1 / 5

ILC Cryomodule Type III Design Modifications

Modify Type III cryomodule layout for ILC needs: central package, pipe adjustments, movers for alignment, optimization, stability, cost analysis, assembly, compactness, QA steps. Evaluate Quad Cavity ACD and Q20 variations.

varnum
Download Presentation

ILC Cryomodule Type III Design Modifications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BCD: ILC Cryomodule from Type III • Take TTF Type III as reference conceptual design • Introduce layout modifications required to fit ILC requirements: • Quadrupole/BPM package at the center (symmetry and stability) • Review pipe sizes/positions according to gradient and cryo-distribution • Consider/include movers (warm) at the center post for x,y quadrupole beam based alignment • Consider/include movers on the cryomodule supports to optimize the module centering according to HOM data • Review suspension system (post, etc.) for stability and transport • Review all the subcomponent design for production cost and MTBF • Materials, welds, subcomponent engineering, LMI blankets, feed-through, diagnostics and cables, etc. • Module assembly issues • Reduce the waste space between cavities for real estate gradient • Flange interconnection, tuners, etc. • Define all the QC and QA steps required to assure MTBF Carlo Pagani

  2. Cavity Quad Cavity ACD: Alternative for Quadrupole • Independent Cryomodule for the Quad proposed by SLAC • Pros: • To be analyzed wrt the upgrade of TTF 3 with movers • Cons: • More expensive: Valves, independent He supply and return, etc. • Consistent impact on real estate gradient because of vacuum valves and unavoidable bellows: 2 x 350 mm at least: i.e. ~ 0.5 km/linac (~ 25 M$/linac) Carlo Pagani

  3. Q20: # of Cavities per Cryomodules • From 8 to 12 is acceptable without major design changes • Cryomodule does not have strong reasons to prefer one specific number • Vacuum vessel and HeGRP thickness can be adjusted to improve momentum of inertia in a longer module: Constant deformation • Cost impact on the linac was studied with industry for TDR and the result was that the effect should be in within the error bar because of pros and cons: • Module assembling slightly less expensive but handling and transport is more • Module reference milling machining more expensive • Decision drivers: • RF Distribution: Cavities/Klystron and wave-guide distribution scheme • Modest impact on real estate gradient and tunnel length: • The impact of each module interconnection is at present 380 mm and cannot be decreased substantially because it includes vacuum valves, He retourn connection and 70 K HOM absorber • At 30 MV/m gradient the impact on linac length is: ~ 55 m (10) or 136 m (8) Carlo Pagani

  4. Q31: Linac Cavity Spacing As short as possible! • Electromagnetic constraint for 70 mm beam pipe: ca. ≥ 180 mm • TTF 3 Spacing: ~ 3/2 i.e. > 340 mm ! • TESLA TDR Spacing: 283 mm • There is a lot of margin for improvement • Each cm saved as an impact of 85 m on the length of each linac • BCD should be based on 250 mm: > 750 m/linac saved • ABD could be the work for 180 mm: > 1,3 km /linac saved TTF Cavity Interconnection 340 mm between irises Carlo Pagani

More Related