120 likes | 220 Views
LCLS-II Magnetic Structure Design Review. Steve Marks 7/6/11. Agenda. Review Context and Objective. Prepare for procurement of first prototype A total of four HXU* Magnet Modules, two each from two vendors Two operational magnet test units (top and bottom module pairs)
E N D
LCLS-II Magnetic Structure Design Review Steve Marks 7/6/11
Agenda Undulator Alternatives- 5m 6-15-11
Review Context and Objective • Prepare for procurement of first prototype • A total of four HXU* Magnet Modules, two each from two vendors • Two operational magnet test units (top and bottom module pairs) • End modules included • Objective: • Qualify two magnet material vendors, and establish firm cost • Qualify the periodic magnet design • Test and qualify the end design • Test tuning + other tests *We want to compare blocks of the same variety from two different vendors. HXU is chosen because of the more demanding requirements. Magnetic Structure Conceptual Design Review 7/6/11
Review Context and Objective • Magnetic material procurement drives the schedule, so want to accelerate this procurement • The overall magnetic design will be presented at a conceptual design level, but want to concentrate on those aspects that directly affect magnet blocks • Desired outcome from review: approval to proceed with block procurement, or identification of modifications necessary before procurement • Procurement of remaining magnet module components and assembly will follow by approximately two months • Conceptual design review for overall system early August Magnetic Structure Conceptual Design Review 7/6/11
Relevant Physics Requirements Related Design Elements • Peak Beff: 1.93 T (SXU), 1.26 T (HXU) • Choice of magnet material (Br, Hcj) • Height of pole, overhang of magnet material • Horizontal field roll off: |K/K| = 1.5×10-4 (SXU), 5.4×10-5 (HXU) at ±0.4mm • Pole and block width • |Bydz| < 40 Tm, |Bydz2| < 50 Tm2 • With even number of poles, systematic Bydz = 0 • Systematic Bydz2 related to end design (size of last three blocks), gap variation • Offset • Entrance (and exit) kick have to be less than 14.7 Tm • Tolerance on trajectory (non-systematic part of Bydz2), phase errors/shake • Result of block non-uniformity, pole placement errors • Number of blocks per pole, sorting • Tuning mechanism(s), variation over gap range Magnetic Structure Conceptual Design Review 7/6/11
Conceptual Mechanical Design • Alan Black Magnetic Structure Conceptual Design Review 7/6/11
One vs. Two Blocks • Diego Arbalaez Magnetic Structure Conceptual Design Review 7/6/11
Magnetic End Design – Theory • R. Schlueter Undulator Alternatives- 5m 6-15-11
Baseline Magnetic Design HXU Pole/Block • Magnetic material: • Br = 1.32 T, Hcj = 21 kOe • Examples: VACODYM 854TP, NEOMAX 44AH, Shin Etsu N42SH • SXU • Peak Beff= 1.91 T (1.93 T) • B/B|0.4mm = 2.3×10-5 (1.5×10-4) • HXU • Peak Beff= 1.28 T (1.26 T) • B/B|0.4mm = 2.4×10-5 (5.4×10-5) SXU Pole/Block Magnetic Structure Conceptual Design Review 7/6/11
Magnetic Analysis • J.-Y. Jung Undulator Alternatives- 5m 6-15-11
Magnetic Material Procurement • Dawn Munson Magnetic Structure Conceptual Design Review 7/6/11
Conclusions and Recommendations • The baseline design meets requirements • A modest savings (probably less than $1M) could be realized if peak field requirement is relaxed for SXU by ~3% – Not recommended • The use of two blocks per pole offers a significant advantage if coupled with appropriate sorting algorithm, will reduce the effort and risk during tuning – Recommended • Solicit bids for both HXU and SXU blocks – Initial procurement of HXU blocks • HXU end design meets requirements over most of gap range, will verify with prototype, initial SXU design scaled from HXU, but need to tweak – Better control will require active control (coil around end pole); will test with prototypes Undulator Alternatives- 5m 6-15-11