CLIC Permanent Magnet Quadrupole Engineering Development Norbert Collomb, STFC Daresbury Laboratory 1N. Collomb 2/07/2010

CLIC Permanent Magnet Quadrupole Revisit points from last meeting Engineering specification Principle evaluation Schematics for 3 options Model 5.53 for smaller envelope Discussion with manufacturers and suppliers Automation for high volume production Next steps –Detail design of one or two options –Finite Element Analysis to predict performance compliance –Programme Summary N. Collomb 2/07/2010 2

Previous meeting points Movement principles – Linear Motion Ball screw system Option 5.19 to be developed further Confirmation of envelope (supply of CAD info for module to corroborate constraints) Revisit existing design according to above point Manufacturer discussion –Motor –Gearbox –Backlash coupling –Ball Screw and Nut –PM material and manufacture Specifications for components above Integration of components into CAD model and CAD QA Next steps N. Collomb3 2/07/2010

Option 5.19 previous Schematic N. Collomb4 60mm position (approx. 30T/m) 60mm from full gradient position 2/07/2010 Linear Actuator or Screw-jack “Faceplate” to hold yokes in position Permanent Magnet (black) Linear Friction strips “Support pillars”

Option 5.19 previous summary Can be made to fit into specified envelope (just). Then ‘Current’ design indicates height as 526mm and width as 410mm Mechanism design is being revised as we speak (done, need validation) First indications: –Requires independent halves (we assume this is still the case) –Two linear actuators or jack screws essential (jack screws not sufficiently accurate and force design to exceed envelope) –Requires linear encoder to provide feedback for synchronisation (can be eliminated using Stepper motors) –PM enclosure contains bearing system to eliminate 5 D.O.F. Still applicable The solution currently under investigation needs careful design The design must definitely be validated by Finite Element Analysis and prototyping Despite being mechanically more challenging than solutions 5.21 and 5.20, the magnetic characteristics favour this solution. Decided to pursue this option further. N. Collomb 2/07/2010 5

N. Collomb 2/07/ MB QUAD ACCELER. STRUCTURE (BRAZED DISKS) RF DISTRIBUTION GIRDER CRADLE VACUUM MANIFOLDS ALIGNMENT SYSTEM BEAM INSTRUMENTATION DB QUAD COOLING CIRCUITS RF LOAD PETS ( OCTANTS, MINI-TANK ) RF SPLITTER W/ CHOKE- MODE FLANGE Drive beam 100 A PETS ON-OFF MECHANISM Main beam ~1 A WAKE- FIELD MONITOR Module CAD Info image

N. Collomb 2/07/ Option 5.19 current Schematic Gearbox (Planetary) Stepper motor Backlash coupling Ball Screw Ball Screw Nut (preloaded) Faceplate with Linear Cross Roller bearing preload features Linear Cross Roller Bearing system Height: 466 mm Width: 340 mm Length: 270mm

N. Collomb 2/07/ Option 5.19 current Schematic Magnet Aperture Ø28 mm Aluminium Support Pillars fastened to yoke Face-plate fastening holes Diamond dowelSplit line, top - bottom Permanent Magnet moving up and down to adjust field ‘Cantilever’ arm bonded to PM 75 mm max. 25 mm

Engineering Specification Sufficient info to discuss specification with manufacturer Static Force of 3.2 kN to overcome Stroke of 75 mm Accuracy from CERN document and Ben’s gradient graph equates to 15 μm repeatability, including ‘creep’ and ‘backlash’. Motor should operate on 12/24V DC preferably and be of the Stepper type using 400 true steps per revolution, mounting with flange or collar. Gearbox should be low or preferably no backlash type (Planetary preferred) and the ratio in conjunction with the motor accuracy and lead screw pitch has been worked out to be 30:1 The Ball screw and Nut need to be pre-loaded and the accuracy to C1 over the stroke length. The forces in the system indicate a diameter of 16 mm with a 5 mm lead (pitch). Validation required via FEA. Envelope constraints for drive system: length 255, width 135 and depth 55 mm Materials of low magnetic permeability are to be used where possible and plastics need to be radiation resistant if absolutely needed. Stepper motors use permanent magnets and we need to evaluate their influence on the field of the Quad and function of the motor. N. Collomb 29/04/2010 9

Principle Evaluation Version 5.19 schematic fits inside envelope Envelope: 391 (W) x 471 (H) x 270 (L) mm Movement range covers 120 – 7% requirement, provided we use a family of three, i.e. 120 – 49%, 93 – 28% and 66% - 7% Accuracy can be achieved (pending feedback from manufacturer) Repeatability depends on home position, must provide map of position vs field Synchronisation not as much an issue as initially thought N. Collomb 29/04/

Schematic for 3 options Family of three range, –120 – 49%, –93 – 28% and –66% - 7% Achievable by reduction in length Components remain the same (provisional) Height and width remain the same (provisional) Accuracy and repeatability remain the same (assumed) Synchronisation equally (in)sensitive across range Map required with range adjusted accordingly. N. Collomb 29/04/

5.53 Model for smaller envelope N. Collomb 29/04/ Height: 390 mm Width: 340 mm Length: 270mm Ferromagnetic Steel enclosure with 20mm thickness walls

5.53 Model for smaller envelope N. Collomb 29/04/ Least gradient position 45mm Maximum gradient position Permanent Magnet moves as per Option 5.19

Manufacturer and supplier discussions N. Collomb 2/07/ Magnet manufacturer discussion’s have continued and we are expecting information on queries very soon. Especially on the latest development for the PM Quadrupole.

N. Collomb 29/04/ Manufacturer and supplier discussions Linear motion system: As per specification in previous slide, we had invited a manufacturer to supply the following components: 1.Motor (advice was provided on Stepper and Servo motor) 2.Gearbox (manufacturer recommended Planetary system based on requirements) 3.Backlash coupling (not usually supplied by manufacturer, but may be build in) 4.Ball Screw and Nut (discussed accuracy and repeatability – will provide advice from HQ engineers) 5.Brake (it is envisaged to incorporate this in the motor/gearbox) The manufacturer has been requested to provide a cost effective solution and look at ‘off-the-shelf solutions first. The brake has a double function in terms of ‘creep’ and fail safety. Information has been requested from their head office engineers. Should we pursue solution 5.19 (5.53) then the effects of the PM material in the Quad on the Stepper motor (and vice versa) need to be investigated further. Radiation is an unknown for the manufacturer, however they are investigating this in general terms at their head office.

Automation for high volume production (unchanged) Draw up manufacturing and assembly process flow chart Identify areas that can be automated Design of jigs and fixtures to assemble components Design Quality Control process and required hardware for testing Establish safe working procedures N. Collomb 2/07/

Next steps: Design Complete system schematic for solution 5.19 (complete) (Re-)Evaluate magnet design and decide on one or two solutions (complete) Develop the solution(s) in detail Carry out Finite Element Analysis to evaluate and validate component and assembly stresses remain within acceptable limits Complete detail design and carry out cost analysis –A summer student has commenced work on Expected design duration: 4 months (includes new mechanism design for new quad option) N. Collomb 2/07/

Next steps: Manufacture Request quotes from manufacturers Discuss process if required and associated tolerances (in progress) Agree price and lead times Discuss possibility of supplying part assemblies (in progress) Expected manufacturing duration: 6 months N. Collomb 2/07/

Next steps: Assembly Assemble manufactured components Analyse assembly process and identify automation processes Write assembly procedure Identify jigs and fixtures required for assembly process Expected assembly duration: 2 months N. Collomb 2/07/

Next steps: Testing Identify required instruments and measurement equipment (manual and automated) Measure magnetic characteristics Measure mechanical tolerances Specify ‘Go and No-Go’ criteria Mark up any deviation for installation purposes Rework or adjust if required Create map of position versus field strength Expected testing duration: 3 months Prototype completion expected within: 15 months N. Collomb 2/07/

CLIC PM Quadrupole summary Solutions exist – need to decide on one to develop in more detail James Richmond (Summer student) may help in reducing the design time. He is competent in CAD and with guidance can provide design suggestions/solutions. Part of his appointment is the task of carrying out the Finite Element Analysis of components and assemblies to validate the design. Solution(s) need to be validated through analysis and ultimately prototype(s) Time scale: –Design: 4 months (unchanged, pending version decision) –Manufacture: 6 months –Assembly: 2 months –Testing: 3 months –Total: 15 months Procedures and processes (automation) need to be established for mass production Cost analysis for manufacture, assembly and testing as primary contributor needs to be carried out Commissioning, Installation, Maintenance and operation costs can be estimated as secondary overall contributor N. Collomb 2/07/