
• Gain 4, which may not seem like much, but gain
  1km for 20000 cav
• But also, the lambda/2 or not question
• Latest dimensions from Don Mitchell -- 1036.2
  105.6 71.8 105.6 1319.2
• Note that 105.6 71.8 105.6 283 mm

38
Cavity Interconnect
39
Propose a parallel effort here in trying to
minimize cavity interconnect length
Salman Tariq
A. Optimize existing Desy design (shorter time
frame- SMTF 06 Mod 1?) We know this design
works, lets try to see if we can further refine
it - Develop a comprehensive nonlinear
(contact) FEA model using Ansys - Understand
stresses, deflections, and most importantly
contact pressure on sealing surfaces _at_ cryogenic
temperatures - Use these results as a benchmark
to evaluate future modified designs Possible
design changes being looked at 1. Completely
slotting bolt holes (could reduce length by
20-30mm) 2. Reducing flange thickness 3.
(open to suggestions) New Saclay Tuner(s)
compatability?
B. Evaluate alternative clamp systems seal
design (longer time frame) - Quick disconnect
type (ILC industrialization) (e.g. JLab Radial
Wedge Flange Clamp) Issues of concern
cleanliness (frictionparticulates)
difficult to get off once clamped - Niobium
bellows? Welded connections eventually?
40
Task 5 Modify slow tuner design

• Present lever tuner design takes cavity
  interconnect space. Need modification for closer
  cavity-to-cavity spacing.
• Could modify lever tuner design
• Or go to blade tuner for type IV. There appear
  to be some interferences.
• Reliability. Are cold stepping motors a problem?
  Feature like a port on module for access? (Not
  for BCD this is a longer term issue.)

41
(No Transcript)
42
Blade tuner concept
43
Invar rod interference with blade tuner (Don
Mitchell)
44
Other slow tuner options

• Modified Saclay lever tuner
• KEK slide jack tuner
• KEK coaxial ball screw tuner
• TJNAF Renascence tuner modified for ILC cryostat
  (Renascence is the Jlab 12 Gev upgrade module)

45
CC2 Tuner Analysis Work
Salman Tariq
Kinematics Mechanics of Tuner Properly
understand kinematics of Saclay Lateral Tuner
Geometric modeling in IDEAS Actual measurements
using digital dial indicators

• Stiffness measurements
• FEA of 9-cell cavity reveals stiffness of
• 3,438N/mm (warm) 3,883 N/mm (cold) Desy
  3KN/mm)
• Cavity shrinks 1.857mm from RT to 2K (need to
  verify this with Desy?)
• Tuner mechanism/support stiffness to be
  measured experimentally using load cell and
  applied displacement
• Plan to develop FEA model of cavityhelium
  vessel assembly and simulate cryogenic/thermal
  loads from RT down to 1.8K. Apply tuning loads.
• Study the effects of bellows and Ti vessel, plus
  evaluate integrity of end cone (flange) design.
  Determine equivalent stiffness of cavity
  assembly.

46
Task 6 Modify fast tuner design

• Modify the fast tuner design for proper
  piezo-electric actuator function
• Support structure
• Tuning range
• Also consider modifications to the design for
  magnetostrictive fast tuner
• Fermilab has a fairly large effort on fast tuner
  designs

47
(No Transcript)
48
Piezo Fast Tuner Work
Problems/Issues Piezo preload not clearly
defined Large coarse tuning parameters (cavity
in compression) Cryo/vacuum loads during cool
down not clearly understood Results in large
tensile loads on piezo bracket loss in
preload Also side loads on Piezo bracket an
issue with this tuner design
Salman Tariq

• Part of ongoing work on Capture Cavity 2
• Using Saclay Lateral Tuner 1 (below) with
  Piezoelectric fast tuning (below right)

49
Piezoelectric Fast Tuner
Piezo-Actuator l39mm Umax150V ? l3?m at
2K ?fmax,static500Hz
Courtesy Lutz Lilje, Desy (5-10-2005)
50

• We have developed an instrumented Piezo Bracket
  to understand force loads
• Design is an instrumented version of the Desy
  single Piezo fixture
• Addition of bullet piece (instrumented with
  strain gages) in line with piezo
• Strain gages also mounted on tie rods and top
  bracket at clevis end
• Warm testing starting this week

Salman Tariq Ruben Carcagno And others
51
Instrumented Piezo Bracket Drawing (FNAL)
52
Piezo Kinematics
53
ILC cryomodule design task list tasks 7 - 12
(quad package and support scheme)
54
Draft list of technical issues and tasks for
discussion at CERN, tasks 7-12

• See MS Word document task summary
• Item 7 Quad support details for hanging from
  300 mm tube in module center
• Item 8 Quad current leads
• Item 9 Vibrational analysis of support
  structure
• Item 10 Shipping loads, stability, and
  restraints
• Item 11 Active quad movers for remote
  realignment
• Item 12 Separate quad cryostat (alternative
  design)

55
(No Transcript)
56
Task 7 Quad package and support

• Quad package includes quad, steering dipole(s)
  and beam position monitor (BPM)
• In type IV design, mount at center post for best
  stability, alignment and vibration
• Quad package is still a major unknown we can
  only estimate an envelope size now
• Evaluate and further develop BPM for resolution
  and clean room compatibility

57
What Tolerances are Important? (Nick Walker)

• When beam dynamics people talk about cavity (or
  quadrupole) alignment, they refer to the EM
  centre of the field of interest
• Cavities electrical centres of the HOM
  (transverse dipole modes ? wakefields)
• Quadrupoles magnetic centre of field(null-point
  ? no dipole field)

58
Quad (from TDR table 3.3.3)
59
Dipoles (from TDR table 3.3.3)
60
Quad package (from TDR table 3.3.3)
61
TDR Quad/steerer-BPM package

• We should clarify what is necessary for beam
  based alignment -- positional stability,
  vibration, BPM resolution.

62
QBPM TESLA and option 2 (Helen) Option 2 has the
same spaces for QBPM elements and additional 335
for steerer separate, for overall length of 1222
instead of TESLA 887
887
63
BPM length

• BPM (e.g. reentrant Saclay) 170mm (Lutz Lilje in
  11 January e-mail and also described at
  http//www-user.slac.stanford.edu/star/images/ILC
  20Linac20Issues.htmpacking_fraction)
• 1222 mm quad package on previous slide assumed 66
  mm BPM

64
Possible resulting quad package length for BCD
1326 mm

• Avoid nesting of quad and steering magnets
• Need to be conservative in selecting length
  without knowing details
• 77 (end) 170 (BPM) 666 (quad) 335 (steerer)
  78 (end) 1326 mm (quad BPM steerer
  package)
• Perhaps 170 mm less if can nest BPM and steerer
  magnets
• But there may be additional space needed for
  magnetic shielding of the quad stray field from
  adjacent cavities

65
Task 8 Quad current leads

• Quad at 2 K in subatmospheric helium, so no vapor
  flow from quad
• Leads are conductively cooled, at least at cold
  end
• TDR quad is 100 amps HTS may be advantageous
• With steerer magnets, multiple 40 A lead pairs
  (from TDR)
• Need current lead flexibility for final alignment
  of quad in cryostat

66
Task 9 Vibrational analysis

• Analyze quad supports and module for vibrational
  stability
• Need vibrational stability requirements (next
  slide)
• Could build and test a physical model for
  verification of analytical model
• Flow rates at TTF about factor 100 less than ILC
  -- flow-induced vibration should be checked
• Perhaps a high flow test at TTF (?)

67
Vibrations (from Nick Walker)

• Cavities dont care
• cavities will not vibrate at the 300 mm level
• Quadrupole somewhat critical
• assume lt100 nm RMS
• Generates 1 sy oscillation at linac exit
• couple additional nm emittance growth
• beam collision OK (fast feedback) but collimator
  wakefields may be problematic
• more feedback may help work to do!
• Bottom line try and keep quad vibration at or
  below 100nm level
• cryomodule should not add additional vibration
  above ground motion.

68
Task 10 Shipping

• Cavity and quad positions in module need to be
  stable in shipping from final test location to
  linac location
• Analyze expected loads
• Design shipping restraints
• Define shipping requirements

69
Task 11 Active quad mover design

• The task could start with an attempt to determine
  the need (or not) for remote-controlled quad
  alignment and specification for active movers.
• Can equivalent be achieved via corrector magnets?
  
• Active quad mover design
• Probably not incorporated into Type IV an
  alternative for later modules

70
Task 12 Separate quad cryostat -- a parallel
design effort

• Tom Nicol presentation

71
ILC cryomodule design task list tasks 13 - 15
(module ends, interconnect, length)
72
Draft list of technical issues and tasks for
discussion at CERN, tasks 13-15

• See MS Word document task summary
• Task 13 Design module end to accommodate the
  input coupler at the far end of the cryostat
• Task 14 Module-to-module interconnect design
• Task 15 Module slot lengths

73
(No Transcript)
74
Task 13 Module end configuration

• When quad is at the center or absent, the vacuum
  flange interferes with input coupler port
• Result is 363 mm extra length needs to be added
  to make room for the input coupler port
• The module with quad in the center is longer than
  the TTF module (quad at end) with other factors
  such as cavity spacing the same

75
Task 14 Module-to-module interconnect

• Need layout for automatic end pipe welding
• Minimize space (850 mm vacuum flange to vacuum
  flange in TTF)
• Two beam vacuum isolation valves (each end of
  modules)
• HOM absorber in interconnect space
• 2-phase pipe to 300 mm header cross-connect in
  interconnect space

76
(No Transcript)
77
Interconnect HOM absorber

• Broadband HOM 270mm (Lutz Lilje in 11 January
  e-mail and also described at http//www-user.slac.
  stanford.edu/star/images/ILC20Linac20Issues.htm
  packing_fraction)
• Note that earlier assumptions have included a
  shorter, 210 mm, HOM absorber

78
Task 15 Module slot length

• A slot length results from integration of many of
  the other tasks
• Current assumptions imply 12565 mm with a quad
  and 11271 without a quad, for a packing factor of
  0.71
• Calculated over three modules with one quad per
  three modules
• Not including cryogenic boxes and other drift
  space
• For RDR we need an estimate soon

79
Module length choices (some history of previous
considerations, next 3 slides from Helen)

• Options
• Make just as long as required for TESLA TDR
  Quad/BPM design length
• Make as long as present module 12200
• Make the Quad/BPM slot length same as a cavity
• Arbitrarily have chosen 12200 mm module slot
  length for the following slides

80
Option 2 measurements from center post This was
assuming that we wanted to keep the present slot
length of 12200 and that the extra space would go
toward QBPM package for its development. Its
space might become less when its design better
understood.
81

• 2nd option module layout
• Symmetric posts but are they not out far enough?
• Difficulty at module interconnect??
• What are the interconnect constraints and
  possibilities?
• This layout has 1473 between vac vessel ext
  interferences. That would give an interface
  opening of 735, present opening is nominally 850

82
Module lengths QBPM 1st 125689, 2nd 1247772
83
ILC cryomodule design task list tasks 16, 17 and
conclusions (module instrumentation and tests)
84
Draft list of technical issues and tasks for
discussion at CERN, tasks 16-17

• See MS Word document task summary
• Task 16 Develop module test plans and module
  component test plans
• Task 17 Design of instrumentation for
  installation into the module
• Conclusions

85
(No Transcript)
86
Task 16 Module test plans

• What must be done on a module test stand, and
  what instrumentation and features are required?
• Thermal measurements
• Alignment verification, etc.
• What earlier (before final cold test) tests of
  the module and module components should be done
  for QA, QC, and understanding module performance?
  
• Tie-in to module test stand design

87
Task 17 Module instrumentation

• What special instrumentation is required to be
  built into the module for understanding
  performance both on the test stand and in the
  test linac?
• Additional temperature sensors
• Wire position monitor or another system (such as
  optical windows) to verify cavity positional
  stability with thermal cycles
• Etc.

88
(No Transcript)
89
Conclusion There remain many critical open
design issues

• Quad/corrector/BPM package is a major unknown
  right now and goes into the heart of the module
• Tuner details, slow and fast, but especially fast
  tuner, and tuner reliability
• Vibrational analysis, which will be compared to
  measurements for verification of the model for
  future design work
• Development of module and module component test
  plans
• Verification of cavity positional stability with
  thermal cycles
• Design of test instrumentation for the module
• Robustness for shipping, analysis of shipping
  restraints and loads, shipping specifications
• Active quad movers(?) A complication

90
Additional goals from Chris Adolphsen-- RDR
module and cryosystem definition

• Length of cryomodules with and without quads
• Answer 12565 mm with a quad and 11271 without a
  quad
• External support of cryomodules (e.g. from the
  floor or ceiling)
• Answer from the floor until forced otherwise
• Beamline and insulating vacuum segmentation
• Answer segmentation box every 500 meters
• Cryogenic maintenance length and the additional
  space required between segments
• Asnwer segmentation box of one module slot
  length every 500 m
• Space required to convert from cold to warm
  sections
• Answer 1.5 meter transition
• Refrigerator spacing, capacities and space
  requirements
• Results to come from cryogenic system effort

91
BCD/RDR versus Type IV

• The module design for the RDR should be
  well-understood and conservative, in order to
  have confidence in the cost estimate
• Type IV is a new development, requires design
  effort, consideration of various options, over a
  time period of a few years
• These efforts diverge at some point -- BCD/RDR is
  a fixed reference with more risky alternatives
  (ACD) while we move on with type IV design
  development
• We should review and confirm the previous slides
  responses to the requests from Chris

92
Organization of effort

• An international effort
• Need division of tasks to make best use of our
  resources
• Minimize duplication of efforts
• Take advantage of ideas and expertise
• Pursue options with parallel efforts
• Each institution has limited resources
• Work has begun
• Fermilab has organized a group to do type IV
  design, other labs have also expressed interest
  and/or begun

93
Type IV probable schedule

• Design module -- 12 - 24 months (2006 - 2007)
• Magnet/BPM package
• Tuners, etc.
• Integrate into module design
• Build and test -- 12 - 18 months (2007 - 2008)
• In addition to module, need module test stand and
  test facility!
• Total 2 to 3 1/2 years, depending on scope of
  work and availability of resources.

94
X-FEL Modules

• 100 modules will be industrially produced
• Brings us to the level of manufacturing
  quantities
• Some differences from ILC, but much of module
  design and manufacturing is the same
• Cavity supports, thermal shields, MLI, vacuum
  vessel assembly, internal piping, etc.
• X-FEL experience will be important and valuable
  part of ILC module development
• X-FEL module effort will stay ahead of ILC effort
  
• Remain in close contact and take advantage of
  similar designs, experience, and industrial input
  to design

95
After Type IV--gt increasing quantities

• Experience with large quantities of SC magnets
  follows an old engineering rule (factors of 10)
• 1 prototype
• 10 pre-production prototypes
• 100 first production run (X-FEL!)
• Not throw-aways but slower production, still
  making adjustments, relatively large fraction of
  reject/rework
• 1000 full production run
• There are design changes and manufacturing method
  changes at each stage

96
Industrialization, impact on design

• Economy of materials and labor will always be
  considerations in our designs
• But right now the emphasis is still on viability
• As we move to production of quantities of modules
  in industry, the design will continue to change
• Reduction of required labor
• Less costly materials
• Less costly manufacturing of components
• Design for more efficient assembly

97
Type IV is not the (final) ILC design

• Test results of types III and IV will teach us a
  lot
• There will be some choices beyond type IV from
  parallel development efforts
• Industrialization will have a significant impact
  on the design
• Type IV is the next step in module design for ILC

98
Acknowledgements

• Throughout these presentations, I have included
  slides from various other people
• Especially Carlo Pagani and Helen Edwards
  provided summaries of module features and design
  direction
• But, of course, most information came ultimately
  from the TTF collaboration

99
TESLA-style module information . . .

• http//ilc.desy.de/e627/e634/e730/e745/index_eng.h
  tml
• Links to talks presented by Lutz Lilje, Axel
  Matheisen, W.-D. Mueller, Bernd Petersen, Nick
  Walker, and others at our December 6 - 7, 2004,
  module meeting at DESY
• http//lcdev.kek.jp/ILCWS/
• First ILC workshop, November 13 - 15, 2004 at
  KEK
• http//tesla-new.desy.de/content/index_eng.html
• DESY TESLA page with link to the TESLA Design
  Report and other information including talks and
  posters from the March 2004 ITRP visit

100
Sources of Information

• Bernd Petersen, Lutz Lilje, Axel Matheisen, Nick
  Walker, Hans Weise, and others (DESY)
• Carlo Pagani (INFN)
• Terry Garvey (LAL-Orsay)
• Helen Edwards, Tom Nicol, Don Mitchell, Harry
  Carter, Salman Tariq, and others (Fermilab)
• John Weisend (SLAC)
• TESLA TDR (March 2001)
• And others!