Paolo Pierini INFN Milano/LASA ...pipe reliability thanks AZ! SCRF BTR Cryomodule Paolo Pierini INFN Milano/LASA ILC ML & SCRF Baseline Technical Review (ML & SCRF BTR) 19 January 2012 /20 January 2012, KEK

Cryomodule session agenda Cryomodule envelope/interface CM-string configuration Matching to the RDR RF Unit (989/888) Simplification of 5 K rad shield Accessibility flow reversal pernding for future optimization Split-yoke and conduction-cooled SC quadrupole Separate presentation Alignment scheme with EXFEL approach 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Cryomodule envelope and interfaces

Cryogenic cryomodule interfaces In the ILC concept the strings of cryomodules integrate the cryoline, so the cross section of the variants is forced to be identical, no matter of the module type (quad/no quad/any variation along the machine) This allows use of standard connection and cryogenic hardware and procedures They just need to have an identical longitudinal 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 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

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... 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

e.g. 3H in XFEL Shorter module length... ...but all longitudinal interfaces are preserved 66 Regarding interconnections looks as a regular XFEL Module 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR and requires no adaptation

Other interfaces Just received Benno List proposal to keep documented design spreadsheet Overall physical envelope Slot length/Module length Interfaces to plug-compatible components Interfaces to the floor supports Interfaces to RF [Pipe positions in transverse cross sections] Spreadsheet currently mostly empty Comments later Coordination with several other TA 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

CM String Configuration

A Proposal Revised Keep the concept of 9+8+9 cavity string unit 9 4 + Q +4 9 8 8 Q 8 8 4 + Q +4 8 From AY Keep the concept of 9+8+9 cavity string unit 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Q: Revert to 8-8-8? A: NO 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 In case, revert to the 8+8+8 scheme is easy: work with TA Cryogenics on the rescaling of heat loads and reassess cryo configuration Make use of latest S1G/DESY static and dynamic data Use RF parameter sets for dynamic data Impact on # of components and length 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Heat loads In progress for TDR: Re-assessment of table 3.7-1 in RDR Check (again) data and RDR assumptions with S1-G and DESY CMTB measurements TDR based on a wealth of data, further info will come from AMTF XFEL tests Review dynamics load with beam parameter set See TP comments Activity in cooperation with TA Cryogenics, since it leads to definition of cryosystem 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Component # 8+8+8 impact: 560 RDR ML RFU 9C: 12652 mm 8C: 11263 mm 282 in e- 278 in e+ 9C: 12652 mm 73.8% ff 8C: 11263 mm 73.7% ff 560 RDR RFU (37.956m) 606 888 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?) 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Module design data Capture module design data into EDMS document D*0973345 Will need to discuss in a working meeting many items are interfaces between TA Cryomodule and Cryogenics (spacing, heat loads, pipe sizes...) and are usually modified iteratively E.g. If the cyo-unit gets longer module pipes may change dimensions, etc. Heat load data probably best to be handled in the cryogenic design spreadsheet for consistency (TP) Geometrical data in EDMS Cryomodule document 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

More on EDMS Up to now design work on ILC EDMS not coordinated directly by TAGL FNAL ILC Type IV module is on ILC EDMS and has been used for the RDR S1-G effort was «disconnected» from EDMS How do we collect all these (and any future) design evolutions in an «official» ILC 3D model available on EDMS (and accountable in its changes towards TDR)? Review and modify towards the TDR design Keep control on changes/updates Need to resolve CAD technicalities 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Simplification of 5 K radiation shield

Flow schemes Extensive measurements of heat load at S1-Global in various configurations Used for studies of alternative thermal load management (will be reported in TDR) E.g. Compensate for the full removal of bottom shield part Various options of distributing the thermal loads in the module (cryosystem) are possible TTF-XFEL: all major load is absorbed by the return line RDR: conduction on forward, radiation on return line REVERSAL: radiation on forward, conduction on return (N.O.) Again, see TP comments on 10Jan CM Webex 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

TTF-XFEL F R Thermal sinking all on the return line, for conduction/radiation load The RDR assumed a different scheme Cryo design does not fully reflect that PROVEN CONCEPT Further comments in Cryogenics 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

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 18 18

Module/Cryosystem issues We need to pay attention to proper thermalization careful review of the changes introduced not to step back 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

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 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

5 K shield 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] 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

5 K shield 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 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Accessibility One concern raised by S1-G experience is the possibility of accessing the cold tuner motors for replacement Tied to reliability/maintainability analysis Proposal to provide flanged access on the vessel and shield (+MLI) simplifications to ease access A few comments on the implications follow Bottom line is: in the present tuner setup procedures access is needed from many sides, and technical assessments are needed to better explore the feasibility Current procedures do not take into account this possibility An alternate motor support need to be developed 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Access to tuner Material provided by R. Paparella «Folding in» S1-G assembly experience Based on «Blade Tuner Assembly» doc Should make it available on EDMS Can we foresee an access for the replacement of the cold tuner without pulling the string out? Presently need lateral access from several position for a complete tuner motor/shaft mechanism replacement. A single port possibly is not enough without rethinking the assembly Which fault modes do we plan to recover? Motor replacement (next solution easier/more attractive) Complete motor+shaft (feasible) Piezo replacement (possible) 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

S1G assembly Followed step-by-step procedure on cavity string Include visual inspections At each step cavity length is constrained! Piezo, safety rods, shaft And frequency monitored with a VNA 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Motor Assy mount In red the direction of access with tools Presently, to remove the motor shaft, cavity and tuner need to be brought to neutral position Forces (and tight tolerances) otherwise prevent easy disassembly Even if motor could be taken out, cavity would spring back unconstrained, tuner becomes «loose», piezo decouple Only way to unload cavity is through the piezo loading screws removing the load 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Motor work area Motor is now mounted before the MLI wrapping of the 2Phase pipe, to ease access when working on the string For easier access in module design should be rotated 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Load removal using piezo screws For this task access is needed from both sides of the cavity, to act on the screw (while holding the support) Holds also for piezo disassembly Access also needed during remount for correct piezo preload measuring the cavity f with a VNA 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Post motor/piezo installation The «safety bars» guarantee to provide cavity constrain at all times during assembly 2 safety bars up 2 safety bars down Release of «safety bars» is needed after the sequence Tuner installation Motor installation and positioning Piezo mounting Piezo preloading Conversely, when dismounting the safety bars should be engaged (when cavity is neutral) 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Options for changes Provide big port with access on vessel (~40 cm) Cut-outs on the 2 shields MLI patched to capture main radiative flux Need to estimate extra heat load to account Redesign of the motor support to allow Blocking the tuner into position with a tool Easier slide-out of the motor-screw assembly Access to piezo would require flanges on both sides, or at least a different piezo arrangement (e.g. XFEL package with double piezo) 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Main changes needed Redesign of motor seat to allow quick dismount Adjustable tool to constrain motor support and block into position to prevent unconstrained cavity length changes And possibly choose another azymuthal position to avoid interference with 2 K pipe 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Split-yoke and conduction-cooled SC quadrupole Dedicated presentation on FNAL/KEK quad prototype tests and plans by JK/AY

TDR scenario for Magnet Split Yoke, conduction cooled magnet is a very attractive idea and it will be proposed for TDR baseline Streamlines clean room operations Cleanroom sees just a pipe! For Cryomodule design we need to Provide support and cooling Integrate the current leads configuration Long discussion time ago to explore mover at central post in order to (actively?) stabilize/align the quadrupole 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

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 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

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 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Information flow for TDR Several of the specialized sources of information are at Fermilab, so updated info for TDR for module update are needed on Split quad information Current lead information for cold magnets 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Assembly Assembly If the cross-section is not heavily rearranged, most of the XFEL procedures/experience can be applied Feedback from Saclay XFEL Village experience with industrial participation Coming next is Type IV modules at FNAL with central quad 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Alignment scheme with EXFEL approach

Assembly Alignment Use XFEL laser-tracker procedure E.g. Inclusion of reference markers in cavity design «measuring collets» on the vessel ILC alignment requirements seem in XFEL ballpark 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

RDR and XFEL RDR XFEL TDR M4 M5 XFEL Design 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Other issues: High-pressure-code

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 is following the procedure 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. 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

CEC 2011 Survey paper 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Other issues: Shipping

Worldwide shipping to the site Deliverable conditions Shipping conditions (containers and handling) Do we have to care about fitting in a standard container dimension for the empty/assembled module? Standard is 20ft/40ft 45ft exist (non standard) Only in NA ports 48ft / 53ft 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Conclusions

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 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR

Main summary towards TDR Keep 26 cavity RF unit (9-8-9) Split Yoke, conduction cooled quad in baseline No heavy modification of the ILC cryomodule now, we may leave it to the final engineering stage Reversal is cost neutral, besides design cost reduction (?) vs. risk of increased loads Explore 5 K thermal shield simplifications We will provide comments regarding options for simplification with minimal heat load impact 18 Jan 2012 KEK, SC BTR