1. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 SCU Presentations Today Intro. & Performance Motivations (P. Emma, SLAC, 20+5) Conceptual Cryostat Design: Option-A (J. Fuerst, ANL, 15+5) Conceptual Cryostat Design: Option-B (M. Leitner, LBNL, 15+5) SCU Development Schedule (S. Prestemon, LBNL, 15+5) Cost Estimate (M. White, ANL, 15+5)

2. Introduction and Performance Motivations for Superconducting Undulators in LCLS-II Paul Emma (SLAC) SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting Dec. 16, 2014

3. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 LCLS-II Layout switch 0.2 - 1.3 keV 3-15 GeV 120 Hz 1 - 5 keV 1 - 25 keV 4 GeV, 1 MHz HXUHXU SXUSXU SC-LinacSC-Linac Cu-LinacCu-Linac Two independent linacs and two FELs (HXU & SXU) HXU benefits from a Superconducting Undulator (SCU) SXU change not proposed here, but would benefit from much less radiation sensitivity SCU?

4. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Introduction The LCLS-II HXU (with PMU) does not perform well at 5 keV photon energy (a BESAC requirement) An SCU allows ~7 keV, or ½-length undulator at 5 keV SCUs have much less radiation sensitivity (1 MHz beam!) R&D is underway (ANL & LBNL) to build, measure, and correct 2 prototype, 1.5-m-long SCU magnets (July 2015) For an LCLS-II baseline change, we also need to consider: Conceptual design of a ~100-m SCU system (“CDR” available) LCLS-II schedule impact Latest date to decide Cost estimate to develop, build, test, and install SCUs

5. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Comments Today we present concepts, not engineering solutions Cost and schedule estimates are not fully mature (contributors also have day jobs) Many technical issues remain – risk registry is started We don’t have all the answers yet – serious effort is needed, with construction of a full cryostat prototype A well thought-out R&D effort will deliver this technology to future FELs, and possibly LCLS-II SCUs are the way forward, but need real development (time, cost, and risk mitigation)

6. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Design Options NbTi Nb 3 Sn Two different conductor technologies are being developed at present (NbTi at ANL and Nb 3 Sn at LBNL) In addition, two different cryostat designs are being explored (segmented at LBNL and non-segmented at ANL) – see coming talks Non-segmented cryostat (less cost, less accessible) Segmented cryostat (higher cost, more accessible) Separate designs are evolving now, but we will need to choose after the July-2015 R&D is complete

7. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Nb 3 Sn PMU NbTiNbTi In-Vac. PMU LCLS-II PMU: u = 26 mm B pk = 1.0 T g m = 7.3 mm LCLS-II SCU SCUs Provide Much Higher Fields than PMUs 5-mm vac. gap for all (7.3-mm mag. gap) 5-mm vac. gap for all (7.3-mm mag. gap) In-Vac  same vac. gap (5.3-mm mag. gap) In-Vac  same vac. gap (5.3-mm mag. gap) More efficient FEL

8. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Und. Length vs Upper-Limit Photon Energy (LCLS-II)In-Vac-5 In-Vac-5 NbTi-5 In-Vac-5NbTi-5 Nb 3 Sn-5 Limit 145 m PMU-5SelfSeeded 26232018 u  26 mm, 23 mm, 20,mm, 18 mm 7.2 keV   4.8 keV Lower-limit photon energy = 1.5 keV (at 4 GeV) in all cases 2.1 T B max < 2.1 T 5-mm vac. gap for all (7.3-mm mag. gap) 5-mm vac. gap for all (7.3-mm mag. gap) In-Vac  same vac. gap (5.3-mm mag. gap) In-Vac  same vac. gap (5.3-mm mag. gap) 5 keV 

9. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 SCU vs PMU FEL Performance (LCLS-II HXU) PMU NbTi Nb 3 Sn 140-m undulators 4 GeV e-beam 7.2-mm mag. gaps LCLS-II parameters  Log Scale 77-m undulator

10. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 1.0 1.52.02.53.03.54.00.5 Terawatt FEL Peak Power with Taper (4 keV) 8 keV 4 keV 1.5 m choose segment length ~1.5 m FEL Peak Power (TW) Und. Magnet Segment Length (m) NbTi Nb 3 Sn FEL Peak Power (TW) Self-seeding monochromator Start of undulator Claudio Emma, Claudio Pellegrini, UCLA HXU driven by copper linac

11. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 “SCU1” at APS – Not starting from scratch precision winding cross-section measured phase error is 4 deg rms 1.1-m magnet “SCU1” in APS SCU facility B = 0.97 T (450 A) u = 18 mm, g m = 9.5 mm

12. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Cryostat Layout Essentials 70 cm 15 cm 1.5 m phase shifters (3) BPM focusingquad alignmentquadundulator segments (3) x & y position control control 5.5 m beamdirection Three 1.5-m long undulator segments in one 5.5-m cryostat Each independently powered to allow TW-taper Short segments easier to measure and tune (same as R&D) Beam-based alignment as final correction using movers (as LCLS)

13. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 SCU Presentations Intro. & Performance Motivations (P. Emma, SLAC, 20+5) Conceptual Cryostat Design: Option-A (J. Fuerst, ANL, 15+5) Conceptual Cryostat Design: Option-B (M. Leitner, LBNL, 15+5) SCU Development Schedule (S. Prestemon, LBNL, 15+5) Cost Estimate (M. White, ANL, 15+5) Executive Session (30 min)

14. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 END

15. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Final Summary SCU pushes performance and is a good fit for LCLS-II. SCU cost and construction time are not so dissimilar to conventional undulators. Challenges can be met with well-planned, funded R&D. Present state of technical readiness: Demonstrated operation of NbTi-SCU in a storage ring (ANL); Experience building Nb 3 Sn magnets (LBNL); Experience building and operating long cryomodules, large cryoplants, and long undulators. It’s time to make this game-changing technology available A highly capable, multi-lab collaboration is assembled and ready to launch…

16. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Next SCU Steps? 1. Confirm support from all 3 laboratories (ANL, LBNL, SLAC). 2. Set a date to visit DoE (Jan. or Feb.?) and make our case to pursue at least this first stage (2017 Critical Decision). 3. Request funding of 4.8M$/yr over 2.5 yrs (12M$), starting in FY15, to build and test a full 5.5-m-long cryostat system and take us to the 2017 Critical Decision point.  14 Upgrade to 5 GeV with 140-m PMU allows 6.8 keV… but same upgrade with SCU provides ~10 keV

17. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 END

18. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Can we get SCU performance using Electron Energy? very expensive and self-seeding range not as broad 4 GeV PMU 4 GeV NbTi 4 GeV Nb 3 Sn 6.0 GeV PMU 5.3 GeV PMU 4.0 GeV  35 CM’s 5.3 GeV  47 CM’s, 12  5M$ = 60M$ (& add new Cryo Plant) 6.0 GeV  52 CM’s, 17  5M$ = 85M$ (& add new Cryo Plant) Assumes energy is set before undulator period selected (1.5 keV lower limit) Nb 3 Sn and 5 GeV provide > 10 keV !