Cavity WorkPackage in EDR phase

1
Cavity Work-Package in EDR phase

• H. Hayano 01282008 for Lutz Lilje

2
Cavity Work-Package Definition

• WP-C1 Gradient performance
• WP-C2 Fabrication
• WP-C3 Preparation
• WP-C4 Cavity Design

3
WP-C1 Gradient performance

• Tight-loop effort
• Production-like effort
• Preparation for ultimate cavity batch
• Single cell program
• Common performance evaluation
• Gradient proposal for EDR

4
WP-C1-1 Tight-loop effort

• Finalize the tight-loop process
• Package should demonstrate repeatability with in
  each participating lab. Then an inter-laboratory
  comparison should follow facilitated by cavity
  exchange. Re-evaluation whether second loop is
  needed.
• Cavity treatment and testing. Measurement data.
  Data comparison.
• 2-3 SCRF labs(FNAL, JLab, KEK, DESY), 3 cavities
  per lab, 3 tests each cavity.
• milestones
• All cavities tested by mid of 2008.
• Data comparison by fall 2008.
• Re-evaluation by fall 2008.

5
WP-C1-2 Production-like effort

• 1. Treat 30 cavities with EP ethanol process
• Repeat process (If needed in case of
  underperformance) at least once. Apply T-map on
  as many cavities as possible, at least all
  cavities below 30 MV/m.
• Deliverables Cavity treatment and testing.
  Measurement data.
• SCRF labs(FNAL, DESY), 30 cavities.
• Milestones All cavities tested by end of 2008.
• 2. Treat 20-30 cavities with EP Degrease
• Repeat process.(same above)
• Deliverables (same above)
• SCRF labs(FNAL, Jlab, KEK, DESY), 20-30 cavities.
• Milestones All cavities tested by end of 2008.
• 3. Treat 10-20 cavities with EP fresh EP
• Repeat process (same above)
• Deliverables (same above)
• SCRF labs(Jlab, KEK), 10 cavities.
• Milestones All cavities tested by end of 2009.

6
WP-C1-3 Preparation for ultimate cavity batch

• 1. Evaluate data from tight-loop and production
  data
• Overall evaluation of data available by end of
  2009.
• Deliverables Report on data comparison.
  Recommendation for ILC cavity process.
• Candidate labs(FNAL), by Database and Scientist.
• Milestones Report and recommendation by end of
  2009.
• 2. Treat 30 cavities with ILC process
• Repeat process (If needed in case of
  underperformance) at least once. Apply T-map on
  as many cavities as possible, at least all
  cavities below 30 MV/m.
• Deliverables Cavity treatment and testing.
  Measurement data.
• Candidate labs(FNAL, KEK), 30 cavities.
• Milestones All cavities tested by end of 2010.

7
WP-C1-4 Single cell Program

• 1. To be discussed.

8
WP-C1-5 Common performance evaluation

• 1. Database setup
• Develop basis for an ILC database. Review
  existing database. Choose common database system.
• Deliverables Database for cavity process and
  testing data.
• Candidate labs(FNAL, Jlab, KEK, DESY), by
  Scientist and IT engineer.
• Milestones Evaluation by end of 2007. Choice of
  database by spring 2008, Database in place by mid
  2008.
• 2. Data evaluation between laboratory
• Develop schemes for inter-laboratory data
  evaluation. Evaluation of data sets available.
  Define data sets requested from labs. Compare
  data analysis done by participating labs.
  Evaluate data relevant for ILC project.
• Deliverables Report on evaluation of existing
  data sets. Proposal for data sets.
• Candidate labs(FNAL, Jlab, KEK, DESY), by
  Scientist.
• Milestones Report on evaluation by end of 2007.
  Proposal for database by mid 2008.

9
WP-C1-6 Gradient proposal for the EDR

• 1. Definition of vertical test gradient
  specification for ILC
• Re-visit Snowmass and S0 specification. Take into
  account more flexible power distribution. Develop
  a final specification for vertical test assuming
  an operational gradient of 31.5MV/m in the
  machine.
• Deliverables Report on tolerable gradient spread
  in ILC (together with Main Linac and LLRF). Final
  specification.
• by Scientists.
• Milestones Report on tolerable gradient spread
  by end of 2007. Final ILC specification for
  gradient spread in vertical tests by mid 2008.
• 2. Final proposal for ILC gradient
• Data evaluation of all existing data by end of
  2009. Report with proposal for ILC gradient by
  end of 2009.
• Deliverables Report.
• by S0 task force.
• Milestones Report by end of 2009.

10
WP-C2 Fabrication

• Material
• Alternative materials
• Fabrication method
• HPV regulation

11
WP-C2-1 Material

• 1. Material specification
• Develop full specification for ILC baseline
  fine-grain niobium material. Review XFEL
  specification.
• Deliverables specification for cavity material.
• by Scientists, engineer of FNAL, Jlab, KEK, DESY.
• Milestones Specification ready by 2011.

12
WP-C2-2 Alternative Materials

• 1. Large grain cost evaluation
• Review available material on large grain niobium
  material cost. Investigate cost effective cutting
  methods.
• Deliverables Report on cost difference for
  large-grain material.
• by Scientists, engineer of FNAL, Jlab, KEK, DESY.
• Milestones Report ready by 2008.
• 2. Large grain multi-cell cavity development and
  testing
• Built and test several multi-cell cavities.
  Repeat process (If needed in case of
  underperformance) at least once. Apply T-map on
  as many cavities as possible, at least all
  cavities below 30 MV/m. Comparison of different
  surface treatments on multi-cell cavities.
• Deliverables Cavity treatment and testing.
  Measurement data. Report of data comparison with
  baseline material. Material specification.
• Candidate labs(Jlab, DESY), 10-20 cavities. 2
  tests each cavity.
• Milestones All cavities tested by mid of 2010.
  Data comparison by fall 2010. Final report by end
  2010.

13
WP-C2-3 Fabrication method

• 1. Analysis of EBW performance
• Evaluate available data on performance of EB
  welds by both established and new cavity vendors.
  Include laboratory in-house fabrications where
  appropriate. Implementation of sufficient
  diagnostic capability in participating labs (e.g.
  temperature mapping). Development of cavity
  autopsy for the weld region on defective cavities
  (destructive or non-destructive).
• Deliverables Report on performance of EB welds.
  T-mapping for diagnostics. Method of defect
  detection in weld region.
• by Scientists, engineer, and SCRF labs.
• Milestones Report until mid 2008. T-mapping
  diagnostics by mid 2008. Method by 2009.
• 2. EBW specification
• Review XFEL specification for EBW. Develop
  additional qulity control for EBW at companies.
  Write specification.
• Deliverables Specification.
• by scientists.
• Milestones specification by end of 2008.

14
WP-C2-4 HPV regulation

• 1. HPV regulation
• Develop common understanding of requirements to
  fulfil high-pressure vessel code regulations
  especially for how to deal with niobium material.
  
• Deliverables
• by .
• Milestones

15
WP-C3 Preparation

• Baseline process
• Alternatives

16
WP-C3-1 Baseline process

• 1. Process specification
• Develop full specification for ILC surface
  process. Review XFEL cavity surface process.
• Deliverables specification for cavity process.
  EP, HPR, assembly and QA thereof.
• by Scientists engineer at FNAL, Jlab, KEK, DESY.
• Milestones Specification ready by 2011.
• 2. Surface Analysis in support of baseline
  process
• Review ongoing RD activities on niobium RF
  surfaces. Develop program to improve QC for ILC
  surface process.
• Deliverables Development of an RD program.
  Managing program with supporting institutes.
• by Scientists engineer at Jlab, Cornell.
• Milestones Program ready by mid 2008.

17
WP-C3-2 Alternatives

• 1. Tumbling
• Evaluate whether tumbling as an additional
  intermediate process step for a cavity is
  necessary to achieve more homogeneous
  performance.
• Deliverables Comparative study on cavities with
  and without tumbling (possibly on single cells).
• by Scientists of KEK, by single cell program.
• Milestones Report by end of 2008.
• 2. Dry-Ice
• Evaluate whether dry-ice cleaning as an
  additional intermediate process step for a cavity
  with main coupler is feasible. Demonstrate
  proof-of-principle.
• Deliverables Report on feasibility.
  Proof-of-principle.
• by Scientists.
• Milestones Report by end of 2008.

18
WP-C4 Cavity Design

• Specification of outer envelope
• Preparation for the cavity shape decision
• Lorentz detuning concept
• Beam dynamics

19
WP-C4-1 Specification of outer envelope

• 1. Outer diameter, length
• Evaluation of existing designs. Technical
  comparisons of the designs. Define the outer
  boundary of the cavity.
• Deliverables specification.
• by Engineer.
• Milestones Complete specification by Sendai
  meeting.
• 2. Sealing technology
• Review existing seal designs. Make technical
  comparison. Make recommendation for common
  interface. Finalise specification.
• Deliverables Review report. Recommendation.
  Specification.
• by Engineer.
• Milestones Complete review report by Sendai
  meeting.
• 3. Input port diameter
• Review existing port design and high power
  couplers. Make technical comparison (needs
  definition of criteria). Make recommendation for
  common coupler port. Finalise specification.
• Deliverables Review report. Recommendation.
  Specification.
• by Engineer.
• Milestones Complete review report by Sendai
  meeting.

20
WP-C4-2 Preparation of the cavity shape decision

• 1. Definition of tests
• Review existing cavity design. Define required
  testing based on Cavity KOM discussion. Develop a
  detailed schedule to prove a cavity shape can be
  used in ILC.
• Deliverables Review report, report on required
  testing, Schedule.
• by Scientists, engineer.
• Milestones Review report by end of 2007. Report
  on required testing by 2007. Detailed schedule by
  mid 2008.
• 2. Testing of cavity shape alternatives
• Design ILC-compatible alternative shape cavity.
  Build and test compatible cavities with
  alternative shapes. Preparation and surface
  preparation of a number of cavities required by
  WP above. Repeat vertical tests (if needed in
  case of underperformance) at least once. Apply
  T-map on as many cavities as possible, at least
  all cavities below 30 MV/m.
• Deliverables Design of an ILC compatible
  alternative shape cavity. Cavity treatment and
  testing. Measurement data.
• One SCRF lab (Jlab, KEK, Cornell) per cavity
  shape, .
• Milestones Alternative design by beginning of
  2008. Additional milestones according to what has
  been defined.

21
WP-C4-3 Lorentz detuning concept

• 1. Evaluation of tests
• Review existing Lorentz-force compensation
  concepts. Comparison of technical concepts
  including the relevant tuner design. Proposal for
  a common concept.
• Deliverables Review report. Proposal for a
  common concept.
• by Scientists, engineer.
• Milestones Review report by end of 2007.
  Proposal by mid 2008.

22
WP-C4-4 Beam dynamics

• 1. HOM concept
• 2. Wake fields
• 3. Alignment
• 4. Straightness

23
DESY activity status

• 1. S0 cavity treatment
• 5-th product batch 15 ZANON, 15 ACCEL -gt EP
  training of HENKEL and ACCEL.
• Helium tank welding before vertical test (XFEL
  scenario). Final process will be compared for
  Short etch and EPethanol rinse.
• 3 batch 10 cavities Short etch, 10 cavities
  EP ethanol, 10 decide later.
• 30 cavities testing by mid 2008. Two cavity
  vendors comparison.
• AC71,AC74,AC80 are put into tight-loop.
• 2. Cavity package alternatives
• 8 new large-grain cavities are available in late
  2008, will be tested by end of 2008.
• 11 large-grain cavities( 8 new 3 existing) will
  receive final process of EPethanol rinse.

24
DESY activity status (cont.)

• 3. S1 module tests
• A series of modules will be assembled and/or
  tested
• 1. M3 (TTF 2 type cryostat) in early 2008
• Test to conform with pressure
  vessel code (possibly destructive)
• 2. M8 (TTF 3 ) in spring 2008 ( plan was
  changed to go Saclay first, back to DESY later)
• Normal module test including
  piezo tuners, Transport,
• Second test to check
  performance
• 3. M3
• After repair with a gradient
  goal of at least 25 MV/m as spare for FLASH.
• Piezo tuners added
• 4. M10 (XFEL Prototype) assembly autumn 2008,
• gradient goal gt25 MV/m
• At least the M8 string could deliver ILC-like
  performance. The test will be made by mid 2008,
  so that additional input for S1 would be
  available.
• Independent of the module performance tests, both
  the transport test for M8,
• and the test for the pressure vessel code with
  M3 are of major importance for the ILC.

25
US activity status

• 1. S0 cavity treatment
• Jlab 30 cycle of EP/VT per year.
  AC6(38MV/m),AC7(32MV/m) 4 cycles as S0. AC8
  started as S0.
• KEK Ichiro5(30-20MV/m) started as S0.
  AES001,002,003,004 evaluation(16-32MV/m).
• Cornell 1 cycle per month. AC8(28MV/m),AC9(25MV/m
  ) are under qualified. 9-cell re-entrant work.
  AES new EBW qualification with five 1 cell
  (425MV/m, 117MV/m).
• New cavity plan AC10-17(8 cavities),
  AES005-010(6 cavities) delivery end of 2007.
• AES011-016(6 cavities)
  are ordered.
• 2. S1 module tests
• First cryomodule is ready for test. Next
  cryomodule ?
• 3. Infra-structure
• ANL-EP commissioned with 1 cell. FNAL HPR under
  construction.
• CAF-ICB (cryomodule assembly facility at ICB)
  two assembly fixtures.
• FNAL VT commissioned with AES001 cavity.
• AES new EBW is qualified.
• New cavity vender PAVAC (Canada) is under
  qualifying.