JLEIC Engineering Status T. Michalski August 31, 2017 F. Lin

JLEIC Engineering Status R&D Plans for SC Magnets Schedule and budget for TAMU Model Dipole completion IR Magnets – collaboration with BNL IR Magnets – TOSCA designs at JLab LDRD Proposal for 6T SC Dipoles and 3T Fast Ramping SC Dipoles Design and Layout IR Layout – initial layout – developing further details on magnets and vacuum pipe design requirements Tunnel size and cross section validation Work with FML – site vibration study Staffing

TAMU Model Dipole $358k supplemental R&D allocated for FY’17 $230k (less G&A) to TAMU, awaiting arrival of funds to get PR started $128k for JLab to support TAMU, seek test location, develop test plan FY’17 Deliverables Fabricate FRP core structure Fabricate of 125m length of CICC Start coil winding on FRP core Completion of analyses in support of a robust magnet design Start development of a test plan and site selection

TAMU Model Dipole – TAMU Portion SOW: 3 Deliverables Fabricate FRP Core 125m CIC Conductor – will be made in 2 x 63m lengths Start winding CICC on FRP Core Contract being developed – should be finalized next week Awaiting schedule of milestones from TAMU

TAMU Model Dipole – JLab Portion SOW: 2 Deliverables Completion of analyses in support of a robust magnet design, including DFMEA – Probir Ghoshal/George Biallas Start development of a test plan and site selection – TBD (desire to use Ruben Fair for this activity) Also considering development of the splice joint – George Biallas – need to discuss with TAMU

TAMU Magnet - CICC analysis EM analysis – TAMU - COMPLETE Thermal and structural analysis – TAMU/JLab - COMPLETE PKG setting up the tools to evaluate/calculate the following (a few, not yet reviewed analyses, are shown as snap shots of the analysis tool in place in the following slides)- AC loss calculations and incorporate into the overall heating of the magnet during ramping - JLab dP (pressure drop) in the conductor with Magnetic field and changing temp of the cooling fluid/cryogen - JLab Quench analysis..- JLab Conductor stability…and impact on MQE - JLab Splice design and stability - JLab FMEA design and overall system FMEA - JLab Risk analysis to the overall system - JLab

Snap shot of the analysis undertaking by JLab- 1. Critical temp. cals. for the conductor based on Bottura model

Snap shot of the analysis undertaking by JLab- 2. AC loss calculations for the conductor – Wilson model Eddy current/Coupling losses Hysteresis losses Penetration losses in Sc

3. Pressure drop Calculations - AC losses feed into the conductor model at varying field

3. Pressure drop Calculations - AC losses feed into the conductor model at varying field (Cont’d)

3. Pressure drop Calculations - AC losses feed into the conductor model at varying field (Cont’d) BRIEF SUMMARY

IR Magnet – BNL Collaboration $38k in supplemental R&D allocated for FY’17 Focus will be on higher field magnets – looking at Nb3Sn as the conductor Review requirements towards JLEIC IR in FY’17 BNL to develop concept design of a FFQ using LARP/LHC-HL Nb3Sn prototype coils Also looking at modeling with 2 dipoles Timing – update discussion in late Sept/early Oct Presentation at Collaboration Concept design early calendar year Report in early spring*

IR Magnet – TOSCA Modeling

IR Magnets Design Status

IR Magnets Design Status-Summary There are total 15 magnets (Dipoles and Quadrupoles) in the IR region; 2-Dipoles, 12-Quadrupoles and 1-permanent magnet Quadrupole. Preliminary design for 10 (out of 12) Quadrupole IR magnets has been done. Paul Brindza is looking at the Dipole Design. Peak Field in the coils, effective length of the magnet and gradient of the magnet is calculated using OPERA EM software. The design parameters listed in the table are based on the preliminary design, these designs will be further optimized. The peak field for 3 (out of 6) quadrupoles in the Ion-IR region is very high (between 11.4 to 16.7T), for the other three also peak field is expected to be high. The peak field for 2 (out of 6) quadrupoles in the Electron-IR region is slightly high (around 7T), but this need further optimization. The EM interaction between magnets QFFB1_US, QFFB4e and QFFB3e has been looked, there is EM interaction between these magnets. This will be looked in more detail after further coil optimization.

IR Magnet Design – Next Steps Complete the preliminary design of rest of the 2 quadrupole magnets. Define operating current and suitable conductor Start looking at the interference/interaction between these magnets and correctors and skew quadrupoles Discuss the interference/interaction with beam line physicist Further optimization of the coil design

SC Magnet LDRD Probir has submitted a LDRD focused on: 6T SC dipoles for the Ion Collider Ring Needed for 100 GeV center of mass energy Alternate technology solution to SF magnets for 3T fast ramping dipoles for the Booster Ring 3T slower ramping dipoles for the Ion Collider Ring Based on R&D Committee recommendations – insure we have backups for SF magnets Will collaborate with LBNL on LDRD UPDATE: Proposal was submitted and overview presentation presented – awaiting decision on FY’18 LDRD selections (early September) – not hopeful

JLEIC Interaction Region IR magnets SB1 IP QFFB2 QFFB1 QFFB3 SB1 QFFB1_US ions QFFB2_US QFFB3_US

IR Design Status – Mark Wiseman Met with Vasiliy Morozov and Fanglei Lin to discuss the magnet requirements. Awaiting clarifications for some of the magnets. Received the requirements for the correctors and skew quads for the Ion beam line.  These have been located in the CAD model.   Still have to do draft magnet designs for these. Still need electron beam corrector requirements Met with Paul Brindza, Steve Lassiter, Mike Fowler to discuss the status and coordinate the designs being worked on by all Initial coil designs, inner thermal shield and vacuum tubes have been added to some of the magnet models Discussed the beam pipe and aperture requirements with Charles Hyde, Vasiliy Morozov, Fanglei Lin and are folding this information into the design. Located one potential interference between the QFFB1_US (Ion beam) and the QFFB3e (electron beam).   Have not tried to solve the problem and have not discussed with the beam physicists yet.

e MQAJ MQAJ MQAJ MQAN QFFDS03S QFFDS22S QFFB1 QFFDS02S i ION SOL ANTI_DS QFFB2 QFFB3 SB2

e MQAJ IP QFFB1e_US EL SOL ANTI_US QFFB3e_US i QFFB2e_US IPDSCORR1 QFFDS01S SB1 IPDSCORR2 QFFB1

QFFUSO1S QFFB1_US IPUSCORR1 IPUSCORR2 i e IP QFFB4e QFFB3e QFFB2e QFFB1e

ION SOL ANTI_US QFFB3_US QFFUS22S i QFFB2_US QFFUS02S e QFFUS03S EL SOL ANTI_DS MDAB

IR Magnet - Preliminary Mech. Design Inner thermal shield and helium vessel based on available tube sizes Coil sized around helium vessel Skew quad location per Vasiliy Morozov QFFUSO1S (skew quad) Helium vessel Coils QFFB1_US Thermal shield Vacuum tube QFFB3e QFFB4e

Design and Layout Site layout with all available rings now exist Added tunnel, based on FML dimensions and cross section IR Layout – adding details to IR magnets in NX as information comes available Adding PEP-II RF Cavity to layout – expect we need to add more space behind the beamline

Electron, Ion and Booster Rings Shown with main tunnel layout

SECTION SHOWING WALL BUMPED 30” TO GIVE 36” FROM PEP-II RF CAVITY TO WALL

Work with FML Site Vibration Study Contract being finalized – award in September Drilling and installing sensors – planned for October Data Acquisition – planned for 1 month while CEBAF is operating at 12 GeV – December or January timeframe

Staffing Engineering staffing: SC Magnet Engineer – Renuka Rajput-Ghoshal (80+%) Mechanical Engineer – Mark Wiseman (80%) Mechanical Designers – Chuck Hutton, Ron Lassiter Anticipate adding the following staff in the next 4-6 weeks Magnet Engineer – Probir Ghoshal – LDRD and SF Model Dipole George Biallas (60%) – CICC Splice, TME Lattice magnets, SF Model Dipole DFMEA