1. TDR: Cryomodule
Paolo Pierini

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

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

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

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

12. Simplification of 5 K radiation shield

13. 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

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

15. 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

16. 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...

17. 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

18. 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?

19. 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

20. Assembly, alignment, tolerance, and deliverable conditions

21. 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)

22. Conduction cooled, splittable SC quadrupole

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. High-pressure-code issues

28. 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

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

30. 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