F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08

1

Some points about the superconducting magnet

for a CLIC detector

F. Kircher(CEA Saclay/DSM/Irfu/SACM)

December 15, 2008

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 2

Summary

1. Introduction

2. Geometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parameters

3. Limits

4. Conductor possible improvements

5. ILD detector magnet

6. Conclusions

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 3

Summary

1. Introduction

2. Geometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parametersGeometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parameters

3. LimitsLimits

4. Conductor possible improvementsConductor possible improvements

5. ILD detector magnetILD detector magnet

6. ConclusionsConclusions

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 4

Introduction

CMS magnet tests were very successful

For the next colliders (ILC, CLIC), most of the detector magnets are CMS-like

Nevertheless, some questions may be asked, such as:. what are the relevant parameters?

. what is the ultimate limit for such magnets?

. which improvements can be done on CMS elements?

We will give some directions in this presentation (technical aspect, not cost)

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 5

Summary

1. IntroductionIntroduction

2. Geometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parameters

3. LimitsLimits

4. Conductor possible improvementsConductor possible improvements

5. ILD detector magnetILD detector magnet

6. ConclusionsConclusions

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 6

- Three basic parameters for the design:

• B0: central field

• Ri: coil inner radius (typically: Ri = Rbore + 250 mm)

• L: coil length

- Other relevant parameters:

• Field homogeneity

• Fringing field

• Coil thickness (in term of radiation length)

Magnet parameters

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 7

CMS Detector (Compact Muon Solenoid)

. Superconducting solenoid:

6 m bore diameter

13 m length

4T central field

+ iron yoke

. No special request on field homogeneity

. Cold mass thickness: 3.9 X0

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 8

From design to realization : 1998-2006

Central field : 4 T

Nominal current : 20 kA

Stored energy : 2.6 GJ

Cold mass

Length : 12.5 m

Internal diameter : 6.4 m

Weight : 220 t

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 9

Stored energy of SC magnets

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

10 100 1000 10000

E/M

(kJ/

kg)

Stored Energy (MJ)

CMSSDC-model

ATLAS -sol.

ALEPH

DELPHI

H1CDF

VENUS

ZEUS

TOPAZCLEO2

ATLAS Barrel

ATLAS End-caps

Among detector magnets, , CMS has both :

the largest stored energy (2.6 GJ)

the largest density of stored energy (11.6 kJ/kg)

A value around 12 kJ/kg is now

considered as a safe standard for CMS-like magnets

An important parameter for magnet safetyAn important parameter for magnet safety

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 10

Stored energy/per unit of cold mass E/M (from A. Hervé)

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 11

CMS parameters and what can be varied (from A. H.)?

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 12

• Important parameter:. for the workers around (or in) the magnet. for some hardware (relays, pumps…). for the other detector in push-pull operation

• Unfortunately, in these huge yoke structures, gaps are needed, both for cable passages and for assembly reasons

• CMS has an in equivalent iron thickness of about 1.5 m, and is rather field-leaking (typically 500 G near the outside part of the barrel yoke)

• For ILD, the foreseen iron thickness is more around 3 m. Nevertheless, because of the gaps, the fringing field is still around 200 G at 2 m outside the yoke

• As the mass of iron is huge, both specifications and gaps must be as reasonable as possible

• Note also that the metallic structure of the buildings affects the calculations

Fringing field

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 13

Summary

1. IntroductionIntroduction

2. Geometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical Geometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parametersparameters

3. Limits

4. Conductor possible improvementsConductor possible improvements

5. ILD detector magnetILD detector magnet

6. ConclusionsConclusions

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 14

Actual limitations

• My personnal criteria (from experience)

B02 * Rc ≤ 60 T2 * m

(complementary to the other criteria, where neither B0 nor Ri appear)

. CMS: 42*3.2 = 51 T2*m

. LDC: 42*3.6 = 58 T2*m

. SiD: 52*2.6 = 65 T2*m

• These are physical, and cost, and not so much technical limitations

• The length L is important in the aspect ratio L/Rc for field homogeneity and efficiency of A*t

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 15

Summary

1. IntroductionIntroduction

2. Geometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parametersGeometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parameters

3. LimitsLimits

4. Conductor possible improvements

5. 5 ILD detector magnet5 ILD detector magnet

6. ConclusionsConclusions

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 16

CMS conductor

Superconducting cable

(32 strands)

Thermal stabilizer: very

high purity aluminium:

99.998%

Mechanical reinforcement:Aluminium alloy 6082 T5

Electron beam welding

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 17

Improved CMS conductor (1)

Replace pure aluminum stabilizer by:

o cold drawn Al-0.1wt%Ni alloyo developed for the ATLAS thin solenoid superconductor

(A. Yamamoto et al.)

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 18

Improved CMS conductor (2)

• This proposal was done by several labs involved in the CMS magnet few years ago

• Unfortunately, up to now, no funding could be found

• Nevertheless, this development is important to be done for future projects:

. the electrical stability will not be affected (RRR* of 500 for CMS overall conductor, starting from a RRR of 3 000 for very pure Al)

* RRR = resistivity at 300 K / resistivity at 10 K

. the mechanical stability will be improved (about 100% of structural material in the conductor, vs about 60% for

CMS).

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 19

Changing the mechanical stabilizer welding

• This is an other way

• The EBW (electron beam welding) method used for CMS is costly (about 40 % of the total cost of the conductor) and tricky

• Other ways were foreseen during the CMS conductor R&D phase, but not too much time was available for the necessary developments:

. soft soldering

. friction

. laser beam

• As some of these methods have been progressing in the last 10 years, it is worthy to do at least some research and reflexion

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 20

Cable in conduit conductor?

Developed for fusion magnets, with very high fields (10 -12 T range), Developed for fusion magnets, with very high fields (10 -12 T range), and high lossesand high losses

Drawbacks:Drawbacks:

. low current density. low current density

. short unit length. short unit length

. expensive. expensive

Not suitedNot suited for medium-range field , DC magnets , as are detector for medium-range field , DC magnets , as are detector magnetsmagnets

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 21

Summary

1. IntroductionIntroduction

2. Geometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parametersGeometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parameters

3. LimitsLimits

4. Conductor possible improvementsConductor possible improvements

5. ILD detector magnet

6. ConclusionsConclusions

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 22

Version ILD-V2 Saclay

Parameters used for ILD-V2 detector magnet:

. B0 = 4 T nominal, 3.5 T operation

. Rint coil = 3 590 mm

. Rext coil = 3 940 mm

. L coil = 3 672 * 2 mm

Stray field (@ 3.5 T):

. Bext ≤ 200 G @ z=10 m from I.P.

. Bext ≤ 50 G @ at 15 m in the radial direction

Homogeneous field in the TPC volume:

z max

l (R) = ∫ (Br (R) / Bz (R) dz ≤ 10 mm

0

within the TPC volume: z max = 2.25 m, R max = 1.8 m

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 23

Version ILD-V2 Saclay: field homogeneity

The field homogeneity is ajusted with:

• a FSP (Field Shaping Plate) inside the endcap yoke

• and correction currents in some places of the coil (3 inner layers of the two modules at extremities).

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 24

ILD-V2: main outputs

Electrical parameters (4 T)

Inom (kA) 15.9

Eng. J (A/mm2) 9.6 (for Inom)

Icor (kA) 18.1 (3 layers * 2 modules)Stored energy (GJ) 2.0

Ws density (kJ/kg) 12.2

Integral homogeneity in TPC volume (mm)≤ 9

Yoke dimensions

Rout barel yoke (mm) 7 110

Zout endcap yoke (mm) 7 190

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 25

ILD-V2

Br/Bz(z=0 to 2.25 m)for r=0 to 1.8m

(Br/Bz) vs r (z=0 to 2.25 m)

ILD-V2 SACLAY configuration @ 4 TeslaIron : up to R=7.110m (2.76m thick), up to Z=+/-7.190m (3.27m thick)

+ 100 mm FSP (Field Shaping Plate)

Coil : 4 layers ,7.35 m length subdivided in 5 parts

Bz(r=0)

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

B(z) (8m<r<9.5m)

600 Gauss

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 26

Summary

1. IntroductionIntroduction

2. Geometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parametersGeometrical, electrical, magnetic and mechanical parameters

3. LimitsLimits

4. Conductor possible improvementsConductor possible improvements

5. ILD detector magnetILD detector magnet

6. Conclusions

F. Kircher CLIC concept meeting 12/15/08 27

Conclusions

• CMS detector magnet was a huge step from detector magnets of the LEP generation (Aleph, Delphi)

• Because of physical and economical reasons, a similar step is not realistic for the after-LHC detector magnets

• Nevertheless, the CMS, and also the ATLAS, experience must be used for the design and realization of the future magnets

• Some basic parameters, limitations and directions for R&D concerning the conductor have been mentionned in this presentation. As an application, the work going on for an ILC detector magnet has been briefly presented