1. Final Design Review (90-100%) Production 1.3 GHz CryoModule Marc Ross, Systems Manager for Cryogenic Systems, LCLS-II 12-14 May 2015 Fermilab ICB

2. 2 Welcome LCLS-II Production Cryomodule FDR, 12-14 May, 2015 Welcome to the Final Design Review of the Production 1.3 GHz Cryomodule for LCLS-II This is a major milestone toward construction of the 4 GeV CW linac based on TESLA / E-XFEL / ILC technology. Your participation and contribution is much appreciated. The review committee is charged to evaluate the System design readiness of the LCLS-II Production Cryomodule to approve implementation, procurement, fabrication and installation activities.

3. 3 Cryogenic Systems Organization JLAB – Cryo-Plant Dana Arenius (CAM) SLAC – Cryogenic Engineering SRF Group Leader – TBH Cryogenics Group Leader - TBH Integration Engineer – Janice Nelson System Engineer – Vishy Ravindranath System Engineer – Renzhuo Wang Cryo Physics Support Chris Adolphsen John Corlett Cryogenic Systems System Manager – Marc Ross Deputy System Manager – Greg Hays FNAL – Cryomodule Camille Ginsburg (CAM) JLAB – Cryomodule Joe Preble (CAM) FNAL – Cryo-Distribution Arkadiy Klebaner (CAM) JLAB Senior Team Leader George Neil/Joe Preble (acting) FNAL Senior Team Leader Rich Stanek Project Functional Assignment Administrative Reporting/Support Legend Project Management PMCS – Tanya Boysen Project Support - Laura Browne LCLS-II DOE Review, April 7-9, 2015

4. 4 Project Scope Increase: Second Cryoplant LCLS-II Production Cryomodule FDR, 12-14 May, 2015 As of May 2015 LCLS-II started preparation for an additional full-scale cryoplant ‘Second-plant’: a copy of the first To be included as part of project baseline, Q1 CY 2016. Greatly reduces cryoplant-capacity risk (Cryo-system work ongoing) Margins, Stability, Transients, Modes-of-operation, integration,… Integration effort now underway: Design choices / checks TBD

5. 5 Cryogenic Systems Major Physics Requirements CW operation of 8 each 1.3 GHz SRF accelerating cavities 4 GeV beam energy Installed voltage capability 4.65 GV = 16 MV/m 280 cavities installed, with 6% redundancy Maximum beam power 1.2 MW ~1 MHz bunch rate; 300 pC per bunch Nominal 100 pC per bunch initial operations Cavity HOM damping to Q l <10 6 Cold magnet package Quadrupole, H,V steering ≤20 kG ± 0.02% b2/b1 < 0.01; b5/b1 < 0.1 Beam Position Monitor Beamline HOM absorber 3.9 GHz harmonic linearizer SRF cavities (not detailed here)

6. 6 Cryogenic Systems Functional Requirements Un-segmented XFEL-style cryomodule strings Two main strings with approximately equal heat load: upstream and downstream 2.0 K SRF cavity operating temperature = 2.7x10 10 at 16 MV/m, 2.0 K  Unchanged Cryogenic cooling circuits at 45 K, 5 K, 2.0 K Capability for rapid cool down of individual cryomodules ≥ 2 K /min  ≥ 31 g/s He mass flow Residual magnetic field at cavities < 5 mG Captured dark current ≤ 10 nA; 20-yr dose ≤ 1.5x10 9 rad Two JLab CHL-II cryoplant units each with: Warm compressors One 4.5 K coldbox One 2 K cold box Ancillary refrigeration equipment Interface box connecting to cryogenic distribution system Cryogenic distribution boxes and transfer lines Connect each cryoplant unit to one main cryomodule string Three bypass lines around warm linac components End caps and feed caps for cryomodule strings

7. 7 LCLS-II Review Committee Charge for: Production Cryomodule FDR (1) LCLS-II Production Cryomodule FDR, 12-14 May, 2015 Respond to the following questions: Technical Scope Are the designs mature and technically sound to satisfy design specifications? Is the design likely to meet performance expectations? -Is the cavity cool-down procedure well defined and capable of achieving high-Q performance? -Will the magnetic shielding design achieve the performance requirements? -Has the fundamental power coupler design been integrated appropriately into the system design with adequate thermal management? -Has the tuner design been integrated adequately into the cryomodule to achieve the lifetime and servicability requirements? -Does the quadrupole/corrector-dipole package meet the system requirements? Have installation issues been adequately addressed? Have all the major interfaces been identified and incorporated into the design? Are all design specifications, requirements, performance, and interface documents reviewed, approved and released?

8. 8 Recent Tuner and Magnet Final Design Reviews LCLS-II Production Cryomodule FDR, 12-14 May, 2015

9. 9 LCLS-II Review Committee Charge for: Production Cryomodule FDR (2) LCLS-II Production Cryomodule FDR, 12-14 May, 2015 Design Management Is the design team organized and staffed to successfully complete the project? Have all of the major risks been identified and managed? Are procurements and production appropriately planned? Is the development of associated drawing packages sufficiently mature? Cost and Schedule Is the cost and schedule reasonable to achieve the planned scope? ES&H Are all related ES&H aspects being properly addressed?  See Theilacker Has the appropriate failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) been performed on the components and system? Has the maximum credible incident (MCI) been defined appropriately? Miscellaneous Have all the previous design review action items/comments been addressed? Are there any other issues that have been identified that need to be addressed? Overall Readiness Is the design sufficiently mature so as to allow Final Design Review approval?

10. 10 ESH – Key (top-level) Issues LCLS-II Production Cryomodule FDR, 12-14 May, 2015 LCLS-II will be constructed through an inter-lab-partnership Vital expertise and experience to be found in pockets within the partnership Are all related ES&H aspects being properly addressed? Fermilab Safety Program  ‘Home-Team’ Guidance Multi-Laboratory Safety Program Comparison  Partner-lab applicability Pressure Safety Electrical Safety Seismic Safety FMEA / What-If Analysis

11. 11 Schedule of Cryomodule Formal Gate Reviews Final Design Reviews - Components Vacuum Vessel & HGRP – 12/04/2014 Beam Position Monitor – 12/12/2014 Cavity Tuner – 04/15/2015 Quadrupole Magnet – 04/16/2015 Final Design Reviews - Cryomodule Prototype Cryomodule FDR – 04/21-22/2015 o Production Cryomodule FDR – 05/12-14/2015 Production Readiness Reviews o FNAL – 02/2016 o JLab – 02/2016 Operation Reviews at SLAC - Cryomodules, Distribution, & Cryoplant o Operational Readiness Clearance – 08/2018 o Accelerator Readiness Review – 05/2019

12. 12 Review recommendation criteria (adapted from DoE Office of Project Assessment ‘Lehman’ guidance) LCLS-II Production Cryomodule FDR, 12-14 May, 2015 A recommendation should be a single concise sentence starting with an action verb (Consider, Analyze, Evaluate, Compare, etc.) End recommendation sentence with a "due by" milestone or date Base recommendations only on material presented Supporting information leading up to a recommendation should exist in the Findings and Comments sections Only make recommendations that relate to the project taking a different course of action Don't make a recommendation that represents the next normal course of action (i.e., "do the next step".) Recommendations should be consistent with the level of the review (don't recommend action at final design review that would normally be part of Production Readiness Review.) Group items into a single recommendation when possible If there are more than a few recommendations (>10) then there is likely a misunderstanding of the above criteria and some recommendations should instead be presented as Comments.

13. 13 This Review: LCLS-II Production Cryomodule FDR, 12-14 May, 2015 is a formal one. Please: Non-reviewers keep quiet, unless you have clarifying questions, and let the reviewers ask the review questions. SLAC-attendees: Email me or Greg or Camille or Lori if more interaction is needed. (Lori has agreed to be SLAC ‘local-chair’)

14. 14 Linac Operating Modes Full linac operating at the nominal maximum expected heat load Full linac maintained at 4.5 K in standby mode, no beam and no RF power Half linac, either upstream or downstream string, maintained at 2.0 K standby mode using a single cryogenic plant, no beam and no RF power Linac cool down to approximately 80 K or warm up to 300 K, without the use of turbines One cryomodule warmup above transition and then re-cooled to 4.5 K One linac string maintained at 4.5 K while the other is warmed up to 300 K or cooled down to 4.5 K Cool down from 80 K to 4.5 K: completes cool down and helium filling of a linac string to 4.5 K Fast cryomodule cool down from 40 K through superconducting transition, in order to expel the magnetic flux trapped in the cavities

15. 15 No Changes in Cryomodule Design Resulting From Increased Cryogenic Cooling Capacity Cryomodules and cryogenic distribution systems designed for minimum 100% increase above nominal heat load and mass flow Cryoplant cooling capacity margin ≥ 100% Cooling margin smallest for 5 K intercept circuits Supports cavity gradient increase > 50% above nominal Beyond cavity performance goals, installed RF power capability, potential field emission limit Supports ≥ 1.5x10 10 with cooling margin ≥ 50% Supports rapid cooldown mass flow ≥ 31 g/s per cryomodule 136 g/s per cryoplant unit supports rapid cool down of up to 4 cryomodules Cryoplant turn-down dominated by 2 K cold boxes Cold compressor turbines sizing is configurable Turbines installed to best match heat load