XFEL.

EU TR-2012-006

TECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT

X-Ray Optics and

Beam Transport

December 2012

H. Sinn, M. Dommach, X. Dong, D. La Civita,

L. Samoylova, R. Villanueva, and F. Yang
for X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport (WP73)
at the European XFEL

European X-Ray Free-Electron Laser Facility GmbH

Albert-Einstein-Ring 19

22761 Hamburg

Germany
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
2 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5
1 Design of beam transport systems ................................................................. 7
X-ray optical design ............................................................................................ 8
Beamline components ...................................................................................... 10
Ray tracing ........................................................................................................ 14
2 Operation and safety ...................................................................................... 17
Radiation safety ................................................................................................ 17
Equipment protection ........................................................................................ 18
Beam modes and operation.............................................................................. 20
X-ray beam loss monitors ................................................................................. 24
Damage experiments ........................................................................................ 25
Alignment .......................................................................................................... 28
3 Offset and distribution mirrors...................................................................... 31
Adaptive mirrors ................................................................................................ 31
Mirror chambers (CHOMs) ............................................................................... 35
Interferometric measurements .......................................................................... 38
4 Soft X-ray monochromator ............................................................................ 43
Conceptual design ............................................................................................ 44
Optical layout .................................................................................................... 53
Optics requirements .......................................................................................... 54
Technical design ............................................................................................... 63
Wavefront propagation results .......................................................................... 67
5 Hard X-ray monochromator ........................................................................... 73
Optical design ................................................................................................... 74
Cryo-cooling consideration ............................................................................... 84
Mechanical design ............................................................................................ 92
6 Vacuum system ............................................................................................ 101
General ........................................................................................................... 101
Pump-down ..................................................................................................... 105
Layout ............................................................................................................. 108
Mechanical design .......................................................................................... 108
Interfaces ........................................................................................................ 110
Pressure profiles and pump failure analysis ................................................... 111
Gas attenuator at SASE3 ............................................................................... 113
Differential pumping ........................................................................................ 119
Control system ................................................................................................ 120

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 3 of 164
7 Further beamline components .................................................................... 123
Apertures ........................................................................................................ 123
Front ends and shutters .................................................................................. 126
Solid attenuators, Be CRLs ............................................................................ 128
Diagnostics ..................................................................................................... 130
8 CAD integration............................................................................................. 133
9 Installation schedule .................................................................................... 135
10 Summary and outlook .................................................................................. 137
A Ray-tracing plots .......................................................................................... 139
B Related documentation ................................................................................ 153
C Project plan ................................................................................................... 155
References ............................................................................................................... 161
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 163

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

4 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Introduction

This report describes the technical realization of the X-ray beam transport
systems presented in the Conceptual Design Report: X-Ray Optics and Beam
Transport, 2011 [1] (referred to as “CDR2011” in the following text).

After a short update on the conceptual design, the sequence of X-ray optical
components and the ray-tracing layout, including relevant beams and
apertures, are discussed for each beamline. This is followed by a discussion
of radiation safety and equipment protection: for the European XFEL facility,
these are particularly relevant since a mis-steered X-ray beam can potentially
burn through several millimetres of materials during one pulse train.
Operational aspects that can lead to a coupling of experiments by the
equipment protection system are discussed as well.

One of the main characteristics of the beam transport systems is the use of
800 mm long mirrors to offset and distribute the beam. The performance of
the beamlines depends critically on these mirrors since profile errors and
unwanted deformations on the order of a few nanometres, due to mounting
and heat load, will cause noticeable beam distortions. A prototype
development for these mirrors is discussed as well as the design of the mirror
chambers, which face high requirements in terms of vibration stability and
motion capabilities at the best possible UHV conditions.

An important conceptual change with respect to CDR2011 was done in the

choice of the soft X-ray monochromator design. While the previous design
was in the horizontal geometry and more optimized towards higher energy
resolution, the new design is now focused more on a faster time response.
The vertical in-line geometry makes a monochromatic beam now equally
available to all three branch beamlines at SASE3.

The cryogenically cooled silicon monochromator for hard X-rays was

designed on the basis of an artificial channel-cut monochromator developed
by Argonne National Laboratory. In contrast to the previous design, the

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 5 of 164
angular range was extended, and cooling tests were performed on a test
setup.

The vacuum system, consisting of a more than 2.5 km long beam transport,
will be built mostly from 18 m long units, which are assembled by orbital
welding inside the tunnels. The pump-down of these large systems and the
interface to the accelerator vacuum and experiment vacuum are discussed. A
gas attenuator system for the SASE3 beamline is presented and will be
tested and optimized.

Several other beamline components, which will be close to existing designs

developed for storage ring optics, are then briefly discussed.

Finally, the CAD integration process that is used to avoid collisions with other
installation throughout the construction project is presented shortly.

In the appendices, a collection of ray-tracing plots is given, as well as a list of

links to other technical documents related to this report and a project plan.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

6 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
1 Design of beam transport
systems

The conceptual design with respect to CDR2011 remains mostly unchanged.

However, a further development of the design of the instruments in the

experiment hall led to some adjustments:

1 It was decided that only two branches will be built at the SASE1
beamline. The third instrument, Serial Femtosecond Crystallography
(SFX), which is currently proposed by a user consortium, will be
positioned behind the Single Particles, Clusters, and Biomolecules (SPB)
instrument, using the same beam transport.

2 To improve the beam stability, the hard X-ray monochromators will now
be positioned closer to the experiments, either at the very end of the
photon tunnels or directly inside the experiment hall. To compensate for
the vertical offset, the beam will be steered vertically by the second offset
mirror or the distribution mirror. For the Femtosecond X-ray Experiments
(FXE) instrument, a four-bounce configuration is foreseen for the
monochromator, which keeps the beam offset constant.

3 The intermediate, horizontal focus (or collimated beam), which is needed

to transport the full beam footprint over the distribution mirrors, can now
be generated also by beryllium compound refractive lenses (CRLs) in the
case of the FXE and Materials Imaging and Dynamics (MID) experiments.
The capability of generating this focus with the second offset mirror
remains. However, since the microfocusing at these experiments will be
done also with spherical CRLs, an astigmatism coming from the mirror's
intermediate focus would lead to unsatisfactory focusing results. Also, the
use of upstream CRLs offers the advantage of pre-collimation in the
vertical plane, which is otherwise impossible for the hard X-ray
beamlines.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 7 of 164
 4 As discussed in the introduction, the concept of the soft X-ray
monochromator was modified and will be presented later in a dedicated
section.

5 The range of grazing-incidence angles at the SASE3 offset mirrors was

changed from 9–25 mrad to 6–20 mrad. The main reason is the smaller
wavefront distortion coming from shape errors of the mirrors. Also, by
decreasing the smallest possible offset mirror angle, the Small Quantum
System (SQS) experiment could now receive pink beam up to nearly
4 keV.

6 Due to the slight reduction of offset angles for SASE3 (which still meets
the requirements formulated in CDR2011), the horizontal offset variation
at all beamlines could be limited to less than 80 mm. This led to a unified
design of the mirror chambers for all offset and distribution mirrors.

7 The beam offset direction for all SASE beamlines was oriented such that
the deflection of the first mirror is directed towards the closer tunnel wall,
away from the transport path. In this way, unwanted heating of the driving
mechanics for the pitch angle by Compton radiation can be significantly
reduced.

X-ray optical design

A schematic layout of the three beamlines associated with the undulators
SASE1, SASE2, and SASE3 is shown in Figure 1. In the following, the
expressions “SASE1”, etc. are used jointly for undulators, beam transport
systems and the corresponding experiment areas. The southbound direction
is “+x” in the European XFEL coordinate systems, the downstream direction
of the beam is “+z”, and “+y” is vertically up.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

8 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 1: Layout of the three SASE beamlines. The distances of the components are
not to scale, but the beamlines are arranged such that the relative positions of the
experiments correspond to their sequence in the experiment hall.

The components labelled “Monitor” indicate a combination of gas-based

beam position and intensity monitor systems (X-ray beam position monitors
(XBPM) and X-ray gas monitor detectors (XGMD) [2]. “ABS” at SASE1 and
SASE2 are removable, water-cooled, solid-state beam attenuators. For the
soft X-ray beamline SASE3, a gas attenuator (“GAT”) is used instead. The
offset mirrors M1 and M2 work with a variable offset: 25–85 mm at SASE1
and SASE2, and 35–115 mm at SASE3. At the locations of the shaft
buildings, SASE1 and SASE2 have intermediate shutters that separate the
undulator tunnels and shaft buildings upstream from the photon tunnels
downstream. Because the distance to the source point would otherwise be
too large, a significant part of the SASE1 X-ray optics has been moved into
the undulator tunnel.

The downstream mirrors shown in grey in Figure 1 are the distribution mirrors
that can be moved into the beam to direct it to the branch instrument stations.
Only one of the up to three instrument ports can receive beam at the same
time.

The hard X-ray monochromators (“Mono”) are located at the very end of the
photon tunnels or directly at the instruments in the experiment hall. The soft

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 9 of 164
 X-ray monochromator consists of a varied line space (VLS) grating upstream
of the distribution mirrors and the exit slits (“ES”). In contrast to the hard X-ray
beamlines SASE1 and SASE2, where each experiment has a dedicated
monochromator, all instrument stations at SASE3 can use the VLS
monochromator.

Beamline components
The sequence of X-ray optical components for SASE1 is shown in more detail
in Figure 2. All components for which the X-ray Optics and Beam Transport
group (WP73) is responsible are shown in grey. Components under the
responsibility of the Undulator Vacuum group (WP19) are shown in orange, of
the X-Ray Diagnostics group (WP74) in green, and the instruments in blue.
Components that are foreseen as placeholders, but not budgeted, are white.

One difference compared to CDR2011 is the sequence of diagnostics

elements for the hard X-ray beamlines (Figure 2, Figure 3): one pair of XBPM
and XGMD monitors is moved to the back of the beamline. This will enable
more precise information on the intensity and beam position right before the
experiments. On the other hand, the pointing information of the beam from
the undulator must now be derived from the combination of one XBPM and
one electron beam position monitor or one of the X-ray screens.

At the SASE3 beamline (Figure 4), two gas monitor sections are located
around the gas attenuator in order to be able to measure the gas absorption
precisely after a pressure change. The gas diagnostics section at the end of
the beamlines is foreseen as an upgrade option—similar at the branch
beamlines of SASE1 and SASE2.

The detailed position of each component is maintained in an Excel list, which

is updated every six months (“Component list”: EDMS D*2278111).

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

10 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 2: SASE1 beamline components

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 11 of 164
Figure 3: SASE2 beamline components

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

12 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 4: SASE3 beamline components

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 13 of 164
Ray tracing
To precisely define the size and position of apertures and beam pipes, a
quantitative ray tracing is required. Unfortunately, the 3D CAD model of the
beamlines is not suited for this since it is segmented into sections that are
about 50 m long due to its large size. Instead, 2D cuts in the horizontal and
vertical plane are used for ray tracing. To be able to plot the entire beam
transport system at once, the z-axis (beam direction) is compressed by a
factor of 2000 (SASE1 and SASE2) or 1000 (SASE3), while the x-axis
perpendicular to the beam is scaled 1:1.

Examples for such a plot for the SPB instrument at SASE1 are shown in
Figure 5 and Figure 6. The beam pipes and fixed apertures for radiation
safety (for example, tungsten collimators protected by boron carbide B4C) are
shown in black. The beam coming from the undulator is shown in red. Before
the offset mirrors, rays in all directions are considered, while the offset mirrors
limit the angular range. Two beam offsets are considered: the large horizontal
offset corresponds to the low photon energy boundary (3 keV for SASE1 and
SASE2, and 270 eV for SASE3) and the small offset to the higher boundary
(24 keV for SASE1 and SASE2, and 3 keV for SASE3). The beam sizes in
the experiment hall are defined by the cutoff from the offset mirror and the
minimum and maximum angular position. The beam shift of the offset mirrors
generates virtual sources, which are shown as vertically displaced undulator
sources in the plot.

Apertures shown in blue are B4C apertures for beam guiding and equipment
protection purposes. Some of these apertures are movable and follow the
adjustable beam offset as indicated with arrows.

A complete set of ray-tracing diagrams for all beamlines and experiments is

shown in Appendix A and in EDMS D*3004861.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 14 of 164
Figure 5: SASE1 ray tracing for SPB instrument in the horizontal plane

Figure 6: SASE1 ray tracing for SPB instrument in the vertical plane

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 15 of 164
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
16 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
2 Operation and safety

Radiation safety includes all measures to protect people from harmful

radiation. For example, people will work during operation in the experiment
hall or inside of a radiation safety hutch with the photon shutter closed. The
shielding requirements are defined by the DESY radiation protection group
and—as far as they concern the beam transport—are explained in the next
section.

The aim of the equipment protection systems is to minimize failures and

downtimes due to equipment damaged by a mis-steered or too intense FEL
beam. A failure of the equipment protection system should in no case
compromise the radiation safety.

Radiation safety
Several sources of radiation are considered: bremsstrahlung created by the
electron beam hitting residual gas in the electron beamline, bremsstrahlung
from a target, like a closed valve inside the undulator section, spontaneous
(synchrotron) radiation, and FEL radiation. The precise shielding and
radiation protection requirements are currently calculated by the DESY group
and refined as the technical design of the beam transports and the
experiments advances.

So far, the following guidelines were developed:

 To protect the experiment hall against the very hard bremsstrahlung and
spontaneous radiation, a minimum beam offset of 25 mm (SASE1 and
SASE2) or 35 mm (SASE3) has to be introduced.

 The shutters and shielding requirements towards the experiment hall

should match the effective thickness of the labyrinth wall of 1 m normal
concrete. This corresponds to about 8 cm of tungsten for the scattered
bremsstrahlung and the X-ray spectrum considered.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 17 of 164
  The shutters and shielding requirements in the shaft buildings should
match the labyrinth walls of 1.35 m heavy concrete, corresponding to
about 20 cm of tungsten. Here the bremsstrahlung on the electron beam
axis has to be absorbed.

 The FEL beam stops relevant for radiation safety are built as “burn-
through absorbers”. This means that, even if the FEL beam were to burn
through the beam stop, a vacuum leak will be generated triggering a
shutdown of the accelerator.

 The shielding of the experiment radiation safety hutches depends

strongly on the minimum transport mirror angles and their coatings. For
the current beam transport design, wall thicknesses between ≤1 mm steel
(SCS station) and 10 mm steel + 17 mm lead (SPB back wall) are
required.

Equipment protection
Conceptually, there are three safety layers to protect hardware against
damage:

1 Passive protection of all parts that can directly see the beam by water-
cooled B4C or diamond. All beam-defining apertures and beam absorbers
will be made out of B4C.

2 Preventive protection of certain components by the implementation of

beam modes. Not all parts can be protected by B4C, for example the
silicon monochromator, a YAG screen, or a silicon diode. As shown
below, even water-cooled B4C cannot survive direct exposure to full pulse
trains under all conditions. Therefore, depending on the status of the
beam transport system, only a certain maximum beam power is allowed.

3 Active protection by monitors. Thermocouples will be placed at most

components and allow the monitoring of average heat load effects,
comparing it to FEA calculations or tests. However, the extreme
temperature cycling of a hot spot exposed to a direct hit from a pulse train
is invisible to a thermal sensor a few mm away. Therefore, fast X-ray
beam loss monitors that can detect a mis-steered beam and shut down

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

18 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 the beam delivery even within one pulse train will be used at several
places.

A schematic of the beam transport equipment protection system and the

interaction with other control systems is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Equipment protection system for a beam transport

Apart from binary conditions, like the tripping of a beam loss monitor or
activation of a limit switch, more complex situations might occur, for example
the focusing of a beryllium CRL onto a slit or shutter at the hard X-ray
beamlines or the positioning of the horizontal focus at the SASE3 beamline at
the vertical exit slit via the adaptive mirror. For these cases, watchdog
functions on the higher-level control system could be implemented, making it
possible to reduce the beam mode under certain critical alignment conditions
(Figure 8) on a slow time scale.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 19 of 164
 Figure 8: Higher-level macros could be used to reduce the allowed beam mode if a
critical condition is reached.

Beam modes and operation

When, for example, a fluorescence screen is driven into the beam or a
monochromator is inserted, limit switches are activated and the beam
transport control system notifies the machine protection system that a certain
beam power coming into the beamline should not be exceeded. These
discrete power levels are called beam modes and have to be defined
uniformly for the accelerator and all beamlines. Currently, the following beam
modes are being discussed with the machine protection system group at
DESY (Table 1).

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

20 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Table 1: Proposed definition of beam modes. The numbers indicate the maximum
number of allowed pulses within one pulse train. Modes highlighted in green were
proposed for the accelerator, while the others are additionally proposed for the X-ray
beamlines.

≤ 0.1 nC ≤ 0.25 nC ≤ 1nC > 1nC

Mode 1 1 1 1 1

Mode 2 600 200 30 1

Mode 3 2700 1350 200 10

Mode 4 2700 2700 < 2700 < 2700

Mode 1: Basic commissioning mode of accelerator, beam transport and

experiments. With one pulse per pulse train (10 Hz operation), even a mis-
steered beam should not be able to destroy components of the beam
transport.

Mode 2: Basic commissioning mode of the accelerator with pulse trains

(30 pulses). For the beam transport, we propose to make this mode charge-
dependent, so it can be used to run experiments with a diamond window in
air (FXE and MID).

Mode 3: This mode is requested from the beam transport. It is essentially

defined by the number of pulses that a water-cooled piece of B4C can absorb
without being damaged. Also, the hard X-ray monochromator and beryllium
lenses work only up to Mode 3.

Mode 4: Full beam: The beam power is only limited by the performance of the
accelerator and the electron beam dumps. Typically, only the total-reflecting
mirrors can handle this beam power. X-ray beam loss monitors have to be
operational and fully commissioned to reach this mode.

The machine protection system can either initiate a dump of pulses before
they enter the undulator section (dump in the shaft building XS1), or change
the injection pattern at the electron gun. One problem occurring with the
application of beam modes is that radiators and experiments are being
coupled. This is illustrated in Figure 9.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 21 of 164
Figure 9: Distribution of experiments in the startup configuration of the facility.
Experiments on the same electron beamline will have to run in the same beam mode,
unless the fresh-bunch technique can be fully implemented.

If, for example, the experiment on the SASE3 beamline requires readjustment
and switches to Mode 1, SASE1 will also be affected. And vice versa, if
SASE1 runs with a silicon monochromator or uses Mode 2 to protect a
diamond window, SASE3 will not get the full pulse pattern. A way out of this is
the “fresh-bunch” technique [3], in which a particular bunch will be kicked out
of the lasing orbit e.g. in SASE1 and kicked back later to lase in SASE3.
Whether this will be technically possible and reliable enough to tie into the
machine protection has to be shown once the facility is in operation.
However, at least from the architecture of the machine protection system, it is
foreseen that this decoupling with respect to beam modes will be possible.

A particular challenge for the European XFEL will be the simultaneous lasing
in three or more undulators fed by the same accelerator. To obtain stability
during operation, it is likely that the bunch pattern distribution over the
electron beamlines will be fixed at least over one week of user operation and
that the accelerator will run with a constant repetition rate (for example,
4.5 MHz or 1 MHz). Examples for splitting of the entire pulse train with and
without fresh-bunch technique are shown in Figure 10. Pulses that are not
desired by an experiment or rejected by the equipment or machine protection
system could then be dumped into the XS1 electron dump before the

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

22 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
undulator section. However, the dump limit for each of the three electron
dumps has to be respected. With 1 nC per bunch and 10 Hz operation, this
corresponds to a maximum of 1714 bunches (300 kW and 17.5 GeV). In the
example in Figure 10, in the lower panel, this would mean that, if the
experiments at SASE1 and SASE3 both switched to Mode 1, the pulse
pattern in the injector would have to be altered since the limit of the XS1
electron dump would be exceeded. This could lead to crosstalk with the
lasing performance also in SASE2, since bunches are removed from the
leading edge of the train and are not available for feedback stabilization. An
advantage of running the facility at lower electron energy, bunch charge, or
repetition rate would be that such instabilities could be avoided, if the first
electron dump were able to absorb the full pulse train.

A request from the experiments is to choose the bunch pattern freely and
directly, without special request to the operator. This is important if a certain
bunch pattern (for example, a logarithmic distribution or two bunches at a
certain distance) is related to the underlying physics of the experiment. As
discussed above, this could be implemented by fixing the pulse pattern at the
injector (to obtain operational stability) but dumping unwanted bunches in the
dump in XS1. If such a “bunch selection tool” would be available, accessible
through the beam transport control system, and tied into the machine
protection system, it could also simplify the definition of the required beam
modes in Table 1, since the equipment protection system could then directly
limit the number of bunches, without switching back the beam mode.

Figure 10: Examples of possible bunch distribution schemes for one train without
fresh-bunch technique (middle panel) and with fresh-bunch technique (lower panel)
for equally distributed pulse numbers for each station. The pulses marked in red are
used for feedback or are lost during the switching.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 23 of 164
X-ray beam loss monitors
X-ray beam loss monitors are of particular importance for running a beamline
with full beam (Mode 4). These monitors are based on electron beam loss
monitors, developed by the Standard e-Beam Diagnostics group (WP17) to
detect a loss of the electron beam in a section of the accelerator or undulator.
The basic functionality of the X-ray beam loss monitor is shown in Figure 11:
a mis-steered photon beam hits a fluorescing material (for example, CVD
diamond or YAG crystal). Some of the optical photons generated will go
through an optical window and hit a photomultiplier. A rough estimate leads to
a sensitivity of 10 µJ/pulse or better for a 20 keV photon beam and 0.5 mm
thick diamond. With the readout electronics developed by WP17, it is possible
to set triggers for a maximum pulse number above a certain threshold, which
would induce the device to send a trip signal to the electron gun or a fast
kicker via the machine protection system. In this way, it is possible to stop the
accelerator even during one pulse train; however, at least 30 pulses will pass
due to the runtime of the signals.

Figure 11: X-ray beam loss monitor

For the photon beamlines, it is foreseen to have one X-ray beam loss monitor
before the experiment hall, as sketched in Figure 11. Further beam loss

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

24 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 monitors will be integrated into the beam-defining slit before each offset and
distribution mirror.

Damage experiments
For each optical element, there is an expectation, based on calculations or
experiments, up to which power level it can withstand the FEL beam. The
knowledge of these limits is vital for the design and operation of the beam
transport systems: Damage thresholds of mirrors and gratings set an
absolute limit to the full-beam operation in Mode 4; destruction limits of all
other optical elements define the ranges of Mode 3 and lower beam mode
operation. If these limits are too high, optics will be destroyed and long
downtimes of beam loss for the experiments can be expected. If the limits are
set too low, the scientific potential of the facility will be reduced. Over the past
years, extensive destructive tests on mirror coatings have been performed.
One result was that diamond-like carbon undergoes a structural phase
transition well below its melting threshold [4]. Therefore, B4C, where such an
effect was so far not observed, is chosen instead as the baseline coating for
all reflective optical elements.

Two damage mechanisms have to be considered. The “single-shot” damage

threshold is typically a material constant and does not depend on cooling
geometry and incidence angle. Around and below the critical angle, however,
this can change, as a recent experiment on a grating structure in reflection
geometry demonstrated [5]: the edges that are facing the incident beam show
damage at lower beam power levels than the flat parts that are exposed
under grazing incidence. This behaviour can be explained by the interplay of
reflectivity and extinction depth under total-reflection conditions.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 25 of 164
Figure 12: Single-shot damage on a grating structure coated with diamond-like
carbon

The second damage mechanism comes from the local accumulation of

absorbed X-ray energy in the X-ray optics. For optics in total-reflection
geometry, this typically does not lead to destruction since a significant part of
the absorbed heat can be removed from the hot spot in between two X-ray
pulses.

One example where pulse train damage is important is the beam absorber
after the offset mirrors, which is exposed to the full SASE beam if the first
mirror is moved out of the beam. Figure 13 shows the total energy the optics
can absorb during a 0.3 ms long pulse train. If thermal conduction is
neglected in the calculations, the energy is distributed over a volume given by
the footprint of the beam and the absorption depth, resulting in the single-shot
melting threshold shown as a dashed line in the figure. For photon energies
larger than 10 keV, the absorption length is larger than the thermal diffusion
on this time scale, and the pulse train damage threshold becomes equal to
the single-shot damage threshold. For lower photon energies, X-ray
absorption lengths reach the range of a few µm, and a significant heat flow
can build up during the 0.3 ms. This causes the pulse train damage threshold
to increase with lower photon energies below 3 keV (solid blue curve and

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

26 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
FEA calculation). As the incidence angle is changed from normal incidence to
more grazing incidence (but still above the critical angle of total reflection),
the heat flow increases, and the tolerable pulse train energy shifts up
significantly (red curves).

Figure 13: Calculation of damage at a beam absorber. The solid lines are a one-
dimensional analytical calculation with constant transport coefficients, the squares
are three-dimensional FEA simulations with temperature-dependent transport
properties.

These two examples show that a precise knowledge of damage thresholds is

important for the operation of the beam transports. Damage experiments
during the operation phase of the European XFEL will allow us to:

 Update the beam mode definitions.

 Test functionality of the X-ray beam loss monitors (XBLMs).

 Test functionality of burn-through absorbers and measure time constants.

 Test beam stops for experiments.

 Contribute to safety and maximum efficiency in user operation.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 27 of 164
Alignment
The basic alignment of the beam transport systems follows methods
developed for alignment of synchrotron radiation beamlines. The beam mode
has to be reduced to single-pulse operation (Mode 1) to avoid damage by
accidental hitting the transport pipes. After each mirror (typical distances are
10 m at SASE1 and SASE2, and 2 m at SASE3), a “pop-in monitor” will be
installed (Figure 14). A fluorescence screen can be inserted, which will be
able to intercept the direct beam with the mirror retracted and the beam
reflected under the desired angle. Important for these pop-in monitors is a
reproducible, relative distance measurement between these two beams to an
accuracy of about 100 μm. In this way, the beam trajectory is defined to better
than 10 mm over several 100 m, which is enough to enable capturing of the
beam at the next optical element downstream the beam path. The beam
profile will be shaped by slits in front of the optical element to allow a precise
positioning of the optical element by scanning it through the beam and
recording the shape and intensity of the reflected beam.

Camera (10 Hz)

Slits Screen

Mirror

Figure 14: Schematic of pop-in monitor for alignment of a mirror

The alignment of the adaptive mirrors M2 will be done with pencil beams
(about 1/10 of the natural beam size) from apertures in front of the mirrors,
which will illuminate different parts of the mirror. A pop-in monitor close to the
intermediate focus after the distribution mirrors can be used to record the
direction of each pencil beam. Because of diffraction, the beam size will be
significantly enlarged (mm), which is not a problem as long as the centre of
each beam can be measured with an accuracy of about 100 μm. By well-
established methods of inversion of the pulse response matrix, an optimized
shape of the adaptive mirror can be obtained after a few iterations. It should

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

28 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
be noted that there are two motivations to align the adaptive mirror M2: First,
a basic alignment is envisioned that corrects effective mounting and polishing
errors of M1 and M2 combined. Second, in the case of long pulse train
operations, an overall radius adjustment of M2 might be needed to correct
heat load effects of M1.

Instead of the pencil beam method, an alignment with a wavefront sensor (for
example a grating interferometer [6] or speckle imaging technique [7]) after
M2 would allow a faster alignment of the piezo elements of the adaptive
mirrors. However, for a precise mapping of the phase error to the local mirror
deformation, the wavefront sensor should be no further away than a few
metres from M2 (see estimate below). Moreover, since M2 should correct the
combined profile errors of M1 and M2, it is not possible over this distance to
steer the beam out of the vacuum pipe without a significant change of the M2
pitch angle, which would then increase the fraction of the M2 profile error to
the total phase error in proportion to the reflection angle of M2. Therefore, a
grating interferometer would have to be inserted into the beam path shortly
behind M2 under UHV and particle-free conditions, which is beyond the
current state-of-the-art of these devices, but can be considered as an
upgrade option.

Neither the pencil beam nor the wavefront sensing method allow an
alignment of the adaptive mirrors under heat load conditions. Therefore,
radius adjustment compensating static heat load effects could to be done with
a fluorescence screen in the experiment hall with suitable X-ray attenuators in
order to protect the screen from heat load damage. An alternative would be to
measure the flux through a slit at an intermediate horizontal focus of M2 with
an XGMD at the end of the beamline. In this way, even dynamic deformations
of the mirrors would be detectable; however, they would not be correctable
with the currently foreseen hardware.

The range of spatial frequencies, which has substantial impact on the

wavefront quality after propagation through the optics to the experiment hall,
can be estimated within the following model. The first-order diffraction angle
θd for a spatial frequency 1/d, using small-angle approximation for grazing-
incidence angles, is:

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 29 of 164
 θd = θ+Δθ
sin θ Δθ = λ/d

That is:

θd ≈ θ + λ/(d sin θ )

When this diffraction angle is less than the angular divergence of the incident
beam δθ, or the distance to the observation plane is short enough for the
specularly reflected and first-order diffracted beam to overlap, a well-
pronounced interference pattern can be observed. Taking into account that
the beam size at distance r is δθ r, one can obtain the maximum difference
between the specular angle and the first-order diffraction angle,
Δθ = δθ (r1/r2 +1), and corresponding spatial frequencies:

1/dm = θ δθ / λ (r1 + r2)/r2,

dm = λ /(θ δθ) r2/(r1+r2)

This means that surface errors for d < dm will lead only to small-angle
scattering outside the beam spot. For instance, for SASE1 offset mirrors, a
photon energy of 12.4 keV, an incidence angle of 2 mrad, and a FWHM
angular divergence of 2 µrad, dm = 17.5 mm.

The typical distance L at which the wavefront sensor should be located to

observe the wavefront distortions in the reflected field phase can be defined
as follows: the diffraction angle λ/(d sin θ), where λ is wavelength, θ the
incidence angle, and d the longitudinal size of the surface feature, should be
less than the observation angle for the feature (d sin θ)/L

L << (d sin θ)2/λ

For example, for d = 17.5 mm, i.e. half of the distance between the actuators
of the active offset mirror, a photon energy of 12.4 keV, and an incidence
angle θ of 2 mrad, the distance L should be less than 12.5 m.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

30 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
3 Offset and distribution mirrors

The most critical elements for the performance of the beam transport systems
are the offset and distribution mirrors, since they are required for any given
experiment to receive beam. As was shown in CDR2011, shape errors play
an important role, and 2 nm peak-to-valley (PV) have to be achieved over
mirror lengths of 800 mm. Such PV values have been recently achieved for a
360 mm substrate [8]. A prototype with 800 mm optical length, eutectic
cooling, and a bimorph bending mechanism is currently under development in
collaboration with Bruker ASC. It is presented in the next section.

Also of great importance is a mirror chamber that can hold and steer the
mirror precisely enough with the least possible amount of vibrations.
Furthermore, the UHV environment of the mirror chambers should be as good
as possible to avoid contaminations on the mirror surface. A prototype for the
mirror chambers has been developed and ordered.

Adaptive mirrors
For the beam transport systems, 11 offset and distribution mirrors are
required to guide the beam to all experiments of the SASE1, SASE2, and
SASE3 beamlines. The first mirror of each beamline is exposed to high-
energy spontaneous radiation and will absorb up to 10 W (100 W for SASE3)
of integrated beam power (see CDR2011). The static deformation can reach
up to 200 nm at full beam load. Because the radiation level will be relatively
high on the first mirror, the static deformation will be corrected by the second
offset mirror. Also, for the branch beamlines, the second offset mirror must be
able to generate an intermediate horizontal focus behind the distribution
mirrors.

The idea is to make all 11 mirrors the same length and shape, and to have at
least the second offset mirrors bendable and adaptive. A prototype
development for such a mirror was started in 2012. The basic geometry is

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 31 of 164
shown in Figure 15. The bending action is achieved by four rows of piezo
actuators, glued to the bottom and top surface of the mirror substrate (design
patented).

Figure 15: Basic design of the adaptive mirror

The bending properties were studied intensively with FEA calculations with
respect to mirror geometry, geometry of the piezos, and properties of the
glue. After subtraction of an ideal cylindrical shape from the surfaces, in the
simulation the mirror already reaches a residual shape error on the order of a
few nm (Figure 16). This can be further improved by fine-tuning of the
individual piezo elements. In the real mirror, this fine-tuning will be also
needed to correct polishing and mounting errors.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

32 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 16: Residual shape error after subtraction of a perfect cylindrical shape

Cooling will be achieved by a water-cooled copper blade that is connected via

an indium–gallium liquid eutectic in a groove on the top of the mirror
(Figure 17).

Figure 17: FEA model of the mirror to simulate the effect of the cooling. The footprint
of the beam (here 10 W spontaneous radiation) is shown on the side, while the
eutectic cooling groove is on the top.

The temperature profile generated on the reflecting surface assuming

different heat transfer coefficients is shown in Figure 18. The resulting errors
are in the range of 150 nm (Figure 19). However, by subtracting a cylindrical
shape, the residual errors are in the range of less than ±1 nm (Figure 20).
The pulse function showing the local bending capability by applying voltage to
individual electrodes is shown in Figure 21.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 33 of 164
Figure 18: Heat profile along the optical surface

Figure 19: Qualitative illustrations of the deformations. The mirror bends up and to
the back in almost equal amounts (see also curves on lower panels).

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

34 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 Figure 20: Residual shape error after subtraction of a cylinder with radius 720 km

Figure 21: Pulse function calculated by applying 315 V to selected electrodes

Mirror chambers (CHOMs)

The mirrors have to be mounted on a stable and vibration-optimized support,
capable of performing all required motions. For the second offset mirrors,
there is an 80 mm displacement perpendicular to the beam direction required
to enable the variable offset described in CDR2011. A motion of at least
20 mm in the vertical direction enables the switching of stripes of different
coating material on the mirror. Besides the pitch to control the deflection
angle, a tilt motion perpendicular to the pitch enables the steering of the
beam up and down at the experiment stations. In the current optical design,
this motion is foreseen—besides for alignment purposes—to steer the beam

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 35 of 164
downwards to the hard X-ray monochromator to compensate for the offset of
the monochromator at the sample location.

To perform these motions with a maximum stiffness, the design principle of

Cartesian parallel-kinematic motion was adopted in collaboration with Tino
Noll, HZB BESSY. Similar to a hexapod, the substrate is supported by six
struts. However, in order to minimize the crosstalk, the struts are aligned
along the Cartesian axes (see Figure 22) [9], [10], [11], [12].

Figure 22: Left: Cartesian parallel kinematics. Right: Implementation in the mirror
chamber.

To keep the vacuum as clean as possible from hydrocarbon contaminations,

all motors and lead screws are outside of the vacuum. The vacuum chamber
serves as a support for these actuators; therefore, the stability and vibration
properties are important. By means of FEA simulation, the shape and the
structure were optimized so that the eigenfrequencies of the chamber are as
high as possible (above 90 Hz for the vacuum chamber). The deformation
due to the vacuum force is up to 100 µm. However, by adding stiffeners, the
deformation that acts along the critical pitch angle could be reduced to 6 µm
(Figure 23). During operation, about 5% of that value could be expected from
weather-related air pressure changes, which would then lead to a pitch angle
variation of 0.6 μrad. At SASE2, the beam at the experiment would then move
by about 700 µm. This could be compensated either by measuring the air
pressure and compensating for it using a lookup table, or by interferometric
measurements described in the next section.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

36 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 23: Deformation of the mirror chamber through vacuum forces

A support of granite was chosen to optimize the vibration properties (see

Figure 24). The technical specifications for the prototype chamber for
horizontal offset mirror (CHOM) are described in EDMS D*3004041.

Figure 24: Design of the prototype mirror chamber

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 37 of 164
Interferometric measurements
As described above, small deformations of the vacuum chamber can be
expected due to air pressure changes. Even though the chambers will be
operated in temperature-controlled enclosures, changes related to
temperature gradients from heat load effects—especially for the first offset
mirror—are also possible. Therefore, an interferometric measurement system
was implemented that will be used to characterize the prototype and, if
needed, to perform corrections even during operations in the tunnels.
Figure 25 shows the setup of the interferometer, as it is envisioned for the
mirror chambers. The laser beam is generated in a central He–Ne laser and
split into two parts, which are guided by optical fibres to two interferometer
heads. Each head consists of a double-pass interferometer and a detector
(Figure 26). As the mirror pitch angle is changed, the interferometers should
be able to measure the angle, ideally with a resolution and accuracy of
10 nrad. Because the angular alignment tolerance of the sensors of about
0.6 mrad (400 mm distance) is smaller than the operation range of the mirrors
(2.5 mrad for SASE1 and SASE2, and 14 mrad for SASE3), the
interferometer heads have to be turned accordingly. For the distribution
mirrors, the angular range in pitch is sufficient; however, in order to steer the
beam vertically down to compensate the offset of the hard X-ray
monochromator, a tilt of the mirrors and interferometer heads in the vertical
plane by about 15 mrad is required.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

38 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 25: Implementation of laser interferometer at the mirror chamber

Figure 26: Interferometer head (picture from www.renishaw.de)

The basic functionalities of this measurement method were tested with a

setup including a mirror dummy driven by two translation stages, and two
rotation stages for the interferometer heads (Figure 27) [13].

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 39 of 164
Figure 27: Test setup for interferometric measurements

In Figure 28, a rotation of the two laser heads was performed without moving
the mirror. The observed negative length change is related to the
measurement principle, since the distance should increase as the head is
rotated out of the perpendicular position. However, these measurements
show that the angular accuracy of the goniometer is not critical: the slopes of
the observed parabolas are about 1 nm/(0.01°)2, meaning that a precision of
0.01° is sufficient for the rotation stages to obtain 1 nm accuracy,
corresponding to < 2 nrad angular accuracy. The deviations from the
parabolas (lower panel of Figure 28) are in the range of ± 50 nm. This is
probably largely due to temperature fluctuation during the measurements and
no backlash compensation of the motor controller (jump around zero
position). The eccentricity of the goniometers should contribute as well;
however, at this moment, one can only conclude that this contribution is equal
to or less than the ± 50 nrad measured over the observed angular range.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

40 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 28: Rotation of the two interferometer heads with mirror fixed. The y-axis
shows the displayed distance change of the interferometer. The solid lines are fitted
parabolas. Residual errors are shown in the lower panel.

To perform long-term measurements of the stability, the setup was enclosed

with a styrofoam cover and the aluminium frame was temperature-stabilized
with a water bath. The result of a seven-day measurement period is shown in
Figure 29. While the room temperature has a daily variation of about ± 0.2 K,
inside the enclosure the variation is reduced to less than ± 0.1 K. The linear
drift measured by one interferometer head is ± 0.5 μm, while the difference
between the two sensors drifts by about ± 25 nm over this time.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 41 of 164
Figure 29: Stability of interferometer in the test setup

The observed 50 nm drift in the differential signal is much more than the
vendor specification of 50 nm/°C from the laser unit and 100 nm/°C for the
interferometer heads. Therefore, it is likely that the observed drifts in position
and differential signal are caused by relaxation motions of the aluminium
frames or the interferometer mounts.

In conclusion, the observed precision levels of the test setup in the range of
50 nm would lead to an accuracy of the angle determination of about 60 nrad
for an 800 mm long mirror. With a granite support as well as better
temperature control and motion control, this number is likely to improve.
However, already with a stability level of 60 nrad, the above-mentioned
chamber deformations of 0.6 μrad should be easily detectable.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

42 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
4 Soft X-ray monochromator

Compared to CDR2011, the design of the soft X-ray monochromator was

fundamentally revised and optimized. The time broadening was improved, so
that now an almost Fourier-limited time response of around 100 fs pulse width
can be obtained. This was achieved by designing the monochromator close
to the diffraction limit, assuming nearly perfect optics, similar to the offset and
distribution mirrors. If the optics do not meet the specification or if the source
point in the undulator is broadened beyond the diffraction limit, the
monochromator will work with less resolution but unchanged time response.

Another change is the implementation of an in-line design in the vertical

plane. In this way, all three SASE3 ports can use the monochromatized beam
or—with the pre-mirrors retracted—the non-monochromatized beam (pink
beam). In the vertical geometry, the monochromator is independent of the
focusing properties and heat load effects of the offset mirrors, which would
otherwise influence the resolution. The drawback of the in-line design is that
resolutions higher than 40 000 cannot be reached anymore with satisfying
efficiency.

Finally, the pre-focusing onto the grating was removed, which enhances the
radiation tolerance and will allow the operation of the monochromator with
10 mJ pulse energies and higher, depending on the FEL beam divergences
obtained. The grating incidence angle is optimized such that a 4σ beam
footprint on the grating is achieved at a certain target energy. For lower
energies, the grating is overfilled and diffraction effects influence the
resolution. According to wavefront calculations, the resolution still remains
acceptable, even though it leads to small side maxima at the very low end of
the photon energy range.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 43 of 164
Conceptual design
The updated conceptual design of the SASE3 beamline is shown in
Figure 30.

Figure 30: Schematic layout of the SASE3 beamline including the VLS
monochromator

Distances from the source point are given in Table 2.

Table 2: Positions of optical elements at the SASE3 beamline

Optics element Metres from source

M1: First offset mirror, 6–20 mrad 281

M2: Second offset mirror, 6–20 mrad (bendable) 283.9

FEL beam stop 297

M3: Focusing mirrors 299.6/300.4

G1, G2 (M4): Gratings 301

M5: SCS distribution mirror, 9 mrad 339

M6: SQS2 distribution mirror, 9 mrad 341

Horizontal focus (branch beamlines, low energy) 374

Vertical exit slits (vertical focus) 400

Shutters 417

Wall inside XHEP 418.5

Sample SCS/SQS 432/450

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

44 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
The pre-mirror M3 focuses the zero order of the grating onto the exit slit. The
distance between M3 and the exit slits was chosen relatively large (100 m)
because this reduces the demagnification of the source point at the exit slit.
Otherwise, a too small focus would lead to single-shot damage. For the same
reason, the vertical focus has to be at some distance from the horizontal
intermediate focus, which is needed to transport the beam over the
distribution mirror to the branch beamlines.

The VLS parameter of the plane grating is chosen such that it focuses also
the first diffraction order onto the exit slit. In this way, the VLS parameter
becomes almost independent of the photon energy, and tunability over a
large energy range becomes possible. The tuning of the energy is achieved
by rotating the grating only.

Time and energy resolution

The stretching of pulses through a grating can be described by [14]:

1 𝜆2
Δ𝜏 =
𝑐 Δ𝜆
The relative energy resolution is given by the number of illuminated lines on
the FWHM of the grating (see Figure 31):

2.354
𝜆 δ𝑥fwhm 500 mm 4 = 294.3 mm × lines
= =
δ𝜆 𝑑0 sin 𝛼 𝑑0 mm

1.234 nm ∗ 294.3 mm ∗ lines/mm 1.21 fs ∗ lines/mm

Δ𝜏 = =
𝐸[keV] ∗ 3𝑒8 m/s 𝐸[keV]

Figure 31: Pulse stretching for a 4σ illuminated grating of 500 mm length

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 45 of 164
To achieve < 100 fs pulse length at around 1 keV, 50 l/mm are necessary, if
the full 500 mm long grating is illuminated. With 25 l/mm, ultrafast
experiments with 30 fs would be possible. For higher energies, 150 l/mm lead
to about 100 fs pulse length. If the full grating is illuminated at every photon
energy, the relative resolution is constant and shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Theoretical grating resolution, if the grating is illuminated by 4σ

25 l/mm 50 l/mm 100 l/mm 150 l/mm

λ/δλ 7300 14 700 29 400 44 100

From this condition of constant (diffraction-limited) illumination of the grating

of a certain length follows the grazing-incidence angle α, from the grating
equation the grazing exit angle β. The angle θ then follows from the condition
of constant exit angle (see Table 4 and Table 5). A monochromator designed
like this satisfies the condition of maximum pulse energy tolerance for FEL
beams because the beam footprint is always ideally distributed over the
grating.

Table 4: Angle setting for an optimum 4σ illumination of a 500 mm grating. Beam

points 0.194 mrad down (25 mm vertical offset). 50 l/mm.

Beam
size
α
4σ
Photon 4σ at
(L1 = β length
energy 301 m 500 mm) (50 l/mm) θ M3 R M3 M3
[keV] [mm] [mrad] [mrad] cff [mrad] [km] [mm]

0.27 19.25 38.51 44.05 1.14 41.18 3.64 467

0.5 12.12 24.25 28.90 1.19 26.48 5.67 458

0.8 8.52 17.05 21.09 1.23 18.97 7.91 449

1.0 7.21 14.42 18.20 1.26 16.21 9.25 445

1.5 5.32 10.64 13.98 1.31 12.21 12.3 435

1.7 4.84 9.688 12.90 1.33 11.20 13.4 433

2.0 4.28 8.576 11.62 1.35 10.01 15.0 429

2.5 3.62 7.254 10.09 1.39 8.580 17.5 423

3.0 3.16 6.327 9.009 1.42 7.757 19.8 418

One difficulty of this design is that the angle of the pre-mirror has to be
scanned together with the grating: its position and its bending radius as well.
Due to the high demands on the surface quality of the mirrors (around
50 nrad rms), a bendable mirror of sufficient quality seems at this time not

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

46 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
feasible. Therefore, the monochromator is designed around two working
points with fixed-radius pre-mirrors.

Table 5: Angle setting for an optimum 4σ illumination of a 500 mm grating. Beam

points 0.194 mrad down (25 mm vertical offset). 150 l/mm.

Beam
size
α
4σ
Photon 4σ at
(L1 = β length
energy 301 m 500 mm) (150 l/mm) θ M3 R M3 M3
[keV] [mm] [mrad] [mrad] cff [mrad] [km] [mm]

0.27 19.25 38.51 53.34 1.38 45.87 3.27 419

0.5 12.12 24.25 36.45 1.50 30.26 4.96 400

0.8 8.52 17.05 27.45 1.61 22.15 6.77 384

1.0 7.21 14.42 24.04 1.66 19.13 7.84 376

1.5 5.32 10.64 18.97 1.78 14.71 10.2 361

1.7 4.84 9.688 17.65 1.82 13.57 11.0 356

2.0 4.28 8.576 16.08 1.87 12.23 12.2 350

2.5 3.62 7.254 14.16 1.95 10.61 14.1 341

3.0 3.16 6.327 12.78 2.02 9.45 15.8 334

Fixed-radius pre-mirrors

The monochromator is optimized around two working points: the low-energy

(LE) point around 742 eV and a high-energy (HE) point around 2.3 keV
(Table 6). At these photon energies, the grating is filled with a 4σ beam as
discussed above.

Table 6: Parameters for the two target energies, 50 l/mm

Target Photon
βtarget
photon energy
energy range θ M3 αtarget (50 l/mm) Dist. M3– R M3
[keV] [keV] [mrad] [mrad] [mrad] G1 [mm] [km]

0.7426 0.27–1.2 20.0 18.0313 22.166 625 7.5

2.332 1.2–3.0 9.00 7.6432 10.552 1389 16.7

The angle and radius of the two pre-mirrors M3 are now fixed, and α and β
follow from the grating equation (Table 7 to Table 10).

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 47 of 164
Table 7: Parameters for the target energy 0.74 keV, 500 mm grating, 50 l/mm

α (L1 =
Photon Grating
energy aperture in θ M3b 500 mm) β (50 l/mm)
[keV] sigma [mrad] [mrad] [mrad] cff

0.27 1.50 20.00 14.411 25.783 1.79

0.4 2.26 20.00 16.259 23.935 1.47

0.5 2.81 20.00 17.026 23.167 1.36

0.6 3.31 20.00 17.538 22.656 1.29

0.7 3.80 20.00 17.904 22.290 1.25

0.8 4.26 20.00 18.178 22.016 1.21

1.0 5.14 20.00 18.562 21.632 1.16

1.2 5.98 20.00 18.818 21.376 1.14

1.4 6.78 20.00 19.000 21.193 1.11

1.5 7.17 20.00 19.073 21.120 1.10

Table 8: Parameters for the target energy 2.33 keV, 500 mm grating, 50 l/mm

α (L1 =
Photon Grating
energy aperture in θ M3a 500 mm) β (50 l/mm)
[keV] sigma [mrad] [mrad] [mrad] cff

1.0 1.58 9.00 5.7055 12.488 2.18

1.2 1.99 9.00 6.2708 11.923 1.90

1.4 2.38 9.00 6.6745 11.519 1.72

1.6 2.75 9.00 6.9773 11.216 1.60

1.8 3.10 9.00 7.2128 10.981 1.52

2.0 3.45 9.00 7.4012 10.793 1.45

2.3 3.94 9.00 7.6224 10.571 1.38

2.6 4.42 9.00 7.7925 10.401 1.33

3.0 5.03 9.00 7.9664 10.227 1.28

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

48 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Table 9: Parameters for θ = 20 mrad, 500 mm grating, 150 l/mm

α (L1 =
Photon Grating
energy aperture in θ M3b 500 mm) β (150 l/mm)
[keV] sigma [mrad] [mrad] [mrad] cff

0.27 0.31 20.00 3.0386 37.155 12.2

0.4 1.20 20.00 8.5828 31.611 3.68

0.5 1.80 20.00 10.885 29.308 2.69

0.6 2.35 20.00 12.421 27.777 2.23

0.7 2.87 20.00 13.517 26.676 1.97

0.8 3.36 20.00 14.340 25.854 1.80

1.0 4.30 20.00 15.491 24.702 1.59

1.2 5.17 20.00 16.259 23.935 1.47

1.4 6.00 20.00 16.807 23.387 1.39

1.5 6.40 20.00 17.026 23.167 1.36

Table 10: Parameters for θ = 9 mrad, 500 mm grating, 150 l/mm

α (L1 =
Photon Grating
energy aperture in θ M3a 500 mm) β (150 l/mm)
[keV] sigma [mrad] [mrad] [mrad] cff

1.4 0.65 9.00 1.8297 16.364 8.94

1.6 1.08 9.00 2.7381 15.456 5.64

1.8 1.48 9.00 3.4446 14.749 4.28

2.0 1.87 9.00 4.0099 14.184 3.53

2.3 2.42 9.00 4.6734 13.520 2.89

2.6 2.94 9.00 5.1838 13.010 2.50

3.0 3.60 9.00 5.7055 12.488 2.18

The spectral efficiency and the resolution, including an approximation for

diffraction effects, were approximated for a laminar grating [15] (see
Figure 32 and Figure 33). Calculations done by ray tracing are shown in
Figure 34. By using a blazed grating, the efficiency can be increased by
almost a factor of two.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 49 of 164
Figure 32: Top: Spectral efficiency according to scalar approximation. Bottom:
Estimation of resolution (source size is assumed to be 60 µm (dotted line:100 µm)
FWHM). The grating depth is 15 nm.

Figure 33: As Figure 32 with 150 l/mm

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

50 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 34: Grating efficiency for laminar and blazed grating in comparison. The
calculation was done here for three pre-mirrors (by Rolf Follath, HZB).

VLS parameter

The VLS grating parameter ν1 in

𝑑(𝑤) = 𝑑0 (1 + 𝜈1 𝑤 + 𝜈2 𝑤 2 +. . . )

for a plane grating is [15]:

𝑑 sin2 𝛼 sin2 𝛽
𝜈1 = � − �
𝑛𝜆 𝑓 𝑔

with d being the grating pitch and 𝜈1 the linear ruling parameter.

In the actual grating setting, the beam is converging; therefore, the source at
distance f becomes virtual on the other side. The idea of an energy-
independent focus can be realized if f = g:

𝑑 sin2 𝛼 sin2 𝛽
𝜈1 = � − �
𝑛𝜆 𝑔 𝑔

2𝑑 1
𝜈1 = (cos 𝛼 − cos 𝛽), � with (1 − sin2 𝑥)~ cos 𝑥 �
𝑛𝜆𝑔 2

By using the grating equation

𝑛𝜆
= cos 𝛼 − cos 𝛽
𝑑

one obtains

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 51 of 164
 2 2
𝜈1 ≈ = = 0.02020 m−1
𝑔 99 m

for a grating-to-exit-slit distance of 99 m.

Due to the large distance of the exit slit, the error of the above approximation
with only one linear VLS parameter is small and can be expressed as

𝑑(𝑤)
� − 1� − 𝜈1 𝑤 = 𝜈2 𝑤 2 + ⋯
𝑑0

as shown in Figure 35. Here, d(w) is calculated locally on the grating with the
grating equation and the corresponding angles α(w) and β(w). The deviations
are small and almost energy-independent, except for the lowest energy of
270 eV. For energies > 500 eV, the deviations can be approximated by
ν2 ≈ 0.6⋅10-5/(0.25 m)2 = 1⋅10-4 m-2. However, one should consider that the
change of ruling pitch according to ν2 at the edge of the grating is only about
0.1 nm, and therefore the linear term ν1 might be sufficient.

Figure 35: Deviations of the VLS parameter from the linear approximation along the
grating (x-axis in m). The different curves are calculated for different energies from
0.27 keV (red curve with strong linear term) to 3 keV (other red curve) and
intermediate energies (blue curves) as used in Table 4.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

52 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Optical layout
The monochromator is designed to cover the energy range from 270 to
3000 eV, and it also allows operation with the non-monochromatized beam
(pink beam). As an alternative, remote-controlled manipulators allow the two
cylindrically shaped pre-mirrors to be inserted face up into the beam. Each
pre-mirror has been optimized for a specific energy range, and both mirrors
focus the beam vertically on the exit slit. The pre-mirror deflects the beam
upwards on the plane VLS grating. Two gratings with different line density are
comprised in the design in order to reach the required resolution on the whole
energy range. In an empty third slot, a blank mirror (without ruling) can be
mounted together with the gratings for calibration purposes, and it could also
reflect the vertically focused pink beam. Both pre-mirror and grating have to
be properly cooled to ensure achievement of the final performance.

Figure 36 shows an overview of the monochromator optical layout. The

vertical dimension has been magnified by a factor 10 for clarity.

Figure 36: Side view of the monochromator optical layout. The beam is propagating
from left to right. Vertical dimension has been magnified by a factor 10. Indicated
mirror length refers to the substrate length.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 53 of 164
Optics requirements
High-energy (HE) and low-energy (LE) pre-mirrors

The HE (LE) pre-mirror works at a fixed incidence angle of 9 mrad (20 mrad)
and deflects the beam upwards onto the gratings. It focuses the beam
vertically on the exit slit. B4C masks protect the substrate edges and other
mechanical features from the photon beam. Table 11 summarizes the main
mechanical and optical characteristics of the two pre-mirrors.

Table 11: HE and LE pre-mirror main parameters

M3a HE pre-mirror M3b LE pre-mirror

Substrate material Single-crystalline Si Single-crystalline Si

3 3
Substrate size (L x W x H) 600 x 100 x 70 mm 600 x 100 x 70 mm
2 2
Optical surface (mer x sag) 580 x 25 mm 580 x 30 mm

Surface coating B4C B4C

Figure Cylindrical Cylindrical

Orientation Facing up Facing up

Nominal incidence angle 9 mrad 20 mrad

Object distance 299 611 mm 30 0375 mm

Image distance 100 389 mm 99 625 mm

Radius of curvature 16 710m ± 100 m 7482 m ± 50m

RMS slope error (meridional) 50 nrad 50 nrad

Residual PV height error 3 nm 3 nm

RMS HSFRoughness* 0.2 nm 0.2 nm

RMS MSFRoughness* 0.2 nm 0.2 nm

Cooling system InGa eutectic bath InGa eutectic bath

*High and Middle Spatial Frequency Roughness are defined as follows: MSFR
-6 -1 -4 -1 -4 -1 -2 -1
from 10 nm to 5·10 nm and HSFR from 5·10 nm to 5·10 nm [16]

Figure 37 shows the HE and LE mirror and the internally Ni-coated copper
pool that contains the eutectic bath. The cooling system is discussed later in
this section.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

54 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 37: Red: HE and LE pre-mirror, eutectic bath. Blue:
Water-cooled copper pool.

Low-resolution grating (G1) and high-resolution grating (G2)

Gratings are the dispersive optics in the VLS-PGM design. The groove
density is varying (VLS gratings) along the grating surface in the beam
propagation direction (y direction) according to the equation 𝑑(𝑦) =
𝑑0 (1 + 𝑣1 𝑦 + 𝑣2 y 2 +. . . ), where 𝑑0 is the groove pitch (mm/lines) at the centre
of the optical surface (𝑦 = 0) and the y-axis is oriented in the beam
propagation direction. B4C masks protect the substrate edges and other
mechanical features from the photon beam.

Table 12 summarizes the main mechanical and optical characteristics of the

two gratings. Figure 38 and Figure 39 show the assembly of G1 and the
cooling system at the maximum β angle (37.2 mrad = 2.131°). The mirror is
facing down and the cooling groves along the mirror are segmented in order
to limit the eutectic flowing effect from one extremity to the other during
grating rotation. Additional cooling system considerations are discussed
below. Grating G2 follows the same mechanical design concept.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 55 of 164
Table 12: G1 and G2 grating main mechanical, optical and operational parameters

G1 normal resolution G2 high resolution

Substrate material Single-crystalline Si Single-crystalline Si

3 3
Substrate size (L x W x H) 530 x 100 x 70 mm 530 x 100 x 70 mm
2 2
Optical surface (mer x sag) 500 x 30 mm 500 x 30 mm

Surface coating B4C B4C

Figure Plane Plane

Orientation Facing down Facing down

Included angle for M3a (HE) 178.96° 178.96°

Included angle for M3b (LE) 177.7° 177.7°

Max / min β (see Figure 47) 25.8 mrad at 0.27 keV 37.2 mrad at 0.27 keV
10.2 mrad at 3 keV 12.5 mrad at 3 keV

Groove parameter 1/𝑑0 50 l/mm 150 l/mm

-1 -1
Groove parameter 𝑣1 0.020202 m 0.020202 m

Groove profile Blazed Blazed

Blaze angle 0.1° 0.1°

RMS slope error (meridional) 50 nrad 50 nrad

Residual PV height error 3 nm 3 nm

RMS HSFRoughness * 0.2 nm 0.2 nm

RMS MSFRoughness * 0.2 nm 0.2 nm

Cooling system InGa eutectic bath InGa eutectic bath

*High and Middle Spatial Frequency Roughness are defined as follows: MSFR
-6 -1 -4 -1 -4 -1 -2 -1
from 10 nm to 5·10 nm and HSFR from 5·10 nm to 5·10 nm [16]

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

56 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 38: Grating, eutectic bath, and copper blade at max β angle (2.131°)

Figure 39: Cross section of the grating that is positioned at the centre of the copper
blade

The gratings are vertically supported on four points. The supporting points act
on the mirror-reflecting surface, they are longitudinally located in the Bessel
point position, and they are transversally far enough from the clear aperture
to avoid sensible sagittal deformation of the latter. Additional longitudinal and
transversal locking points fix the remaining degree of freedom of the mirror.
To avoid deformations during the grating rotation, the longitudinal locking
point has to be located on the vertical neutral axis of the mirror. Figure 40
shows the location of the supports.

Figure 40: Grating vertical and longitudinal support location

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 57 of 164
FEA calculations have been carried out to evaluate the effect of the four
vertical supporting points on the mirror’s optical surface. Longitudinal
(meridional) and sagittal deformations are shown in the following pictures.

Figure 41: Vertical deformation [m] of the optical surface due to mirror mass under
gravitational force

Figure 42: Vertical deformation [m] along the mirror. Red: For the central line. Blue:
For a line that is parallel to the central line and 10 mm transversally offset.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

58 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 43: Top: Vertical deformation [m] across the mirror for the line that connects
two supporting points. Bottom: A zoom of the top graph highlights the 1 nm sagittal
clear aperture deformation.

Mirror cooling system

To reduce as much as possible the effect of the thermal bump that affects the
mirror figure, a high-efficiency cooling system has to be implemented.
Different cooling schemes have been taken into account, among them:

 Eutectic bath in contact with the mirror and water-cooled Ni-coated

copper bars

 Side cooling with copper pads pressed on the silicon mirror

The present design implements mirrors that are cooled with an eutectic bath
because the eutectic bath:

 Is highly efficient in terms of achievable film coefficient

(h > 50 000 W/m2K)

 Guarantees constant film coefficient along the wet surface

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 59 of 164
  Allows fast thermal transient phase

 Does not introduce deformation on the mirror substrate

 Does not transfer to the substrate all the vibration produced by the water
primary cooling system

The eutectic bath presents evident strengths, but at the same time we are
well aware of the weaknesses of this choice:

 The rotation of the gratings causes a variation of the liquid height that
could modify the system’s thermal properties

 It could be considered as a limit for the vacuum performance: limited

maximum baking temperature, possible air bubbles snared between the
eutectic bath and the mirror wall

 Long and complicated wetting procedure

Table 13 reports integrated thermal power, integrated peak power density,

pulse train thermal power, and pulse train power density in the case of 10 mJ
photon pulse energy and 2700 pulses per train at 10 Hz. The above-
mentioned thermal power should be considered as absorbed power and, for
the power’s density evaluation, the low divergence case has been taken into
account (see CDR2011 pp. 25–31).

The following figures report the mechanical deformation due to the static
thermal load on the HE pre-mirror at 2.5 keV. The beam shape is Gaussian,
and the low-divergence case has been taken into account in the simulations.
Considering the case of 10 mJ photon pulse energy, 2700 pulses per train
and 10 Hz, the beam integrated thermal power is 270 W. Taking into account
the mirror coating reflectivity, the thermal power absorbed by the mirror is 6.6
W. At this relative low photon energy, the penetration of the beam into the
substrate could be considered negligible in the first approximation, and the
thermal load could be applied as surface thermal load. The 4σ footprint is
about 220 x 2 mm2 and the power density is 38 mW/mm2. A convection film
coefficient equal to 104 W/m2K has been applied on a 10 mm high strip along
the mirror and close to the hot surface. According to the symmetry only one
quarter of the mirror has been simulated.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

60 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Table 13: Thermal power and thermal power density absorbed by the
monochromator mirrors and gratings at different energies. Photon beams with low
divergence and 10 mJ pulse energy were considered.

Integrated Per pulse train

Thermal Peak power Thermal Peak power

Energy power density power density
2 2
[keV] [W] [W/mm ] [W] [W/mm ]
High- 3 8.00 0.060 1333.94 10.02
energy
2 6.88 0.026 1147.41 4.32
pre-mirror
1.2 9.40 0.015 1566.86 2.47

Low- 1 28.62 0.074 4770.32 12.31

energy
0.7 31.41 0.044 5235.39 7.37
pre-mirror
0.4 41.02 0.022 6836.18 3.71

G1 / G2 1.6 4.00 0.006 666.76 0.95

at α = 1.3 4.73 0.005 789.17 0.79
5 mrad
1 5.81 0.004 969.12 0.62
G1 / G2 2 8.13 0.034 1354.28 5.62
at α = 1.2 10.58 0.018 1763.55 3.07
10 mrad
0.7 15.01 0.010 2502.00 1.74
G1 / G2 1.2 17.55 0.046 2925.41 7.64
at α = 0.8 21.27 0.028 3544.25 4.65
15 mrad
0.4 30.99 0.013 5165.96 2.09

Figure 44: Temperature distribution on the optical surface. The temperature variation
is 0.65°C.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 61 of 164
Figure 45: Vertical deformation [m] on the optical surface. The peak-to-valley
deformation along the central meridian line is 42 nm.

Figure 46: Vertical profile of the thermal bump along the mirror (in longitudinal
direction) starting from the mirror centre.

If we approximate the thermal bump as a pre-mirror tangential radius

variation, we can correct the shift of the focal point position by an angle re-
tuning. However, it has to be remarked that this approach takes only the
static thermal effect into account; the thermal bump pulses constantly during
the pulse trains, however with much smaller amplitude, and cannot be
corrected. Table 14 reports the focus shift and the incidence angle variation
needed to compensate for this effect in the case of the HE pre-mirror for
different thermal-bump heights.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

62 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 Table 14: HE pre-mirror: Focal point position shift and relative pre-mirror incidence
angle correction for different PV thermal-bump heights.

Incidence angle variation

PV thermal-bump height Longitudinal focus shift to correct
[nm] [m] [mrad]
20 1.005 0.067
50 2.552 0.166
100 5.236 0.333

Technical design
Figure 47 and Figure 48 show the side and top view of the monochromator
optical layout.

Figure 47: Monochromator optical design, side view

Figure 48: Monochromator optical design, top view

With a vertical movement, the pre-mirrors can be inserted and extracted from
the beam. This feature allows the choice of the pre-mirror that will be
illuminated. When both pre-mirrors are lowered, it also makes it possible to

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 63 of 164
deliver the non-monochromatic beam to the users (pink-beam operation
mode). The dotted lines in Figure 47 show the position of the pre-mirrors
when they are moved out of the beam.

The transversal position of the beam is not fixed; it is a function of the setting
of the two upstream offset mirrors. Their incidence angle during the operation
mode could be optimized to achieve the maximum reflectivity at different
energies and, at the same time, to reflect the widest portion of the beam, at
least 4σ. Therefore, a pre-mirror transversal motion has been implemented in
order to follow the beam transversal movement. The 25 mm transversal clear
aperture of the HE pre-mirror could cover the energy range from 1.2 to 3 keV
without transversal motion while the 30 mm width clear aperture of the LE
pre-mirror has to shift about 50 mm to cover the remaining energy range
(from 1.3 to 0.270 keV). Even if the transversal motion is not strictly required
in the case of the HE pre-mirror, the implementation of this feature makes it
possible to use different mirror areas across the optical surface.

Two gratings with different ruling density and a blank mirror or a third grating
can be mounted on a structure that can rotate to scan the energy and
translate. The rotational range is 1.55° (from 10.2 to 37.2 mrad) and the
mirror support transversal travel is 270 mm.

Pre-mirror manipulator specification

During monochromator operation, the pre-mirror is kept at a fixed angle and

position, but some remotely controlled adjustments have to be implemented
to allow:

 Correction of the thermal effects

 Possibility to withdraw the mirrors

 Alignment of the mirror with respect to the beam transversal offset due to
the setup of the upstream offset mirrors

 Beam-based alignment of the optics

With respect to Figure 49, in which coordinate axes and angles are defined,
Table 15 summarizes the required range, resolution, and reproducibility of the
pre-mirror degrees of freedom. Both LE and HE pre-mirror present the same
movement specifications.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

64 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 Z
Roll
Yaw Photon n
Y beam

Pitch
X

Figure 49: Reference system for the M3a and M3b pre-mirror

Table 15: Mechanical specification for the pre-mirror in-vacuum manipulators

Reproducibility
Type of actuator / Use Resolution and stability Range
X Remotely controlled / 1 μm 2 μm 50 mm
For operation
Y Manual / 5 μm 20 μm 2 mm
For alignment
Z Remotely controlled / 0.5 μm 1 μm 5 mm
For operation
Pitch Remotely controlled / 0.1 μrad 0.5 μrad 1 mrad
For alignment
Roll Remotely controlled / 0.1 μrad 0.5 μrad 1 mrad
For alignment

Yaw Manual / 1 μrad 2 μrad 1 mrad

For alignment
Pitch Remotely controlled / 10 nrad 20 nrad 0.5 mrad
For operation

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 65 of 164
Grating mechanics specification

With respect to Figure 50, in which coordinate axes and angles are defined,
Table 16 summarizes the required range, resolution, and reproducibility of the
grating degrees of freedom.

Z
Roll
Yaw Y
Photon
beam
n
Pitch
X
Figure 50: Reference system for the grating

Table 16: Mechanical specification for the grating in-vacuum mechanics

Reproducibility
Type of actuator / Use Resolution and stability Range
X Remotely controlled / 1 μm 2 μm 335 mm
For operation
X Manual / 5 μm 20 μm 500 μm
For alignment
Y Manual / 5 μm 20 μm 500 μm
For alignment
Z Manual / 1 μm 2 μm 500 μm
For alignment

Pitch Manual / 0.02 mrad 0.05 mrad 1 mrad

For alignment
Roll Manual / 0.02 mrad 0.05 mrad 1 mrad
For alignment
Yaw Manual / 0.2 mrad 0.5 mrad 1 mrad
For alignment
Pitch Remotely controlled / 10 nrad 20 nrad 30 mrad
For operation

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

66 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 Technical design considerations

A granite block will be connected to the tunnel floor through manually

adjustable feet. Through remotely adjustable feet, the granite block will
support a baseplate, on which the pre-mirror stands and the grating support
will be mounted. The base plate and the mirrors will be inside a vacuum
vessel that is mechanically decoupled from the baseplate and supported
separately. Except for the motors that are dedicated to the adjustment of the
base plate feet, the other remaining motors will be in-vacuum motors. Linear
and rotary encoders for motor and position control and feedback will be in-
vacuum devices as well.

The main aim of the granite block is to give a structural stable support and to
dump the vibrations coming from the floor. During the final design phase, the
component masses, material, and geometries have to be carefully chosen in
order to minimize the vibrational effect.

All the monochromator component material, as well as the design and

manufacture process, will be compliant with the European XFEL vacuum
specification [17]. To avoid beam scattering and absorption effects, and
simultaneously limit hydrocarbon contamination of the optics, the vacuum
level inside the monochromator vessel will be < 10-9 mbar.

Wavefront propagation results

To model the impact of wavefront distortions on the monochromator
resolution, a Gaussian beam of corresponding photon energy and angular
divergence is calculated in accordance with the empirical formula from
CDR2011. As a simulation tool, an improved version of the PHASE code was
used [18]. The results on the widths were in good agreement with an
analytical expression for slit diffraction used in Figure 32 and Figure 33, and
also with the ray-tracing program “Ray”. The impact on the shape of the
resolution functions is shown in Figure 51 for a photon energy of 0.8 keV and
in Figure 52 for a photon energy of 0.27 keV. At 0.8 keV, the grating is
covering about 4σ of the beam, and the resolution function is essentially of

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 67 of 164
Gaussian shape. At 0.27 keV, noticeable side maxima are present, which
originate from the cutoff effects at pre-mirror and grating.

ΔE = 160 meV

ΔE = 0 meV

ΔE = -160 meV

Figure 51: Left: Results of wavefront propagation through the monochromator for
0.8 keV. Right: Central vertical cuts.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

68 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 ΔE = 27 meV

ΔE = 0 meV

ΔE = -27 meV

Figure 52: Left: Results of wavefront propagation through the monochromator for
0.27 keV. Right: Central vertical cuts.

The impact of slope error effects [19] is demonstrated in Figure 53. The
profiles used are shown in Figure 54 [20]. For profiles measured on optics
with shape errors on the order of 4.5 nm and 12 nm, the achievable resolution
is significantly reduced by about a factor of two.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 69 of 164
 FWHM 17 µm

FWHM 20 µm
PV: 1 nm (M3)+2.5 nm (G1)

FWHM 30 µm
PV: 4.5 nm (M3)+12 nm (G1)

Figure 53: Top: Impact of pre-mirror and grating residual height errors on the
resolution of the soft X-ray monochromator for target energy 0.7426 keV. Middle:
Results calculated for “smoothed” surfaces, with slopes reduced 5 times. Bottom:
Simulations for surface profile data shown in Figure 54.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

70 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 Height error PV: 4.5 nm (M3)

PV: 12 nm (G1)

Figure 54: Top: Pre-mirror surface residual slope (left) and height errors (right) used
in wavefront propagation model. The blue curves correspond to measured data; red
th
is the result of interpolation by the 8 order polynomial. Bottom: The same surface
profile data for the grating.

The influence on pulse stretching was investigated by propagating an

ultrashort pulse of the same duration as the SASE3 radiation coherence time
for the corresponding photon energy. Slices in frequency domain are
propagated through the monochromator up to the exit slit downstream; then,
for every slice, only the central area corresponding to the vertical slit width is
used to get the propagated pulse in the time domain using inverse Fourier
transformation. The result is shown in Figure 55. The top row shows intensity
maps on the slit plane. A delta-like pulse of duration 1 fs FWHM at 800 eV is
broadened by the monochromator to about 70 fs FWHM. This is very close to
the value obtained by the approximation in Figure 31 of 75 fs (the ideal
relative band pass is 7·10-5).

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 71 of 164
Figure 55: Wave optics propagation of an ultrashort pulse, 0.8 keV averaged photon
energy, 1 fs FWHM pulse duration, through the soft X-ray monochromator. Top:
Maps of intensity distribution in focus for slices in frequency domain after propagating
through the monochromator. Middle: Pulse and its spectrum before monochromator.
Bottom: Pulse and its spectrum after propagation through the monochromator with
50 l/mm at the exit slit of 30 µm width.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

72 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
5 Hard X-ray monochromator

For the hard X-ray beamlines at the European XFEL, silicon monochromators
are required to cut down the relative band pass to 10-4 and 10-5 [1], [23], [24].
For this purpose, the reflections Si(111), Si(311), Si(511), or Si(333) are
proposed to be used. The intrinsic energy resolution of single-crystal
diffraction as a function of photon energy for different Si crystal reflections is
shown in Figure 56.

Figure 56: Intrinsic Darwin width of Si crystal reflections (calculated with

X.R.Vision 2.0 program [25]).

To enable high-quality polishing for minimizing wavefront distortions and to

minimize vibrations, an artificial (pseudo) channel-cut monochromator type
(non-monolithic) was chosen. It is similar to the design developed by Argonne
National Laboratory (ANL) [26], [27], and is currently being further developed
to enable cryogenic cooling in a collaboration between European XFEL and
Deming Shu from ANL.

As described in CDR2011, cryogenic cooling will increase the throughput by

about a factor of two. A pulse tube cooler is foreseen since the
monochromator will be installed in the European XFEL tunnels, where there
is no LN2 supply available.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 73 of 164
Optical design
Si crystal Bragg reflection performances

For the SASE1 and SASE2 beamlines, the Si monochromators will be used
to cover an energy range of 4.8–24 keV. Figure 57 shows the Bragg angle as
a function of energy for different reflections. A Bragg angle in the range of
4.5–45º covers the required energy range for the mentioned reflections.

Figure 57: Bragg angle versus photon energy for different crystal reflections
(calculated with the X.R.Vision 2.0 program).

Figure 58 gives the bandwidth (FWHM, in µrad) as a function of energy for

Bragg reflections for different reflections. “Diffraction curve” means a one-
crystal rocking curve, or Darwin curve. “Rocking curve” means a two-crystal
rocking curve but with only one crystal rocking.

Based on the parameters of the X-ray FEL beam from CDR2011 and the
performance of the Si crystals, the critical points of designing the
monochromator, such as geometry and motion, are discussed in the following
paragraphs.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

74 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 58: Diffraction and rocking curves as a function of photon energy for different
reflections. Solid lines = “diffraction curve”, dashed lines = “rocking curve” (calculated
with the X.R.Vision 2.0 program).

Geometry and dimensions

The nearly diffraction-limited X-ray beam changes its divergence proportional

to its wavelength, leading to a variation of spot sizes with energy of about a
factor of 10. This leads to challenges in optimizing geometry, gap, and length
of the crystal optics.

The rotation centre of the monochromator was considered to be in between

the two crystal surfaces or on the surface in the centre of the first crystal.

Figure 59: Scheme of the rotation axis on the centre of the first crystal surface

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 75 of 164
Figure 60: Scheme of the rotation axis in the middle of crystal surfaces.
g = gap between two crystals; L = length of the crystal; b = beam size, b1 for lower
energy (4.8 keV) and b2 for higher energy (24 keV); θ1 and θ2 = corresponding
Bragg angle; h1 and h2 = beam offsets.

With the rotation axis on the centre of the first crystal surface, as shown in
Figure 59, one obtains the minimum length of the first crystal (footprint of the
higher energy with the smaller grazing angle), but needs a long second
crystal and an increased minimum gap in order to avoid shadowing the beam
with the crystal ends.

The centre of rotation (COR) in the middle between the two crystal surfaces,
as shown in Figure 60, leads to almost identical lengths of the two crystals
and a more compact design with a small gap. This avoids a too-long length of
the second crystal, especially in the Si(111) case.

One disadvantage of channel-cut monochromators is that the exit beam offset

varies according to different energies and results in an offset of

ℎ = 2𝑔 cos 𝜃

12.4
𝜃 = sin−1( )
2𝑑 × 𝐸

where θ is the Bragg angle, d is the lattice spacing of crystals in Å, and E is

the photon energy in keV. Figure 61 shows the beam offset as a function of
energies, with a gap of 5, 6.5, and 8 mm, for instance.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

76 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 61: Exit beam offset versus photon energy for different gaps

The minimum gap and length for the crystals need to be optimized to cover a
certain energy range. According to the two geometries, we can obtain the
following equations for the dimension evaluation, respectively.

The rotation axis on the centre of the first crystal surface yields:

Gap:

1
𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑛 = �𝑏2�sin𝜃2 − 𝑏1�sin𝜃1� ∗ tan𝜃1 + 𝑏1�2 cos𝜃1
4

Length of the first crystal:

𝑙1𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑏2�sin𝜃2

Length of the second crystal:

𝑙2𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑔�1�tan𝜃2 − 1�tan𝜃1� + 𝑏1�2 sin𝜃1 + 𝑏2�2 sin𝜃2

Total length:

𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑔�1�tan𝜃2 − 1�tan𝜃1� + 𝑏1�2 sin𝜃1 + 3𝑏2�2 sin𝜃2

Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19 summarize the beam size on the Si(111),
Si(311), and Si(511) or Si(333) monochromators, respectively, at an 850 m
source distance as well as parameters of footprint, gap, and length of the
crystal with the COR on the centre of the first crystal surface.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 77 of 164
Table 17: Parameters for Si(111), COR on the centre of the first crystal

Second crystal
Beam size Footprint Crystal gap length (appr.)

E 4σ 6σ θ l0(4σ) l0(6σ) gmin(4σ) gmin(6σ) Lmin(4σ) Lmin(6σ)

(keV) (mm) (mm) (°) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

3 9.72 14.6 41.2 14.8 22.1 8.44 – 15.41 – 112 – 198 –

5 6.28 9.42 23.3 15.9 23.9 4.28 6.41 62 92.5

24 1.96 2.94 4.72 23.8 35.7

Table 18: Parameters for Si(311), COR on the centre of the first crystal

Second crystal
Beam size Footprint Crystal gap length (appr.)

E 4σ 6σ θ l0(4σ) l0(6σ) gmin(4σ) gmin(6σ) Lmin(4σ) Lmin(6σ)

(keV) (mm) (mm) (°) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

5 6.28 9.42 49.2 8.3 12.4 6.00 9.01 42.6 64

24 1.96 2.94 9.1 12.4 18.6

Table 19: Parameters for Si(511) or Si(333), COR on the centre of the first crystal

Second crystal
Beam size Footprint Crystal gap length (appr.)

E 4σ 6σ θ l0(4σ) l0(6σ) gmin(4σ) gmin(6σ) Lmin(4σ) Lmin(6σ)

(keV) (mm) (mm) (°) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

8 4.63 6.95 47.9 6.24 9.36 3.92 5.88 18.9 28.4

24 1.96 2.94 14.3 7.94 11.9

The rotation centre in the middle between crystal surfaces yields:

Gap:

𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑏1�2 cos𝜃1

Length of the first or second crystal:

𝑔 1
𝑙1,2𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≈ � �tan𝜃2 + 1�tan𝜃1� + 𝑏2�2 sin𝜃2
2

Total length:

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

78 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑔�1�tan𝜃2 + 1�tan𝜃1� + 𝑏2�2 sin𝜃2

Table 20, Table 21, and Table 22 summarize the beam size on the Si(111),
Si(311), and Si(511) or Si(333) monochromators at 850 m as well as
parameters of footprint, gap, and length of crystal with the COR in between
the crystal surfaces.

Table 20: Parameters for Si(111), COR in between crystals

Crystal length
Beam size Footprint Crystal gap (appr.)

E 4σ 6σ θ l0(4σ) l0(6σ) gmin(4σ) gmin(6σ) Lmin(4σ) Lmin(6σ)

(keV) (mm) (mm) (°) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

3 9.72 14.6 41.2 14.8 22.1 6.46 – 9.69 – 59 – 89 –

5 6.28 9.42 23.3 15.9 23.9 3.42 5.12 41 62

24 1.96 2.94 4.72 23.8 35.7

Table 21: Parameters for Si(311), COR in between crystals

Crystal length
Beam size Footprint Crystal gap (appr.)

E 4σ 6σ θ l0(4σ) l0(6σ) gmin(4σ) gmin(6σ) Lmin(4σ) Lmin(6σ)

(keV) (mm) (mm) (°) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

5 6.28 9.42 49.2 8.3 12.4 4.81 7.21 23.3 34.9

24 1.96 2.94 9.1 12.4 18.6

Table 22: Parameters for Si(511) or Si(333), COR in between crystals

Crystal length
Beam size Footprint Crystal gap (appr.)

E 4σ 6σ θ l0(4σ) l0(6σ) gmin(4σ) gmin(6σ) Lmin(4σ) Lmin(6σ)

(keV) (mm) (mm) (°) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

8 4.63 6.95 47.9 6.24 9.36 3.45 5.18 13.1 19.6

24 1.96 2.94 14.3 7.94 11.9

In conclusion, the COR on the centre of the first crystal leads to a longer
second crystal and a larger gap. In order to accept 6σ for Si(111), a 92.5 mm
second crystal is required. We consider this as too long to be compatible with
the artificial channel-cut concept, without risking mechanical instability. In
contrast, a COR in between the crystals leads to a significantly shorter
second crystal. This concept was refined and led to a COR that is on the

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 79 of 164
downstream end of the first crystal surface. This design has the advantage
that both crystals are of equal (minimal) length and that the rotation can be
better monitored using an autocollimator.

The dimensions of Si(111) crystals are defined as shown in Figure 62. They
include some extra length as a safety factor and extend the energy range
down to 4.84 keV (θ = 24.1°) to include the Ti edge. With the similar
consideration, Si(511) crystal dimensions are defined as shown in Figure 63.

Figure 62: Si(111) crystal dimensions with gap = 5.5 mm for 4.8–24 keV of 4σ beam
size, L1 = L2 = 60 mm, h1 = 10.1 mm, and h2 = 10.96 mm. A range of 19.5º for
rotation is required for the mechanics.

Figure 63: Si(511) crystal dimensions with gap = 6 mm for 8–24 keV of 4σ beam
size, L1 = L2 = 24 mm, h1 = 8.49 mm, h2 = 11.63 mm. A range of 34.1º for rotation
is required for the mechanics.

As shown in Figure 62 and Figure 63, the first crystal is designed to be 2 mm

wider than the second one for the initial alignment using only one reflection.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

80 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Motion requirement

As discussed above, a combined pitch of both crystals for Bragg angle

rotation and adjustments of the second crystal related to the first one are
foreseen. Movements of both crystals, to allow adjustment of the
monochromator according to the X-ray beam and to enable pink-beam mode
of the beamlines, are taken into account as well.

The motions needed are summarized and the ranges are shown in Figure 64.

Figure 64: Coordinates of the crystals

For the channel-cut, the required motions are:

 RX (pitch), Bragg angle for Si(111) of 20° (from 4.5–24.5°), Bragg angle
for Si(511)/Si(333) of 35°(from 13–48°).

 Tx, ± 15 mm, retract from the beam axis for other application modes;

 Tz, ± 15 mm, height adjustment to the beam axis.

For the second crystal:

 RX2, adjustment of pitch between first and second crystal, of ± 0.5° and
also fine adjustment (piezo);

 RY2, adjustment of roll of second crystal, of ± 0.5°.

Based on the geometrical ray tracing of the beam position, effects of

tolerance or misalignment of the pitch and roll movement on the beam at the
sample are considered:

∆𝑧0 = 2 × ∆𝜃 × 𝑞

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 81 of 164
 ∆𝑥0 = 2 × ∆𝜑 × 𝑞 × sin 𝜃

where q is the distance from the monochromator to the sample. The effect on
the beam spot centre position is shown in Figure 65.

Figure 65: Pitch and roll tolerance effects on spot drift at a Bragg angle of 24.5°

The effects of vibrations and thermal drifts are sensitive to the distance
between the monochromator and sample position. Therefore, putting the
monochromator closer to the experiment station will improve the stability of
the beam position.

Pre-monochromator and high-resolution monochromator

application

Si(111) will be used as a pre-monochromator and a second monochromator

(e.g. Si(311) and Si(511) or Si(333)) will be used in series, which will further
improve the energy resolution according to the instrument scientific requests.
This may also compensate part of the vertical offset and brings the beam
back toward the optical axis as shown in Figure 66.

Figure 66: Scheme of a series of monochromators (Si(111) + Si(511), for example)

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

82 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
To keep the monochromatic beam at the same exit position as the pink beam,
we need to adjust the gaps between crystals according to the energy,

ℎ = 2𝑔1 cos 𝜃1 = 2𝑔2 cos 𝜃2

𝑔1 cos 𝜃2
=
𝑔2 cos 𝜃1

Another option to get the same exit beam is to tilt an upstream mirror (e.g.
distribution mirror or offset mirror before the monochromator) on the beamline
by an angle of a few mrad (∆ϕ) around the beam axis (Figure 67).

Figure 67: Scheme of fixed exit beam with upstream mirror adjustment

According to the equations above,

2∆𝜑 × (𝑞1 + 𝑞2) × sin 𝜃1 = 2𝑔 × cos 𝜃2

𝑔 × cos 𝜃2
∆𝜑 =
(𝑞1 + 𝑞2) × sin(2 𝜃1)

where θ1 is the grazing angle at the upstream mirror, θ2 is the Bragg angle of
the monochromator, and g is the gap between the crystal surfaces.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 83 of 164
Cryo-cooling consideration
As also discussed in CDR2011, thermal load is a critical problem for the Si
monochromator at the European XFEL and cryogenic cooling of the Si crystal
is foreseen. Si crystal thermal properties (thermal conductivity and expansion
coefficient) are shown in Figure 68, as a function of temperature.

Figure 68: Temperature-dependent thermal properties for silicon

At 100 K, the thermal expansion of silicon is becoming minimal with a

relatively high thermal conductivity coefficient. Apart from the analytical
approximation of the thermal transfer to evaluate the maximum pulses
transmitted and one-dimensional FEA of the peak temperature calculation,
which are presented in CDR2011, three-dimensional FEA simulations of the

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

84 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
crystal temperature gradient and thermal-bump effects under the thermal load
of the FEL beam were now performed using the ANSYS software. Table 23
indicates the parameters for the FEA simulations input: a charge of 250 pC
and 2700 pulses per train are taken into account for the power and the train
length of the FEL beam, based on the numbers from CDR2011.

Table 23: Parameters for simulations

E (photon) Power, W Power, W Train length Bragg angle Abs. length

(keV)
-3
(pulse train) (steady state) (10 s) θ (Si111) (µm)

12.3 1740 5 0.6 9 221

A Gaussian distribution of the thermal load and exponential decay through

the crystal have been implemented in the model as shown in Figure 69. A
quarter of the crystal size was taken into account because of the symmetrical
geometry.

Figure 69: 3D model for FEA simulations

Figure 70 indicates the temperature distribution and thermal deformation at

the end of a full pulse train at 80 K cooling.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 85 of 164
Figure 70: Left: Temperature distribution [K]. Right: Displacement perpendicular to
the incident surface [m] at the end of a full pulse train.

Figure 71 shows the thermal-bump effect as a function of time during a full

pulse train. The PV displacement is 30 nm at 60 K for the cooler.

Figure 71: Thermal-bump effect as a function of time

The maximum thermal-bump deformation has been investigated for a full

pulse train (2700 pulses) for different cooling temperatures between 40 K and
120 K, as shown in Figure 72. For this particular heat load case, 60 K seems
to be the optimum temperature for the first crystal. With a smaller heat load,
this ideal temperature will be higher.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

86 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 72: Thermal-bump effect as a function of cooling temperature

In order to investigate the feasibility of the cooling, tests on a dummy crystal

with a commercial pulse tube cooler (Transmit PTS 8030) were performed.
The experiment facility is shown in Figure 73, including the pulse tube cooler
and a small vacuum chamber.

Figure 73: Test experiment setup

The dummy crystal (aluminium block) is mounted on a copper plate

(Figure 74), which is insulated by ceramic supports and connected to the cold
finger of the cooler. A 50 Ω resistor is installed on the dummy crystal as a

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 87 of 164
heater to generate a thermal load. A PT100 sensor is used to measure the
temperature.

copper resistor
braid

insulation
Figure 74: Dummy crystal for test

The dimensions of the copper braid and how it connects to the crystal support
and the cooler are important for the cooling performance. According to
thermal conduction equations, the heat flow with respect to temperature
difference can be estimated as:

𝑑𝑇
𝑄 = 𝑘(𝑇)𝐴
𝑑𝑥

where Q is the power on the crystal, k is the thermal conductivity, A is the

cross section area, and dx is the length of copper braid.

Two configurations of connections, one with longer length but smaller cross
section, the other vice versa, were tested as shown in Figure 75 and
Figure 76. The measured results are shown on the right panels.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

88 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 2
Figure 75: Connection 1 and results (250 mm length, 2 x 20 mm )

2
Figure 76: Connection 2 and results (90 mm length, 1 x 100 mm )

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 89 of 164
Table 24: Summary of different connections

Experiment measurement Calculation estimation

Q=3W Q=5W Q=3W Q=5W

dx A T1 T2 T1 T2 ∆T dx A ∆T dx A
(mm) (mm2) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (mm) (mm2) (K) (mm) (mm2)

Case 1 250 2×20 45 90 55 125 45 240 42 70 224 45

Case 2 90 1×100 40 50 45 58.5 10 133 68 13.5 108 83

The measurements are summarized in Table 24. They are in agreement with
expectations (copper thermal conductivity k = 400 W/(m⋅K)). Therefore, an
optimization can be performed according to the equations given above.

Next, the length of the copper braids to cover the rotation range is considered
in Figure 77.

Figure 77: Scheme of copper braid connection

The minimum length of the copper braid is

With hp-c = 100 mm, r = 50 mm (distance of braid connection to centre of

rotation) and α = 35°:

35
lbraid= 100 + (π × 2 × 50)= 130.5mm
360

The moment needed to bend the copper braid (anti-force on the crystal
rotation) is

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

90 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 At 2 −1
M braid = E × I × r −1 = E × ×r
12

Where A (= w·t) and w and t are the width and thickness, respectively, of the
cross section of the copper braid. With E = 110 GPa for the Young modulus
of the copper braid, and assuming A = 40 x 1 mm2, one obtains

40 × 10−6 × (1 × 10−3 ) 2
M braid = 110 × 109 × × (50 × 10−3 ) −1 = 7.3N ⋅ m
12

The moment Mbraid and its fatigue lifetime will be also verified by a sample
braid test.

One important question is whether the second crystal needs to be cryo-

cooled as well or if a cooling at room temperature is sufficient. If the first
crystal is cryo-cooled (e.g. 100 K) and second is at room temperature
(e.g. 300 K), the silicon thermal expansion coefficient changes almost linearly
between 100 K and 300 K, and

∆𝑑
= 2.55 × 10−4
𝑑

where d is the spacing between the planes in the atomic lattice.

Assuming θ as the Bragg angle at 100 K, and δ is the angle change at 300 K
for the same photon energy, then

(𝑑 + Δ𝑑) sin(𝜃 − 𝛿) = 𝑑 sin 𝜃

∆𝑑
𝛿 ≈ tan 𝜃 × = 2.55 × 10−4 tan 𝜃
𝑑

The Bragg angle variation for working at different temperatures as a function

of photon energy is shown in Figure 78.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 91 of 164
 Figure 78: Angle variation due to temperature difference

For Si(111) crystals, if the first crystal works at 45ºat 100 K, for example, then
the second one (at 300 K) gets an angle variation of about 0.25 mrad. This
will amount to many mm of beam displacement in addition to the offset in the
experiment hall. Therefore, cooling of the second crystal is required. The
connection of the second crystal, either to the cooling plate of the first crystal
or to the cryostat directly, has to be evaluated.

Heaters on both crystals are also foreseen to adjust temperatures during

operation and to control the process of temperature equilibration as well.

Mechanical design
Artificial channel-cut mechanisms (ACCM)

The ACCM [26], [27], [28] developed by Deming Shu et al. at the Advanced
Photon Source (APS), is a stable mechanism that facilitates the alignment of
an assembly of two crystals to achieve the same mechanical performance as
a single channel-cut crystal. The high-stiffness weak-link mechanism, as
shown in Figure 79, consists of three sub-assemblies: one compact sine-bar
driving mechanism and two crystal holders.

The first crystal is mounted on a cooled crystal holder fixed to the base plate.
The over-constrained, flexure-based weak-link structure for fine tuning the
pitch of the second crystal relative to the first crystal is driven via a compact

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

92 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
sine-bar by a combination of an in-vacuum piezo-motor (for example, New
Focus Picomotor 8301-UHV) and a piezoelectric transducer (PZT) (for
example, Physik Instrumente P-841-15 mm travel). Since both drives have a
ball tip, an interface plate coupled using a pair of high-stiffness linear weak-
link modules is used to create a stable interface between the two ball tip
stages. A rough pitch adjustment is done with the open-loop piezo-motor
providing 40 nm (300 nrad) resolution and a fine pitch adjustment with the
closed loop–controlled PZT with a strain gauge sensor providing 4 nm
(30 nrad) resolution.

A pair of flexure bearings (e.g. C-flex pivot, G20) is driven by an in-vacuum

piezo-motor for the roll of the second crystal relative to the first crystal, with
the combination of a yoke assembly. An angular drift of the two crystals of
less than 25 nrad/h was measured by APS for such a mechanism [27].

Figure 79: Front and back view of an artificial channel-cut mechanism (ACCM)

Two sets of stacked thin-metal weak-link modules are used in the driving
mechanism: one acting as a pair of rotary bearings for a planar rotary shaft
(as shown in Figure 80), the other as a linear stage to support a coupling
plate between piezo-motor and PZT translator as mentioned above. Both
weak-link mechanisms have two modules mounted on each side of the base
plate.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 93 of 164
Figure 80: Over-constrained rotary weak-link module [28]. Left: FEA simulation,
showing the displacement distribution under a 0.89 Nm torsion load on the centre
part while the outer ring is fixed on the base (maximum displacement 94 μm with
maximum von Mises stress 175 MPa). Right: Model manufactured by AJR Industries.
It consists of 16 layers of stainless-steel weak-link sheets bonded together with a
total thickness of 4 mm (pictures from Deming Shu, APS).

Unlike traditional kinematic linear spring mechanisms, the over-constrained

weak-link mechanism provides much higher structure stiffness and stability.
The laminar structure was manufactured by chemical etching and lithography
techniques. Special care was taken to minimize any virtual leaks during the
bonding process. The modules were tested for UHV after a bake-out at 373 K
for 24 h by APS [26], [27], and a base pressure of 2·10-10 mbar was attained
after pumping for 24 h. A residual-gas analysis showed no detectable traces
of hydrocarbon contamination.

Sine-bar mechanism for the Bragg angle rotation

A precision hollow shaft supported by three sets of ceramic bearings, inside a

precisely machined rigid housing, permits stable angular rotation of the two-
crystal assembly by means of a sine-bar mechanism. The sine-bar is rigidly
mounted to the shaft and has a 20° or 35° rotation range (e.g. 4.5–24.5° or
13–48°) that corresponds to an energy range of 4.8–24 keV using Si(111) or
8–24 keV using Si(511) crystals. It is also suitable for Si(311) with a certain
energy range.

The long shaft supported at the ends by high-precision bearings provides

exceptional stiffness and rigidity to the sine-bar. The sine-bar is driven by an
UHV-compatible high-resolution linear stage. For example, a ~10 nm closed-

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

94 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
loop linear-resolution stage from ALIO Industries with a Nanomotion nano-
motor based on an UHV-compatible linear grating encoder was used by APS
[27]. In this way, vacuum forces arising from motion transmitted through the
bellows are eliminated and a more compact design becomes possible.

In the previous APS design, as shown on the left side of Figure 81, the sine-
bar arm is coupled to the driving mechanism with a set of anti-backlash
springs. The springs provide the restoring force to ensure that the sine bar
always stays in contact with a ruby ball when the stage is moved. However, it
will be difficult to cover a larger angle range of more than 25° with a good
reproducibility. To reach such a larger angular range, a new design with
flexure bearing (e.g. C-Flex pivot) joints is proposed, as shown on the right
side of Figure 81.

Figure 81: Left: Ruby ball interface. Right: Linkage with flexure bearing joints.

One concern regarding the new design is that the flexure joints will add some
low eigenfrequencies to the system. The sine-bar mechanism for the
combined pitch motion of the two crystals is sketched in Figure 82.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 95 of 164
Figure 82: Scheme of sine-bar driven mechanism with 𝑙0 = 215 𝑚𝑚, ℎ = 72 𝑚𝑚,
𝑟 = 100 𝑚𝑚, 𝑚 = 5 𝑘𝑔

The motion of the linear driver x is then

𝛼
𝑥 = 2 × 𝑙0 × sin( 2 ) (α = 35°)

35°
𝑥 = 2 × 215 × sin( ) = 2 × 65.5 = 131 mm
2

To cover the rotation angle range of 35°, a minimum stroke of the linear stage
of 131 mm is required. The angular resolution is

∆𝑥 1
∆𝜃~ = ∆𝑥 = 4.7 ∆𝑥[m]
𝑙0 215 × 10−3

Therefore, if the linear stage has a resolution of 10 nm, the ACCM get an
angular resolution of about 50 nrad.

Assuming a simple harmonic motion of the spring–mass system, and taking

into account the rotational motion of the ACCM, one gets

𝑑2 𝑥
𝐹=𝑚 = −𝑘𝑥
𝑑2 𝑡

The equivalent spring constant is

𝑘𝑥 ∗ 𝑙0 𝑘𝑥 ∗ 𝑙0
𝜇= = = 𝑘𝑙0 2
∆𝜃 ∆𝑥
𝑙0

The moment of inertia of the ACCM is

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

96 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 1
𝐼 = 𝑚𝑟 2 + 𝑚ℎ2
2

Then the assumed spring dynamic motion frequency is

1 𝜇 1 𝑘𝑙0 2
𝑓= � =
2𝜋 𝐼 2𝜋 �𝑚 �1 𝑟 2 + ℎ2 �
2

Taking the k value of 1.8·106 N/m (C-Flex webpage, G10, radial stiffness in
compression condition = 0.00010, in inches of deflection per pound of load),
then

1 1.8 × 106 × (0.215)2

𝑓= = 203.5 Hz
2𝜋 �1 × 5 × (0.1)2 + 5 × (0.072)2
2

Here we considered the system without damping. If damped motion is taking

into account, the frequency should be a bit lower.

The influence of the driver was neglected, but could be important, especially
when energy scans are performed, for example with 1 eV per 0.1 second.

With the preliminary calculation described above, the proposed design looks
feasible, provided that the oscillations of the real system dampen out in the
100 ms between two pulse trains. Further simulations, taking into account the
real condition of the linkage and distribution of the mass of the mechanism
with a 3D model, will be done for final verification.

Vacuum tank and support table

The complete chamber with the design of all the in-vacuum motion for the
crystals is shown in Figure 83. The vacuum chamber consists of two major
sub-assemblies: a main chamber (including an interface port to a pulse tube
cooler and an assembly access with view port) and a sine-bar support shaft
chamber. The big gasket has some (tight) tolerance for the mounting of the
shaft, which holds the main sine-bar mechanisms.

The main chamber has a base mounting plate for the monochromator’s
vertical diffraction operation configuration. On the sine-bar chamber, there is

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 97 of 164
another mounting platform, which is perpendicular to the main chamber base
plate, for the monochromator’s horizontal diffraction operation configuration.
Even though it is currently not used in the conceptual design, the vertical and
horizontal reflection geometry can be accommodated without changing the
height of the beam on the first crystal.

An alignment port (on the beam exit side) is added asymmetrically to the view
port on the beam entrance side, which is defined by the diffracted beam from
the first crystal at a certain of energy. Since the first crystal is 2 mm wider
than the second, one can perform an initial alignment of the first crystal by
moving the entire chamber sideways.

Figure 83: Overview of the proposed design

The interface with the pulse tube cooler will be a CF160 flange (using a
Transmit PTS8030 cooler). The rotary valve (vibration source) associated
with the pulse tube cooler would be connected to the support table with a
simple damping design or to the tunnel wall.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

98 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 Table Top

Spherical Joint

Vertical Stage

Horizontal Stage

Base Frame

Attachment for Instalation

Figure 84: Left: 3D model of the support table. Right: Working concept [27].

The APS-designed standard kinematic mounting table (Figure 84) will be

used as the base of the monochromator to provide five degrees of freedom
for alignment with respect to the beam. The table’s basic precision motion
design uses the three-point “cone-flat-V” kinematic mount concept obtained
through the use of stepping motor–driven modular linear stages with spring-
loaded linear potentiometer encoder and ball-bearing spherical joints as
shown in the right side of Figure 84. The cone-flat-V kinematic mount concept
has the advantages of three-point stability, free and unconstrained thermal
expansion, and good positioning repeatability.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 99 of 164
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
100 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
6 Vacuum system

General
In this section, the layout and design of the vacuum beam transport systems
are explained.

The vacuum flight tube will be designed to guarantee an average pressure in

the overall system of less than 1·10-6 mbar. For constantly evacuating the
beamlines, we use ion pumps of the triode type. One advantage of this pump
type is that it is also able to pump a small amount of noble gas, which is used
for the gas attenuator and some diagnostic elements. The pressure at the ion
pumps will be much better than 1·10-6 mbar to ensure their targeted lifetime of
80 000 h. At some locations at the beamline, near mirrors and gratings, we
require even better vacuum pressure. Here we use non-evaporable getter
(NEG) pumps in addition to the ion pumps. All parts are made of vacuum-
compatible materials, mostly stainless steel 304L or 316L; applicable
materials are listed in [17]. All the used components pass through a cleaning
procedure before installation to eliminate any contamination with
hydrocarbons, so that the sum of the partial pressures of masses from
mass 45 on to at least mass 100 has to be less than 10-3 of the total pressure
of the cleaned item. More details can be found in the “UHV Guidelines for
X-Ray Beam Transport Systems” [17].

The following three figures show an overview of the individual items of the
photon vacuum system for each SASE beamline.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 101 of 164
Figure 85: SASE1 photon vacuum system

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

102 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 86: SASE2 photon vacuum system

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 103 of 164
Figure 87: SASE3 photon vacuum system

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

104 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Pump-down
The initial pump-down is carried out by mobile oil-free pump stations, as
shown in Figure 88 and Figure 89. These stations consist of a 80 l/s
turbomolecular pump and a 10 m3/h scroll pump.

Via a bypass with higher conductance, the scroll pump is pumping down from
atmospheric pressure to 10-2 mbar, where the turbomolecular pump can be
switched on to pump down to a pressure level where the ion pumps can be
started. The scroll pump run time is reduced using a buffer volume. The pump
station has additional ports to attach an optional leak search unit or a residual
gas analyser (RGA) for quality acceptance tests.

Figure 88: Scheme of mobile pump station

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 105 of 164
The control software for the pump station runs on a Beckhoff PLC with touch
panel. The whole system can be remotely controlled via Ethernet interface.

Figure 89: Mobile pump station and control screen

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

106 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
The operation and control of the rough pumping process are done manually.
The exhaust gas from the mobile pump stations will be vented into the
tunnels.

Figure 90 shows the timing sequence of the initial pump-down procedure

using a mobile pump station connected to a 67 m long DN100 beampipe with
an outgassing rate of 10-10 mbar l s-1 cm-2. The timing sequence is calculated
for the position of highest pressure and relates to the first time the beamline is
pumped down. Further pump-downs will be faster, depending on how the
vacuum system is vented and handled during maintenance. The pump
downtime after a maintenance break can also be reduced by linking more
pump stations to the system. Venting the vacuum system will be done using
dry nitrogen supplied by 100 l liquid nitrogen dewars and a venting system
with overpressure safety valve. The DN16 venting valves that are installed at
all beamline vacuum segments are equipped with particle filters to avoid
contamination of the vacuum.

Figure 90: Pump-down time estimation

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 107 of 164
Layout
The vacuum beamline is divided into segments of maximum 250 m length,
which can be separated from the rest of the beamline by gate valves. Each of
these segments has a manually operated all-metal DN16 venting valve and at
least one manually operated all-metal DN40 rough pumping valve to connect
the mobile pump station.

To protect the mirrors and gratings from particle contamination, we introduce

a particle-free area 30 m around the sensitive items. For maintenance, this
segment can be separated by gate valves. All vacuum parts in the particle-
free area will only be handled or assembled in local cleanrooms class ISO 5
[21].

To protect the mirrors and gratings from particle contamination caused by

dust that could be present in the rest of the beamline, DN100 fast safety flap
valves (VAT, series 75) will be installed upstream the distribution mirrors. In
the unlikely event of an air inrush due to a massive leak or a broken vacuum
window, these valves close within milliseconds, followed by the closure of the
gate valves in the affected branch. This procedure ensures that the mirrors
are protected and that only one instrument of the individual beamline is
affected, while the other instrument remains operational.

Mechanical design
The vacuum beam transport system will be designed using all-metal sealed
flange connections of knife-edge type (according to ISO/TS 3669-2). All
materials used must be UHV-compatible [17].

Valves used to separate vacuum from atmosphere, like rough pumping

valves and venting valves, will be all-metal sealed gate valves; valves
separating different vacuum segments can be Viton-sealed.

Due to the limited access to the tunnel, the length of a single vacuum pipe is
limited to 6 m. In long segments without optical elements, for example
downstream of the distribution mirrors, we will apply on-site orbital welding for

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

108 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
up to 18 m long pipes to reduce cost, installation work, and the number of
potential leaks. The pipe dimensions generally used for the beam transport
system are 40 x 1.5 mm for DN40, 63.5 x 2 mm for DN63, and 104 x 2 mm
for DN100 pipes. In particular cases, like the beam separation after the
distribution mirrors, other pipe diameters or other shapes than round will be
used.

To minimize outgassing from drives, motor cabling, etc., and to increase the
system reliability, the drives will be placed outside the vacuum wherever it is
possible. The motion will be transferred into the vacuum chamber using
bellows and magnetically linked or magnetofluid-sealed feedthroughs.

The vacuum pipe supports are a flexible design consisting of a support head
holding the pipe, an 80 x 80 mm aluminium profile of variable length to allow
different distances between floor and beam axis, and a clamp which will be
bolted to the concrete floor, as shown in Figure 91. The supports are
adjustable in horizontal and vertical direction to allow easy alignment of the
beamline vacuum pipes. Matching the diameters of the different pipes used in
the beamline, they are available as loose bearing, fixed bearing, and a
combination of both.

Figure 91: Different pipe supports

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 109 of 164
Interfaces
The design of the interface to the linear accelerator was specified together
with WP19. The interface point will be a DN40 all-metal valve provided by
WP19 and controlled by WP73. It will have two sets of limit switches to be
read by both control systems. Further downstream, an ion pump and a
vacuum gauge from WP19 will be installed, followed by a fast safety valve
with one pair of sensors on each side, which closes within milliseconds in
case of an air inrush from either side.

Figure 92: Vacuum interface to the linear accelerator

The interface point to the instruments, as shown in Figure 93, will be a DN40
all-metal valve provided by WP73. Further downstream to the instruments, an
ion pump and a full-range vacuum gauge from WP73 will be installed to
gather information about the vacuum condition on the instrument side. An
aperture surrounded by two ion pumps, acting as a differential pump and an
optional RGA, will be mounted upstream the all-metal valve to observe
whether the vacuum conditions are impaired by the instruments.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

110 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 Figure 93: Vacuum interface to the instruments

Pressure profiles and pump failure analysis

A typical pressure profile for a 240 m long DN100 vacuum segment is shown
in Figure 94. The model assumes that the outgassing rate is
10-10 mbar l s-1 cm-2 and that both valves at the ends are closed. Every 30 m,
a 75 l/s ion pump is connected. The pressure dips at 1.4·10-7 mbar between
the parabolically shaped pressure profiles indicate the positions of the ion
pumps.

Figure 94: Pressure profile along a 240 m DN100 vacuum section

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 111 of 164
Studies were carried out about the behaviour of the vacuum system in which
one or more ion pumps or ion pump controllers fail. A 240 m long vacuum
section, equipped with 75 l/s ion pumps every 30 m, was simulated. The
section is made of DN100 stainless-steel pipes with CF flanges and copper
gaskets; the assumed outgassing rate from the steel surface is
1·10-10 mbar l s-1 cm-2. The failure of one to four ion pumps was simulated; the
results are shown in Figure 95.

Figure 95: Failure analysis of ion pumps in a 240 m long section

The graphs of the pressure profiles show that, in the worst case (four
adjacent pumps failing), there is a significant rise in pressure, but that the
maximum pressure is still in the 10-6 mbar range. However, only the pumps
adjacent to the failed pumps experience an increase in pressure; their base
pressure is still in the 10-7 mbar range, and the pumps are still operational.
The replacement of the affected pumps can be shifted a few months to the
next service period. Meanwhile, mobile pump stations can be connected to
the beamline to improve the vacuum conditions in the faulty section.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

112 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Gas attenuator at SASE3
To provide for an accurate variation of the beam intensity without modifying
the undulator configuration, a device for that purpose has been designed. To
eliminate any X-ray optical aberration, a windowless solution is compulsory.
This gas-cell attenuator (GCA) will be installed at the SASE3 beamline since
it is in the range from 270 eV to 3.5 keV where non-linear experiments of
particular interest result.

A reduction of the beam intensity is achieved by introducing a certain

pressure of gas into the cell. The attenuation is caused mainly by
photoabsortion phenomena, where the Lambert–Beer law is a reasonably
good approximation:

𝐼 = 𝐼0 𝑒 −𝜇𝜌𝑑

where I0 is the initial intensity, I is the intensity after the absorption process,
µ is the mass absorption coefficient, ρ is the material density, and d is the
considered attenuation path length. Since the system is directly connected to
the beamline, two symmetric differential pumping stages are included.

Design requirements

For the development of the GCA, some important constraints have been
taken into account. The maximum attenuation factor for the complete range of
energies has been set to 103. Since the pressure inside the active gas cell is
directly related to the capabilities of the differential pumping stages, a
maximum pressure of 15 mbar has been considered to fulfil the attenuation
requirements. The working gas is nitrogen for several reasons: Though it has
a relatively small photoabsorption cross section (especially at the higher end
of the considered energy range), a relatively high pressure is achievable by
the system. In addition, it is an inexpensive gas, so it does not need to be
recirculated or recovered.

However, to expand the range of applications of the GCA (i.e. avoiding the
“discontinuity” produced by the absorption peak of nitrogen around 400 eV or
being able to achieve higher levels of attenuation), some alternative noble
gases have also been included in the design process and could be used,

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 113 of 164
provided the infrastructure will be built: Xe, Ne, Kr, and Ar. Table 25
summarizes the main features the GCA device must fulfil.

Table 25: Summary of GCA main features

Parameter Value

Attenuation path 15 m

Working gas N2
-4
Working gas pressure range 10 to 15 mbar

Max. attenuation (I/I0) Up to 3 orders of magnitude

Admissible range of beam energy to 260 eV to 3.5 keV

achieve max. attenuation

However, the use of expensive noble gases makes it desirable to implement

a gas recirculation system, which is not planned in the current design.

Another important requirement is the size of the apertures in the differential

pumping stages: given the existing relation between the maximum
FWHM (mm) vs. E (eV) of the calculated beam width at the experiment
station, and including the 4σ condition plus some additional clearance to
absorb possible misalignments, apertures with a diameter of 25 mm have
been chosen. Such large apertures are a major challenge for the whole
design of the GCA, increasing the cost of the equipment since higher
pumping capabilities are required. Nevertheless, it has been foreseen that, in
a future upgrade, a discrete variable-aperture system will be compatible with
the current design. This is a very interesting option, especially when noble
gases (Xe, Ne, etc.) are used, since both the consumption and the throughput
of those gases to the rest of the beamline would be reduced dramatically.

For the dimensioning of the specific differential pumping stages used at the
GCA, a boundary condition for the pressure of 1·10-7 mbar after the last
aperture has been set: the transition upwards and downwards is compliant
with the average base pressure of the beamline, with the inclusion of two
respective ion pumps after the turbomolecular pumped section.

Finally, one further goal of the design process was to keep the system as
robust as possible, protecting from vacuum failures in the beamline and
reducing the fabrication and operation costs as much as possible.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

114 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Design and target performance

The mass absorption coefficient µ (cm2/g) depends on the “impinging” photon

energy, and, in the range of interest of the GCA device, it has been
demonstrated [22] that the absorption phenomena are dominated mainly by
photoabsorption. However, for some elements (H, Be, C, N, and O), Compton
(inelastic) scattering is significant at higher energies (above 8 keV).

The mass absorption coefficient is related to the transmitted intensity through

a material of density ρ (g/cm3) and thickness d by:

𝐼 = 𝐼0 𝑒 −𝜇𝜌𝑑

Thus, the linear absorption coefficient is µL (cm–1) = µρ. For a pure material,
the mass absorption coefficient is directly related to the total atomic
absorption cross section σa (cm2/atom) by the relation:

𝑁A
𝜇= 𝐴 𝑎
𝜎 ,

where NA is the Avogadro number, and A is the atomic weight.

Using the tabulated data from [22], one can see in Figure 96 the dependence
of the mass absorption coefficient on the beam energy for gases of interest.

Figure 96: X-ray photoabsorption mass absorption coefficient (µ/ρ in cm /g) for
2

selected gases

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 115 of 164
The active attenuation path length was set to 15 m. This decision was based
on the available space in the tunnel in addition to other considerations, such
as conductance estimations, required amount of gas, gas flow stability and
control, etc. Table 26 shows the range of pressures required to achieve the
foreseen level of attenuation for a selected group of gases.

Table 26: Pressure ranges at different levels of attenuation for a selection of gases

Pi(E) I/I0
-3 -2 -1
(mbar) 1·10 1·10 1·10

Pmax (2.9 keV) 26.2 17.7 8.7

N2
Pmin (0.2 keV) 5.0·10-1 3.3·10-2 1.7·10-2

Pmax (2.9 keV) 1.0 0.7 0.3

Xe
Pmin (0.2 keV) 1.2·10-1 8.2·10-2 4.1·10-2

Pmax (2.9 keV) 12.8 8.5 4.3

Gas

Ne
Pmin (0.2 keV) 2.3·10-1 1.5·10-1 7.6·10-2

Pmax (2.9 keV) 3.1 2.1 1.0

Kr
Pmin (0.2 keV) 5.5·10-2 3.7·10-2 1.8·10-2

Pmax (2.9 keV) 15.8 10.5 5.3

Ar
Pmin (0.2 keV) 4.1·10-1 2.9·10-1 1.5·10-1

The differential pumping (in a symmetric configuration) is achieved using a

set of four circular apertures of fixed diameter with an initial value of 25 mm.
This configuration defines three separate chambers or pumping stages, as
shown in Figure 97.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

116 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 97: Schematic diagram of the GCA setup

Each stage is connected to a turbomolecular pump with a nominal pumping

speed for nitrogen of 1200 l/s at room temperature.

As the first stage can be exposed to an excessive throughput of gas from the
gas cell, a throttle valve mechanism has been implemented. This feature has
some advantages: It allows the first pump to work protected from any
possible damage because of an excessive front pressure. Also, when using a
high pressure on the gas cell (i.e. > 1·10-1 mbar) and providing a choke flow
condition in the first aperture, a better stabilization on the pressure reduction
stages can be provided. Moreover, for those operating modes with molecular-
flow condition in the gas cell, the actuation of this throttle mechanism enables
a fine-tuning of the pressure in the active gas section.

After each differential pumping setup, an additional triode ion pump of

medium size has been included to minimize the throughput of used gas to the
rest of the beamline. As an example, it has been estimated that, in the case
of using up to 10 mbar of nitrogen in the gas cell, the system can keep a base
pressure at the ion pump below 8·10-8 mbar with a gas throughput to the
beamline inferior to 5·10-8 mbar·l/s. This value can be dramatically reduced
when using other gas alternatives: if a heavier gas, such as xenon, is used for
the highest beam energy range, providing its higher mass absorption
coefficient combined with a possible reduction in the first aperture size, the
current system is theoretically able to reduce this throughput of gas to an
almost negligible quantity without losing any feature and with a more-than-
probable enhancement of its performance. For this reason, a movable

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 117 of 164
aperture of 10 mm has been foreseen between the first stage and the active
gas section. Figure 98 shows a pictorial view of the actual GCA prototype.

Figure 98: Pictorial view of the GCA. The movable apertures are not shown here.

In both cases (25 mm apertures or less), the system is to be protected by

redundant safety measures, such as an upstream water-cooled B4C aperture
with a smaller diameter than the ones used in the differential pumping setup.
B4C static apertures in the differential pumping setup and in general are the
appropriate safety measures to avoid any catastrophic event in case of
misalignment of the beam.

Finally, for the introduction of the gas inside the GCA, a complete gas
manipulation and control system has been deployed (see Figure 99). It allows
precise control over a large range of throughput rates by means of the
sequential operation of up to three mass flow controllers. The current design
also makes available a purity check of the gas to be used before introducing it
into the GCA, vacuum-assisted cycle purge when changing the working gas,
and overpressure protection mechanisms in case of a general failure of the
system.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

118 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
 Figure 99: Schematic diagram of the gas entry, manipulation, and control module
setup

Differential pumping
Because of the windowless gas-based beam diagnostic devices, a differential
pumping before and after those elements is compulsory. Assuming a
maximum pressure of noble gas (i.e. xenon) of 5·10-4 mbar, an adaptive
differential pumping scheme with up to three stages has been foreseen. In
general, it can be compounded of up to two turbomolecular-pumped stages
plus an additional triode ion pump stage for a final pressure reduction.
Regarding the aperture size, its value will vary according to the biggest beam
size in every beamline. In any case, for the above-mentioned maximum noble
gas pressure, it is expected that the pressure after the last stage will be
smaller than 5·10-7 mbar to be compliant with the general base pressure of
the vacuum systems at the European XFEL. However, an additional
upstream cryopumping stage may be necessary (i.e. before the first gas-
based diagnostic device) if excessive partial pressures of noble gases are
found in the area surrounding the accelerator sector.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 119 of 164
Control system
The vacuum control system manages all vacuum-related devices at the
beamlines. It operates and monitors the beamline components and protects
them from being vented, it archives data, and it generates and sends alarm
messages. The control system is connected to the machine protection system
to disable linac operation if a vacuum component blocks the beam. A
graphical user interface allows straightforward handling. The software is
contributed by the DAQ and Control Systems group (WP76).

The following list shows the main components that are operated by the
vacuum control system:

 Vacuum pumps (scroll, turbo, getter ion, NEG)

 Vacuum gauges

 Gate valves, fast safety valves

 SASE3 gas attenuator

 Differential pumping units

 Residual gas analysers (RGA)

 Other sensors (temperature, air pressure, cooling water flow)

The control system itself consists of a central industrial PC and several

peripheral I/O terminals, distributed in the electronic racks in the tunnels, as
shown in Figure 100. The hardware used is produced by the company
Beckhoff Automation GmbH, Germany. The components in the individual
racks are linked by the EtherCAT bus system via copper cables or fibre
optical connections in a ring topology to obtain a redundant connection.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

120 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 100: Concept of the vacuum control system

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 121 of 164
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
122 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
7 Further beamline components

Apertures
To separate the FEL beam from the non-lasing part of the undulator
spectrum, spontaneous radiation apertures (SRAs) were presented
conceptually in CDR2011. In the meantime, a prototype was developed
(Figure 101) and produced (Figure 102). The blades consist of tungsten
blocks, which are protected by B4C blocks. This assembly is water-cooled
and held together by a spring mechanism (Figure 103). The technical
specifications can be found in EDMS under D*2022671.

Figure 101: Design of SRA prototypes (by Alca Technology Srl)

An in-vacuum test of the cooling efficiency of the SRAs was performed [29].
Using an aluminium dummy block with a heater installed, 250 W of heating
power was applied for 30 min. At an inlet water temperature of 6.5°C and a
water flow of 7 l/min, the water outlet temperature was 28.4°C. With a cooling
water temperature in the European XFEL photon tunnels of 22°C, the exit
water temperature should still remain below 50°C, even if the full beam load
hits a single blade.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 123 of 164
Figure 102: SRA prototypes

Figure 103: Clamping mechanism for B4C and tungsten blocks. The B4C block will be
tilted by 4–8° where it touches the beam in order to increase the damage tolerance.

A service stand was built that allows the testing of the SRAs in horizontal and
vertical geometry and allows the changing of the B4C and tungsten blades
(Figure 104).

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

124 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 104: Test and service stand for SRAs

The B4C blades are shown in Figure 105. They were polished to a roughness
of 0.04 μm and a maximum PV height of 0.2 μm.

In order to use the SRAs also as beam loss monitors (operation principle
similar to Figure 11), the surfaces exposed to the beam have to be coated
with a diamond layer; an optical mirror inside the vacuum can direct the
fluorescence light through the window flanges at the sides.

A design similar to that of the SRAs could be used as beam-defining slits and
beam loss monitors in front of each mirror. In this case, the tungsten block is
not needed and the B4C block could be made longer in order to allow a
shallower incidence angle. As seen in the ray-tracing plots, the horizontal
beam-defining slits need to have a larger stroke (60 mm) than the SRAs. For
the vertical exit slits of the SASE3 grating monochromator, the SRA design
could be used as well. In this case, the precision of the motion,
reproducibility, and edge quality of 1 μm have to be achieved.

Further tests of the UHV conditions and the motion system of the SRA
prototype are under way.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 125 of 164
 3
Figure 105: B4C blades (40 × 30 × 30 mm ) for the SRAs are produced by TISNCM
[30] with hot-pressing method.

Front ends and shutters

Concerning the front ends, a design similar to the PETRA III design can be
chosen since the radiation-shielding requirements for the spontaneous
radiation lead to comparable thicknesses of tungsten and lead. Also the
concept of burn-through absorbers will be applied. A schematic of a front end
towards the experiment hall is shown in Figure 106. The differences to the
PETRA III design are the B4C aperture and the power absorber (Figure 107),
which is made to withstand the FEL power up to Mode 3 operation. In Mode 4
(full-beam) operation, the machine has to be switched back to Mode 3 before
the shutter is closed (another option would be to open the undulator). Also,
the B4C power absorber must always be closed before the tungsten shutter,
which alone would not be able to withstand the FEL beam. This closing and
opening sequence has to be implemented and controlled by the personnel
interlock system (WP38).

The design of the tungsten shutter (Figure 108) will be identical to the
PETRA III design, except that the thickness of the tungsten (in the figure,
200 mm) will be adapted to the equivalent tungsten thickness of the concrete
labyrinth walls towards the experiment hall (around 80 mm) and the labyrinths
in the shaft buildings (200 mm or less).

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

126 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 106: Schematic front-end design for transition from photon tunnels to
experiment hall

The horizontal aperture of the front end in the shaft building XS3 (SASE1
before photon tunnel) has to be wider than shown in Figure 106. Because the
beam deflected after the two offset mirrors has a variable offset, a clear
aperture of 60 mm is required (see ray-tracing plots for SASE1 in
Appendix A).

Figure 107: Conceptual sketch for a beam power absorber. The beam comes from
the right and hits the B4C surface at 8° grazing incidence. The B4C is cooled from its
sides with copper bars, which are either welded or clamped to the B4C. At the back is
a copper piece with an air volume connected to the outside air, which functions as a
burn-through absorber.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 127 of 164
 Figure 108: Tungsten (densimet) shutter design by DESY FS-BT

Solid attenuators, Be CRLs

In the hard X-ray beamlines SASE1 and SASE2, solid attenuators will be
positioned in front of the offset mirrors. Their main purpose is for
commissioning and alignment because it can be expected that the
attenuators will create intensity distortions in the beam profile downstream in
the experiment hall. The attenuators will consist of 8–10 insertable water-
cooled carbon pieces of different thickness between 75 μm and 20 mm. A
possible distribution of thicknesses and materials is shown in Table 27.

With such a selection of attenuators, one can realize attenuation steps of

10 and 100 for energies between 3 and 24 keV. The single-crystal diamonds,
which typically have a size of only 5 mm, can be embedded into a CVD matrix
as shown in Figure 109.

The mechanical design has to satisfy particle-free UHV conditions, since it is

close to the offset mirrors. Also, an elevated radiation background from
Compton scattering at the attenuators can be expected.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

128 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Table 27: Thicknesses and materials of the solid attenuators

Thickness [mm] Material Diameter [mm]

20 Graphite 30

10 Graphite 30

5 CVD polycryst. diamond 30

2.5 CVD polycryst. diamond 30

1.25 CVD polycryst. diamond 30

0.6 CVD single cryst. 5 + CVD matrix diam. 30

0.3 CVD single cryst. 5 + CVD matrix diam. 30

0.150 CVD single cryst. 30

0.075 CVD single cryst. 30

Figure 109: Single-crystal diamonds embedded in a polycrystalline matrix (produced

by Diamond Materials GmbH, Freiburg, with HPHT2-type crystals from Element Six)

The attenuators will not be able to withstand full pulse train operation in beam
Mode 4, but rather define, together with the B4C apertures, the conditions of
beam Mode 3. Therefore, the actuators have to be interlocked to the
equipment protection system.

Downstream of the solid attenuators, ports for beryllium compound refractive

lenses (CRLs) are foreseen. The agreement with the FXE and MID
instruments is that the UHV vessel and actuators will be the responsibility of
WP73, while the CRLs themselves have to be chosen and procured by the
instrument groups. The CRLs are used to collimate or slightly focus the
beam, so that cutoff effects at the distribution mirrors can be avoided and the
beam size at the experiments can be controlled also in the vertical plane.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 129 of 164
 Without the use of CRLs, the second adaptive offset mirror can be used to
collimate or focus the beam; however, this leads to an astigmatism, which is
undesirable if microfocusing is also done by rotationally symmetric CRLs, as
in the FXE and MID instruments (see the corresponding instrument CDRs
and TDRs). The effects of wavefront distortions from CRLs at large distances
are subject of current experiments and simulations.

The mechanical design of the CRL chamber can be very close to existing
designs for synchrotron radiation. All lenses need to be water-cooled and
B4C apertures have to be included in the mounting scheme so that no metal
can be hit directly by the FEL beam.

Diagnostics
Several kinds of diagnostic devices are developed by the X-ray Photon
Diagnostics group (WP74) and placed in the beam transport system. These
are in particular:

 Gas-based beam intensity monitors (XGMDs)

 Gas-based beam position monitors (XBPMs)

 Gas-based photoemission spectrometers (PES) for spectral analysis

 Pop-in monitors and imagers for alignment and general beam diagnostics

 K monochromators for undulator tuning

 Micro-channel plate (MCP) detectors

The gas-based devices run typically with a Xe pressure of 1·10-4–5·10-4 mbar

and require differential pump stations to interface with the UHV vacuum of the
beam transport. Therefore, the gas-based devices are placed at sections of
the beam transport where the beam positions change not too much: either
before the offset mirrors or at the end of the photon tunnels.

The PES might require different choices of gases, depending on the target
energy range. Currently R&D activities in WP74 are ongoing that explore the
usable parameter space of these devices.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

130 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
The pop-in monitors and imagers work typically on a 10 Hz basis (Mode 1)
since different scintillators are used and water cooling will most likely not be
implemented.

The K monochromators are silicon channel-cuts that are used to calibrate the
gap (K value) of individual undulator segments. Since the measurement
method requires seeing a cone of the spontaneous radiation, a large beam
aperture is desired for these devices. At SASE3, the tuning will be done at
higher harmonics of the undulator.

The MCP detectors are situated behind the offset mirrors and are able to see
either the direct beam or the beam deflected by one or two offset mirrors.
Their main purpose is to provide accurate relative intensity information during
the SASE tuning; however, they might also be useful for other diagnostic
tasks like monitoring the reflectivity and diffuse scattering from the offset
mirrors. The MCPs can be damaged even in single-pulse operation for high
pulse energies. Therefore, special care has to be taken during the operation
of these devices.

An overview of the diagnostic devices being developed by WP74 is found in:

 CDR: Framework for X-ray Photon Diagnostics at the European XFEL

(EDMS D*2851121)

 CDR: The European XFEL Undulator Commissioning Spectrometer

(K-mono) (EDMS D*1940181)

 CDR of MCP based detector (EDMS D*2850921)

Further information is posted on the WP74 documents website:

www.xfel.eu/project/organization/work_packages/wp_74/documents

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 131 of 164
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
132 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
8 CAD integration

To identify collisions with tunnel walls and infrastructure installations,

simplified placeholder models are generated for all parts of the beam
transport systems and placed in a facility-wide CAD model. This is divided
into “CAD rooms” to keep the amount of elements in each model manageable
(Figure 110).

Figure 110: CAD integration model XDT2, Room 9

Several CAD rooms can be looked at together and virtual walk-throughs,

cuts, and measurements are also possible with a viewer program.
Coordinates for each CAD room are available in the “BO-Liste” (EDMS
D*496900) and linked to the two coordinate systems for the European XFEL,
the LA and the PD system (EDMS D*497635).

The placeholder models in the CAD rooms for the photon transport systems
are updated every six months and relate to the component list, which is
updated at the same time (EDMS D*2278111). A description of the CAD
integration process for the photon beamlines can be found at
www.xfel.eu/publications. The facility-wide CAD model is managed by DESY
IPP, and collisions are checked on a regular base.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 133 of 164
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
134 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
9 Installation schedule

The top-level milestones of the project are posted on the European XFEL
website under www.xfel.eu/project/construction_milestones. The current
milestones relevant for the beam transport system are listed below.
Date Milestone

30 June 2015 Linac tunnel closed

31 August 2015 SASE1 instruments ready for beam

30 September 2015 First beam to XS1 dump

30 September 2015 XTDs 2, 4, 9, and 10 closed (SASE1 and SASE3 tunnels)

15 October 2015 Beam to XSDU2

15 December 2015 First lasing SASE1 possible

31 December 2015 XTDs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7,and 8 closed (SASE2 tunnels)

15 January 2016 Beam to XSDU1

31 January 2016 First lasing SASE3 possible, instrument ready

31 March 2016 Start of user operation

31 July 2016 All beamlines in user operation

December 2017 Extended beam delivery (full performance)

The installation of the photon beamlines follows the installation of water and
electricity in the tunnels and should start at the beginning of 2014 with the
XTD2 tunnel (SASE1) according to the actual planning. The last tunnel
(XTD6, SASE2) is accessible for beam transport installation in spring 2015.
According to the top-level milestones, 6–20 months for beam transport
installations are available for each tunnel. The installation will be done by the
WP73 vacuum team in collaboration with contractors and the DESY groups
responsible for transportation (WP33), survey and alignment (WP32), and
infrastructure (WP34). In 2013, most items required for the tunnel installation,
as well as the long-lead items (mirror substrates) will have to be ordered.
Also, decisions based on prototyping should be made in the first half of 2013.
A more detailed project plan is shown in Appendix C.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 135 of 164
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
136 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
10 Summary and outlook

The issues we consider the most critical today for the beam transport
systems are the performance and availability of sufficiently good mirrors and
gratings for the photon distribution system and the soft X-ray monochromator,
including the necessary cooling. Apart from that, stability with respect to
vibrations, thermal drifts, and heat load effects are important for mirrors and
monochromators, due to the lengths of the beam transport systems and to
the pulsed beam load. Another big organizational challenge is the
implementation of the 2.5 km long vacuum system and its build-up in the
tunnels.

Besides these “known problems”, there are issues that are difficult to assess
today: What will be the side effects of the powerful pulse trains to the coatings
of optics, like fatigue, carbon or other depositions on mirrors? What kinds of
vibrations do the pulse trains induce? Will the accelerator run stably enough
to allow thermal equilibration of mirrors and monochromators to achieve the
performances we calculate? How will the beam typically be used by the
experiments and in which scientific directions will the availability of high-
repetition rate X-ray FELs lead? And finally: In which directions will FEL
technology go with seeding, after-burner technology, and polarization control?

Right in between falls the questions of operating conditions, which we tried to

address in Chapter 2, “Operation and safety”. The multi-user operation of the
European XFEL adds complexity, compared to single-user FELs or storage
rings, and will lead to crosstalk between experiments during scheduling and
operation. The goal of further detailed design of the beam transport systems
should be not to add to this complexity by defining more beam modes, but to
choose a design that fits into the already defined envelopes of Mode 3 and 4
operation. Here, the concept of beam loss monitors might help to reduce the
usage of beam modes, if it can be implemented successfully and reliably in
the early commissioning and operation phase, so that the beam transport can
as much as possible run in Mode 4 conditions.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 137 of 164
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
138 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
A Ray-tracing plots

Ray-tracing plots for the beam transport systems SASE1, SASE2, and
SASE3 and each port are shown in the horizontal and vertical geometry on
the next 12 pages. Certain apertures and dimensions are likely to change in
the technical discussions leading towards a mechanical design of the beam
transport systems: the apertures for the differential pumping units and the gas
absorber are going to be reduced as much as possible in order to keep the
gas flows low. As discussed in the section on the gas attenuator, reduced
apertures that move in and out of the beam are possible, or fixed apertures
that move together with XBPMs and XGMDs in the gas diagnostics sections
in order to ensure optimal performance of these devices.

The apertures important for radiation safety (shown in black) can only be
changed in agreement with the radiation safety group at DESY.

PDF files and Word documents for the current ray-tracing plots can be
downloaded from EDMS D*3004861.

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 139 of 164
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
140 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 111: Ray tracing for SASE1, SPB experiment (horizontal plane)

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 141 of 164
Figure 112: Ray tracing for SASE1, SPB experiment (vertical plane)

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

142 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 113: Ray tracing for SASE1, FXE experiment (horizontal plane)

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 143 of 164
Figure 114: Ray tracing for SASE1, FXE experiment (vertical plane)

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

144 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 115: Ray tracing for SASE2, MID experiment (horizontal plane)

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 145 of 164
Figure 116: Ray tracing for SASE2, MID experiment (vertical plane)

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

146 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 117: Ray tracing for SASE2, HED experiment (horizontal plane)

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 147 of 164
Figure 118: Ray tracing for SASE2, HED experiment (vertical plane)

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

148 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 119: Ray tracing for SASE3, SQS experiment (horizontal plane)

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 149 of 164
Figure 120: Ray tracing for SASE3, SQS experiment (vertical plane)

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

150 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Figure 121: Ray tracing for SASE3, SCS experiment (horizontal plane)

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 151 of 164
Figure 122: Ray tracing for SASE3, SCS experiment (vertical plane)

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

152 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
B Related documentation

 For some of the documents in “EDMS”, a login is required.

The following documents provide additional technical documentation:

 “CDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport” (EDMS D*2081421)

 “UHV Guidelines for X-Ray Beam Transport Systems”

 “CAD Integration Guidelines for Photon Beamline Components”

 “Beam transport component list” (EDMS D*2278111)

 “List with electrical rack configuration” (EDMS D*2911041)

 “Ray tracing plots” (EDMS D*3004861)

 “Specification Spontaneous Radiation Apertures (SRA)”

(EDMS D*2022671)

 “Heat load calculations for SRAs (EDMS D*2004661)

 “Specifications for chamber for horizontal mirror (CHOM)”

(EDMS D*3004041)

 “Bachelor thesis Jens Linnemann” (EDMS D*2597021)

 “Report FEA on mirrors” (EDMS D*1964541, D*2029231)

 “Vibration measurements in the XTD1 tunnel”

 “CDR: Framework for X-Ray Photon Diagnostics” (EDMS D*2851121)

 “CDR for K-mono for undulator tuning” (EDMS D*1940181)

 “CDR for MCP based detector” (EDMS D*2850921)

 “‘’BO-Liste’ with coordinate systems for CAD rooms” (EDMS D*496900)

 “LA and PD coordinate systems for XFEL” (in German, EDMS D*497635)

 “Coordinate Systems for the Beam Distribution Systems”

September 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

153 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
154 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
C Project plan

September 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-003

155 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
156 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012
TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 157 of 164
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
158 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012
TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 159 of 164
December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006
160 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
References

[1] H. Sinn et al.: “Conceptual Design Report: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport”,
XFEL.EU TR-2011-002 (2011)
[2] T. Leitner et al.: “Shot-to-shot and average absolute photon flux measurement of a
femtosecond laser high-order harmonic photon source”, New Journal of Physics 13,
093003 (2011)
[3] R. Brinkmann, E.A. Schneidmiller, M.V. Yurkov, “Possible Operation of the European
XFEL with Ultra-Low Emittance Beams”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 616, 81 (2010).
[4] J. Gaudin et al.: “Amorphous to crystalline phase transition in carbon induced by intense
femtosecond x-ray free-electron laser pulse”, Physical Review B 86, 024103 (2012)
[5] J. Gaudin et al: “Investigating the interaction of x-ray free electron laser radiation with
laminar grating structure”, Optics Letters, 37, 3033–3035, 15 (2012)
[6] S. Rutishauser et al.: "Exploring the wavefront of hard x-ray laser radiation", Nature
Communications 3, 947, DOI: 10.1038/ncomm1950 (2012)
[7] S. Berujon et al, Physical Review Letters 108, 158102 (2012).
[8] F. Siewert, et al.: “Ultra-precise characterization of LCLS hard Xray focusing mirrors by
high resolution slope measuring deflectometry”, Optics Express 20, 4525, 4 (2012)
[9] T. Noll, K. Holldack, G. Reichardt, et al.: “Parallel kinematics for nanoscale Cartesian
motions”, Precision Engineering 33 , 291–304 (2009)
[10] Patents:
WO 02/16092 A1: “Device for Multi-Axis fine Adjustable Bearing of a Component”,
T. Noll, W. Gudat, H. Lammert, 2001
DE 100 42 801.0: “Flexibles Gelenk hoher axialer Steifigkeit”, T. Noll, W. Gudat, (2000)
DE 200 15 988.7: “Spindelantrieb zur hochgenauen Positionierung eines linear zu
verschiebenden Bauteils”, T. Noll, H. Lammert, W. Gudat, (2000)
[11] T. Noll: “Flexure Joints of High Axial Stiffness”, Precision Engineering 26, 460–465
(2002)
[12] T. Noll, “Elastische parallelkinematische Führungsgetriebe für ultrapräzise Bewegungen
im Vakuum", PhD thesis, Technical University Berlin (2003)
[13] J. Linnemann, Bachelor thesis, Universität Emden (2011)
[14] M.D. Roper, NIMA, A635 S80–S87 (2011)
[15] M.R. Howells, “X-ray Data Booklet”, Chapter 4.3, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, xdb.lbl.gov (2008)
[16] R. Soufli et al.: “Development and calibration of mirrors and gratings for the soft x-ray
materials science beamline at the LCLS free-electron laser”, Applied Optics, 51 (2012)
[17] M. Dommach: “UHV Guidelines for X-Ray Beam Transport Systems”,
XFEL.EU TN-2011-001-02 (2011)
[18] J. Bahrdt, U. Flechsig S. Gerhard, I. Schneider, PHASE: “A Universal Software Package
for the Propagation of Time-Dependent Coherent Light Pulses along Grazing Incidence
Optics”, Proc. of SPIE, 8141 81410E-1 (2011)

September 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

161 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
[19] L. Samoylova, et al.: “Requirements on hard x-ray grazing incidence optics for
European XFEL: analysis and simulation of wavefront transformations”, SPIE
Proceedings, 7360, EUV and X-Ray Optics: Synergy between Laboratory and Space,
R. Hudec; L. Pina, Editors, 73600E (2009) DOI: 10.1117/12.822251
[20] F. Siewert: Private communication (2011)
[21] ISO 14644-1 cleanroom standard
[22] B.L. Henke, E.M., Gullikson, J.C. Davis: “X-Ray Interactions: Photoabsorption,
Scattering, Transmission, and Reflection at E = 50-30,000 eV, Z = 1-92”, Atomic Data
and Nuclear Data Tables, 54, 181–342, 2
[23] A. Madsen, at al.: “Conceptual Design Report: Scientific Instrument MID”,
XFEL.EU TR-2011-008 (2011)
[24] Ch. Bressler et al.: “Conceptual Design Report: Scientific instrument FXE”,
XFEL.EU TR-2011-005 (2011)
[25] X.R.Vision 2.0 is a simulation program for X-ray sources and optics and SpotX a
program for ray tracing. Both were developed by Caminotec (Thierry Moreno
<[email protected]>, +33-0145841171). They are similar to the
widely used programs of XOP/ShadowVUI.
[26] S. Narayanan, A. Sandy, D. Shu et al.: “Design and performance of an ultra-high-
vacuum compatible artificial channel-cut monochromator”, J. Synchrotron Rad. 15, 12–
18 (2008)
[27] D. Shu, Narayanan, A. Sandy, et al.: “Precision mechanical design of an UHV-
compatible artificial channel-cut X-ray monochromator”, Proc. SPIE 6665, 66650O-1
(2007)
[28] D. Shu T.S. Toellner, E.E. Alp, US Patent granted No. 6,607,840 (2003)
[29] Test report from manufacturer ALCA technology, s.r.l
[30] TISNCM –Technological Institute for Superhard and Novel Carbon Materials
http://www.ntcstm.troitsk.ru/en/about.html

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

162 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport
Acknowledgements

Apart from those listed in the author list, other people from WP73 contributed
material to this TDR: Idoia Freijo, Antje Trapp, Nicole Kohlstrunk, Jens
Linnemann, Germano Galasso, Tommaso Molaro, Jérôme Gaudin, Alexander
Bartmann, Timo Korsch, Bianca Dickert, Massimiliano de Felice, and Shafagh
Dastjani Farahani. Special thanks also to Tino Noll from HZB for the
development of the prototype mirror chamber, Deming Shu from Argonne
National Laboratory for the development of the hard X-ray monochromator,
Riccardo Signorato from Bruker ASC for the ongoing development of the
adaptive mirror prototype and many discussion about possible and impossible
X-ray mirrors, Rolf Follath from HZB for ray-tracing calculations, guidance,
and discussions during the development of the soft X-ray monochromator,
Frank Siewert for discussions on mirror and grating specifications and the
provision of metrology data, and Igor Kozhevnikov from IC RAS, Moscow, for
discussions and contributions concerning roughness effects.

Thanks to people from European XFEL who stimulated with many fruitful
discussions the developments described here in the TDR and contributed
with corrections in the manuscript: Thomas Tschentscher, Serguei Molodtsov,
Jan Grünert and his group members, the instrument scientists Adrian
Mancuso, Christian Bressler, Michael Meyer, Anders Madsen and Andreas
Scherz and their group members, Chris Youngman, Nicola Coppola, and
Tobias Haas. Thanks to Kurt Ament and Ilka Flegel for editing the manuscript.

Thanks to colleagues from DESY who were and are involved in many
discussions concerning the interfaces and technical realization: Sven
Lederer, Martin Staak, Winfried Decking, Dirk Noelle, Albrecht Leuschner,
Brunhilde Racky, Kai Rehlich, Johannes Prenting, Jens-Peter Jensen and
Norbert Meyners.

Thanks to the ART committee for valuable input during the CDR and TDR
reviews: Christian Schroer, Edgar Weckert, John Arthur, Rolf Follath, Timm
Weitkamp, Aymeric Robert, Horst Schulte-Schrepping, and Ray Barrett.
Finally, our thanks go to the European XFEL management and all other

XFEL.EU TR-2012-006 December 2012

TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport 163 of 164
European XFEL and DESY employees not mentioned explicitly for creating a
pleasant working atmosphere.

December 2012 XFEL.EU TR-2012-006

164 of 164 TDR: X-Ray Optics and Beam Transport