1. Alignment system and impact on CLIC two-beam module design H. Mainaud-Durand, G. Riddone CTC meeting – 2009.06.16 1

2. Content  Baseline for alignment/supporting system  Impact on module design  Future actions CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/20092

3. Module alignment/supporting systems  Main beam accelerating structures  Drive beam PETS and Q  Main beam Q (link to stabilisation system) Connected via the beam pipe Connected via the inter-beam waveguides CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/20093

4. Module types and numbers CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/2009 Type 0 Total per module 8 accelerating structures 8 wakefield monitors 4 PETS 2 DB quadrupoles 2 DB BPM Total per linac 8374 standard modules Total per module 8 accelerating structures 8 wakefield monitors 4 PETS 2 DB quadrupoles 2 DB BPM Total per linac 8374 standard modules DB MB 4

5. Module types and numbers CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/2009 Total per linac Quadrupole type 1: 154 Quadrupole type 2: 634 Quadrupole type 3: 477 Quadrupole type 4: 731 Other modules - modules in the damping region (no structures) - modules with dedicated instrumentation - modules with dedicated vacuum equipment - … Total per linac Quadrupole type 1: 154 Quadrupole type 2: 634 Quadrupole type 3: 477 Quadrupole type 4: 731 Other modules - modules in the damping region (no structures) - modules with dedicated instrumentation - modules with dedicated vacuum equipment - … Type 3 Type 1 Type 2 Type 4 5

6. Module type 1 CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/20096

7. Module type 1 views CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/20097

8. Main requirements CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/2009  accelerating structure pre-alignment transverse rms position error at 1 sigma : 14 um (shape accuracy for acc. structures: 5 um)  PETS pre-alignment transverse rms position error at 1 sigma: 30 um (shape accuracy for PETS: 15 um)  Main beam quadrupole:  Pre-alignment transverse rms position error at 1 sigma: 17 um  Stabilization (rms position errors at 1  sigma):  1 nm > 1 Hz in vertical direction  5 nm > 1 Hz in horizontal direction  Module power dissipation : 7.7 kW (average) (~ 600 W per ac. structure)  Vacuum requirement: few nTorr Temperature stabilization for any operation mode is an important issue 8

9. Pre-alignment strategy Overlapping straight references Propagation network  a few microns over more than 200 m Proximity network  a few microns over 10-15 m. CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/20099

10. Baseline: straight reference = stretched wire. propagation network : WPS sensors proximity network: WPS sensors Pre-alignment strategy CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/200910

11. Alternative: propagation network = wire, proximity network = RASNIK Pre-alignment strategy CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/200911

12. Pre-alignment strategy HLS system (horizontal) Proximity sensors (RASNIK), mechanically linked to each cradle WPS system (follows the slope) CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/200912

13. Impact on module design and baseline CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/2009  Accelerating structures and PETS + DB Q on girders (same beam height)  Girder end supports  cradles mechanically attached to a girder and linked by rods to the adjacent one: snake-system adopted (DB: 100 A, MB: minimization of wake-fields, validation at 30 GHz in CTF2)  Separate girders for main and drive beam  possibility to align DB quadrupole separate from accelerating structures  Separate support for MB Q and its BPM  MB Q and BPM rigidly mechanically connected  Common actuators/devices for stabilization and beam-based feedback systems 13

14. Main components for alignment/supporting system  Movers  Linear (girders) (under design, HMD team)  Cam system (MB Q to be confirmed )  Girder  MB: first design iteration done (NG)  DB: launched simulation (NG)  Girder Supports  End supports  snake system (collaboration module-alignment activities)  MBQ support  MB Q pre-alignment system (under design, FL)  MB Q support (to be start LAPP)  Stabilization (several people)  Sensors for pre-alignment (under design, HMD team)  Sensors for stabilization (under design, K. Artoos and colleagues) CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/200914

15. CTF2-based snake system CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/2009 Continuity between girders All MB girders have the same length MB Q support passes over the MB girder MB Q beam pipe and AS beam pipe are coupled via bellows CTF2 15

16. Module snake system CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/2009 No full continuity between MB girders (increasing of align. cost) MB girder length changes as function of module type No girder underneath MB Q Beam height lowered MBQ support simplified MB Q beam pipe and AS beam pipe are coupled via bellows 16

17. Module sections Close to IP  better alignment CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/2009 IP 17

18. Typical module sequences CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/200918

19. Impact on transport/installation  tunnel integration Strategy: installation of WPS before the module

20. Future actions CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/200920 By Sept 2009 (for module review scheduled on 15-16/09)  Movers: concept existing, check compatibility with requirements (weight, resolution,..)  pre-alignment WG  Girder: size DB girder  Module WG (NG)  Articulation point: concept existing, check requirement fulfillment  pre- alignment WG  Stabilization system: define concept (stab WG) and then module integration  MB Q support: define concept and then module integration (LAPP)  Define and justify height requirements for the MB Q (stab WG)  BPM-Q connection: implication on beam instrumentation (instrumentation WG, stab WG, module WG)

21. Future actions  Before CDR  Girder mock-up to test alignment system and compatibility with interconnection design (inter-beam and inter-girder), as well as stability during transport and heat cycles ==> ready by Q1 2010  also collaboration with PSI  Module demonstrator type x (it will integrate the Q mock-up, ready by Q2 2010 qualification for particle beam)  After CDR  Test module type 0 (2011)  Test module type 1 (2012) CTC, HMD and GR, 6/16/200921