Preparation for SCRF BTR to be held at KEK, January 19 -20, 2012 Akira Yamamoto, Marc Ross, and Nick Walker (PMs) Jim Kerby, and Tetsuo Shidara (SCRF-APMs)

Preparation for SCRF BTRto be held at KEK, January 19 -20, 2012

Akira Yamamoto, Marc Ross, and Nick Walker (PMs)Jim Kerby, and Tetsuo Shidara (SCRF-APMs)

Updated, Jan. 16, 2012

120115 GDE-PMs 1Plan for SCRF-BTR

Design Update in SB2009

2120115 GDE-PMs

RDR SB2009Motivation: Cost containment• Single accelerator tunnel• Smaller damping ring• e+ target location at high-energy

end, • SCRF: Gradient variation of 31.5

MV/m +/- 20 %, • HLRF: KCS and DRFS with RDR-RF

unit as backup

Plan for SCRF-BTR

TDR Technical Volumes

120115 GDE-PMs

Reference Design Report

ILC Technical Progress Report (“interim report”)

TDR Part I:R&D

TDR Part II:BaselineReferenceReport

Technical Design Report

~250 pagesDeliverable 2

~300 pagesDeliverables 1,3 and 4

* end of 2012 – formal publication early 2013

2007 2011 2013*

AD&I

3Plan for SCRF-BTR

TDR Part I: R&D - Outline1. Introduction 5 pages

2. Superconducting RF Technology 75 pages

3. Beam Test Facilities 75 pages

4. Accelerator Systems R&D 50 pages

5. Post-TDR R&D 20 pages

6. Conclusions 10 pages


TDR Part II: ILC Baseline Reference

1. Introduction and overview 5 pages

2. General parameters and layout 15 pages

3. SCRF Main Linacs 60 pages

4. Polarised electron source 15 pages

5. Positron source 20 pages

6. Damping Rings 30 pages

7. Ring to Main Linac (RTML) 20 pages

8. Beam Delivery System & MDI 30 pages

9. CFS and global systems 30 pages

10. .. see later120115 GDE-PMs

Detailed section outline available here

7Plan for SCRF-BTR

TDR Part II: ILC Baseline Reference

1. Introduction and overview 5 pages

2. General parameters and layout 15 pages

3. SCRF Main Linacs 60 pages

4. Polarised electron source 15 pages

5. Positron source 20 pages

6. Damping Rings 30 pages

7. Ring to Main Linac (RTML) 20 pages

8. Beam Delivery System & MDI 30 pages

9. CFS and global systems 30 pages

10. .. see later120115 GDE-PMs

Detailed section outline available here

3.1 Main linac layout and parameters (Adolphsen)3.2 Cavity performance and production specification (Yamamoto, Kerby)3.3 Cavity integration, coupler, tuners,… (Hayano)3.4 Cryomodule design including quad (Pierini)3.5 Cryogenics systems (Peterson)3.6 RF power and distribution systems (Fukuda, Nantista) 3.7 Low-level RF control (Carwardine, Michizono)

8Plan for SCRF-BTR

How to prepare for BTR and TDR?

• Technical discussion in TTC, Dec. 5 – 8, to evaluate technically satisfactory/acceptable design for projects.

• ILC Specific discussion in post-TTC, Dec. 8-9, to seek for cost-effective technical choice to prepare for BTR

• Consensus/Decision for TDR writing, BTR at KEK, Jan. 19 – 20, 2012


TTC: WG-1 Discussion Summary

120115 GDE-PMs

Tuner: finding,- Blade and slide-Jack tuners satisfy technical requirements- Accessibility to be important

Input couplers: finding: - Tesla and KEK couplers satisfy technicalrequirements- Cu-plating to be improved- Warm-flange to be interface

Cryomodule assembly: finding,- Alignment with EXFEL adaptable, - Magnetic field inside Lhe vessel, -

10Plan for SCRF-BTR

Important Step for Technical Guidelines proposed by PMs

• The first step to evaluate designs to satisfy the ILC technical requirements with:– Keeping ‘plug-compatibility’ at interfaces and

defining the envelope• The second step to choose the best cost-

effective designs for: – the TDR baseline description and the cost-

estimate


Technical Change Guideline Re-ProposedSee Red parts (Further details with EXCEL sheets by Marc Ross )

Tech. Area Main Subjects Description

ML Integration Parameters and beam dynamics Single tunnel-layoutCM and Q periodicity:ML tunnel length

Possible tilting of the tunnel

Low-Power design as TDR baseline (SB2009), and alignment toleranceCircular tunnel in flat-land, and Kamaboko tunnel in mountain CM and Q periodicity: >> Stay at 9+4Q4+9 Reserved tunnel-extension of 400 m w/o or w/ utility ? >> More precise discussions for purpose requiredNew request from CFS: < 0.5 % tunnel tilting

RF power HLRF Configuration

LLRF operational overhead

KCS in flat-land siteRDR-RF unit in mountain site (DRFS to be withdrawn) ≥ 12% at G=31.5 MV/m +/-20% and RF power in RDR-unit <33.3 MV/m>

Cryomodule Envelope/interfaceString Unit 5 K radiation shield

Piping interface with flange?, inter-connect condition, etc,Stay at 9 +4Q4+9 (no change to 8+4Q4+8)Simplification and accessibility for active components such as tuners

Cryogenics Unit capacity Stay at 5 units per linacLimit of tilting angle in ML tunnel

Cavity integration and Cavity/CM test

Envelope, baseline, compatibility Test conditions

Tuner type, coupler warm-flange, beam pipe flange, magnetic shield (inside/outside), LHe tank etc. Test plan and fraction of CM to be tested

Cavity performance YieldGradient spread Degradation in CM module

New recipe and cost-base scope: 1st pass: 60% and 2nd pass: 70% ?G = 31.5 +/- 20 % confirmed (Assume ~ 1/10 cavities to degrade dG = ~ 20 % or more, and ) >> Adopt a statistical approach to cavity degradation; <> and rms

Cost Cost containmentExchange rate and conversion

Technical design base on SB2009 (updated) compared with RDR cost PPP

120115 GDE-PMs12Plan for SCRF-BTR

High-Level RF SolutionsKlystron Cluster Scheme, KCS (SLAC)

Distributed RF Sources, DRFS (KEK)

2×35 10MW MB klystrons

GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011 SCRF Industrialization 13

~4000×800kW klystrons

Tunneling Study for Mountain Regions in Japan

12/01/10, A. Yamamoto GDE-Efforts for ILC Cost 14

Courtesy: Enomoto/MiyaharaStudy supported by KEK-DG

Studies made for 8 cases

These are cost-and time-effective in Japan 120115 GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR 16

Studies made for 8 cases

DRFS RF unit:2 cavities operated by 800 kW Klystron

RDR RF unite : 3 Cryomodule (9+8+9 = 26 cavity), operated by using 10 MW Klystron 120115 GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR 17

Progress in Discussion and Consensusamong HLRF and CFS experts, as of Jan. 5, 2012

• ‘Kamaboko’ type tunnel for mountain region and RDR HLRF configuration may be fully adaptable,

• DRFS and RDR-backup may satisfy ILC requirements, • RDR-backup configuration to be more cost-effective solution,

• 10 MW klystron may handle 26 (9+4Q4+9) cavities with gradient spread of 31.5MV/m+/-20 % (25 – 38 MV/m) in case of RDR-RF or KCS-RF design, with minimum operational margin

– Klystron power consumption spread corresponding to: <29.7> - <33.3>– 20 % at <31.5>, and 12 % at <33.3 MV/m> assuming Gaussian distribution – Low-power baseline (for TDR) with 39 (1.5 x (9+4Q4+9) cavity string may absorb this problem, in TDR with

SB2009-updated design,

– (400 m tunnel backup needs to be well discussed again: what would be the purpose, and how it should be equipped or not)

• Requirements for CFS to stay < 31.5 MV/m> and 10 MW klystron for RDR-RF and KCS configuration

– Chilling water and power line unit can be extended to 2.3 km and everything may be well averaged. Then no extra requirements for CFS (except for the additional 400 m equipped or not) .


SCRF Industrialization

A Proposal Revised

• Keep the concept of 9+8+9 cavity sting unit

9 4 + Q +4 9

8 8Q 8

8 4 + Q +4 8

GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011 19

Access Routes with Mountain-site


Layout of 2K CryoplantsML BDS IP

2K Cryoplants

RDR-based

How about this?


Length of transfer line

DH

3236.0004429.9404650.0242764.8605087.1695087.169 2640.000 4275.616 4650.024 2764.860 5087.169 5087.169

AH4AH3AH2AH150N

AH5 AH6 AH7 AH8 AH9

15200.824 14450.500

25375.162 24624.838

29651.324

50000.000

AH050S

DH

3236.0005072.4125072.4124749.7354749.7352374.868 2640.000 4275.616 4650.024 5175.679 5175.679 2587.840

AH4AH3'AH2'AH1'50N

AH5 AH6 AH7 AH8' AH9'

15200.824 14450.500

25375.162 24624.838

29651.324

50000.000

AH0'50S

AH8 AH9AH0 AH1AH2 AH3

2764m 2325m 2325m 2215m 2215m 2138m 2138m 2325m 2325m 2764m

1700m 2536m 2536m 2536m 2536m 2138m 2138m 2325m 2325m 2764m

Two shield model Simplified shield model

ILC Cryomodule Plug-compatibility

Vacuum vessel = 965.2mm

120115 GDE-PMs

Some difference from EXFEL- Length- Cavity pitch- Unit configuration - Access flanges- Etc.

23Plan for SCRF-BTR

SCRF Industrialization 24

Quadrupole Cross-Section

LHe tank for current leads connections

Beam pipe Iron yoke

V. Kashikhin, FNAL Review, March 2, 2010GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011

SCRF Industrialization

R&D/Demonstration Required• Rapid response to beam handling

– Study by K. Kubo and K. Yokoya

• R&D cooperation under discussion between Fermilab and KEK– Magnet by Fermilab and Conduction cooling by KEK

Peak field Response required

Quadrupole 30 T/m*m 0.01 T/m*m/sec (0.03% /sec)

Dipole 0.05 T*m 3E-4 Tm/sec (0.6 % /sec)

GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011 25

Plug-compatible Conditions

Plug-compatible interface nearly established

Item Possibilities Plug-comp.

Cavity shape TeSLA/LL/RE

Length Fixed

Beam pipe flange Fixed

Suspension pitch Fixed

Tuner Blade/Jack TBD

Coupler flange (warm end)

Nearly fixed(250 mm dia.)

Coupler pitch fixed

He –in-line joint Nearly fixed as shown here,


ILC 建設費見積もり (ILC RDR) 　FIGURE 6.2-1. Distribution of the ILC value estimate by area system and common infrastructure, in ILC Units. The estimate for the experimental detectors for particle physics is not included. (The Conventional Facilities estimates have been averaged over the three regional site estimates. )

27

Cavity & CM Ass.

-13%

-15%

RF Sys. -36%

-27%

Effort In progress

12/01/10, A. Yamamoto GDE-Efforts for ILC Cost

Updated Cavity Cost-study compared with RDR and E-FXEL (as of Oct., 2011)

ILC:RDR

EXFEL:Original 300

EXFEL:+ 80

ILC:E A J

Prep.+Prod. Yrs. 2+3 1+2.5 ? 2+6 2+6 2+6

Fraction 100% 2 x 50% ~ same 20% 20% 20%

# cavity 17,000 300 +80 3,200 3,200, 3,200

SC Material (supplied)

15.5 20+2 ~ same (~22x0.8*+2)) (~24*) (~2.4*)

Mech. Fabrication including EBW

Chemistry

Ti He-Vessel

Accept. Test (RT)

Factory investment

Fab. Cost/cavity(+ SC-mat.= Sum)

Unit

Cost Comparison in ILCU

28

Further mass production cost study with contracts in progress: - RI-DESY: 50, 100 % production cost including

facility cost- AES-FNAL: 20 % (& more as option) facility investment

cost- MHI-KEK: 20, 50, 100 % production cost w/

facility cost

To be completed by spring, 2012.

ILC コストを単純に EXFEL からエネルギーでスケーリングする事は無理がある。但し、同様の技術となる SCRF 空洞について比較検討は意味あり。

Reference for Cavity Specification • Technical guideline for ILC-GDE TDR and the cost estimate:

– referring Specifications for E-XFEL SCRF 1.3 GHz Cavity, issued by DESY• EXFEL/001 and associated documents :Rev.B, June 2009, by courtesy of W. Singer (DESY-XFEL)),• The reference specification is available with ILC-GDE PMs, under permission of W. Singer (DESY-XFEL) • URL: http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/event/ILC-SCRF-TR


scrf-treq

Courtesy:W. Singer

http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/event/ILC-SCRF-TR

EXFEL Cavity Deliverable (for a major reference for ILC Cavity)

120115 GDE-PMs

• From EXFEL specification: 02L BQM-Cavity in He Tank

30Plan for SCRF-BTR

TDR Cavity Baseline Configuration


Cavity Fabrication Process

He Tank


Material/Sub-component

Cavity Fabrication

Surface Process

LHe-Tank Assembly

Vertical Test =Cavity RF Test

CryomoduleAssembly and RF Test

Cavity Test Procedure consideration(He tank-on test)

Cavity Fabrication

Inspections/optical inspection

Bulk-EP (150µm)

800C heat treatment

optical inspection

cell RF tuning

surface repair 2

fine EP (20µm)

120C baking

He tank welding

pick-up antenna inst., HOM tuning

2K field test

OK

if defect found

surface repair 1

if defect found

4 Cavities Test in one cool-down

> 28MV/m < 28MV/m

2nd pass

remove pick-up antenna,

HOM antenna

with He Tank in 2nd pass

with He Tank in 2nd pass

skipin 2nd pass

to cryomodule

Cavity test facility

Coupler Fabrication

clean-up

pair assembly

pumping/120C baking

RF power process (RoomTemperature)

disassembly in clean room

assembly into cavitiesin clean room

RF power process(Room Temperature)

RF power process with cavity (2K)

20hrs for two

Coupler Procedure Cryomodule Procedurecryomodule assembly

cryomodule test facility

in tunnel

RF power process(Room Temperature)

RF power process with cavity (2K)

Accelerator Operation

reflection mode

through mode

reflection mode

through mode

Coupler test facility

2x peak RF power process Move to Tunnel and install into Accelerator

cavities

couplers

Initial 20% cold-testThe rest 10% sampling for cold-test

100% power test

How to organize SCRF BTR• Co-organized by ILC-GDE and KEK LC office

– Thanks for the cooperation– Open for ILC-GDE and KEK members (not for companies, this time)

– http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/conferenceOtherViews.py?view=standard&confId=5444

• Guidelines of design updates for TDR proposed by PMs, based on SB2009 design

• Responses, comments, and/or counter-proposals to be given by TA group leaders

• Discussions by everybody to reach consensus

• Decisions made by PMs for design updates in TDR• Further action to be made for TDR

120115 GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR 35

Agenda Proposed for SCRF BTR at KEK (1/19) Date Technical Area Subjects to be discussed Conveners /

- Presenters

9:00 - 19/AM-1

1. Introduction Welcome Address PM’s report

a) Japanese status and scope for ILC b) Summary of design update proposal

Ross- Suzuki - Yamamoto

10:15 - Break / photo

10:45 - 19/AM-2

2. ML Integration a) Beam dynamics: - Quadrupole/BPM periodicity, Quad. Location,- Alignment and beam tunability, - Bunch spacing limit b) Availability, reliability, and backup CM - 3 % longer (400 m) tunnel empty or equipped? c) ML CFS design and requests for ML and SCRF d) Comments from Cost Group

Adolphsen - Yokoya/Kubo

- List

- Kuchler - Dugan

12:15 - lunch

13;30 - 19/PM-1

3. HLRF/LLRF a) KCS/RDR-RF-unit HLRF system configuration including backup PS and utilities with the single tunnel design, and low-power and full-power

b) LLRF overheadw/gradient spread, and w/ (989 or 888) cavity-stringsc) Marx generatord) AC power and cooling w/ gradient spreads e) Tunable power distribution system f) Comments from Cost Group

Fukuda/Nantista

- Michizono- Adolpphsen-

- Dugan

15:15 - break

15:45 - 19/PM-2

4. Cryomodule and Cavity-string Assembly

a) Cryomodule envelope/interfaceb) CM-string configuration w/ 989 cavity-st. assembly c) Simplification of 5K radiation-shield, accessibility, flow reversal or not d) Split-yoke and conduction-cooled SC quadrupolese) Alignment scheme with EXFEL approach, f) Comments from Cost group

Pierini - TBD

- Dugan18:00 - Reception/Dinner

36120115 GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR

Subjects to be discussed and decided: ML Integration

• ML beam dynamics – SB2009 Low-power, 500 GeV Full-power, and 1 TeV upgrade

parameters• Lattice configuration with RDR RF unit periodicity, • Bunch spacing

• Availability and reserved tunnel-extension– 3 % longer (400 m) tunnel emply or equipped?– CM module backup, for degradation and failures, to required or not ?

• ML-CFS design status and requests for ML & SCRF– Tilting tunnel with < 0.5 % for water handling and saving access tunnel

length, – ML length to be fixed.


Subjects to be discussed and decided:RF Power System

• RF system configurations– KCS: in flat-land site– RDR RF-unit: in mountain site

• cost-effective solutions to satisfy SB2009 low-power requirements (39 cavities operated by a 10 MW klystron)

– Marx generators – Tunable power distribution system– AC power and cooling requirements


Subjects to be discussed and decided:Cryomodule and the Assembly

• Cryomodule envelope and interfaces• CM-string configuration

– Matched to TDR RF units, (i.e.; 9+4Q4+9 unit) • Simplification of 5 K radiation shield

– Cost effective design and accessibility for maintenance, (flow reversal pending for future option)

– Split-yoke and conduction-cooled SC Quad. – Alignment scheme with EXFEL approach


Agenda Proposed for SCRF BTR at KEK (1/20)

Date Technical Area Subjects to be fixed Presenters/Conveners

9:00 - 20/AM-1

5. Cryogenics systems a) Location and number of cryogenics plantsb) Capacity optimization and heat balance with

crymodule heat-loadc) Tilting of cryomodule and the acceptable limitd) Comments from Cost Group

Peterson

- Dugan9:40 - break

10:00 - 20/AM-2

6-1. Cavity integration

6-2. Cavity and Cryomodule test

a) Cavity envelope/interfaceb) Tuner, coupler, beam-flange, magnetic shield, and LHe

tank, c) Cavity delivery condition with LHe-tankd) Power coupler conditioning strategy e) Cold test: what fraction is to be cold-tested? What is

to be tested? f) Comments from Cost Group

Hayano- TBD

- Dugan12:15 - Lunch

13:30 - 20/PM-1

7. Cavity gradient a) Cavity production and process recipeb) Define production yield including new parameters

such as radiationc) Gradient spread of 31.5 MV.m +/-20% d) Gradient degradation after assembly into the

cryomodule

Geng- Ginsburg- TBD

15:00 - break

15:30 - 20/PM-2

8. General Discussions and conclusion a) Current status for SCRF costing overview b) Summary of discussions and decisions - ML tunnel to be fixed including reserved extensionc) TDR SCRF outline and writing task d) Closing remark

Walker- Dugan- Yamamoto- Carwardine- Barish / Ross

17:30 SCRF BTR complete


Subjects to be discussed and decided:Cryogenics

• Location, numbers of cryogenics plants,• Limit for tilting ML tunnel • Capacity optimization and heat balance

– Variation of the access tunnel position and the cryoplant capacity


Subjects to be discussed and decidedCavity Integration

• Cavity envelope and interfaces• Design for the TDR cost-base:

– Baseline configuration: • Tesla-style cavity + Blade tuners

– Associated design evaluated:• Tuner, coupler, beam-flange, magnetic shield, LHe tank,

alignment-base, etc.

– Cavity delivery condition w/ LHe tank• Plan needed for the 2nd cycle process


Subjects to be discussed and decided:Cavity and Cryomdule tests

• Cavity performance test in vertical position – 100 % w/ LHe tank, and up to the 2nd cycle

• Power coupler conditioning– 100 % before installation into the tunnel (or partly

after the installation?)• Cryomodule performance tests

– What and which fraction to be tested: ~ 30 %?


Subjects to be discussed and decided:Cavity-Gradient Performance

• Cavity production and process recipe– Including plan for the 2nd cycle process and handlin

of LHe tank,• Define production yield

– including new parameters such as radiation, – Re-defining the yield for the production stage

• Gradient degradation after assembly into the cryomodule

• How to settle the gradient degradation? 120115 GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR 44

Subjects to be discussed and decided:General Summary

• Design for the TDR and the cost base– ML parameters and ML-CFS condition

• To fix tunnel length including reserved tunnel

– HLRF design and LLRF overhead– Cavity and Cryomodule design

• Plan for backup • Cost overview and scope for cost-containment• Plan for Technical Design Report• Further homework 120115 GDE-PMs Plan for SCRF-BTR 45

EDMS and Tech. Design Documentation

Important goal to consolidate all technical documentation in EDMS in a structured fashion

15.11.2011 Nick Walker - PAC, Prague

Tentative Schedule

15.11.2011

Korea GDE meeting24.04 – Parts I & II first drafts

US LC meeting (Arlington)24.10 – final Drafts

preparation

2011 2012

16 weeks

25 weeks

Executive Summary

Companion outreach document

Very aggressive schedule!In parallel:- cost estimation- TDD for EDMS

We like a challenge

Nick Walker - PAC, Prague

Backup


SCRF-ML Technology RequiredRDR Parameters Value

C.M. Energy 500 GeV

Peak luminosity 2x1034 cm-2s-1

Beam Rep. rate 5 Hz

Pulse time duration 1 ms

Average current 9 mA 　 (in pulse)

Av. field gradient 31.5 MV/m +/-20%

# 9-cell cavity ~ 18,000(14,560 + ) a x 1.11

# cryomodule (8+4Q4+8, in study)

~ 1,700 (1,680+ )b

# RF units ~ (560+ )g

49120115 GDE-PMs

RDR SB2009

Plan for SCRF-BTR

Cavity: Plug-compatible Interface

Component interfaces are

reduced to the minimum

necessary to allow for system

assembly120115 GDE-PMs 50Plan for SCRF-BTR


9-cell cavities: (17,325) production

Required Production in ILC

Cryomodule: (1,824) production

Pre-production 2 years +Full production 6 years

GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011

Technical Change Guideline Re-ProposedSee Red parts (Further details with EXCEL sheets by Marc Ross )

Tech. Area Main Subjects Description

ML Integration Parameters and layout

Confirmed including alignment toleranceCM and Q periodicity: 8+4Q4+8 requiring additional ML length ( ~ 100 m) >> back to 9+4Q4+9How we shall keep additional backup 400 m w/o or w/ utility ? >> need more precise discussions for purpose New request from CFS: 0.5 ~ 1 % tunnel tilting

RF power Configuration DRFS/RDR in mountain site, >> back to RDR-RF unit in mountain site KCS/RDR in flat land

Cryomodule Envelope/interfaceUnit 5 K radiation shield

Piping interface with flange?, inter-connect condition, etc,8+4Q4+8 (or original 9 +4Q4+9)Simplification and accessibility for active components such as tuners

Cryogenics Unit capacity 5 4 units / linac or not? Stay at 5 units

Cavity integration Envelope Tuner type, coupler warm-flange, beam pipe flange, magnetic shield (inside/outside), LHe tank etc.

Cavity performance YieldGradient spread Degradation

For example: 1st pass: 60% and 2nd pass: 70% 31.5 +/- 20 % confirmed (Assume ~ 1/10 cavities to degrade dG = ~ 20 % or more, and ) >> Adopt a statistical approach to cavity degradation; <> and rms

Cost Cost containmentExchange rate and conversion

Technical design base on SB2009 (updated) compared with RDR cost PPP

120115 GDE-PMs52Plan for SCRF-BTR

ILC 建設費見積もり (ILC RDR (GDE による )) 　

Assumption in RDR: 1 ILC Unit = 1 US 2007$ (= 0.83 Euro = 117 Yen). Plan in TDR: 物価上昇：　 ~ 10 % (in case of the US) を想定 , 為替レート： Purchasing Power Parity を採用 (PPP: 購買力平価： OECD で採用） 53

-11 % Except for ML Componentsin SB2009

Efforts in Progress

12/01/10, A. Yamamoto GDE-Efforts for ILC Cost

RDR: Cavity Fabrication Model• Noell (Dornier-Astrium) report studied three

scenarios:1. 6 EBW machines with 1 chamber

– 3 ‘centres’ either distributed or at central facility

2. 7 EBW machines with 1 chamber– 4 centres, reduced shift operation at EBW 1-4– (variant on option 1)

3. 4 EBW with 3 chambers (loading, welding, cooling)– 1 centre (monolithic fabrication plant)

• Option 3 studied in detail


TDR に於けるコスト削減への努力

• ILC 性能要求を満たした場合に経済性を優先する– SB2009 での節約を基本、

– 空洞設計： Tesla Type を基本– HLRF 設計： RDR-RF unit を基本 (10 MW klystron)

– 工業化：量産における集約型製造と国際協力による製造、試験評価分担の最適条件を探る


Cryomodule Gradient Spread and Degradation Observed at DESY and KEK, as of Nov. 2010

• FLASH: – 3 PXFEL cryomodules

• ILC R&D:– S1-Global cryomodule– CM1 (S1-Local @ Fermilab)

• Current status: – 12/40 degraded with ~ 20 %


1 - AC129 2 - AC123 3 - AC125 4 - Z143 5 - Z103 6 - Z93 7 - Z100 8 - AC1130

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

FLASH 30MV/m XFEL goal

13.07.2009

EA

CC [M

V/m

]

cavity

Cavity tests: Vertical ( CW ) Horizontal (10Hz) CMTB M8 (10Hz) CMTB (10Hz)

very

long

CW

cond

ition

ing

Cavities gradient limits

1 - Z141 2 - AC150 3 - Z133 4 - Z139 5 - AC122 6 - AC121 7 - AC128 8 - AC1150

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


XFEL goal

04.05.2010

EA

CC [M

V/m

]

cavity

Cavity tests: Vertical ( CW ) Horizontal(10Hz) CMTB (10Hz)

MP

1 - Z135 2 - AC124 3 - Z88 4 - Z134 5 - Z101 6 - AC127 7 - Z140 8 - Z970

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


XFEL goal

13.09.2010E

AC

C [

MV

/m]

cavity

Cavity tests: Vertical ( CW ) Horizontal(10Hz) CMTB (10Hz)

MP

FE

FE

PXFEL-1 PXFEL-2 PFEL-3

S1-Global

D. Kostin & E. Kako

Current statistics on cavity gradient degradation

Institute ProjectFraction of

Degradation　　DESY/FLASH PXFEL Prototype-1 2/8

　　　 PXFEL Prototype-2 2/8　　　 PXFEL Prototype-3 1/8　　Fermi Lab CM-1 4/8　　KEK S1-Global 3/8　　Total 　 12/40


•Statistics, available now (see right table)

•Rate of degradation with > ~ 20 % ~12/40, which leads to ~30%. This is too high, and efforts of improving is required. How improved? Maybe up to ~10%. (acceptable?) 　•Sorting after vertical test is planed in DRFS. Furthermore 10% decrease of gradient is likely occurred and this reality should included at the construction plan. This effect also results in cost-up.

a. Numbers of cavities and rf units must be increased if total acceleration is short and it is not compensated by the overhead.

b. Since DRFS employs one rf unit feeds powers to 2 or 4 cavities without using circulator, and therefore cavity gradient sorting is inevitable, effect of unexpected cavity gradient degradation is larger than other scheme such as RDR and KCS.

Operational experiences


Estimate assuming 1/10 cavities degraded with 20 %

• Simple Calculation – 80 % pairs with full performance and 20 % pairs with 0.8 x full

performance • 0.8 x 1 + 0.2 x 0.8 = 0.96 without circulators, • 0.8 x 1 + 0.2 x {(1 +0.8)/2} = 0.98 with circulators, • Difference to be 0.02 = 2 % of {Cavity+HLRF} cost required to

add/compensate this degradation,

– Necessary study • Full circulator + distributors cost to be evaluated in comparison with the

additional cryomodule backup cost (additional extension of linac).

• Operational flexibility and better efficiency by circulators and power distributors to be evaluated

GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011

Standard Procedure Establishedfor ILC-SCRF Cavity evaluation, in guidance of TTC

Standard Fabrication/Process

Fabrication Nb-sheet purchasing

Component Fabrication

Cavity assembly with EBW

Process EP-1 (~150um)

Ultrasonic degreasing with detergent, or ethanol rinse

High-pressure pure-water rinsing

Hydrogen degassing at > 600 C

Field flatness tuning

EP-2 (~20um)

Ultrasonic degreasing or ethanol (or EP 5 um with fresh acid)

High-pressure pure-water rinsing

Antenna Assembly

Baking at 120 C

Cold Test (vertical test)

Performance Test with temperature and mode measurement

59GDE-PMs, 14th Nov. 2011 SCRF Industrialization

Key ProcessFabrication• Material • EBW• Shape

Process • Electro-Polishing

• Ethanol Rinsing or • Ultra sonic. + Detergent

Rins.

• High Pr. Pure Water cleaning

allow twice

Cavity Deliverable assuming EXFEL cavity specification


• From EXFEL specification: 02L BQM-Cavity in He Tank

Courtesy:W. Singer

EXFEL Cavity and Tuner


Blade and Slide-Jack Tuners


Preparation for SCRF BTR to be held at KEK, January 19 -20, 2012 Akira Yamamoto, Marc Ross, and Nick Walker (PMs) Jim Kerby, and Tetsuo Shidara (SCRF-APMs)

Documents

scrfbtr tdr

scrf btrto

scrfbtr design update

highgradient scrf cavity

rf power generation

main linac layout

rdrrf unit

cryomodule design