1. Existing Arcs and 4m Dipole Preliminary Design and Safety Review Beam Transport Interface Mike Bevins February 22, 2007 12GeV Upgrade - Beam Transport

2. Existing C-style dipole interface Whats NOT changing New H-style dipole interface Alignment plan ARC shifts ARC Vacuum Safety Cost Estimate & Schedule Risk Assessment Beam Transport Interface - Outline

3. Existing C-style dipole interface ARC Dipoles B-line – vertical bending dipole

4. Existing C-style dipole support Beam Direction Typical ARC and hall transport horizontal bending dipole support scheme Outrigger bolted to magnet core Alignment cartridge cap Tie bar (fastens cap to magnet core) Alignment cartridge base bolted to stand

5. Existing C-style dipole support

6. Whats NOT changing Alignment specs –Position to +/-0.5mm in x & y, +/- 1.0mm in z Vacuum specs –Beam line partial pressure of hydrogen <10 -6 torr –Total pressure of all other constituents less than 5x10 -7 torr –Fabrication, welding, cleaning & handling, and leak checking specs still apply 22631-S-001 Fabrication of Ultra-High Vacuum Equipment 22632-S-001 Cleaning and Handling of U.H.V. Components 22633-S-001 Welding Specification For U.H.V. Components 22634-S-001 Helium Leak Test For U.H.V. Components Note an update and consolidation of our vacuum specs is underway Support stands Dipole chambers

7. New H-style dipole interface Prototype H-style dipole INTERFERENCE H-steel interferes with existing outrigger support H-steel runs directly through the holes tapped into the magnet core used to support the outrigger Prefer not to cut away H-steel to clear existing support

8. New H-style dipole interface Proposed solution Eliminate outrigger supports Build single cap that spans both cartridge bases Requires NO modification to magnet core Requires NO change to cartridge base support structure Does require 3 rd flat on one of the cartridge basses for adjustments normal to the beamline

9. 3 rd flat reqd on this cartridge base Bracket to fasten cap to magnet core New H-style dipole interface Increased cap thickness to support cartridge post (previously reinforced by outrigger) Cartridge post Fastener in existing tapped hole

10. Alignment Plan – Existing scheme Existing C-style dipole alignment scheme Alignment fixture indexes on machined flats on each end of the magnet Two bolts are used to fasten the fixture to the magnet (mounting holes tapped into upper machined surface on the magnet core) Problems - Lab alignment group reports that it can be difficult to ensure that the fixture is seated properly against the magnet Scheme only provides two alignment points on each magnet Fixtures would require modification to eliminate interference with new H-steel dipoles Existing C-style ARC dipole Existing C-style dipole up-beam alignment fixture dipole Prototype H-style dipole Machined flats

11. Existing C-style ARC dipole Alignment Plan – Existing scheme

12. Alignment Plan – New scheme Use threaded retro-reflector nests in old fixture fastening holes Provides four points for alignment Alignment group has done mock-up to confirm line-of-sight with the addition of H-steel Additional testing is planed to check repeatability of the installation of nests and the location of the tapped holes in the magnet core May need to fiducialize each dipole and leave nests in place C-style ARC dipole with retro-reflector nests installed Retro-reflector nest

13. Alignment Plan – New scheme Retro-reflector nest line-of-sight check with mock H-steel (viewed from laser tracker) Mock H-steel

14. Alignment Plan – New scheme Threaded retro-reflector nest

15. Alignment Plan Vertical bending B-line dipoles Dipoles are aligned using four tooling ball nests mounted to side of dipole Addition of H-steel does not interfere with existing scheme NO CHANGE REQUIRED Vertical bending B-line dipole

16. Z X 0,0 East Arc West Arc ARC Shifts To accommodate changes in the spreaders & recombiners the beam path length must be adjusted by shifting several arcs Shifts are pure z-shifts Current optics design calls for small shifts that are likely well within the remaining adjustment in the alignment cartridges (nominally +/-1cm) Remaining adjustment will be field checked later this year Preliminary designs have been developed to accommodate shifts ~1cm if required

17. ARC Shift – Design for ~1cm shift Goal : Shift arc dipoles and quad girders in machine z ~1cm without altering the support stand, dipole, or quad girder Dipole shift solution Bracket slotted along the axis and normal to dipole Tie bar & shim can be replaced with bracket slotted along the axis and normal to dipole Up-beam dipole supportDown-beam dipole support

18. ARC Shift – Design for ~1cm shift Quad Girders Mounting very similar to dipoles Alignment cartridge caps fastened to girder with two bolts and pinned using button feature on the cap Typical arc girder interface Typical cartridge cap Button Threaded holes

19. ARC Shift – Design for ~1cm shift Solution for quad girders Replace existing 4x4 caps with a two piece 5x5 design that incorporates the shift The inner disk eccentrically revolves the upper girder mounting features on the outer body around the fixed cartridge base Outer body of the cap can be used in every arc that requires a shift The inner disk would be arc shift specific Design would NOT limit the nominal range of adjustment Depending on the final magnitude of the shifts and the number of arcs requiring a shift it may be simpler and more cost effective to have multiple one piece offset cap designs Cartridge base Outer body Inner disk Shift

20. ARC Vacuum The gas load will increase over the present 6GeV design as a result of: Increased thermal outgassing Dipoles running hotter heating the chamber walls Synchrotron radiation heating near dipoles Increased photon stimulated desorption from synchrotron radiation Rough calculations indicate that initially local pressures will be higher than present condition Initial consultation with CASA indicates that this will be acceptable A more detailed vacuum study is underway and will be presented as part of the Preliminary Design and Safety Review of ARC 10 and Hall D layout in April of this year Ion pumps & valves are planned to be refurbished as part of the normal CEBAF maintenance

21. Safety Considerations Personnel training Jlab & sub-contractor Radiation Designated areas for containment and radiation survey of materials that will be removed from the tunnel Storage Vacuum drift tubes & bellows, hardware, misc. supports Material handling Hot work Electrical Hazards Details to be presented as part of the Installation Plan and Estimate Review to be held in May of this year

22. Cost Estimate & Schedule Detail design to be completed late in FY08 Fabrication and delivery to support installation activities in FY12 Existing parts getting replaced (cartridge bases, caps, etc…) will likely be used elsewhere in the machine!

23. Risk Assessment Technical - Low Supports -similar designs exist and are already proven A prototype of the H-style dipole double cap is planed to check installation onto alignment posts Vacuum - rough calculations suggest no changes required Detailed study underway Alignment - proof of concept complete Procurement Schedule - Low No long-lead items identified Cost – Low Significant portion of cost is based on engineering estimates Plan to refine with vendor quotes Uncertainty in remaining adjustment in cartridges to accommodate arc shifts Plan to confirm with field check

24. Summary Plan and estimate to support/align modified dipoles complete –Plans are in place to confirm present assumptions –Alignment and installation personnel involved in designs Risks are low Safety considerations are similar to existing ones sans scale Detailed vacuum calculations are underway – preliminary studies indicate no change required

25. Conclusion and Reminder of Charge Thanks to the review panel and all participants! George Biallas (Chair), CASA Representative, Bob May, Chris Curtis We appreciate comments for the reviewers and all in attendance Preliminary design reviews shall address the readiness of the design to be taken to final/detailed design –Technical –Safety –Cost –Risk The preliminary design review should generate a list of follow-on items to help the designers/engineers in their jobs –What needs to be addressed or considered prior to the CD2 Reviews? –What needs to be addressed or considered during the detail design next fall? Questions?