TDR: Cryomodule Paolo Pierini

Charge for Cryomodule Cryomodule unit: desired to be (8+4Q4+8) Simplification of 5 K radiation shield Cryomodule envelop and interface (flanges etc..) with plug-compatility Assembly, alignment, tolerance, and deliverable conditions Conduction cooled, splittable SC quadrupole High-pressure-code issues Interface to CFS

Outline – TDR work Aggregate «Cryomodules» and «Cryogenic system» into a single chapter «Cryomodules and cryogenic system» Proposed in ML SCRF Webex 8/24/2011 Strong design dependencies (see Tom) Agreement between the two TA “New” baseline for TDR Revert to 8+(4+1/2 Q+1/2 Q+4)+8 configuration Better matches RF distribution, LLRF and Clean Room Split quad in the middle and all 8 cavity modules Proposed by PM, discussed in several meetings, wide consensus

The interfaces Affecting cryomodule area Plug Compatibility with Cavity Integration Cost Savings 5K or not 5K? with Cryogenics Assembly many interfaces (XFEL experience coming) Configuration (1T) 8+(4+Q+4)+8, with Cryogenics Conduction cooled quad Thermal design harmonization with Cryogenics Quadrupole periodicity See 8 vs 12, with ML Integration and BD

Cryomodule unit: desired to be (8+4Q4+8)

A Proposal Revised 9 4 + Q +4 9 8 8 Q 8 8 4 + Q +4 8 restore the concept of 8 cavity string unit, to be simplified Accept two types of cryomodules

Revert to 8-8-8 Agreed to revert to the 8+8+8 scheme work with TA Cryogenics on the rescaling of heat loads and new cryo configuration further iteration to include new data and computations both from the S1-G experience and the DESY measurements presented at TTC There is a benefit in cooling the shield with the forward lines we may 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

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

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 9 9

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

Module/Cryosystem issues We need to pay attention to proper thermalization careful review of the changes introduced not to step back

Simplification of 5 K radiation shield

5 K shield Flow inversion gives a lower shield T even without a rearrangement of the cross section 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!) but we may leave holes for access, make it simple with some cryo inefficiency It is so necessary to make the decision now in the TDR, may we leave it to the final engineering stage? cost reduction (?) vs. risk of increased loads

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

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) They just 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

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...

e.g. 3H in XFEL Shorter module length... ...but all longitudinal interfaces are preserved Regarding interconnections looks as a regular XFEL Module and requires no adaptation

Plug Compatibility Concerning the inner components we need an updated/more robust definition What defines the P-C concept? Not only mechanics, we need to include heat loads How can we define the options for tuners with cold and warm motors to be plug-compatible we stop at a higher level?

Scope for Plug Compatibility Plug-compatible modules? “Regional” module variation with differences in the inner components Identical cross section Identical interconnection region & interfaces Same thermal budget Plug compatible components? Every component (or nearly) can be “freely” used in any variant in all modules by setting proper interconnection boundaries Functional component specifications Thermal budget Defined interconnection boundaries

Assembly, alignment, tolerance, and deliverable conditions

First thoughts Assembly Alignment Tolerance Deliverable conditions If the cross-section is not rearranged, most of the XFEL procedure can be applied Also depends on the plug-compatibility extent The more variations we have it can be hard to define a “standard” assembly procedure Alignment Where do the ILC alignment requirements stand with respect to XFEL? Tolerance Deliverable conditions Shipping conditions (containers and handling)

Conduction cooled, splittable SC quadrupole

TDR scenario, Magnet Split conduction cooled magnet is a very attractive idea Streamlines clean room operations Cleanroom sees just a pipe! We need to have a draft idea of the current leads configuration to integrate in module Explore mover at central post in order to (actively?) stabilize/align the quadrupole

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

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

Discussed 11/2007 Positional stability vs variation of dynamic heat load conditions slow drift minutes-hours agrees with periodical variation (day-night, 24 h) observed with the WPM, few 10s um Decoupling the support thermal sinking from influence of dynamic loads improves stability

High-pressure-code issues

PV No news at TTC, but activities going on in all region XFEL process is ongoing, outcome will be available hopefully at next collaboration meeting KEK doing the job for QB experiment at STF In the US labs are addressing the issue with different actions It seems it will be difficult to come with a single certification procedure valid everywhere

to be estabilished, but mainly addressed as a cryogenics topic Interface to CFS to be estabilished, but mainly addressed as a cryogenics topic

TDR and work Part 1: TD Phase R&D Part 2: Design Report Illustrate the cryomodule layout “at large” Two “families” in ML: 8+(4+Q+4)+8 split conduction-cooled quad module heat load budgets reconsideration to feed into cryosystem definition We probably will adopt flow reversal after reviewing options 5 K bottom part or not, or better, leave option open This part written in close cooperation with cryosystem Part 2: Design Report Document and illustrate design and changes wrt RDR