1. Engineering for the JLEIC pre-CDR Tim Michalski JLEIC Spring Collaboration Meeting March 31, 2016

2. Engineering’s JLEIC Objectives To Reduce Technical Risk To Support Data Management Between Design and Analysis Software Tools To Demonstrate Systems Fit Within Envelope Constraints To Assess System Costs To Support Development of the Pre-CDR JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 20162

3. Technical Risks MAGNETS PEP-II Magnets and Vacuum Chambers Superferric Magnet Development with TAMU Other Superconducting Magnets (FFQs, IR magnets, etc.) SRF and RF SYSTEMS and CONTROLS SRF Cavity Analyses LLRF/HPRF Systems and Controls SYSTEM VACUUM SYNCHRONIZATION Moving Magnets JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 20163

4. Design and Data Management JLEIC Element Lists JLEIC Element Database JLEIC Nomenclature JLEIC Mechanical Layouts JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 20164

5. Superferric Dipole Development with TAMU Potted vacuum tube with 1 st layer forms in place Winding first layer of prototype coils JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 20165

6. Design Review – December 2 nd, 2015 Good Progress – several items to address prior to building model dipole “It is possible a significant portion of the technical risk could be reduced based on cold test results.“ “Cost risk can only be retired after feedback to/from the actual industrial firms that will make the magnets.” “Certain risks, such as field quality, can also be reduced by further modeling and optimization.” Calculations are mandatory before authorizing the prototype for the CIC cable Assemble mockup flux return to test pre-loading Fabrication of CIC cable, drawing sheath on long-length CIC cable using real superconductor Validate splice design Repeat of mockup winding tests using actual cable to evaluate parameters for bend tooling, QC conductor placements And possibly further modeling of impact of iron properties different from present assumptions Hold another Design Review Superferric Dipole Development with TAMU JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 20166

7. 2D vs 3D Cold Analysis - Harmonics 2D analysis done 3 ways Purpose of Maxwell is direct translation of model data for structural and thermal analyses Excellent agreement between all analysis tools 3D model in Maxwell Continuing to scrutinize the 3D model Developing 3D model in TOSCA to validate Higher harmonics match nicely between 2D and 3D models -Need to understand discrepancy 2D 2D/3D

8. 3d Cold Analysis - Harmonics - Higher harmonics match nicely

9. Structural Analysis – Cool Down/Lorentz Forces Plots below shows directional displacement from cool-down only, and from combined cool-down and dipole excitation. Note that scale units is inches X-displacements, cool-down only [in]Y-displacements, cool-down only [in] X-displacements, cool-down and LF [in]Y-displacements, cool-down and LF [in]

10. Thermal Analysis The heat load due to energy from inelastic scattering, applied as Internal Heat Generation Initial temperature of 4.2 K added to coil inlet A mass flow of 0.375 g/s is applied in the fluid line. This is calculated from a velocity of 0.15 m/s and He properties at 4.5 K. The majority of the heat transfer takes place in the first three legs, close to the center where the heat load is the highest Good correlation is also seen with the results from the 2D simulation. Outlet Inlet

11. Maxwell 3D Model B-field on coils Stress profile in the yoke and epoxy core from cool down and Lorentz forces.

12. SRF Cavity Analysis Cavity Modal Analysis Cavity Tuning Sensitivity Pressure Sensitivity Lorentz Force Detuning Details presented by Frank Marhauser JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201612

13. JLEIC Development Data JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201613 CASA Creates Draft Lattice JED ENGN Final Lattice Software Development: Element Controls Safety Monitors Radiation Controls Etc. Hardware Development: Survey& Alignment Magnet Group Installation Group Vacuum Group Electrical Group Etc. Operational Development: Production JED Song Sheets Systems Integrator Activity Machine Checkout Etc. Performance Development: Time Accounting Availability Reliability & Failures Etc. Synchronous Data Flow Simulation Data

14. JLEIC Lattice Data JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201614

15. JLEIC Nomenclature Distinguish elements throughout the machine Unique identification – tied to location JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201615 Information carries through from lattice to simulation to CAD to system drawings to Element Database

16. JLEIC Element Database JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201616 * Developed and maintained by Accelerator Operations Group

17. JLEIC Data Transformation JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201617

18. Semi-Automated Layout Electron Collider Ring – From Lattice File to 3D CAD JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201618

19. Tunnel size 2.6m H x 3.7m W plus 1.5m added to width for magnet chicane Semi-Automated Layout - Chicanes JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201619 Beam lines from CASA lattice files Added support stands – PEP-II for Electron Collider Ring and Floor to Ceiling Stands for Ion Collider Ring

20. Semi-Automated Layout - Chicanes JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201620 2.6m x 5.2m Tunnel X-section 1.5m Max Shift in Electron Ring Magnets 2.6m x 3.7m Tunnel X-section

21. Synchronization – Moving Magnets Requirements Reposition 2 chicanes of magnets – 1 in each arc 5 FODO cells in each chicane – move 9 quad rafts and 8 dipoles Center of chicane moves up to 1.5m Energy change 1-2 times per year Minimize vacuum breaks Minimize time/duration to move, realign, and get under vacuum Minimize cost to implement JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201621

22. Synchronization – Moving Magnets Decision to move electron collider magnets (PEP-II) Magnets to be moved are at “floor level”, not elevated Tunnel width in the area of the chicanes must be widened Maintain pathway for accessibility and transporting elements May follow the trajectory of electron collider beamline at maximum path length position Desire to move arc half cells as one unit (hard flange joint between dipole and quadrupole raft pair) JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201622

23. Synchronization – Moving Magnets Reposition Arc Half Cells as a unit 2 linear slides with rotation While under clean tent, break vacuum at bellows, install flange plates Reposition magnets While under clean tent, remove flange plates, install bellows 2A alignment Reestablish vacuum, replacement bellows 2B alignment JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201623

24. Synchronization – Moving Magnets 2 linear tracks – embed in floor Pivot under quadrupole Slot at end of dipole Turcite or polyethylene provide low friction surface Tunnel floor is main support Fine adjustment in existing PEP-II mounts JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201624

25. Synchronization – Moving Magnets Option of moving ½ of chicane as a single assembly Pivot at one end, support at multiple points along length Lateral stiffness is being evaluated JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 201625 Pivot End Applied Force Center Quad Moved Individually Requires longer beam pipe segment

26. Summary – Next Steps Summary: Continued efforts on SF magnets. Continued support of analyses for SRF. Semi-automated layouts – process in place, building element library Baseline nomenclature and configuration management of data Next Steps: SF Dipole Magnet plan beyond prototype winding Refine machine layouts Initiate RF systems evaluation Initiate FFQ and IR magnet evaluations 200 GeV Ions – costing, magnets Acknowledgements: Peter McIntyre and the team at TAMU, Butch Dillon-Townes, Fredrik Fors, Tommy Hiatt, Ron Lassiter, Renuka Rajput-Ghoshal, Kelly Tremblay, Josh Tschirhart, Mitch Laney

27. Thank you for your attention. Questions? JLEIC Spring Collaboration March 29-31, 2016 27