Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Akira Yamamoto KEK/ILC-GDE on behalf of GDE Project Managers and SCRF TA Collaborators Report for Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Review, To be held at.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Akira Yamamoto KEK/ILC-GDE on behalf of GDE Project Managers and SCRF TA Collaborators Report for Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Review, To be held at."— Presentation transcript:

1 Akira Yamamoto KEK/ILC-GDE on behalf of GDE Project Managers and SCRF TA Collaborators Report for Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Review, To be held at KEK, 13 th December, 2012 ILC Accelerator Baseline Design (TDR-2): SCRF Cavity and Cryomodule A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 1

2 A. Yamamoto, ASC Advances in SCRF for ILC We (GDE-PMs) would thank the ILC-GDE, SCRF collaboration with: –DESY, INFN, CEA-Saclay, LAL-Orsay, CI, CERN, and Industry in Europe, –FNAL, J-LAB, Cornell, SLAC, ANL, LANL, BNL, TRIUMF, and Industry in Americas, –KEK, Kyoto, IUAC, RRCAT, BARC, TTIF, VECC, IHEP, PKU, PAL, KNU, PNU, and Industry in Asia for their worldwide cooperation in TDR Acknowledgments

3 SCRF Reports for PAC TDR2-Chapter 3 Main Linac Layout –Common layout –Flat and Mountainous topologies by Marc Ross SCRF Technology –Cavity and Cryomodule by Akira Yamamoto –RF Power System by Shigeki Fukuda A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 3

4 Outline Introduction –Baseline technologies achieved for TDR Cavity and CM Baseline Design for TDR –Cavity Production Specification (S-3.2) Cavity Integration (S-3.3) –Cryomodule Cavity string and CM Design Incling Quad. (S-3.4) –Cryogenic Cooling Scheme (S-3.5) A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 4

5 Introduction Progress to establish baseline technologies for ‘TDR’ –Cavity gradient (S0): Worldwide effort: G = 35 MV/m+/- 20%, satisfying ≥ 35 MV/m –Cavity and Cryomodule (CM) integration (S1): ‘S1-Global’ verified baseline technologies –Beam acceleration with SCRF CM (S2): ‘FLASH’ demonstrated ILC beam current and the pulse-duration “STF-QB’ demonstrated ILC beam pulse-duration A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 5

6 Global Plan for SCRF R&D Year Phase TDP-1TDP-2 Cavity Gradient in v. test to reach 35 MV/m  Yield 50%  Yield 90% Cavity-string to reach 31.5 MV/m, with one- cryomodule Global effort for string assembly and test (DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK) System Test with beam acceleration FLASH (DESY), NML/ASTA (FNAL) QB, STF2 (KEK) Preparation for Industrialization Production Technology R&D Communication with industry: 1 st Visit Vendors (2009), Organize Workshop (2010) 2 nd visit and communication, Organize 2 nd workshop (2011) 3 rd communication and study contracted with selected vendors ( ) A. Yamamoto, ASC Advances in SCRF for ILC We are here

7 Configuration: RDR to TDR 7 A. Yamamoto, ASC-2012 Advances in SCRF for ILC RDR-2007  TDR-2012 Cost containment Motivation: Single accelerator tunnel Smaller damping ring e+ target at high-energy end, Cavity G MV/m +/- 20 %, HLRF and tunnel layout: –Klystron-Cluster on surface (KCS), or –Distributed Klystron in tunnel (DKS) Flat-land or Mountainous Tunnel Design 5m5m

8 Creation of a Global Database for Better Understanding of “Production Yield” in TDP Global Data Base Team formed by: –Camille Ginsburg (Fermilab, Leader) –Rongli Geng (JLab) –Zack Conway/Fumio Furuta (Cornell Univ.) –Sebastian Aderhold (DESY) –Yasuchika Yamamoto (KEK) Activity / update – : - Determine DESY-DB to be viable standard, – (ALCPG/GDE) - Dataset, web-based, support by FNAL/DESY, – (SB2009 ): 1 st update – (LCWS, Beijing) : 2 nd update – (End TDP-1, ICHEP, Paris): 3 rd update – (ALCPG) : 4 th update – (LCWS, Granada) : 5 th update – (KILC, Daegu) : 6 th update – (LCWS, Arlington): 7 th update A. Yamamoto, LINAC12, Status of ILC

9 Cavity Gradient: Production Yield, Yearly Progress 9 Year st cycle2 nd cycle G≥ 28 MV/m67 (+/-10) %94 (+/-6) % G≥ 35 MV/m38 (+/-11) %75 (+/-11) % above 28 MV/m35.1 MV/m37.1 MV/m

10 Cavity Gradient: Production Yield Progress since 2006 A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 10 2 nd pass statistics for 2010 ~ 2012 period: Production yield: 94 % at > 28 MV/m, Average gradient: 37.1 MV/m - Integrated statistics since 2006 in 2 nd pass yield - Max. gradient achieved: > 45 MV/m

11 Gradient Spread of +/- 20% Average gradient of 35 MV/m –with the spread of 28 ~ 42 MV/m (+/- 20%) –Cavity gradient: higher spread (+ 20%) absorb the lower spread (- 20 %), Cost-effective production by increasing yield –gaining > 15% (19 %) higher production-yield, –corresponding to ~ 15% saving cavity production cost. ( investment cost, unchanged) 75 % at ≥ 35 MV/m to 94 % at ≥ 28 MV/m Necessary trade-off with additional RF power –RF power addition required, but it less expensive. A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 11

12 Cavity String and CM system integration: demonstrated by S1-Global A. Yamamoto, LINAC12, b Status of ILC DESY, FNAL, Jan., 2010 INFN and FNAL Feb FNAL & INFN, July, 2010 DESY, May, 2010 March, 2010 June, 2010 ~ DESY, Sept

13 13 Blade Tuner (INFN/FNAL) Saclay Tuner (DESY) Slide-Jack Tuner (KEK) TTF-III Coupler (DESY/FNAL/SLAC) STF-II Coupler (KEK) TESLA Cavity (DESY/FNAL) Tesla-like Cavity (KEK) Cavities, Tuners, Couplers in S1-G Cryomodule , A. Yamamoto ILC-SCRF-Global-Effort

14 TESLA (DESY) and TESLA-Like (KEK) Cavity KEK-LC-STF meeting 14

15 Variety of Cavity and Tuner Assembly in S1-Global KEK-LC-STF meeting 15 Blade Tuner (originated by INFN) Slide-jack tuner at KEK EXFEL tuner

16 S1-Global Progress Report Available as an attached manuscript A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 16

17 Cavities Performance: C1C2C3C4A1A1A2A2A3A3A4A4 Before cryomodule installation after cryomodule installation 7 cavities combined operation 31.5 MV/m Average 30.0MV/m Average 27.7MV/m Average 26.0MV/m Gradient E. Kako, H. Hayano

18 Stability in 6300 sec. LLRF stability study with 7 cavities operation at 25MV/m Field Waveform of each cavity - Vector-sum stability: MV/m ~ MV/m (~0.03%) - Amplitude stability in pulse flat-top: < 60ppm=0.006%rms - Phase stability in pulse flat-top: < degree.rms vector-sum gradient amplitude stability in pulse flat-top phase stability in pulse flat-top 7-cavity operation by digital LLRF A. Yamamoto, ASC-2012 Advances in SCRF for ILC 18

19 Designs Demonstrated in S1-Global and the Baseline Technology selected for TDR ElementVarietiesNotesMeet ILC req. Baseline for TDR ResonatorTesla/EXFEL Tesla-like - Cell-taper: 13 deg., lower rigidity - Cell-taper: 10 deg., higher rigidity Yes Tesla/EXFEL: Less expensive Input CouplerTTF-III KEK-STF - Bellows at cold-outer-pipe - Solid-cold-pipe, flex. inn-antenna Yes TTTF-II; less- expensive TunerScissor-EXFEL Blade Slide-jack - Require longer BP length - Lower-rigidity - Higher-rigidity Out of scope Yes Blade; less- expensive He-tankEXFEL Blade Slide-jack - Simplest structure - Bellows at center - Motor placed outside Out of scope Yes Blade: less expensive Mag. shieldOutside Inside - Installation during CM ass. - Installation in cavity fabr. Yes Inside; simplest Beam flangeAl-gasket Helico-flex - Well experienced, world-wide - Experienced at KEK Yes Not taken Al-gasket: well experienced A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 19

20 Plug-compatible Conditions Plug-compatible interface established ItemVariationTDR Baseline Cavity shapeTESLA / LLTESLA LengthFixed Beam pipe flangeFixed Suspension pitchFixed TunerBlade/ Slide-Jack Blade Coupler flange (cold end) 40 or 6040 mm Coupler pitchFixed He –in-line jointFixed 12/05/14 20 KEK-LC-Meeting

21 Beam Acceleration Parameters required for ILC-TDR ParametersValue C.M. Energy500 GeV Peak luminosity1.5 x10 34 cm -2 s -1 Beam Rep. rate5 Hz Pulse duration0.73 ms Average current 5.8 mA (in pulse) Av. field gradient31.5 MV/m +/-20% Q 0 = 1E10 # 9-cell cavity (x 1.1) # cryomodule 1,855 # Klystron~400 A. Yamamoto, ASC-2012 Advances in SCRF for ILC 21

22 Progress in SCRF System Tests DESY: FLASH –SRF-CM string + Beam, ACC7/PXFEL1 –9 mA beam, 2009 –800  s, 4.5mA beam, 2012 KEK: STF –S1-Global: complete, 2010 Cavity string : –Quantum Beam : 1 ms –CM1 + Beam, in 2014 FNAL: NML/ASTA –CM1 test complete –CM2 operation, in 2013 –CM2 + Beam, beyond 2013 A. Yamamoto, ASC Advances in SCRF for ILC

23 Summary: SCRF Baselines Demonstrated and/or chosen for TDR Cavity gradient –Achieved 35 MV/m +/- 20 %, and with the production yield of 94% Cavity and CM integration –Demonstrated SCRF technologies available for TDR Coupler : TTF-III Tuner: Blade tuner Magnetic shield : placed inside LHe tank Beam acceleration –Demonstrated ILC beam parameters Beam (RF) pulse duration:1 ms Beam current: 9 mA A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 23

24 Outline Introduction –Baseline technologies achieved for TDR Cavity and CM Baseline Design for TDR –Cavity Production Specification (S-3.2) Cavity Integration (S-3.3) –Cryomodule Cavity string and CM Design Incling Quad. (S-3.4) –Cryogenic Cooling Scheme (S-3.5) A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 24

25 Cavity Design Parameters A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 25 YS-delivered:> 50 MPa -annealed:> 39 MPa P-design: 0.2 Mpa -test:: 0.3 MPa

26 Cavity/Cryomodule Fabrication A. Yamamoto 11/13/ He Tank Material/ Sub-component Cavity Fabrication Surface Process LHe-Tank Assembly Vertical Test = Cavity RF Test Cryomodule Assembly and RF Test

27 Cavity Fabrication/Test Process Flow A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 27 < 30  m Local repair, if it be economical 2 nd pass, if G < 35 MV/m (as of today) 60 % go to 2 nd pass

28 Cavity Gradient: Production Yield, Yearly Progress 28 Year st cycle2 nd cycle G≥ 28 MV/m67 (+/-10) %94 (+/-6) % G≥ 35 MV/m38 (+/-11) %75 (+/-11) % above 28 MV/m35.1 MV/m37.1 MV/m

29 Fabrication and Surface Treatment Process 29 Parameters to be further optimized micron

30 Subjects for Further Study Vertical Test with LHe tank –Production economical, but defects may not be localized with having LHe tank, Local repairs –More experiences needed to understand the cost-saving, –New definition for production yield including repair, Mitigation of field emission and radiation –Understand sources and mitigation technology Establish quantitative evaluation technology A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 30

31 Cavity Integration A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 31 9-cell resonator Input-coupler –TTF-III coupler Frequency tuners –Blade tuner He tank Magnetic shield –Inside He tank

32 Input Coupler Design Specification A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 32 Design needs to be ready for upgrade

33 Coupler Fabrication and Process Coupler fabrication –At industry Coupler Process –At industry or lab. String Assembly with CM –At lab. A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 33

34 Baseline: TTF-III Coupler Reasons –Much experience at FLASH (DESY), ASTA (Fermilab) –Used in EXFEL –Demonstrating the ILC technical requirement –Less expensive Subjects for further study beyond TDR –Seeking for further optimum design with fixed (no-bellows) cold- end outer-pipe, referring the KEK coupler design, –Simplifying the assembly process, with keeping less expensive design A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 34

35 TTF-III Coupler: various support jigs are required. coupler assembly KEK STF Coupler:self standing

36 Tuner Design Specification A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 36

37 Baseline: Blade Tuner Reasons –Demonstrating the ILC technical requirements (S1- Global, ASTA) –Less expensive Subjects for further study beyond TDR –Judgment for MTBF/reliablity and maintain-ability of – pulse-motors and piezo-motors –Seek for a further optimum design to allow accessibility/maintain-ability for the motors, A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 37

38 He Tank Design with Blade Tuner A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 38 Bellows at Center

39 121005KEK-LC-STF meeting 39 LHe Tank Comparison Lhe tank for Slide-jack Tuner Lhe tank for Blade Tuner

40 Baseline: LHe tank w/ Blade Tuner Reasons –Simpler and less expensive than the design with slide-jack tuner, Subjects for further study beyond TDR –Further simple design for cost-reduction to be comparable with the EXFEL LHe-tank A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 40

41 cylindrical shield inside jacket Pill-box end-cell shield, outside jacket (may be required for Tesla-Cavity design) Conical shield inside endplate Design concept: inside shield + cylindrical end shield outside Magnetic Shield Inside LHe Tank

42 For 2 KEK Cavities For 2 FNAL Cavities 16 Components per ca (shield outside 4 Components per Cavity (shield inside) Comparison of Magnetic Shield

43 Baseline: Magnetic-Shield Inside Reasons –Simplest and best shielding effect with the minimum connection-interfaces and holes –Efficient installation work during cavity integration, and minimum work during cavity string assembly Subjects for further study beyond TDR –Industrialization of magnetic shield cylinder –Conical shield installation for TESLA type cavity having spatial conflict at the end-cell contact to the conical flange A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 43

44 Plug-compatible Conditions Plug-compatible interface established ItemVarietiesBaseline Cavity shapeTESLA / LLTESLA LengthFixed Beam pipe flangeFixed Suspension pitchFixed TunerBlade/ Slide-Jack Blade Coupler flange (cold end) 40 or 6040 mm Coupler pitchFixed He –in-line jointFixed 12/05/14 44 KEK-LC-Meeting

45 Outline Introduction –Baseline technologies achieved for TDR Cavity and CM Baseline Design for TDR –Cavity Production Specification (S-3.2) Cavity Integration (S-3.3) –Cryomodule Cavity string and CM Design Incling Quad. (S-3.4) –Cryogenic system Cooling Scheme (S-3.5) A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 45

46 Cavity/Cryomodule Fabrication He Tank A. Yamamoto 11/13/ Material/ Sub-component Cavity Fabrication Surface Process LHe-Tank Assembly Vertical Test = Cavity RF Test Cryomodule Assembly and RF Test

47 CM Assembly A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF m (slot length) cavities (8)SC quad package Type-B module Type-A has 9 cavities and no quadrupole

48 Cryomodule Design

49 Cryomodule Gradient Spread and Degradation Observed at DESY and KEK, as of Nov FLASH: –3 PXFEL cryomodules ILC R&D: –S1-Global cryomodule –CM1 Fermilab) Current status: –12/40 degraded with ~ 20 % A. Yamamoto TDR ACC & SCRF Guidline 49 PXFEL-1 PXFEL-2 PFEL-3 S1-Global D. Kostin & E. Kako

50 Conduction-Cooled Split-able Quadruple A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 50 Advantages; -Q-magnet may be assembled separately, -Keep “best clean” during cavity string assembly -No additional cryostat and cryogenics -Highly accurate alignment without LHe vessel

51 Heat Loads per CM 51

52 Cooling Scheme of a Cryo-string A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 52

53 ML Heat Load and Cryogenics Plant Size 53

54 Cryogenics System Layout to be explained by M. Ross A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 54

55 Adaption to High Pressure Code Basic design –High pressure code to be applied ASME (US), TUV (DE/EU), High Pressure Code (JP) basically consistent, but some difference in detail Fundamental parameters (for example) Design Pressure: 2 bar (difference) Test pressure : 1.5 x 2 = 3 bar (in case of water) 1.25 x 2 = 2.5 bar (in case of gas) Maximum stress: 2/3 of 0.2 % yield strength at RT –Meaning at weakest temperature Required test and plan: –Pressure test, leak-tight test –Documentation: fabrication/welding plan and sample test. A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 55

56 Baseline: TESLA Type-IV Cryomodule Reasons –Well experienced and mass production in progress, and very similar to EXFEL CM. –Assembly procedure well understood Subjects for further study beyond TDR –5K radiation-shield (bottom part) removable for cost-effective production and assembly –Gas-flow direction better to be reversed for more efficient 5K thermal intercepts –Mitigation of cavity gradient degradation during Cryomodule assembly. A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 56

57 Two shield model One shield model 5K-shield partially removable Further Study beyond TDR: 12/05/14 57 KEK-LC-Meeting -5K-shield at bottom removable -Simplify the CM assembly work -Better accessibility

58 SCRF Procurement/Manufacturing Model Regional hub-laboratories responsible to regional procurements to be open for any world-wide industry participation Regional Hub-Lab: E, & … Regional Hub-Lab: E, & … Regional Hub-Lab: A Regional Hub-Lab: A Regional Hub-Lab: B Regional Hub-Lab: B Regional Hub-Lab: D Regional Hub-Lab: D World-wide Industry responsible to ‘Build-to-Print’ manufacturing World-wide Industry responsible to ‘Build-to-Print’ manufacturing ILC Host-Lab Regional Hub-Lab: C: responsible to Hosting System Test and Gradient Performance Regional Hub-Lab: C: responsible to Hosting System Test and Gradient Performance Technical Coordination for Lab-Consortium Technical Coordination for Lab-Consortium : Technical coordination link : Procurement link 12/05/14 58 KEK-LC-Meeting

59 Industrial Participation to ILC Cavity Production Progress in EXFEL (as of Oct. 2012) (courtesy by D. Reschke: the 2 nd EP at DESY) –RI: 4 reference cavities with Eacc > 28 MV/m, (~ 39 MV/m max.) –Zanon: 3 reference cavities with Eacc > 30 MV/m ( ~ 35 MV/m max.) 12/05/14 KEK-LC-Meeting 59

60 The 3 rd Cycle Communication with Companies Further studies with contracts in DateCompany PlaceTechnical sbject 12/8, 2011HitachiTokyo (JP)Cavity/Cryomodule 22/8ToshibaYokohana (JP)Cavity/Cryomodule, SCM 32/9MHIKobe (JP)Cavity / Cryomodule 42/9Tokyo DenkaiTokyo (JP)Material (Nb) 52/18OTICNingXia (CN)Material (Nb, NbTi, Ti) 6(3/3), 9/14ZanonSchio (IT)Cavity/Cryomodule 73/4,RIKoeln (DE)Cavity 8(3/14), 4/8AESMedford, NY (US)Cavity 9(3/15), 4/7NiowaveLansing, MI (US)Cavity/Cryomodule 104/6PAVACVancouver (CA)Cavity 114/25ATI Wah-ChangAlbany, OR (US)Material (Nb, Nb-Ti, Ti) 124/27PlanseeRuette (AS)Material (Nb, Nb-Ti, Ti) 135/24SDMSSr. Romans (FR)Cavity 147/6HeraeusHanau (DE)Material (Nb, Nb-Ti, Ti) 1510/18Babcock-NoellWurzburg (DE)CM assembly study 1611/11SSTMaisach (DE)Electron Beam Welder 60 12/05/14KEK-LC-Meeting

61 Mass-Production Studies in contracts CompanyMass production model Contract funded/hosted by CavityRI in progress100% (50%)DESY AES20 %DOE/Fermilab MHI20, 50, 100%KEK QuadrupoleToshiba100 %KEK CM and assemblyHitachi20, 50, 100%KEK AES25%DOE/Fermilab CM assemblyBN in progress100, 33 %CERN In parallel, EXFEL experience kindly informed by DESY, INFN, CES/Saclay 12/05/14KEK-LC-Meeting 61

62 Industrial study led by CERN/GDE Study, based on EXFEL CM assembly specifications and Work Break-down Structure (WBS) But including ILC specificities (see below) V. Parma

63 Beam 8 July /05/14KEK-LC-Meeting63 Cavity Fabrication and Industrialization R&D Facility being realized at KEK

64 Cryomodule Assembly work layout/flow for EXFEL at CEA/Saclay, as a reference A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 64

65 EXFEL Cavity/Cryomodule Test Station as a reference If we may have ~ 3 of this test station, the ILC cavity/cryomodule test can be managed. We may consider ~ x 3 ( = 20 (or 15) / 2 period / 3 regions ) Or, it is just enough, if 1/3 cryomodules to be tested in ILC 12/05/14KEK-LC-Meeting65 Courtesy: H. Weise (DESY)

66 Production Process/Responsibility Step hostedIndustryIndustry/La boratory Hub- laboratory ILC Host- laboratory Regional constraintnoyes Accelerator - Integration, Commissioning Accelerator sys. Integ. SCRF Cryomodule - Perofrmance Test Cold, gradient test As partly as hub-lab Cryomodule/Cavity - Assembly Coupler, tuner, cav- string/cryomoduleassmbly work As partly as hub-lab Cryomodule component - Manufacturing V. vessel, cold- mass... 9-cell Cavity - Performance Test Cold, gradient test As partly as hub-lab 9-cell Cavity - Manufacturing 9-cell-cavity assembly, Chem- process, He-Jacketing Sub-comp/material - Production/Procurement Nb, Ti, specific comp. … Procuremen t 12/05/14KEK-LC-Meeting 66

67 Cryomodule Test: Work Flow A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF /3 of Cryomodules tested on surface - Additional 5 % tested for initial stage - Totally 38.5 % CMs tested on ground Tested on surface Directly commissioned in tunnel

68 Baseline: Cavity/CM Assembly and Test Cavity and Cryomodule components –Manufactured by Industry –Couplers need to be conditioned at industry or laboratory Cavity-string and CM assembly –Work hosted at Hub-laboratories w/ contracted work by industry Cavity qualification tests –100% (actually > 110 %) done at laboratories Cryomodule qualification tests – % tests, at hub-laboratories, and others directly installed in the ML tunnel and commissioned, A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 68

69 Summary Cavity design and fabrication –Gradient: 35 MV/m +/- 20%, keeping and the production yield of > 90% within the 2 nd pass surface process –Design and fabrication process, referring TESLA/EXFEL experiences, except for ‘tuner’ design based on ‘Blade tuners’, –Plug-compatible design for cavity integration and the boundary conditions fixed, and further improvement to be enabled under the plug- compatible interface condition, –Cavity qualification tests 100 % test Vertical test w/ He tank is to be experienced by EXFEL –Coupler, Tuner and LHe tank: Subjects for further study beyond TDR Cryomodule design, fabrication, assembly, and tests –Design, fabrication, and assembly process, referring FLASH/EXFEL, –Cryomodule qualification tests % test in test facilitym and other CM directly installed into tunnel, –5 K shield (bottom radiation shield) removable is a subject to be further studied beyond TDR, for cost-saving, 69

70 A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 70

71 backup A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 71

72 He Tank Design Comparison EXFEL/FLASH/TESLA LHe tank w/ Saclay/Desy tuner at the axial end ILC LHe tank design with ‘Blade Tuner’ at the axial center A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 72 Note: Re-visiting overall design of tuner and LHe tank may be required

73 FNAL cavity KEK-type1 cavity at S1-Global Slide-jack tuner Blade tuner TTF-III coupler KEK coupler Tuner

74 KEK STF Coupler TTF-III Coupler (2) Coupler

75 75 Legend Toward coupler side Toward pick-up sidecoupler sidemotor side top bottom Driving unit support elements are already installed on the tuner halves. Preassembled parts KEK-LC-STF meeting

76 Plug-compatible Interfaces A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 76

77 Plug-Compatible Interfaces A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 77

78 From the slide by Don Magnetic shield on FNAL cavities with blade tuner at S1-Global Magnetic shield inside for KEK cavities (3) Magnetic shield no more work during cryomodule assembly assembly work during cryomodule assembly

79 Cavity Package Frequency (“blade”) tuner High-power coaxial input coupler A. Yamamoto 11/13/

80 Cryomodule Design for TDR-3 3.Magnetic shield design –Outer magnetic shield and inner magnetic shield –Comparison of the procedures and the cost of assembly in cryomodule DESY cavity outer magnetic shield FNAL cavity outer magnetic shield KEK cavity inner magnetic shield (red line)

81 Main Linac He Inventry A. Yamamoto, ILC-PAC SCRF 81

82 (2) Coupler TDR Baseline candidate TTF-III coupler (RDR baseline) KEK coupler Design ConceptTwo cylindrical window, coupling tunable Two disk window, no outer bellows in cold part but tunable meritWide coupling range, low heat load High power capability window, easy handling of cold part installation drawbackComplex installation jig and procedure required demonstrationFLASH cryomodules, S1- Global, FNAL CM-1 (>50 couplers) STF phase-1, S1-Global KEK cavities (8 couplers) failureBolts stuck in disassemblyHigh heat load, breakdown, Cost Choice/decisionchoice, because of well established power transmission with low heat load.

83 Tuner TDR Baseline candidate Blade tunerSlide-jack tuner Design ConceptTwist mechanism with torsion plates + LV-piezo + motor&gear-inside Stiff end-plate + stiff slide- jack + HV-piezo + drive- feedthrough&motor-outside meritfine step with small backlash Small LFD small piezo stroke, motor maintenability drawbackHe-jacket-bend-risk at tuner (Jacket center) Precise mechanics alignment required, Mechanics heavy demonstrationS1-Global FNAL cavities(27MV/m), FNAL 14 cavities HTS test for CM- 2(35MV/m) STF phase-1 cavities, S1- Global KEK cavities(38MV/m) failure (need design upgrade ) Motor-gear connection slip, piezo breakdown, drive CuBe screw stuck, motor wire short mechanical stuck by slide- slope bending(weld-bend) Cost (cost ratio) Choice/decision choice, because of low cost

84 (3) Magnetic shield TDR Baseline candidate Shield outside of cavity jacket Shield inside of cavity jacket Design Concept avoid complex shield installation around tuner region meritavoid complex shield installation around tuner region drawbackComplex installation required (16 pieces) demonstration for each tuner candidate S1-Global FNAL cavities ( 2 cavities ) STF phase-1 cavities, S1- Global KEK cavities (8 cavities ) failurenone Cost Choice/decisio n choice, because of simple assembly benefit

85 (4) Flange seal TDR Baseline candidate Al hexagonalSn (In) coated Helicoflex Design Conceptmetal-crash-seal conceptstress-back-seal concept meritLess contamination, HPR washable Small torque fixing, spring-back force for heat cycle drawbackno reuseRisk of coat-metal powder contamination, contamination in spring housing demonstrationFLASH cavities, S1-Global FNAL,DESY cavities, FNAL CM-1 cavities ( >70 cavities ) STF phase-1 cavities, S1- Global KEK cavities ( 8 cavities ) failuremet bad-coating lot Cost ratio Choice/decisionchoice, because of many demonstration results * Flange aperture should be follow TESLA cavity (base-line) design

86 HLRF-DKS upgrade option 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR 86

87 5 K shield 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR Flow inversion allows removal of bottom 5K shield, but with important design modification –Rearrangement of module cross-section –Rerouting of thermal intercepts No time or resources to complete such and effort in TDR, comfortably leave it to the final «optimized» engineering stage –Assume for TDR the XFEL proven concept Risk free, huge data provided by XFEL tests –Reversal is «cost neutral» [besides design effort, piping is the same] 87

88 5 K shield 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR Proposal for TDR the 5 K shield remains, however, it can be simplifed –We can allow a decrease in static efficiency providing options to allow assembly operations or some access from vessel flanges to the string, if desired –Shields at the module interconnections can be avoided 88


Download ppt "Akira Yamamoto KEK/ILC-GDE on behalf of GDE Project Managers and SCRF TA Collaborators Report for Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Review, To be held at."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google