CLIC DR Gradient Dipole

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Simona Bettoni and Remo Maccaferri, CERN Wiggler modeling Double-helix like option.
Advertisements

EMMA Magnet Design Ben Shepherd Magnetics and Radiation Sources Group ASTeC STFC Daresbury Laboratory.
Magnets for the ESRF upgrade phase II
Lecture 3 Jack Tanabe Old Dominion University Hampton, VA January 2011 Conformal Mapping.
Magnet designs for the ESRF-SR2
BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Abstract Magnet Design Workshop: Magnet Design and Analysis Charles Spataro, NSLS-II Project NSLS-II is a new 3Gev synchrotron.
Yichao Jing 11/11/2010. Outline Introduction Linear lattice design and basic parameters Combined function magnets study and feasibility Nonlinear dynamics.
Considerations on Interaction Region design for Muon Collider Muon Collider Design Workshop JLab, December 8-12, 2008 Guimei Wang, Muons,Inc., /ODU/JLab.
Drive beam magnets powering strategy Serge Pittet, Daniel Siemaszko CERN, Electronic Power Converter Group (TE-EPC) OUTLINE : Suggestion of.
SuperB Meeting, May 2008 Status of the magnetic design of the first quadrupole (QD0) for the SuperB interaction region S. Bettoni on behalf of the whole.
Permanent Magnet Quadrupoles for the CLIC Drive Beam Jim Clarke, Norbert Collomb, Neil Marks, James Richmond, and Ben Shepherd STFC Daresbury Laboratory,
ASTeC Report for CLIC-UK Jim Clarke on behalf of all ASTeC & Technology Department staff contributing to CLIC-UK STFC Daresbury Laboratory, UK CERN-UK.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, A.Drozhdin, N.Kazarinov.
F James T Volk June Permanent Magnets for Linear Colliders James T Volk Fermilab.
Permanent magnet wiggler based on NdFeB material. This wiggler type uses the same design principles as the wigglers which have been developed for PETRA.
Magnet Design & Construction for EMMA
Vertical Emittance Tuning at the Australian Synchrotron Light Source Rohan Dowd Presented by Eugene Tan.
Blue Skies Magnets 1.Vertical orbit-excursion FFAG 2.Omni-Magnet for FETS 3MeV ring February 2013Stephen Brooks, ASTC meeting1.
CLIC Stabilisation Day’08 18 th March 2008 Thomas Zickler AT/MCS/MNC/tz 1 CLIC Quadrupoles Th. Zickler CERN.
By Verena Kain CERN BE-OP. In the next three lectures we will have a look at the different components of a synchrotron. Today: Controlling particle trajectories.
Emittance reduction by a SC wiggler in the ATF-DR September 16 th, 2009 Yannis PAPAPHILIPPOU and Rogelio TOMAS ATF2 weekly meeting.
Practical aspects of small aperture quadrupoles Dr Ben Leigh Tesla Engineering Ltd.
CERN –GSI/CEA MM preparation meeting, Magnetic Measurements WP.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF D2 MECHANICAL STRUCTURE (DOUBLE COLLARING OPTION) S. Farinon, P. Fabbricatore (INFN-Sezione di Genova) Sept. 24 th 2015.
DDBA magnets Chris Bailey Low emittance rings Sept Frascati.
Investigation of Injection Schemes for SLS 2.0
Yingshun Zhu Design of Small Aperture Quadrupole Magnet for HEPS-TF
Third ILC Damping Rings R&D Mini-Workshop KEK, Tsukuba, Japan December 2007 Choosing the Baseline Lattice for the Engineering Design Phase Andy Wolski.
New Magnet Design for FCC- ee Attilio Milanese, CERN 26 Oct presented by Frank Zimmermann.
A new QF1 magnet for ATF3 Alexey Vorozhtsov
Yingshun Zhu Accelerator Center, Magnet Group
Status of CIEMAT contribution to CLIC
Yingshun Zhu Design progress of QD0 in CEPC Interaction Region
Some Design Considerations and R &D of CEPCB Dipole Magnet
Test of a Permanent Magnet Quadrupole Placed in a Dipole Field
High efficiency work and MBK development for accelerators
Status of the manufacturing process of a Nb3Sn wiggler prototype
J-PARC main ring lattice An overview
Warm magnets for LHeC / Test Facility arcs
Status of the CLIC DR wiggler design and production at BINP
FCC-ee IR magnetic element design – an update
Halbach Magnets: Design, Prototypes & Results
Arc magnet designs Attilio Milanese 13 Oct. 2016
Large Booster and Collider Ring
CHEN, Fusan KANG, Wen November 5, 2017
Magnets for the ESRF upgrade phase II
Main magnets for PERLE Test Facility
Pierre-Alexandre Thonet
Conceptual Design of CEPC Interaction Region Superconducting Magnets
Yingshun Zhu Accelerator Center, Magnet Group
Compact and Low Consumption Magnet Design The DESY Experience
Multiturn extraction for PS2
Large aperture Q4 M. Segreti, J.M. Rifflet
PERMANENT MAGNET QUADRUPOLE FOR THE LINAC 4 CCDTL
High Precision Magnet Production for NSLSII at IHEP
Lecture 2 Jack Tanabe Old Dominion University Hampton, VA January 2011
M. A. Domínguez, F. Toral (CIEMAT), H. Ghasem, P. S. Papadopoulou, Y
DAFNE wiggler optimization
November 14, 2008 The meeting on RIKEN AVF Cyclotron Upgrade Progress report on activity plan Sergey Vorozhtsov.
Problems
November 7, 2008 The meeting on RIKEN AVF Cyclotron Upgrade Progress report on activity plan Sergey Vorozhtsov.
AXEL-2011 Introduction to Particle Accelerators
CLIC Damping Rings Gradient Dipoles
CEPC Collider Magnets CHEN, Fusan November 13, 2018.
CEPC Final Focus Superconducting Quadrupole and Anti-solenoid Magnets
CEPC Booster Ring Magnets
Electron Collider Ring Magnets Preliminary Summary
Fanglei Lin, Yuhong Zhang JLEIC R&D Meeting, March 10, 2016
Fanglei Lin JLEIC R&D Meeting, August 4, 2016
S. Bettoni on behalf of the whole team
Presentation transcript:

CLIC DR Gradient Dipole Manuel Ángel Domínguez Martínez Fernando Toral Fernández

Index Technical specifications Magnetic design From 1.77 T to 2.3 T Results Field trimming Conclusions & next steps

Technical specifications 96 dipoles with fixed longitudinal and transverse gradient Possibility to include a small correction of the field amplitude (5%) Good field region radius (rGFR): 5 mm Field quality  1*10-4 Transverse gradient: 11 T/m, vertical focusing Longitudinal gradient: two possibilities, step or trapezoidal. Desired option

Magnetic design: 2D C-shaped magnets is the best layout for efficient use of space. Gap is pointing outwards to ease synchrotron radiation evacuation Low field region. Achieved ΔB/B = 1*10-4, rGFR = 5mm High field region. Different configuration: Three magnets working in parallel to preserve the pole dimensions within reasonable limits Achieved ΔB/B = 1*10-4, rGFR = 5mm The above conditions were much more difficult to reach as the pole tip iron is saturated. The field quality is more sensitive to any minor change in the dimensions.

Magnetic design: 3D Trapezium profile: More effective to reduce beam emittance Different trials to achieve the desired trapezium profile: 1st option: Trying to keep the gap constant along Z axis Low field region with pole cuts. Each part with different PM grades Variable pole width Not feasible according to simulation results 2nd Option: Variable gap along Z axis. Vas a decir algo sobre cambio de intensidad de imanes y tamaño? También gap constante, pero ancho de polo variable

Magnetic design: 3D Short magnet length (0.58m) makes 2D simulations diverge from 3D, specially in the case of the high field section (pole tip ≈ 14mm!) High saturation in the high field region pole leads to undesired multipole values and higher flux leakage. These effects are reduced using Iron-Cobalt (Vacoflux) in the pole The saturation in this pole led as well to a different pole tip design. It does not match the theoretical calculations and had to be adjusted and optimised based on simulations (lower field in the gap GFR).

Magnetic design: FEM suites Ansys Maxwell: First simulations. Very difficult to achieve numerical accuracy to evaluate the field harmonics, even with dense meshes: good quality field region is very close to curved surface of pole. Ruled out due to poor accuracy of field harmonics. ROXIE: Reference for fields and multipoles Impossible to extrude a variable gap (ruled out for trapezium profiles) Comsol and Opera: Models already done and simulated Results fully validated with Roxie

From 1.77 T to 2.3 T Once the objectives of the desired option technical specs (trapezium profile, case 1) were practically met, during one of our exchanges with CERN, a new possibility came into play: “it could be preferable to have a bigger bump in the center of the magnet while keeping the same integrated field… Is it possible?” … Yes, why not? Let’s push it further!!!! A bigger separation between low and high field regions combined with a different extrusion of the low field region pole tip, shows less cross-talk and therefore allows a higher field peak.

From 1.77 T to 2.3 T High field region: Low field region: No gradient (integrated gradient is reached anyway) Straight sides instead of curved Wider pole tip (30mm) to reduce saturation Low field region: Improved hyperbolic profile to compensate the HF region gradient loss Wider profile to reduce multipoles As a result of these changes we came to the following results:

Results

Field trimming Among the first discussions about the project there was the possibility of varying the magnetic field +-5% Two solutions: Active: adding coils and its corresponding power supply Pros: Fast field trimming. Can be adjusted during operation Cons: More expensive More complex design Passive: with moving yoke parts that can adjust the flux Less expensive Simple design In principle the field cannot be adjusted during operation. However, if needed, this could be solved adding remote actuators

Field trimming We have explored further and simulated two solutions Active: due to the high iron saturation, the coils should be too large, powerful and need water cooling. We understand that this gets away from the spirit of a permanent magnet dipole. From our point of view, this is already ruled out. Passive: according to our preliminary simulations it should be feasible simply splitting the central part of the yoke in two parts and adjusting the gap between them.

Field trimming Passive: Achieved almost independent adjustment of +-5% in High and Low field region. There could be a minor influence in some cases as a result of the crosstalk between regions. It doesn’t affect the field quality

Field trimming With the presented solution we can adjust both fields, dipole and quadrupole at the same time, in the same magnitude, say +-5% for both (*). It is impossible in that way to separate the trimming for dipole and quad. Moving the whole magnet along x axis(**), it is possible to adjust only the dipole field while the quad field remains constant. This implies that combining both movements, we can adjust the quad to the desired value and then compensate the loss/gain in the dipole field simply moving the magnet horizontally.   The direct drawback of this solution is that the multipoles will forcibly increase when moving the magnet horizontally. In our preliminary simulations, moving +-1mm means that b3 goes up to 8 and b4 up to 7, instead of 1.4 and 3 respectively, while the quad field remains constant and the dipole field varies by 4% (*) Adjusting these gaps, both dipole and quad fields are fitted (**) Moving the magnet horizontally, the dipole field is fitted while the quad remains constant

Conclusions & next steps A variable gap combined function magnet has been magnetically designed for the CLIC Damping Rings A comparative of FEM suites (Maxwell, Roxie, Comsol & Opera) has been carried out. Finally, Opera is the one which better fits to our needs. New solutions have been studied to increase the peak field from 1.77T to 2.3T. The possibility of a field trimming of +-5% has been simulated and proposed Next steps: Field profile validation Mechanical design Fabrication drawings

Thank you for your attention!