1 / 21

Proposed Button Design for a Series of High Power Button Tests

Proposed Button Design for a Series of High Power Button Tests. Arash Zarrebini-Esfahani 22 nd August 2007. MICE. 2 RFCC module each containing 4 cavities High gradients up 16 MV/m at 201 MHz Normal conducting Rounded Pillbox cavities Lower peak surface field

allene
Download Presentation

Proposed Button Design for a Series of High Power Button Tests

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. Proposed Button Design for a Series of High Power Button Tests Arash Zarrebini-Esfahani 22nd August 2007

  2. MICE • 2 RFCC module each containing 4 cavities • High gradients up 16 MV/m at 201 MHz • Normal conducting Rounded Pillbox cavities • Lower peak surface field • High accelerating efficiency • Lower RF power

  3. 201 MHz Cavity Design • Cavity body + water cooling lines • Four ports and flanges • RF loop couplers • Cavity support structure • Cavity tuners • Ceramic RF windows • Curved Be windows

  4. 201 MHz Cavity Fabrication 1 -Half shell spinning 2 -Fabrication of stiffener ring

  5. 201 MHZ Cavity Fabrication 3 – Nose hole and half shell lip machining 4 – Half shell electro polishing

  6. 201 MHz Cavity Fabrication 5 – Equator electron beam welding 6 – Fabrication of nose ring

  7. 201 MHz Cavity Fabrication 7 – Cavity port pulling 8 – Cooling pipes TIG welding

  8. What are the Problems? • Production techniques offer poor reproducibility • Achievable gradients are poor • Surface features are one of main limiting factors • Field emission not an issue when average surface roughness, RA < 2 µm • Current Electro polishing techniques offers RA < 1 µm, But it is a `Black Art ‘ • Surface Impurities or Defects are dominant cause of limited accelerating gradient ?(Must be verified)

  9. What is the solution? To introduce New manufacturing processes This can improve: • Reproducibility of cavity half shells • Surface quality before and after cleaning process • Welding quality • Final assembly

  10. Who Are We? U.K Cavity Development Consortium: • Imperial College • Cockcroft Institute • Brunel University • Liverpool University

  11. Proposed research program A series of Button Tests to investigate the effect of manufacturing and surface treatment processes This aims to study and understand the factors limiting: • Achievable accelerating gradients • Reproducibility

  12. Button Design MuCool • Single part New Design • 2 Individual Parts

  13. Button Design The new design would allow testing of: • Wider range of material • Wider range of manufacturing and surface treatment process Holder Cap

  14. Manufacturing Procedure Cap Material Selection Surface Characterisation Cap Forming Surface Characterisation Holder Forming Cap Surface Treatment Surface Characterisation Final Cap Surface Characterisation High Power Testing

  15. Surface Preparation Ultrasonic Cleaning Surface Characterisation Deoxidation/etch Surface characterisation Electro-Polish Surface Characterisation DeionisedWater high-pressure rinse Surface Characterisation

  16. Surface Preparation Initially we investigate two chemistries for Electro-polishing • Standard Phosphoric/butanol (J-Lab recipe) • Phosphoric, butanol, PEG, Citric acid • PEG, known to prevent etch pitting • Citric acid, known to increase surface planarisation

  17. Surface Characterisation • Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) / Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) • Surface topology • Average roughness • Stress • Planarisation • X-ray photoelectron Spectrometer (XPS) • Chemical make up of the surface layers of the RF surface • Identifying Orbitals involved in bonding impurities, etc

  18. What Do We Get? From processes: • surface topology (roughness, planarisation, stresses, defects) • surface chemical composition • identify how the fabrication processes alters Topology and Chemistry From characterisation techniques: • statistical models to predict the expected surface topology of a cavity produced, using each of the evaluated manufacturing techniques Hence, being able to extrapolate the manufacturing reliability and performance of high gradient cavities

  19. Future plans • Expanding the button test by introducing: • Other manufacturing techniques • Different EP chemical compositions • Other Surface preparation techniques • Design andManufacture a high frequency pillbox cavity • Smaller in size • Lower in cost • Closer to MICE cavity, hence better results

  20. Overall Outcome • Understanding the effect of limiting factors • Understanding the effect of various techniques on performance • Development of better manufacturing and processing techniques

  21. References • 201 MHz NC RF Cavity R&D, Derun Li,April 26, 2005 and July 28, 2004 • RFCC Module Design Update, Steve Virostek, June 13, 2007 • MICE RF Cavity Design and Fabrication Update,Steve Virostek, October 27, 2004 • Neutrino Factory and Muon Collider R&D in the US“Two Mints in One?, Alan Bross,June 14, 2007 • Proposed Investigation of High Gradient RF Cavity Limitations, Dr. Matthew Stables, Dr. Rebecca Seviour,5th June 2007

More Related