NLC - The Next Linear Collider Project Status of Magnet R&D Nov. 7 th 2002 James T Volk Fermilab James T Volk 11/07/2002

NLC - The Next Linear Collider Project

Status of Magnet R&DNov. 7th 2002James T Volk

Fermilab

James T Volk

11/07/2002


People Involved

Joe DiMarco, Vladimir Kashikin, James T VolkFermilab

Scott Anderson, Seung Rhee, Cherrill Spencer, James Spencer, Zack Wolf

SLAC

Steve GottschalkSTI Optronics

Bellevue Washington

•James T Volk

11/07/2002


Prototype Electromagnetic NLC Linac Quadrupole, Under TestPrototype Electromagnetic NLC Linac Quadrupole, Under Test

Synflex Water Hoses

DC Power LeadModified Motor Quick Disconnect

Recessed Core Belt

C1006 Solid Steel Modular Core,

215.9 mm long

Potted Coil, 21 Turns

Thermocouple

Thermal Switch

1/4” Round,Seamless Cu Tubing, Monolithic Coil Lead

Electro Quad on SLAC test stand

•James T Volk

11/07/2002


Y coordinate of the electromagnetic quad’s magnetic center measured over 2.5 days

NLC Prototype Electromagnetic QuadRepeated BBA current sequence from 80 amps, 2.5days

Measurement Number, each data pt takes ~8 minutes

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Y c

ente

r (m

icro

ns)

66

67

68

69

70

71

Current changed in a BBA sequence:black circles are Y center at 80 amps, open circles are Y at 5 different currents which quad would be run at for a BBA: 64, 67.2, 70.4, 73.6, 76.8 amps

Variation in Y during any one BBA sequence to be < 1 micron is satisfied.

Run 31, 25th –28th October 2002


Wedge Quad

James T Volk

Pole magnets

Wedge magnet

Tuning rods

11/07/2002


SLAC Rotating Coil Data

11/07/02 James T Volk

FWSQ001-6 at SLAC

-7.00

-6.00

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5

Gradient Tesla

cen

ter

shif

t m

icro

ns

X center

Y center


Rotational quadrupole assembly

Stepping motor

Rotational quadrupole assembly (side view)

Correction coils

V.S.Kashikhin

Rotational Quadrupole with Correction Coil System

11/07/2002


Correction coils

Rotational quadrupole control system

First analog active correction system test… in progress

Without correction

With active correction

V.S.Kashikhin


1 m center shift = 1 G dipole field = 1 A correction coil current

Integrated signal from measuring coil during magnets rotation

Amplifier - Integrator

Power Supply

Measuring coil

Correction coil

Active Correction System

Rotational Quadrupole with Correction Coil System

V.S.Kashikhin

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5

Current, A

36.9 T

34.3 T

31.0 T

Center shift vs. correction coil current

11/07/2002


Counter Rotating quad

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

36.6 36.2 35.2 33.9 32.2 30.8

Integrated Gradient, T

Yoff , um

Ycor , um

1 um center stability with correction coil11/07/2002

V.S.Kashikhin

microns


STI Phase I PM Quad Prototype Results

Work Supported by Department of Energy Grant DE-FG03-01ER83305

AN SBIR grant to Steve Gottschalk Of STI Optronics of Bellevue Washington

An adjustable quad where the magnet material moves

James T Volk

11/07/2002


STI Phase I prototype on SLAC bench

• All tests done by moving two magnets out of four

Pole Dovetail slide

Rotating coil

Stationary magnets (2)

Moving Magnets (2)•James T Volk11/07/2002


Results on Phase I prototype

Quadrupole Strength vs. Magnet Retraction15mm retraction is 77.848%

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

0 5 10 15 20

Retraction (mm)

Str

en

gth

GL

(T-c

m)

Sextupole vs. Strength

0.41

0.42

0.43

0.44

0.45

0.46

0.47

0.48

5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8

Strength GL (T-cm)

Sex

tup

ole

(%

at

80%

ap

ertu

re)

• Strength is linear with brick retraction

•Sextupole is acceptable and doesn’t change during retraction of 2 bricks

James T Volk

11/07/2002


Centerline adjustment results

• Mechanical advantage 10X• Linear shift with brick retraction• Short term centerline repeatability is 0.4 microns• Fine tune of brick shift with strength can make X CL zero at all

retractions

X CL vs. X magnet shift

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

-100 -50 0 50 100

Magnet Brick Shift(microns)

x C

ente

rlin

e (

mic

ron

s)

77.85% Strength

85.45% Strength

92.92% Strength

100% Strength

Average X CL for 6 repeats

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8

GL(T-cm)

x C

ente

rlin

e (m

icro

ns)

•James T Volk

11/07/2002


Long term X centerline results*

• Initial increase of X CL by 6 microns with spinning coil due to magnet supports

• Hall probe doesn’t show the same effect• Improve supports for magnet and granite block

ST1QUAD

Measurement Number

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

X c

ente

r (m

icro

ns)

-44

-42

-40

-38

-36

-34

Hall probe x CL Spinning coil x CL

•James T Volk

11/07/2002


Phase II prototype

• Full size

• Engineered!

• Motorized– 4 NEMA 17 servo motors

– Ethernet servo controller – Galil DMC2142

– Temperature compensated

• Preloaded Ball screws and linear guides

• 4X faster movement than NLC (neglecting eddy currents)

• Modular for flexibility

• Servo parts have been ordered

• Magnets, poles will be ordered soon

•James T Volk

11/07/2002


Preliminary Phase II Quad Design

•James T Volk11/07/2002


Preliminary Phase II prototype schedule

• Engineering design complete March 2003

• Fabrication complete May 2003

• Testing starts May 2003

• Majority of prototype tests completed Sept 2003

• Spinning coil fabrication completed March 2003 (STI cost share)

•James T Volk

11/07/2002


Poles

Magnets

Rotating ring

Halbach Ring Quad

•James T Volk

11/07/2002

LCRD Grant Proposal by J RosenzweigTo build one


Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to Calculate Life Cycle Cost for NLC Electro and Perm Magnets

$S$WC

Water Cooled Coils Solid Wire Coils

$SPS $LPS

Magnet

Power Supply

$LPS

2nd Stage: Calculate Permanent Magnet Life Cycle Cost Mostly Using Component Failure Rates In Progress

3rd Stage: Compare 1st and 2nd Stage Results to Help Determine Magnet Technology for NLC

1st Stage: Calculate Electromagnet and Power Supply Life Cycle Cost Using SLAC Data Reporting on this today



Monte Carlo Simulation Variables: Detection Time, Fixing Time, Delay Time, Quantity, Parts Cost

Life Cycle Cost (30yr) FMEA for Electromagnet withMonte Carlo Simulation

Orig

in

Det

ectio

n P

hase

Re-

occu

ring

Fre

quen

cy

Det

ectio

n T

ime

Fix

ing

Tim

e

Del

ay T

ime

Rec

over

y

Qua

ntity

Par

ts C

ost

Labo

r C

ost

Mat

eria

l Cos

t

Opp

ortu

nity

Cos

t

Too many loads on water circuit Magnet turned off Oper Oper 30 0.01 0.5 4 4.5 1 50 180 15 33750Conducter Sclerosis (hole gets too small) Magnet turned off Oper Oper 30 0.5 1 8 9 1 1250 18000 18750 3375000Water passage is blocked due to foreign object Magnet turned off Oper Oper 30 2 1 4 5 1 50 38400 3000 7500000Damaged (crimped) coil Magnet turned off Inst TR 1 4 0.5 2 0 1 1250 1280 5000 Water sprayed onto the coil Oper Oper 30 3 2 8 10 1 50 115200 4500 22500000

0 0Poor jumper design Magnet turned off Des DR 1 0.2 1 8 0 40 8976 Bad Installation (Bolts not tight) Magnet turned off inst TR 1 4 0.5 2.5 0 1 10 1560 40

0 0Loose terminal connection design Excessive heat lead to melting temp Mfg Test 1 0.011 1 8 0 40 493.68 Loose Jumpers Excessive heat lead to melting temp Mfg Test 1 4 0.5 2.5 0 1 100 1560 400

0 0Poor terminal connection design Excessive heat lead to melting temp Des Test 1 0.011 1 8 0 40 100 493.68 44 Bad terminal Installation Excessive heat lead to melting temp Inst TR 1 4 0.5 2.5 0 1 100 1560 400

0 0Faulty power cable butt splice Fire Inst TR 1 1 0.5 4 0 1 11000 600 11000

0 0Poor thermal contact btn thermal switch and conductor Magnet destroyed Inst Oper 1 1 0.5 4 4.5 1 11000 600 11000 112500

0 0Broken splice Inst TR 1 0.8 0.5 2 0 1 200 256 160 Failure to remove insulation at the flag connection Mfg Test 1 0.8 0.5 1 0 1 20 144 16 Material failure Mfg Test 1 0.4 0.5 2 0 40 100 4496 1600

0 0Human Error - Magnet missing Forgot to put back magnet Oper Oper 30 0.4 0.5 2.5 3 1 4440 900000

0 0Out of tolerance dimensions Insulation Failure Des Proto 1 0.3 0.5 4 0 1 1250 180 375

Scenario Effect of Failure

Input Output

Partial List of Failure Modes

($)

($)

($)

($)



By Run Time - Water Flow BlockedDate Line Run Hour Magnets Magnet Hours # Failures MTBF TR MTTR Availability 1 Mag PPM

2/4/97 - 4/30/97 Linac/BSY 1547 520 804440 0 HER 181 1200 217200

5/1/97 - 6/8/98 SLC 8828 2104 18574112 0 0 HER 918 1200 1101600

7/10/98 - 7/31/98 HER&LER 575 2433 1398975 0 10/30/98 - 12/15/98 HER&LER 1040 2433 2530320 0 1/15/99 - 2/22/99 HER&LER 844 2433 2053452 0 2/24/99 - 5/1/99 Linac 1461 520 759720 0 5/1/99 - 11/29/99 HER&LER 4797 2433 11671101 0 1/12/00 - 10/31/00 HER&LER 6624 2433 16116192 3 5372064.0 9 3 0.999999442 0.558444

BSY/FFTB 2196 198 434808 BSY/A-Line 630 248 156240

1/10/01 - 12/31/01 HER&LER 7411 2433 18030963 2 9015481.5 6.1 3.05 0.999999662 0.338307BSY/FFTB(e+) 2795 509 1422655 BSY/A-Line 820 248 203360

SLAC Average 75,475,138 5 15,095,028 15.10 3.02 0.9999998 0.200066

Predicted NLC 4965 magnets Availability 0.999007166 Actual SLC 2104 magnets Availability 1 1Actual PEP II 2433 magnets Availability 0.998909697 0.999999552

Operation Hr 6480Magnet Hr 32173200Expected Downtime 6.4 hr/yr

NLC Predicted Occurrence/yr 2.1

Estimating Frequency of Water Blockage from Empirical DataObtained failure history (CATER system) for 5 year period (1997-2001)

Expected Downtime = (1-Availability) x Operation hour/year(due to water flow blockages) = (1-0.999007) x 6480 hour/year

= 6.4 hour/year (if NLC uses all electromagnets)

Occurrence = Expected Downtime / MTTR = 6.4 / 3.02 = 2.1 / year •James T Volk

11/07/2002


No Redundancy Redundancy for Large PSAvailability 0.92718 0.9855Downtime 471.9 hr/yr 93.96 hr/yrOccurrence 286 /yr 81 /yrMTBF 22.6 hr 80 hr

Estimate for Availability of all Power Supplies for NLC

ElectromagnetAvailability 0.9536Downtime 300 hr/yrOccurrence 31.25 /yrMTBF 207.4 hr

Estimate for Availability of all Electromagnets for NLC

Estimating Overall Electromagnet System Availability for NLCMagnets + Power Supplies (with redundant large PS )

SystemAvailability 0.93977Downtime 390.2 hr/yrOccurrence 97.56 / yrMTBF 66.4 hr

Downtime for all types of magnet failuresTotal: 7167 Magnets

Total: 6167 Power Supplies

MTBF+MTTRMTBF

Availability =



Predicted Power Supply Life Cycle Cost

Units: Million Dollars

Small PS Large PS 1 yr Total 30 yr Total$0.03 $0.010 $0.04 $1.20$0.01 $0.004 $0.0 $0.5$0.04 $0.014 $0.1 $1.7

10k $1.0 $29.425k $2.5 $75.050k $4.9 $147.0Opportunity Cost /hr

Material CostLabor CostMaterial + Labor

5% 50% 95% 5% 50% 95% 5% 50% 95%Labor Cost $0.300 $0.395 $0.532 $1.200 $1.490 $1.760 $1.500 $1.885 $2.292Material Cost $0.065 $0.082 $0.102 $0.900 $1.120 $1.360 $0.965 $1.202 $1.462Labor + Material $0.37 $0.48 $0.63 $2.10 $2.61 $3.12 $2.465 $3.087 $3.754

$10k $6.0 $7.8 $9.7 $72 $90 $109 $78.0 $97.8 $118.7$25k $15.0 $19.7 $24.2 $175 $225 $272 $190.0 $244.7 $296.2$50k $30.0 $38.0 $48.0 $350 $450 $543 $380.0 $488.0 $591.0Opportunity Cost /hr

DistributionElectro Magnet

DistributionDistributionWater CooledCorrectors/solid wire

Predicted Electromagnet Life Cycle Cost for 30 yrs Using Monte Carlo Simulation (5000 runs)

Units: Million Dollars

# of correctors: 2202# of water cooled magnets: 4965

# of small PS: 2785# of large PS: 3382

95% of the time the simulation predicts less

than this amount



Radiation Damage

• Neodymium Iron Boron is an attractive material for use in Permanent magnets


•Radiation damage issues

–Lower cost than Samarium Cobalt–Higher energy density than Samarium Cobalt–Less brittle easier to work with

–Not well measured especially for higher coercivity materials

–But not as resistant as Samarium Cobalt

–Issues with activation of Boron

Need to test different manufactures and different coercivities


Radiation Damage

• Radiation Damage to Permanent Magnets LCRD 2.24– Lucien Cremaldi Unv. of Mississippi

– James Volk Fermilab

• Expose magnets to gamma rays– Cs 137 662 KeV gamma 180 rad/hr 0.18 Mrad

– Co 60 1.16 MeV gamma 80 Krad/hr 80 Mrad

•James T Volk

11/07/2002


Radiation Damage

• Radiation damage studies of materials and electronic devices using hadrons LCRD proposal 2.9.1– Dave Pellett and Max Chertok of UC Davis

– James Spencer of SLAC

– James Volk of Fermilab

•James T Volk

11/07/2002

•Use the McClellan Nuclear Reactor Center (MNRC)

in Sacramento and UC Davis Crocker Nuclear Lab at Davis–Do both thermal and fast neutrons

–Use small quads that fit into rabbit holes

–Working on getting spectrum for damping rings and LINAC


Radiation Damage

•James T Volk

11/07/2002

Facility Thermal < .1 Ev (n/cm2-s)

Fast > 1 MeV (n/cm2-s)

Heating inAluminum (W/g)

Heating in Tissue (W/g)

Diameter (cm)

Length (cm)

CIF(Water)

4.5 * 1013 8.4 * 1012 0.27 0.65 4.7 38

CIF (Void)

3.2 * 1013 --- --- --- --- ---

PTS(Void)

1.4 * 1013 5.7 * 1012 0.12 0.40 1.5 11

NTD(Water)

6.3 * 1011 2.0 * 1010 0.0046 0.0052 10 25

NTD(Void)

7.3 * 1011 --- --- --- --- --- CIF Central Irradiation FacilityPTS Pneumatic Transfer SystemNTD Neutron Transmutation Doping

UC Davis MNRC Irradiation Facility


MNRC Rabbit can

•James T Volk

11/07/2002


Radiation Damage

2.125”

1.125”

Magnet material

Gap (variable)

Flux return

•James T Volk

11/07/2002


Prototype of Radiation test quad

Magnetic material

Al spacers

Gap for hall probe Direction of B orange arrow

11/07/2002


Radiation Damage

Beam pipe between 2 dipoles

At Ring to LINAC Septum

ceiling

Calibration 107/sec


Radiation Damage

• Have 2 grants in to study radiation damage in ND-Iron Boron

• Working up designs for magnets to fit available space

• Measuring spectrum in damping rings

• Expect to get some data on radiation damage by this winter

• Should have good data by Summer– This will of course lead to more questions, experiments, grants, …

– Present data at 18th International Conference on Magnet Technology in Oct 04?

•James T Volk

11/07/2002


Future Plans

• Continue work on understanding and improving measurement system

• Work on motorized drives for PM quads

• Work on active correction coils for PM

• Continue reliability studies on EM and PMs

• Radiation damage studies

11/07/2002


Summary

• Slow and steady progress on various adjustable quads

• Understanding measurement systems and make improvements

• Reliability studies continue

• Radiation damage studies beginning should have results by next MAC


Documents

NLC - The Next Linear Collider Project Status of Magnet R&D Nov. 7 th 2002 James T Volk Fermilab James T Volk 11/07/2002