1 / 24

“PROGRESS on CLIC FF (QD0) ” Michele Modena - CERN

“PROGRESS on CLIC FF (QD0) ” Michele Modena - CERN. “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena.

trygg
Télécharger la présentation

“PROGRESS on CLIC FF (QD0) ” Michele Modena - CERN

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. “PROGRESS on CLIC FF (QD0) ”Michele Modena - CERN “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  2. In a “CLIC-MDI” Meetings, on 27 Aug 2009, we presented a proposal for an hybrid design for the QD0 (the subject was also presented two weeks ago at the “CLIC09 Workshop” and majority of the slides presented here are adapted from August and October presentations). • New developments of the last months are: - Enlarging discussions with other actorsand starting to take into account: • Detector design and interfaces • Anti-solenoid presence • Stabilization requirements • Work on a more “adapted design” of the QD0, eventually with reduced or zero impact of the coils water cooling (for stabilization reasons) - Contacts with potential Suppliers in order to build ASAP a 1st short prototype to prove and validate the hybrid QDO conceptual design. “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  3. “Nominal” Requirements for CLIC FF Quad (for L* = 3.5 m layout): • Gradient: highest possible towards a nominal value of: 575 T/m ) • Required Length: 2.73 m(… under discussion how to eventually split this length in different “magnet slots” …) • Magnet Bore Radius: 3.8 mm + 0.3mm (as estimated with Vacuum Group for a vacuum chamber thickness) + 0.025 of tolerance = 4.125mm • Field Quality: a1st requirement exist, but to be further discussed with CLIC Beam Physic Group • Geometric (layout) boundary conditions: Major one is: presence of the “spent beam pipe”: conical shape (10 mrad aperture), min. distance from the FF (at the front end for a L* = 3.5 m): 35 mm “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  4. (Courtesy A. Vorozhtsov) Permendur Pure PM approach: “Halbach” vs. “Super Strong” performances: PM “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  5. (Opera 2D simulation. Courtesy A. Vorozhtsov) “Pure Electro-Magnetic” approach: Yoke material-ST1010, Bs=2.1 [T] Grad=310 T/m ( NI= 5000 A ) • “8 shape” quad design: (it permits to accommodate the spent beam pipe) • - Saturation appears (with both materials) “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena Yoke material-Permendur, Bs=2.35 [T] Grad=365 T/m

  6. (Opera 2D simulation. Courtesy A. Vorozhtsov) “Hybrid” approach, Version 1: “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena • Presence of PM wedges reduce strongly saturation in the poles •  Gradient increase of a factor 1.5-1.68

  7. “Hybrid” approach, Version 2: • The presence of the “ring” decrease slightly the Gradient (by 15-20 T/m) but will assure a more precise and stiff assembly • EM Coils design will permit wide operation conditions (with or without water cooling) that can be critical for performances (ex. stabilization) “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  8. (Opera 2D simulation. Courtesy A. Vorozhtsov) “Hybrid” approach, Version 2: Field quality Gradientazimuthal homogeneity at R=1mm “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  9. Resuming : • For our application Sm2Co17 choice should be probably the preferable because: • High Curie temp. (vacuum chamber baking-out should be not a problem up to 250 °C) • SmCo alloys are the most resistant to radiations (radiation dose estimation studies are now starting) • The material should not degrade and remain stable inside the magnetic field created by the EM coils (5-8 kOe); checks are ongoing with the PM possible Supplier. “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  10. “Hybrid Short Prototype” (Version 2): (Drawings: courtesy E. Solodko) “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  11. “Hybrid Short Prototype”: “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  12. Dimensions increased from 35mm to 52mm “Hybrid Short Prototype Ver. 3” “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  13. “Hybrid Short Prototype Ver. 3”: Covers (for safety reasons: blocking the PM wedges) “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  14. …Towards a more “adapted” design (…still as CONCEPTUAL design!): Reduce the current density in the coil (and consequently the coil cross-section) to be free from cooling water (at least in turbulent regime). The proposed cross section must have J ≤ 1.5 A/mm2. Anyway, the presence of a “cooling circuit” is expected for a “thermalization” more than for a real coil cooling. This will also depends by the design of the support beam. The presence of some “thermalization plates” will also provide higher rigidity to the coil assembly (remind that the coils could be quite long in the final magnet(s) since 2.73 m of total length for the QD0 element(s) are required). “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  15. … Towards a more “adapted” design (“Slim Version”conceptual design…) Plates for eventual thermalization of the coil and for stiffening of the coil pancakes coils supportingfully independent from iron supporting Support/stabilization system “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena QD0 Support Beam (Drawings: courtesy E. Solodko) Coil copper conductor (ex. 4x4mm). Nominal J= 1.5 A/mm2

  16. … Towards a more “adapted” design (“Slim Version” conceptual design…) “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  17. … Towards a more “adapted” design (“Square Version” conceptual design…) “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  18. … Towards a more “adapted” design (“Square Version” conceptual design…) Support/stabilization system “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  19. Thanks for your the attention! “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  20. (extra slides) “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  21. (Opera 2D simulation. Courtesy A. Vorozhtsov) “Halbach type” approach: “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  22. “Halbach type” approach: achievable gradients “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

  23. Resuming : “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena - For our application Sm2Co17 choice could be preferable (higher radiation resistance)

  24. As CERN “Magnet Group” we propose to go on ASAP with the construction of a 1st short prototype. We see several advantages in this. A FF quadrupole prototype (short model!) will be useful for : • for CLIC: To check the feasibility of a possible FF design approach. • for CERN: To let CERN-TE/MSC starting activities in PM magnet domain and more specifically: • Validation of a possible FF cross-section design • To investigate the difficulties for the high precision machining of the Permendur poles, the PM wedges, achievable tolerances, etc. • To investigates the role of tolerances between poles and PM wedges in terms of Gradient and Field Quality • Eventually, to tests different PM materials • for CERN/CLIC: Provide a magnet with a minimum bore aperture to develop and test miniaturized magnetic measurement systems. • … “CLIC Weekly Meeting” on 30 Oct 2009, M. Modena

More Related