Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Undulator System Update Facility Advisory Committee Review April 7 th and 8 th 2005 Stephen Milton Argonne National Laboratory Advanced Photon Source

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Outline Quick Overview Project Management and Administrative Items Organization Plan for the next 6 months FAC Responses Magnet Measurement Facility See Robert Ruland’s Talk in breakout session 1 and J. Sevilla’s breakout session 4. Physics Topics Magnet Support System Status Vacuum System Diagnostics Status Building Topics Controls Status System Integration Test

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Undulator System Overview

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Undulator Organization Undulator System System ManagerS. Milton Chief Engineer/DeputyG. Pile Magnetic Measurement R. Ruland System Layout TBD SLAC Integration B. Youngman Magnets and Supports M. White Vacuum and Diagnostics D. Walters Controls J. Stein Undulator Physics H.D. Nuhn Global Schedule and Integration R. Boyce CF Physics J. Welch PMCS Support P. Mast (AIM) F. Clark (ANL) Controls System System Manager B. Dalesio

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Faces Geoff Pile ANL LCLS Chief Engineer Responsible for overall undulator system integration and will act in the role of my Deputy

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Faces Sushil Sharma Fixed Supports Engineer Will be responsible for the engineering and delivery of the undulator system fixed supports Has already begun coordinating with Jim Welch

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Faces Horst Friedsam ANL/SLAC Survey and Alignment Liason Will coordinate with Robert Ruland to ensure all survey and alignment needs of the undulator system are met

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 New Roles Undulator Integration Engineer (SLAC) At SLAC Brad Youngman will oversee daily integration issue for the undulator system Brad will report directly to Geoff Pile and myself For administrative purposes Brad will also report to Mark, but ANL will have the final say on what Brad should be doing

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 New Roles Controls Bob Dalesio directs the overall LCLS Controls effort; therefore, Josh Stein will work directly with Bob to ensure a robost integration of the overall LCLS controls system For administrative purposes Josh will still report to me, but Bob will have final say in all controls issues

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April Month Look Ahead BPM System Build cold test prototype x- band beam detector Design receiver boards OTR Assemble and Test Prototype Wire Scanner Assemble and Test Prototype Support/Mover System Assemble and Test Prototype 1 st Article Undulators Maybe receive 1 st articles from assembly vendors Fixed Supports Finalize design and begin procurement for testing Vacuum Chamber Finalize testing of construction methods Start building prototype Project Management It never Ends

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 FAC Responses Cradle (Mover/Support) System Needs Attention In addition to Emil Trakhtenberg an additional engineer, Jeff Collins, has been assigned to work on the Mover/Support System All parts for the prototype have arrived and it will be assembled soon

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 FAC Responses Trade-offs must be considered to decide whether longer girders can improve tolerance to ground motion An engineer with experience in girder system (Sushil Sharma) has been assigned to fully develop the fixed support strategy and engineering He is going over all trade-offs and he is responsible to make the decision, pending review, of the support system used

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 FAC Responses The FAC recommends that, if the gap/period is changed, a new prototype is not necessary We are not changing the gap or the period Consider the use of feed-forward from temperature measurement to adjust the undulator horizontal position and control K Although this has been discussed and the system is certainly capable of responding in such a fashion, we have not pursued it or tested it yet Temperature readback of the undulator will be available

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 FAC Responses The decision has been made to NOT hire a general contractor responsible for delivering complete undulators. The consequences of this decision (plans for control of final assembly) should be presented The magnet design and engineering has been refined with ease and simplicity of construction in mind A statement of work is being written and will include a complete description of the QA process to be followed A QA person has been assigned to the project A complete assembly procedure has been written and a video is being made of the assembly process Two assembly vendors will be chosen Assembly vendors are being prequalified The 1 st article from each of the two vendors will be thoroughly measured and tested before we will accept additional undulators Frequent vendor visits will be made to the vendors to perform QA/QC checks and complete assembly travellers will be required for each undulator and component

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Magnet Measurement Facility SLAC Scope ANL will act in both mentoring and consulting roles as the facility gets constructed and commissioned. See Robert Ruland’s talk for more details Undulator Measurement/Fiducialization/In-Situ Alignment : Breakout session 1 4:00pm

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Physics Issues Break Lengths AC Conductivity What we did What we decided Radiation Calculations Preliminary Results Next Steps Alignment BPM Location Undulator Sections Wire idea Feedback Earth’s Field Correction Initial Basic Commission Steps

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Characteristic Lengths Length of Undulator Strongback (Segment): L seg = 3.4 m Distance for 113 x 2  Phase Slippage: L 0 = (3.668 m) m Distance for 2  Phase Slippage in Field Free Space: L inc = u (1+K 2 /2) = m Standard Break Lengths Used Use parameter n to characterize different phase length choices L n = L 0 - L seg +(n-1)L inc Use 2 Short Breaks Followed by 1 Long Break in n-Pattern 2 – 2 – 4 ([0.482 m – m – m]) [0.470 m – m – m] Fine Tuning of Initial Break Length Suggested by N. Vinokurov based on Simulations by R. Dejus and N. Vinokurov using Linear Simulation Code, RON Small length increases for first 3 break lengths [0.045 m – m – m] Total Undulator Length (from beginning of strongback 1 – end of strongback 33): L und = ( m) m Undulator Break Lengths (Old Strategy) New Strategy Taking from HD Nuhn’s FAC Talk

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 AC Conductivity induced energy deviation for round chamber induced energy deviation for flat chamber

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 AC Conductivity What’s been done Theory Bane, Stupakov, Huang Simulation Fawley, Reiche, Emma Measurements Yu, Walters What was decided The beam sees Al We use a flattened cross-section We explore a variety of operating points during commissioning There will be a much more complete description of what has been done supporting our decision during beakout session 1 of the FAC

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Radiation Calculations OTR Screens We are concerned that the radiation produced by these screens when inserted into the beam could damage the undulator Bingxin Yang produced a set of conditions and geometries that might be encountered and provided these to the SLAC radiation physicisit Alberto Fassò chose the condition that would produce the most radiation and did simulations of it using his program FLUKA

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Radiation Calculations The data in the literature seems to suggest that neutrons are most responsible for the degradation in performance of the permanent magnet blocks.

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Radiation Calculations Preliminary Results Even with a 100 micron thick screen the simulation suggests that we could operate at 14 GeV with 1nC and at 120 Hz for 10 days before experiencing damaging demagetization Real operations We intend to use foils that are only a micron or two thick We also plan to use the OTR screens only at low repetition rates (~10 Hz) and they will never be left in while we analyze data However Magnetic fields were not included in the FLUKA simulations A field map will be given to Fassò along with other improvements in the geometry and operating conditions The simulation will be done again with these improvements

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Undulator Alignment Question: How do you ensure that both ends of the undulator are on the desired line? Beam-based alignment will be used to position the quadrupoles The quadrupoles are “locked” to the end of the undulator with their magnetic centers aligned to the desired magnetic center of the undulator The determines one end of the undulator New idea Use a wire at the other end of the undulator that has two positions: one out and one in to a fixed stop The in position would be accurately aligned to the desired magnetic center of the undulator

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Undulator Alignment

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Undulator Alignment Before any BBA or wire alignment performed After BBA: Quad, BPM and one end of the undulator aligned After Wire Alignment: Both ends of undulator aligned

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Undulator Alignment Wire Issues How do you distinguish easily between the electron beam and the x-rays The beam will create an easily seen radiation shower downstream or You could first extract the undulators Horizontal positioning is less critical than vertical Would require a wire after each undulator New idea Needs some time to cook

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 BPM Location Adjacent to the Quadrupole (SM) If we believe the BPM absolutely then it could go on the other end and be used to align the downstream end of the undulator No need to do this if we use the wire method Advantages of being adjacent to the quadrupole The quad locations are critical and the is no ambiguity with the BPM adjacent Following BBA and following quad strength massaging one will have the offset (mechanical and electrical) of the BPM

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Earth Magnetic Field Compensation Strategy Earth Magnetic Field along Beam Trajectory in Undulator requires compensation. Estimated strength 0.43±0.06 Gauss : (0.18±0.03, -0.38±0.07,0.08±0.05) Gauss Based on Measurements by K. Hacker. (see LCLS-TN-05-4) Compensation Strategy: Position the Undulator on Magnetic Measurement Bench in same direction as in Undulator Tunnel Compensate Earth Field Component in Undulator in Shimming Process Scheduling Issues Taken from HD Nuhn’s FAC Presentation

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Earth Magnetic Field Compensation Adjustable Shim Concept Risk arises from the lack of precise knowledge of the earth field in the tunnel at the time of undulator segment tuning. Considering mitigation strategy based on use of a small number of precisely adjustable shims along each undulator. One extra shim per segment will reduce phase error by factor 4. Shims will be installed before undulator tuning, but adjusted before undulator installation when field error has been determined. Will not affect definition of magnetic center of undulator (Standard Undulator Axis, SUSA, [see PRD ]) Quad BPM Undulator Shim PositionTrajectory w/ Shim Trajectory w/o Shim Also Taken from HD Nuhn’s FAC Presentation

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Magnet and Support System Status Undulator Magnets Long Lead Procurements Strong team Lead by M. White Titanium Strongback Cost increase (Commodities Price) Magnet Poles Cost Decrease (Simplification) Magnet Blocks Magnet Assembly Supports Support Mover System Prototype being assembled Measurement equipment ordered Expect late May early June Testing CAM Mover system test Sliding stage measurements Fixed Supports

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Und. Magnet: LLP, Ti Strongback Status Two Vendors Chosen Cost higher than expected due to very rapid increase in cost of metal commodities over the last couple of years

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Und. Magnet: LLP, Magnet Poles Status One Vendor Chosen Based on cost This vendor also had experience Cost came is less than what we originally estimated Due to simplification of the pole design No ears

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Und. Magnet: LLP, Magnet Blocks Status RFP Delayed Spent additional time refining the sorting plan in the statement of work. The successful vendor will be required to sort the magnet blocks prior to shipment to the assembly vendor Do not expect the delay to impact the assembly schedule

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Und. Magnet: Assembly Plan to go with external assembly vendors A lot of thought has gone into simplifying the assembly to the point that assembly can be done easily with simple training How we will do it A statement of work is being written and will include a complete description of the QA process to be followed A QA person has been assigned to the project A complete assembly procedure is being written and a video is being made of the assembly process Assembly vendors are being prequalified Two assembly vendors will be chosen The 1 st article from each of the two vendors will be thoroughly measured and tested before we will accept additional undulators Frequent vendor visits will be made to perform QA/QC checks Complete assembly travellers will be required for each undulator and component

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Und. Magnet: Support/Mover System Prototype parts in and assembly beginning Testing expected in May/June CAM, Sliding Mechanism, etc. E. Trahktenberg and J. Collins

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Und. Magnet: Support/Mover System Detail of Support/Mover System

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Und. Magnet: Support/Mover System CAM Mover system Other system reconsidered CAM mover still found to be the method of choice Modifications made Total CAM offset reduced to 1.5 mm Better gearbox Better bearings

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Und. Magnet: Fixed Supports Recent Change ANL takes over scope of the fixed support system Experienced engineer assigned to the fixed support Sushil Sharma In consultation with Jim Welch Options being reconsidered Past thinking has been to use granite supporting 3 undulators Other ideas are also being explored

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Vacuum System Changes Beam Sees Aluminum Al on SS Study of relative permeability “Flat” cross-section Construction

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Vacuum System Build chamber out of SS coated with Al What about the relative permeability? Curves on the right show the effect of both linear and nonlinear permeability on the undulator field  = mm x 5 mm chamber cross- section Expect SS relative permeabilities of less than 1.01 Looks OK but we will be doing more direct measurements to prove this is OK Waiting for accurate, calibrated permeability meter

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Chamber Design Start with SS Flat Coat with Al Bend to Desired U shape Weld to Vacuum Strongback

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Vacuum Status Issues to address SS permeability test All samples in hand and parts in shops ~1 Month samples ready for measurement Check of welding, bending, and annealing effects Survey Market for Coating needs Polishing needs Fabrication

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Diagnostics Status BPMs Location Plans OTR Screens Use Capabilities Based on APS Bunch Compressor Design Resolution Prototype Timeline Wire Scanners Use Rethinking need and use Undulator End Alignment Wire Intraundulator Xray Detectors Prototype plans Waiting for in-vacuum motion tests Vendor claims they will works Must pass APS tests first Other Charge Monitors Cerenkov Monitors “End-Of-Undulator” Diagnostics

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Diagnostics Status: BPM Location At the Quad Plans Use X-Band RF BPM Internal Dimensions SLAC responsibility External ANL Responsibility Processing Electronics In-tunnel RF front end mixer Generic RF front end Capable for both cavity and stripline A/D Converter Team determined

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Diagnostics Status: BPM Prototype Plans Build 4 cavities Machining done externally Brazing done at SLAC or externally To be determined Mount three on a rigid support and test with beam Beam tests to occur at FFTB/SPPS Closed in Mar. 06? Fall back location will be the APS PAR Bypass line PC Gun beam with bunch compression Timescale Will need 1 year B. Lill

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Diagnostics: OTR Screens Use Beam distribution measurement along the length of the undulator Can be used for emittance measurement as twiss parameter checks Features Commercial 2 inch lens tube, magnification adjustable with change of lens Integral tungsten shield Stepper driven remote focus Digital video camera, 30-fps at 1 MP, or 120 fps at VROI (250L), programmable gain. Manual iris control 5 to 10 micron resolution Based on APS Bunch Compressor OTR Success Prototype Parts on order Testing to occur in summer 05 BX Yang

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Diagnostics: Wire Scanner Based on SLAC design. Adapted for tighter space. Features Mounted on 6-inch flange On-axis drive mechanism in air Share space with other diagnostics (OTR and x-ray) Wire card to adapt SLAC design Test setup is being designed Actual use being re-examined Might switch to the simpler 2 state end alignment wire (see earlier description) J. Bailey, BX Yang

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Diagnostics: OTR and WS testing Measure wire scanner motion accuracy Calibrate step size and cross check encoder outputs Measure motion error in all three directions Study motion error with different mounting orientation Characterize OTR camera module Calibrate pixel size Measure optical resolution Status conceptual design in progress In-Vacuum motors Waiting for tests Vendor claims good Must pass APS standards

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Undulator Hall and Buildings Equipment Halls Cable Length Runs Temperature Control Tight tolerances 20 ± 0.2  C Needed for undulators (K value) To minimize thermal expansion problems Max (Min) Average power +50W/m (-50W/m) Max power fluctuations 5W/m For more details Go to Welch talk at Breakout session 4 of the FAC

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Undulator Hall and Buildings Equipment Halls Maximum Cable Length < 150’ Additional Hole for future extension if needed 6 Undulators served per drill hole Requirements/Desires Keep heat sources out of the tunnel Keep cable lengths to less than 150’ Provide for convenient service and maintenance for all electronics

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Controls Status Organization B. Dalesio in charge of LCLS controls J. Stein of ANL matrixed to Dalesio to ensure controls integration between undulator needs and the overall LCLS controls system Undulator Equipment Halls A lot of work has been done to plan Cable routing Equipment halls needs Rack locations and needs Major Undulator Systems Motion Control CAMs, Horizontal Motion, Intercepting Diagnostics Video OTR System with up to 120 Hz frame capture rates Controls Presentation See J. Stein talk in breakout session 3 of the FAC for more details about the undulator controls

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 Systems Integration Test One Undulator Support Mover Tests Plan to assemble all major components and systems to test fit and operations Use the 1 st article undulator and prototype mover support system Use a chamber mockup if a prototype is not available Fall 05 Multi Undulator System Integration Tests Build up a complete system with at least 2 undulators Use 1 st articles or prototypes for everything including fixed supports Test overall assembly, fit, and systems Winter 06 System Integrations Test Presentation See M. Whites talk in breakout session 1 of the FAC for more details

Stephen Milton System Update FAC Review April 2005 End of Presentation