feasibility of, and options for, the new mke kicker concept

Feasibility of new MKE system 1

Feasibility of, and options for, the new MKE kicker concept

M.J. Barnes, T. Kramer

Acknowledgements: L. Ducimetière, B. Goddard, B. Salvant, J. Uythoven,

G. Vanbavinckhove, C. ZanniniM. Barnes

LIU-SPS Open ‘C’ Core MKE Extraction Kicker Review - 20th March 2013


Outline• Existing MKEs• New MKE Concept– Length of magnet– Rise-time– Dependence of field quality and inductance, for the

open-C, upon various magnet parameters– Does it fit in the existing vacuum tank?

• Ferrite temperature considerations for existing MKE• Conclusions

M. Barnes


Existing MKEs & Specifications

M. Barnes

• Two types of MKE are installed:– MKE-L: Hap=147.7mm, Vap=35mm– MKE-S: Hap=135mm, Vap=32mm

• MKEs are currently water-cooled.• All but 1 are presently serigraphed: this one will be replaced during LS1.

Vap

Hap

LSS4 -- LHC (for protons)

LSS4 -- CNGS LSS6 -- LHC (for protons)

Energy [GeV] 450 400 450 Total System Deflection angle [mrad] 0.48 0.54 0.48 # MKE-L 3 3 2 # MKE-S 2 2 1 Individual magnet length [m] 1.674 1.674 1.674 Nominal Field MKE-L [mT] 82.6 82.8 82.6 Nominal field MKE-S [mT] 90.4 90.5 90.4 |Flattop ripple (overshoot)| < 1% < 2% < 1% 2 – 98% Rise Time (µs) <6 <1.1 <6 98 – 2% Fall Time [µs] <1.1 System impedance (Ω) 10 (terminated) 10 (terminated) 10 (short-circuit)


New MKE Concept

M. Barnes

Ferrite yoke

Conductor

Ferrite yoke

Conductor Existing MKE New concept

The new MKE concept is illustrated, in this presentation, for LSS4 - very similar considerations apply to LSS6.

The return conductor could also be elsewhere (see following slides)

LSS4 -- LHC (for protons)

LSS4 -- CNGS LSS6 -- LHC (for protons)

Energy (GeV) 450 400 450 Total System Deflection angle (mrad) ~0.5 0.54 ~0.5 |Flattop ripple (overshoot)| < ±1% < 2% < ±1% 2 – 98% Rise Time (µs) <6 <1.1 <6 98 – 2% Fall Time (µs) <1.1 System impedance (Ω) 10 10 (terminated) 10 Flat-top pulse (µs) ~10 10.8 ~10


New MKE Concept

M. Barnes

The existing MKE installations operate with a magnet current up to ~3.3kA.

The existing MKE4 maximum operating PFN voltage is ~51.2kV;

The existing MKE6 maximum operating PFN voltage is ~33.1kV.

It is assumed that the present system impedance, of 10Ω, is kept so that existing PFNs and generators can be re-used.

A resistively terminated magnet is preferred as experience shows that this is less likely to flashover than a magnet terminated in a short-circuit.

An operating PFN voltage below ~55kV is preferred, so that standard cables and connectors can be used. A PFN voltage of 50kV, with a 10Ω resistively terminated system, gives ~2.5kA: hence a total magnetic length of 4.5m or more is required for LSS4. Thus 3 or 4 magnets, each of length ~1.5-1.7m, would be used.

Subdividing a total magnetic length of 6m into 4 magnets, each of ~1.5m, each with its own generator, would give a field rise-time of less than 1µs.

0.0E+00

5.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.5E-06

2.0E-06

2.5E-06

3.0E-06

3.5E-06

4.0E-06

4.5E-06

5.0E-06

5.5E-06

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

1 2 3 4 5 6

[1 G

ener

ator

] Fie

ld R

ise-

Tim

e (u

s)

Mag

net C

urre

nt (A

)

Total Magnetic Length (m)

Magnet CurrentExisting MKE6 CurrentExisting MKE4 CurrentRise-time: 10R & TerminatedRise-time: 10R & Short-Circuit

Assumes 3.6µH/m

45mm

Schematic of new MKE concept

M. Barnes Feasibility of new MKE system 6

An electrically conducting box (not necessarily square – it could have bevelled corners) helps to decouple the beam from the MKE vacuum tank. The magnet return busbar could be either on the LHS of the conducting box, or on the RHS of the ferrite back-leg (as viewed above). Since the ferrite is at high-voltage, the box would not touch the ferrite.

Ferrite build-up≈45mm (70mm for existing MKEs)

Only DC EM simulations carried out to date. We still need to study (AC or transient) if return busbar should be connected to box or insulated from box.

Conducting Box Near Ferrite


Box “touching” ferrite.

By at beam centre: 156mT.Field homogeneity is better than ±1% over a region of 30mm x 18mm.Inductance: 3.0 µH/m.Average flux-density in back leg: 160 mT.

By at beam centre: 156mT.Field homogeneity is better than ±0.7% over a region of 30mm x 18mm.Inductance: 3.5 µH/m.Average flux-density in back leg: 191 mT.

Box isolated from ferrite & box legs cut-back to be ~48mm from centre of circulating beam.

Note: return current modelled in return busbar (not box).

~48mm

For HV reasons, the conducting box will not touch the ferrite.


Position of Return Conductor

M. Barnes


Return busbar behind box. Return busbar behind back-leg.


From the magnet design perspective, it is advantageous to have the return busbar behind the box.


Effect of Ferrite Nose

M. Barnes

By at beam centre: 156mT.Field homogeneity is better than ±1% over a region of 30mm x 18mm.Inductance: 3.0 µH/m.Average flux-density in back leg: 160 mT.

No nose on ferrite.

By at beam centre: 156mT.Field homogeneity is ±2.5% over a region of 30mm x 18mm.Inductance: 2.9 µH/m.Average flux-density in back leg: 160 mT.

Noses, of ~0.5mm height, improve the field uniformity. The height of the aperture may need to be increased to 21mm to allow beam to be bumped past the nose: is this necessary?

2x0.5mm high noses on ferrite.


Existing MKE in Vacuum Tank

M. Barnes

End flange of tank


End flange of tank

Circulating beam

Bumped beam

New Concept MKE in Existing Vacuum Tank

M. Barnes

Centring circulating beam in tank, with the present alignment of the existing tank, does not allow the beam to be bumped into the MKE aperture – because of the magnet flange.

Could the distance between circulating and bumped beam be reduced (e.g. by 5mm)?


Yoke

Tank

End flange of tank

Circulating beam

Bumped beam

New Concept MKE in Existing Vacuum Tank

M. Barnes

a) Move MKE to the right (by ≥ 5mm) in the vacuum tank;

b) Move the whole vacuum tank, and contents, to the left (by the same amount).

Is it a problem if beam is offset horizontally w.r.t. bellows etc of magnet interconnects?

Ferrite Temperature


MKEs are currently cooled with demineralised water (20-25˚C). Water cooling allows the MKE to operate with ~twice the beam induced power

deposition (ref: AB-Note-2004-005 BT (Rev.2)). With the expected beam induced power deposition (~2kW/magnet – see Carlo’s talk), for

HL-LHC, the estimated (actual) ferrite temperature (see Glenn’s talk) is: ~110˚C for 25ns beam (uncomfortably close to the Curie temperature); ~110˚C for 50ns beam (uncomfortably close to the Curie temperature).

Mixed (12˚C) or chilled (6˚C) water would give a reasonable reduction (up to 19˚C) in ferrite temperature.

Back of the envelope calculations indicate that increasing the emissivity of the inside of the MKE tanks (as per the MKIs) could result in a significant radiated power (15-25%), further improving cooling of the ferrite – but current tanks could be radioactive, thus difficult to treat.

Samples of CMD10 ferrite have been obtained for evaluation for possible future use in the MKIs: CMD10 has a Curie temperature of ~250˚C. The samples have been given to the vacuum group for testing. CMD5005 would give a large operating margin, for the MKEs, for HL-LHC.

Ferrite Tc (˚C) Bs (T) Br (T) Hc (A/m) Denisty (g/cc) u'CMD5005 130 0.33 0.13 9.5 5.27 1150CN20 185 0.4 0.26 15.9 5.24 650CN20B 160 0.41 0.21 15.9 5 1375CM400 300 0.46 0.24 51.7 5.2 450N40 600 0.25 0.15 636.6 4.8 15CMD10 250 0.43 0.29 28.6 5.2 650

Equivalent to 8C11

CMD10 also has a saturation flux-density (Bs) greater than CMD5005 but has a lower u’ (acceptable for MKIs, but needs to be checked for MKEs)


Conclusions It is assumed that the present system impedance, of 10Ω, is kept so that existing PFNs

and generators can be re-used. A resistively terminated magnet is preferred as experience shows that this is less likely to

flashover than a magnet terminated in a short-circuit. A total magnetic length of 4.5m or more is required for LSS4. Thus 3 or 4 magnets, each

of length ~1.5-1.7m, would be used. Subdividing a total magnetic length of 6m into 4 magnets, each of ~1.5m, each with its

own generator, would give a field rise-time of less than 1µs. Or else a single generator can be used, will give a field rise-time of 3-4µs.

The aperture of the new MKE may need to be increased slightly to allow for a nose on the ferrite – to be discussed.

For the specified bump, the new MKE kicker concept would fit in the existing vacuum tank, but the magnet needs to be off-centre w.r.t. the tank, and the tank moved w.r.t. its present position – is this acceptable? Or can the bump be reduced?

With the existing MKE magnet design, the ferrite temperature would be borderline for HL-LHC, but using chilled water, increasing the emissivity of the inside of the vacuum tank, and/or using a high Curie temperature ferrite would help significantly.

So far new MKE concept looks feasible; studies are on-going……M. Barnes

Feasibility of new MKE system 15M. Barnes

Spare Slides

Feasibility of new MKE system 16M. Barnes

Field Uniformity

0.975

0.98

0.985

0.99

0.995

1

1.005

1.01

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Nor

mal

ized

field

[rel

ative

to B

y(0/

0)

Horizontal position w.r.t. nominal, in aperture, coordinate [mm]

MKE_nose_coil_behind box Y=0

MKE_nose_coil_behind box Y=5.5

MKE_nose_coil_behind box Y=-5.5

MKE_without_nose Y=0

MKE_without_nose Y=5.5

MKE_without_nose Y=-5.5


Beam induced heating estimation

cycle time = 21 s Beam-in time = 100 ms

Courtesy: Carlo Zannini

M. Barnes


Beam induced heating estimation

cycle time = 21 s Beam-in time = 100 ms


M. Barnes


43 C

28 C

23 C 4520

MKEser

MKE

TT

25 April-26 April: 25 ns beam Ecloud studies


M. Barnes


We assume a bunch length of about 18 cm with the 25 ns beam at flat bottom

4

MKE MKE

th

MKEser MKEser

th

MKE MKE

MKEser MKEser

T PWLt CT PWLt CT PWLT PWL

25 April-26 April: 25 ns beam Ecloud studies

G. Papotti

In very good agreement with the measured heating

MKEser

MKE

PWLPWL


M. Barnes


50 ns beam: statistics

LHC Fill T[MKE]/T[MKEser]

2728 4.5

2729 6

2732 4.5

2816-2817 5

2818 5

2836 6

2838-2839 5

2845 5

2847 5

505 .stdTT

MKEser

MKE

M. Barnes


feasibility of, and options for, the new mke kicker concept

Documents