1. Paolo Pierini INFN Milano/LASA
...pipe reliability
thanks AZ!
SCRF BTR Cryomodule
Paolo Pierini
INFN Milano/LASA
ILC ML & SCRF Baseline Technical Review (ML & SCRF BTR)
19 January 2012 /20 January 2012, KEK

2. Cryomodule session agenda
Cryomodule envelope/interface
CM-string configuration
Matching to the RDR RF Unit (989/888)
Simplification of 5 K rad shield
Accessibility
flow reversal pernding for future optimization
Split-yoke and conduction-cooled SC quadrupole
Separate presentation
Alignment scheme with EXFEL approach
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

3. Cryomodule envelope and interfaces

4. Cryogenic cryomodule interfaces
In the ILC concept the strings of cryomodules integrate the cryoline, so the cross section of the variants is forced to be identical, no matter of the module type (quad/no quad/any variation along the machine)
This allows use of standard connection and cryogenic hardware and procedures
They just need to have an identical longitudinal 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 aspect
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

5. 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...
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

6. e.g. 3H in XFEL Shorter module length...
...but all longitudinal interfaces are preserved 66
Regarding interconnections
looks as a regular XFEL Module
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR
and requires no adaptation

7. Other interfaces
Just received Benno List proposal to keep documented design spreadsheet
Overall physical envelope
Slot length/Module length
Interfaces to plug-compatible components
Interfaces to the floor supports
Interfaces to RF
[Pipe positions in transverse cross sections]
Spreadsheet currently mostly empty
Comments later
Coordination with several other TA
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

8. CM String Configuration

9. A Proposal Revised Keep the concept of 9+8+9 cavity string unitQ
Q 8 Q
From AY
Keep the concept of cavity string unit
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

10. Q: Revert to 8-8-8? A: NO HLRF Distribution was the driving argument
8+8+8 matched better with DRFS
9+8+9 still handled by 10 MW klystron with sufficient margin at 31.5 MV/m +/-20%
Shin Michizono analysis
Driving argument outside Cryomodule TA
In case, revert to the scheme is easy:
work with TA Cryogenics on the rescaling of heat loads and reassess cryo configuration
Make use of latest S1G/DESY static and dynamic data
Use RF parameter sets for dynamic data
Impact on # of components and length
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

11. Heat loads In progress for TDR: Re-assessment of table 3.7-1 in RDR
Check (again) data and RDR assumptions with S1-G and DESY CMTB measurements
TDR based on a wealth of data, further info will come from AMTF XFEL tests
Review dynamics load with beam parameter set
See TP comments
Activity in cooperation with TA
Cryogenics, since it leads to
definition of cryosystem
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

12. Component # 8+8+8 impact: 560 RDR ML RFU 9C: 12652 mm 8C: 11263 mm
282 in e-
278 in e+
9C: mm
73.8% ff
8C: mm
73.7% ff
560 RDR RFU (37.956m)  RFU (35.178m)
Additional CM (8%), interconnections, end boxes
Length change ~62.5m+30m in string end boxes (4RFU string)
(need review with TP)
(2006 CCB docs?)
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

13. Module design data
Capture module design data into EDMS document D*
Will need to discuss in a working meeting
many items are interfaces between TA Cryomodule and Cryogenics (spacing, heat loads, pipe sizes...) and are usually modified iteratively
E.g. If the cyo-unit gets longer module pipes may change dimensions, etc.
Heat load data probably best to be handled in the cryogenic design spreadsheet for consistency (TP)
Geometrical data in EDMS Cryomodule document
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

14. More on EDMS
Up to now design work on ILC EDMS not coordinated directly by TAGL
FNAL ILC Type IV module is on ILC EDMS and has been used for the RDR
S1-G effort was «disconnected» from EDMS
How do we collect all these (and any future) design evolutions in an «official» ILC 3D model available on EDMS (and accountable in its changes towards TDR)?
Review and modify towards the TDR design
Keep control on changes/updates
Need to resolve CAD technicalities
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

15. Simplification of 5 K radiation shield

16. Flow schemes
Extensive measurements of heat load at S1-Global in various configurations
Used for studies of alternative thermal load management (will be reported in TDR)
E.g. Compensate for the full removal of bottom shield part
Various options of distributing the thermal loads in the module (cryosystem) are possible
TTF-XFEL: all major load is absorbed by the return line
RDR: conduction on forward, radiation on return line
REVERSAL: radiation on forward, conduction on return (N.O.)
Again, see TP comments on 10Jan CM Webex
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

17. TTF-XFEL F R
Thermal sinking all on the return line, for conduction/radiation load
The RDR assumed a different scheme
Cryo design does not fully reflect that
PROVEN
CONCEPT
Further comments in Cryogenics
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

18. 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 18 18

19. Module/Cryosystem issues
We need to pay attention to proper thermalization
careful review of the changes introduced not to step back
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

20. 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
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

21. 5 K shield
Flow inversion allows removal of bottom 5K shield, but with important design modification
Rearrangement of module cross-section
Rerouting of thermal intercepts
No time or resources to complete such and effort in TDR, comfortably leave it to the final «optimized» engineering stage
Assume for TDR the XFEL proven concept
Risk free, huge data provided by XFEL tests
Reversal is «cost neutral»
[besides design effort, piping is the same]
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

22. 5 K shield
Proposal for TDR the 5 K shield remains, however, it can be simplifed
We can allow a decrease in static efficiency providing options to allow assembly operations or some access from vessel flanges to the string, if desired
Shields at the module interconnections can be avoided
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

23. Accessibility
One concern raised by S1-G experience is the possibility of accessing the cold tuner motors for replacement
Tied to reliability/maintainability analysis
Proposal to provide flanged access on the vessel and shield (+MLI) simplifications to ease access
A few comments on the implications follow
Bottom line is: in the present tuner setup procedures access is needed from many sides, and technical assessments are needed to better explore the feasibility
Current procedures do not take into account this possibility
An alternate motor support need to be developed
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

24. Access to tuner Material provided by R. Paparella
«Folding in» S1-G assembly experience
Based on «Blade Tuner Assembly» doc
Should make it available on EDMS
Can we foresee an access for the replacement of the cold tuner without pulling the string out?
Presently need lateral access from several position for a complete tuner motor/shaft mechanism replacement. A single port possibly is not enough without rethinking the assembly
Which fault modes do we plan to recover?
Motor replacement (next solution easier/more attractive)
Complete motor+shaft (feasible)
Piezo replacement (possible)
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

25. S1G assembly Followed step-by-step procedure on cavity string
Include visual inspections
At each step cavity length is constrained!
Piezo, safety rods, shaft
And frequency monitored with a VNA
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

26. Motor Assy mount
In red the direction of access with tools
Presently, to remove the motor shaft, cavity and tuner need to be brought to neutral position
Forces (and tight tolerances) otherwise prevent easy disassembly
Even if motor could be taken out, cavity would spring back unconstrained, tuner becomes «loose», piezo decouple
Only way to unload cavity is through the piezo loading screws removing the load
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

27. Motor work area
Motor is now mounted before the MLI wrapping of the 2Phase pipe, to ease access when working on the string
For easier access in module design should be rotated
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

28. Load removal using piezo screws
For this task access is needed from both sides of the cavity, to act on the screw (while holding the support)
Holds also for piezo disassembly
Access also needed during remount for correct piezo preload
measuring the cavity f with a VNA
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

29. Post motor/piezo installation
The «safety bars» guarantee to provide cavity constrain at all times during assembly
2 safety bars up
2 safety bars down
Release of «safety bars» is needed after the sequence
Tuner installation
Motor installation and positioning
Piezo mounting
Piezo preloading
Conversely, when dismounting the safety bars should be engaged (when cavity is neutral)
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

30. Options for changes Provide big port with access on vessel (~40 cm)
Cut-outs on the 2 shields
MLI patched to capture main radiative flux
Need to estimate extra heat load to account
Redesign of the motor support to allow
Blocking the tuner into position with a tool
Easier slide-out of the motor-screw assembly
Access to piezo would require flanges on both sides, or at least a different piezo arrangement (e.g. XFEL package with double piezo)
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

31. Main changes needed Redesign of motor seat to allow quick dismount
Adjustable tool to constrain
motor support and block
into position to prevent
unconstrained cavity length
changes
And possibly choose another azymuthal position to avoid interference with 2 K pipe
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

32. Split-yoke and conduction-cooled SC quadrupole
Dedicated presentation on FNAL/KEK quad prototype tests and plans by JK/AY

33. TDR scenario for Magnet
Split Yoke, conduction cooled magnet is a very attractive idea and it will be proposed for TDR baseline
Streamlines clean room operations
Cleanroom sees just a pipe!
For Cryomodule design we need to
Provide support and cooling
Integrate the current leads configuration
Long discussion time ago to explore mover at central post in order to (actively?) stabilize/align the quadrupole
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

34. 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
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

35. 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
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

36. Information flow for TDR
Several of the specialized sources of information are at Fermilab, so updated info for TDR for module update are needed on
Split quad information
Current lead information for cold magnets
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

37. Assembly
Assembly
If the cross-section is not heavily rearranged, most of the XFEL procedures/experience can be applied
Feedback from Saclay XFEL Village experience with industrial participation
Coming next is Type IV modules at FNAL with central quad
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

38. Alignment scheme with EXFEL approach

39. Assembly Alignment Use XFEL laser-tracker procedure
E.g.
Inclusion of reference markers in cavity design
«measuring collets» on the vessel
ILC alignment requirements seem in XFEL ballpark
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

40. RDR and XFEL
RDR
XFEL TDR M4 M5
XFEL Design
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

41. Other issues: High-pressure-code

42. PV No news at TTC, but activities going on in all region
XFEL process is ongoing, outcome will be available hopefully at next TTC meeting
KEK is following the procedure for QB experiment at STF
US labs are addressing the issue with different actions
It seems it will be difficult to come with a single certification procedure valid everywhere
But have 2011 CEC material from Tom et al.
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

43. CEC 2011 Survey paper
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

44. Other issues: Shipping

45. Worldwide shipping to the site
Deliverable conditions
Shipping conditions (containers and handling)
Do we have to care about fitting in a standard container dimension for the empty/assembled module?
Standard is 20ft/40ft
45ft exist (non standard)
Only in NA ports 48ft / 53ft
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

46. Conclusions

47. TDR and work Part 1: TD Phase R&D Part 2: ILC Baseline Reference
2.6 Cryomodule, Cryogenics thermal balance, and Quad R&D
ML: review 8+(4+Q+4)+8 or 9+(4+Q+4)+9
split conduction-cooled quad
module heat load budgets revision to feed into cryosystem definition
Discuss work on 5 K bottom part or not
Stick to XFEL, but leave option open
Quad design from FNAL
This part written in close cooperation with cryosystem,
Part 2: ILC Baseline Reference
3.4 Cryomodules and Cryogenic systems
Joining 3.4 and 3.5
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR

48. Main summary towards TDR
Keep 26 cavity RF unit (9-8-9)
Split Yoke, conduction cooled quad in baseline
No heavy modification of the ILC cryomodule now, we may leave it to the final engineering stage
Reversal is cost neutral, besides design
cost reduction (?) vs. risk of increased loads
Explore 5 K thermal shield simplifications
We will provide comments regarding options for simplification with minimal heat load impact
18 Jan 2012
KEK, SC BTR