MQXFB Plan for mechanical alignment measurements J.C Perez On behalf of MQXF collaboration team Special thanks to Jose Ferradas for his contribution MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA CERN 2-4 February 2016

OUTLINE  General MQXF alignment concepts  Experience from MQXFSD2 measurements  MQXFB magnets measurements: what, when and how?  What to do for MQXFB magnets assembly?  Summary and open points February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 3

MQXF alignment: general concept February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 4 Alignment of the assembly is defined by the following fixtures / interactions 1.Coils – Collars alignment 2.Collars – Pads alignment 3.Pads – Yoke alignment 4.Yoke – Shell alignment

Coils to collars alignment February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 5 1. Each coil angular position is defined by a pole alignment key

Collars to pads alignment February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 6 2. Alignment given by key fixture & pad profile

Pads to Yoke alignment February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 7 3. Alignment given by Master, Pad & Master Key

Yoke to shell alignment February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 8 4. Alignment made with pins 4 alignment pins

What do we learnt from MQXFD2 mechanical structure measurements? February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 9 Concept: Analysis of the structure alignment using mechanical measurements performed with a Laser Tracker (LEICA LTD 500). The magnet measurement can be performed from both sides using multiple measuring stations. Objective: Localize the position of the different magnet components with a accuracy < 0.1 mm Limitations: Some areas are not accessible and difficult to probe. Some require special tooling not available yet (ex. dedicated mole for magnet bore measurement). LTD500 accuracy is 10 ppm. Procedure: Analysis performed over different stages during magnet structure assembly

Coils measurements (1/3) February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 10 Device: CMM Portable Arm (Faro Arm Edge 2.7) Support: Support for MQXFS coil measurement Position: Gravity working against banana shape deformation Reference: Simplified CAD model (solid defining external coil shape) Analysis: Based on individual cross section analysis to rid of banana shape deformation Objective: Dimensional check to define the mid-plane deviation with respect to the nominal CAD model Application: Shimming plan definition for coil-pack assembly

Coils measurements (2/3) February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 11 1.General geometry of the coil is measured 2.Measured coil is aligned to the nominal CAD 3.Cross sections are probed at pre-defined y axis location 4.Each cross section is individually aligned Probed points are far from nominal position due to banana shape Each Cross Section is individually aligned to OD and key Deviations are obtained comparing nominal and real coil profile

Coils measurements (3/3) February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 12 The analysis is performed on each mid-plane (left/right) at pre-defined y axis location Each mid-plane is defined as a best fitted line Estimated deviation = Perpendicular distance from nominal to measured mid-point Estimated Mid-plane deviation

Coils measurements: Results February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 13 Presented in a control report: General information: coil length, mid-planes angle, key width… Mid-plane deviation of each cross section Average deviation for coil left/right mid-plane

Coils measurements comparison February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 14 Average values of each coil mid-plane deviation are used to define the shimming plan for coil-pack assembly On-going work: Comparing results obtained using Faro arm at different locations Comparison between Faro arm measurement results w.r.t CERN metrology laboratory CMM CMM FARO Arm First results show good agreement

Shell & Yoke measurements February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 15

Coil pack measurement and analysis February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 16

Magnet axis measurement and analysis February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 17 Magnet bore considered as reference

Magnet axe measurement MQXFSD3 mechanical structure assembled using Al dummy coils will be used to confirm alignment accuracy addressed during magnet design Combined magnetic and mechanical axis measurements will be required to define real coil shape when assembled in the magnet structure. A dedicated mole has to be designed and built to measure it. February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 18 Example of existing mole developed for LHC magnets

Mechanic vs Magnetic axis February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 19 Courtesy of J. Garcia

To be considered Model coils will be equipped with strain gauges and temperature compensators installed in the magnet bore An alignment system between the coil poles and the cold bore tube has to be designed to insure the concentricity of the CBT w.r.t to the magnet bore For models and prototype magnet, a smaller CBT, than the final foreseen to be installed in LHC (Inner Ø 139 /outer Ø 147 mm) can be used to avoid interference with the strain gauges (6 mm radius clearance: External Ø 138. Fabrication of 2 different moles may be required) February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 20

MQXFB magnet measurements What, when and how? February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 21 Yoke & shell modules Yoke & shell assembly Magnet assembly Coil-pack assembly Individual coils ¼ yoke Shell Single component Metrology report

Mechanic vs Magnetic axis February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 22 1.CS defined with magnetic axis. Method to be used for prototypes 2.CS defined with mechanical axis, if the CBT axe can be considered as magnet mechanical centre. In this case a coordinate system can be built-up using the shell cut-outs to access the vertical ¼ yokes as reference The laser tracker LTD500 will be replaced by AT-402 or AT-930. Axyz software can be substituted by Spatial Analyser. = = z y X

What to do for MQXFB magnets? Mechanical alignment accuracy addressed during magnet design still to be confirmed on a long structure Prototype magnet will be used to quantify mechanical structure alignment accuracy (coils will be equipped with stain gauges: need of smaller cold bore tube as per model magnets and dedicated mole) Combined magnetic and mechanical measurements will be required to define coil axe An alignment system between the coil poles and the cold bore tube has to be designed to insure the concentricity of the coil aperture w.r.t to the cold bore tube Warm magnetic measurements to be performed on coil-pack assembly to early identify assembly issues by non allowed harmonics detection Measurements to be performed on series magnet using final cold bore geometry Magnet measurement to be performed at the end of assembly operation February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 23

Summary and open questions (1/2) Laser tracker AT-930 with Spatial analyser software seems to be a good option to measure long magnet components according to a comparative study between Faro arm and Leica laser tracker performed by Michela Semeraro Measurement accuracy 10 ppm can be improved by using multiple measuring stations Mechanical alignment accuracy addressed during magnet design still to be confirmed on a long structure No straightening action has been foreseen inside the shrinking cylinder segments during the cold mass assembly phase. What should we do if the magnets are not straight? What is our alignment budget? – How is it distributed between final positioning, cryostating, cold mass assembly, magnet construction, installation team, survey…. Combined measurements between magnetic and mechanical axes requires a dedicated mole development – Correlation between magnet magnetic and mechanical centre to be studied February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 24

Summary and open questions (2/2) An alignment system between the poles and the cold bore tube has to be designed to insure the concentricity of the beam pipe w.r.t to the coils and able to support the beam-screen ( ≈ 300kg/m. Same for orbit corrector magnets MCBXFB during cold mass assembly) MQXFB handling tooling has to be carefully studied in order to maintain alignment between the different segments and sections in order to minimise shear and bending in the coils In case of transport, transport frame rigidity to be addressed according to the experience on LHC Insertion Region Magnets Magnet geometry to be mapped before and during cold-mass assembly (in particular when the magnet has been stored for a long time or transported) February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 25

February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 26 The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme 7 Capacities Specific Programme, Grant Agreement Thank you for your attention

Back-up slides February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 27

Comparison February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 28 + Comparison between Leica laser tracker and faro arm and between the Metrology Software Spatial Analyzer and Polyworks Courtesy Michela Semeraro

Specifications U x,y,z = +/-15µm + 6µm/m – Angle accuracy +/-15µm + 6µm/m – Distance accuracy +/- 0.5µm/m – Dynamic lock on +/-10µm February 2-4th 2016 J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA 29 Volumetric accuracy +/- 41µm Single point repeatability 29µm/m Leica AT960 FARO Arm Edge 2.7 Courtesy Michela Semeraro

Polyworks Inspection approach: Reference system defined using nominal CAD features Coordinate system, modified from CAD model. Origin is set in lead-end plane. X & Z axis are perpendicular to left-right mid-plane. Y axis in longitudinal direction The coordinate system is attached to CAD model (not defined during measurements) It is not a metrological reference. Impossible to completely define the reference by measuring features. To be able to use it, the CAD is best-fitted to our real measured geometry Therefore, reference system relies on the good alignment with the real piece

Polyworks Inspection approach: For MQXFS coils: First: All coil surfaces are probed Alignment to the CAD model: Longitudinal translation fixed by best-fitting measured lead plane to nominal one (first axis origin) Second translation fixed by best-fitting to outer cylinder (second axis) Rotation fixed by best-fitting to key planes (rotation) Final alignment is the global result minimising the deviation between all used measurements (average position trying to get minimum deviation) Once both entities are aligned, each cross section is probed. Jose Ferradas

Polyworks Inspection approach: INCONVENIENTS: Reference system relies on the good fit of our real coil to the nominal model If the features used for the alignment are out of tolerance, the alignment could be not accurate Small alignment deviations in the first part of the coil become bigger with length ADVANTAJES: Time to carry out the measurements is decreased. Possible to perform the inspection following a stablished inspection guide. Everything is previously defined before starting the measurements. Operator should only probe the stablished points, decreasing probability of additional errors (coils are always measured in the same way). For cross sections, points are projected by the software within a stablished distance of +/- X mm. Results from CMM show good agreement with our measurements Jose Ferradas

Polyworks Inspection approach: NOTE THAT: Errors on reference system will influence the cross section points acquisition. The possible error in alignment is influencing us when the cross sections are measured. But similar effect is also present in the projection performed by the software. However, the analysis of each cross section is done by treating the points of each cross section and best-fitting them individually to the nominal curve. This is, the alignment used for the final analysis is different (Local). Correct CS Nominal CS Measured CS Projection Zone Alignment default from top Jose Ferradas

SHELL DEFORMATION AFTER LOADING February 2-4th BEFORE LOADING AFTER LOADING Jose Ferradas J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA

SHELL DEFORMATION AFTER LOADING Predominant deviation direction – Possible explanation: Deviation is following the real shape of the assembly February 2-4th Jose Ferradas J.C. Perez MQXF Workshop on Structure, Alignment and Electrical QA