1 / 12

LCLS-II Magnetic Structure Design Review

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)

ferris
Télécharger la présentation

LCLS-II Magnetic Structure Design Review

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. LCLS-II Magnetic Structure Design Review Steve Marks 7/6/11

  2. Agenda Undulator Alternatives- 5m 6-15-11

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Conceptual Mechanical Design • Alan Black Magnetic Structure Conceptual Design Review 7/6/11

  7. One vs. Two Blocks • Diego Arbalaez Magnetic Structure Conceptual Design Review 7/6/11

  8. Magnetic End Design – Theory • R. Schlueter Undulator Alternatives- 5m 6-15-11

  9. 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

  10. Magnetic Analysis • J.-Y. Jung Undulator Alternatives- 5m 6-15-11

  11. Magnetic Material Procurement • Dawn Munson Magnetic Structure Conceptual Design Review 7/6/11

  12. 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

More Related