PSI CD1 Conceptual Design Review

Europe/Zurich
927/1-B23 (CERN)

927/1-B23

CERN

35
Show room on map
Description

PSI - CERN Collaboration on the CCT option for FCC dipole magnets.

Introduction: In 2015/16 a generic memorandum of understanding and a specific addendum were negotiated between PSI and the FCC Design Study at CERN. One subject of the collaboration is to be the Canted-Cosine Theta technology and its potential application in an FCC main dipole magnet. The initial program duration is three years. An important goal of the program is the construction of a technology model magnet, proving the feasibility of some key features that a CCT magnet would have to possess in order make for a viable candidate in the FCC design study. In addition to the collaboration of PSI and CERN, the PSI program will closely coordinate their activities with the CCT program in Berkeley (LBNL).   

Charge to the review committee: The goal of this review is to evaluate the current design of a first PSI-produced technology model dipole, identify technical risks, and provide feedback on technical issues and possible mitigation strategies. Note that this is the first step in the PSI program. A fabrication-readiness review is foreseen for the end of the year. The questions to the review committee are as follows:

  1. Is the PSI program well motivated in view of the FCC design requirements?
    1. Is the staged approach with two different sets of coils, CD1 and CD2, in a shared mechanical structure appropriate?
    2. Is it reasonable for PSI, at this time, to move ahead with ordering conductor for CD2, given that conductor delivery times are ~1.5 years?
  2. Is the mechanical design of the shared structure in CD1 and CD2 configuration sound, i.e. have risks been identified and addressed in a reasonable manner?
  3. Is the electromagnetic and electrothermal modelling sufficiently detailed to start the technical design and, eventually, the procurement of parts, or is there additional analysis that should be performed?
  4. Have major technical risks been appropriately identified and are the foreseen tests adequate to address them?
  5. Are the PSI infrastructure goals and plans realistic and appropriate from a technical perspective?

Review committee:

Paolo Ferracin
Glyn Kirby
Juan Carlos Perez
Herman ten Kate
Davide Tommasini (Chairman)