1. Preparation for SC BTR Cryomodule
Paolo Pierini

2. Guidelines from PM and agenda
Technical Changes
Envelope/Interface definition
Unit (no changes, keep 9+4Q4+9)
5 K simplification
Cryomodule Session Day 1
Cryomodule envelope/interface
CM-string configuration (989/888)
Simplification of 5 K rad shield, flow reversal?
Split-yoke and conduction-cooled SC quadrupole
Alignment scheme with EXFEL approach
Tunnel inclination 0.5-1% (→into Cryogenics)
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

3. Post-TTC Discussion Cryomodule unit: 8+4Q4+8
Simplification of 5 K radiation shield
Holes can be tolerated (for access)
Coolant flow reversal allows elimination of bottom part
Cryomodule envelop and interface (flanges etc..) with plug-compatibility
Conduction cooled, splittable SC quadrupole
High-pressure-code issues
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

4. Cryomodule unit: revert to 8+4Q4+8 or keep 9+8+9?

5. Revert to 8-8-8? HLRF Distribution was the driving argument
8+8+8 matched better with DRFS
9+8+9 still handled by 10 MW klystron with sufficient margin at 31.5 MV/m +/-20%
Shin Michizono analysis
Driving argument outside Cryomodule TA
If needed to revert to the scheme
work with TA Cryogenics on the rescaling of heat loads and new cryo configuration
further iteration with new S1-G/DESY measurements
Impact on # of components and length
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

6. Heat loads In progress for TDR: Re-assessment of table 3.7-1 in RDR
Check data and assumptions with S1-G and DESY recent measurements
Review dynamics load calculations with beam parameters
Activity in cooperation with TA
Cryogenics, since it leads to
definition of cryosystem
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

7. Component # 8+8+8 impact: 560 RDR ML RFU 9C: 12652 mm 8C: 11263 mm
282 in e-
278 in e+
9C: mm
73.8% ff
8C: mm
73.7% ff
560 RDR RFU (37.956m)  RFU (35.178m)
Additional CM (8%), interconnections, end boxes
Length change ~62.5m+30m in string end boxes (4RFU string)
(need review with TP)
(2006 CCB docs?)
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

8. Simplification of 5 K radiation shield

9. Flow schemes
Extensive measurements of heat load at S1-Global in various configurations
Used for studies of alternative thermal load management
E.g. Compensate for the full removal of bottom shield part
further look into various options of distributing the thermal loads
TTF-XFEL: all major load is absorbed by the return line
TDR: conduction on forward, radiation on return line
REVERSAL: radiation on forward, conduction on return
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

10. TTF-XFEL F R
Thermal sinking all on the return line, for conduction/radiation load
The RDR assumes a different scheme
module design does not reflect that
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

11. Flow reversal Thermal sinking at coupler needs to be rearranged
N.O. ILC CM 2011/5/24
Thermal sinking at coupler
needs to be rearranged
9/26/2011
Grenada, LCWS2011 11 11

12. 7/12 – TTC Coupler session S1-Global STF has heat load 9 Times TTFIII
Few changes in XFEL couplers wrt TTFIII
But looking at better thermalization at the 5 K and 70 K anchors!!
By rearranging thermal sinking we should be careful not to increase loads
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

13. Module/Cryosystem issues
We need to pay attention to proper thermalization
careful review of the changes introduced not to step back
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

14. 5 K shield
Flow inversion allows removal of bottom 5 K shield, but involves substantial design modification
Rearrangement of cross-section and rerouting of thermal intercepts
The top part anyhow is needed to thermalize the support and for the cryoline
bottom part is a useful manifold for cable & coupler thermal sinking (and a proven one!)
we may leave holes for access, make it simpler with some cryo inefficiency
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

15. For TDR
No time or resources to redesign the Type IV ILC cryomodule for the TDR, we may leave it to the final engineering stage
Reversal leads to no additional costs, besides design
cost reduction (?) vs. risk of increased loads
For the TDR, the 5 K thermal shield remains as a simplified thermal shield
We will provide comments regarding options for simplification with minimal heat load impact
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

16. Cryomodule envelope and interface (flanges etc..) with plug-compatility

17. Cryomodule interfaces
In the ILC concept the strings of cryomodules integrate the cryoline, so the cross section is forced to be identical, no matter of the module type (quad/no quad/any variation along the machine)
They just need to have an identical flanged interface at the connection region
The fact that the quadrupole is in the central position, out of the module interconnection area surely helps in this aspect
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

18. Working example: XFEL 3H
3H is a single “ad-hoc” module
How do we “minimize” the impact of the 3H on XFEL neighbouring (standard) components, limiting the need of other ad-hoc devices?
preserve cross-section (same as FLASH 3H)
obvious, the cryomodule is also the cryogenic line...
preserve longitudinal interfaces
connecting module or cryo box should not tell the difference between 3H or standard XFEL
with exception of beamline connection...
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

19. e.g. 3H in XFEL 10 JAN 2012 ILC Cryomodule Webex
Shorter module length...
...but all longitudinal interfaces are preserved
1919
Regarding interconnections
looks as a regular XFEL Module
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex
and requires no adaptation

20. Assembly, alignment, tolerance, and deliverable conditions

21. Other Assembly Alignment Deliverable conditions
If the cross-section is not rearranged, most of the XFEL procedure can be applied
E.g. Inclusion of reference markes in cavity design
Also depends on the plug-compatibility extent
The more variations we have it can be hard to define a “standard” assembly procedure
Alignment
ILC alignment requirements wrt XFEL?
Deliverable conditions
Shipping conditions (containers and handling)
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

22. RDR and XFEL RDR XFEL TDR M4 M5 XFEL Design 10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

23. Conduction cooled, splittable SC quadrupole

24. TDR scenario, Magnet
Split conduction cooled magnet is a very attractive idea
Streamlines clean room operations
Cleanroom sees just a pipe!
For Cryomodule design we need to integrate the current leads configuration
Explore mover at central post in order to (actively?) stabilize/align the quadrupole
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

25. Example: XFEL 3H In XFEL 3H Quad moved upstream module
non trivial thing was the reallocation of leads
smaller leads, 6 in 1 (flexible pipe) due to reduced current
Slotted shield to slide in leads flange
6 in 1 design, very flexible for assembly
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

26. XFEL 3.9
Still in doubt if current lead thermalization can be assembled easily (or at all)
Here the top part of the 70 K shield is
not shown, but there is minimal clearance for
assembly
A similar geometry, with 6
independent leads, would be problematic at the middle of the module
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

27. Information from Fermilab
Several of the specialized sources of information are at Fermilab, so info are needed on
Split quad information from Vladimir Kashikhin at Fermilab (Vladimir may provide a figure for TDR and a paragraph)
Current lead information for cold magnets (Sergey Cheban and Yuriy Orlov at Fermilab may provide information)
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

28. High-pressure-code issues

29. PV No news at TTC, but activities going on in all region
XFEL process is ongoing, outcome will be available hopefully at next TTC meeting
KEK following the process for QB experiment at STF
US labs are addressing the issue with different actions
It seems it will be difficult to come with a single certification procedure valid everywhere
But have 2011 CEC material from Tom et al.
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

30. CEC 2011 Survey paper
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex

31. mainly addressed as a cryogenics topic
Interface to CFS
mainly addressed as a cryogenics topic

32. Additional issues (added yesterday and today)
Tunnel inclination %
Tuner motor access
Reliability Management considerations

33. TDR and work Part 1: TD Phase R&D Part 2: ILC Baseline Reference
2.6 Cryomodule, Cryogenics thermal balance, and Quad R&D
ML: review 8+(4+Q+4)+8 or 9+(4+Q+4)+9
split conduction-cooled quad
module heat load budgets revision to feed into cryosystem definition
Discuss work on 5 K bottom part or not
Stick to XFEL, but leave option open
Quad design from FNAL
This part written in close cooperation with cryosystem,
Part 2: ILC Baseline Reference
3.4 Cryomodules and Cryogenic systems
Joining 3.4 and 3.5
10 JAN 2012
ILC Cryomodule Webex