CLIC Permanent Magnet Dipole Feasibility Proposal Mechanical Engineering

CLIC Permanent Magnet Dipole Feasibility Proposal Mechanical Engineering status N. Collomb 19 th March 15 1

Agenda Python Design proposal; sizing Python Design proposal; awareness Python Design proposal option one Python Drive system option one principles Python Design proposal option one; pro - con Python Design proposal option two Python Drive system option two principles Python Design proposal option two; pro – con Conclusion N. Collomb 19 th March 15 2

Python Design proposal; sizing Component sizing assumptions (0. 5 m prototype): Attractive forces (vertical) total: 350 k. N + 10 k. N self-weight Attractive forces horizontal total: 2. 5 k. N (pull on PM) Position accuracy and precision (motion system): within ± 25µm (check!) Linear motion stroke: 430 mm 1 mm “air-gap” between Permanent Magnet and Yoke (both; bottom & top) Relative nose-pole position: within ± 10µm Awareness that some shape modifications are required to Yokes and Permanent Magnet N. Collomb 19 th March 15 3

Python Design proposal; awareness Points to keep in mind: Assembly must be possible (stating the obvious) All components must contain features to permit adjustment during the assembly process Linear motion system must be adjustable to allow for manufacturing discrepancies and assembly based deviations (within tolerance range) Healthy factor of safety (at least 1. 5) must be observed where possible Forces may require updating; thus component change must be “simple” Yokes and Permanent Magnet to be kept separate but centralised N. Collomb 19 th March 15 4

Python Design proposal option one Yokes (High µ/µ 0 steel) PM Block Aluminium Blocks Support Pillars (height adjustable) Aluminium Back-plate N. Collomb 19 th March 15 5

Python Design proposal option one principles Z-section (6 DOF rail adjustment) Precision Ballscrew (preloaded) Ball-screw nut bridge Bolt Through holes (position to be agreed with PM supplier) Adjustment pillar recess HR-type linear motion rail system Aluminium Side-plate N. Collomb 19 th March 15 6

Python Design proposal option one principles Front and rear held in position using pillar and back-plate with Al-Alloy interconnecting block, Rail above and below and to side (as far away as possible from PM), single motor – dual drive system, LM system as guide (little load), single volume yoke design, PM only supply UTR 90 Right Angle Gearbox 1: 25 ratio 4 HR carriages per side (adjustable) 34 HSX-208 Stepper Motor with rotary encoder Fixed End Ballscrew support Back-plate and drive brackets DTR 90 H T-Gearbox through axle 1: 2 ratio N. Collomb Grub-screw adjustment 19 th March 15 7

All up weight …………wait …… 3262 kg N. Collomb 19 th March 15 8

Pro: Python Design proposal option one; pro - con 1. Large component adjustment range to cater for “slack” manufacturing tolerances 2. No side-plate to support yokes required 3. Linear Motion system familiarity (Low Strength Quadrupole) 4. “Off-the-shelf” components such as, LM system, motor & gearboxes and ball-screw and nut 5. Permanent Magnet is a single item to procure (no subassembly) 6. Sandwich PM between sturdy side-plate – “large” adjustment & “low” cost 7. Assembly sequence straight forward 8. Can cater for larger forces without design change 9. Can cater for support components and Fiducial markers 10. Ball-screw top and bottom driven by one motor means synchronised motion 11. Option for separate curved nose-pole piece exists (1. 5 m Dipole Sagitta: 56. 6 mm, Beam R = 5 m) N. Collomb 19 th March 15 9

Con: Python Design proposal option one; pro - con 1. Large component adjustment range means each assembly step requires metrology 2. Permanent Magnet insertion requires substantial jigs and fixtures 3. Horizontal yoke adjustment (over and under-bite) limited 4. Rear of magnet adjustment pillar requires removal after back-plate is fixed 5. Linear Motion system overhangs yoke – magnetic distortion (symmetric) check! 6. Large volume yoke may cause procurement and manufacturing issues 7. Loose tolerances permitted in component manufacture may require post machining N. Collomb 19 th March 15 10

Python Design proposal option two Connecting Plate, Yokes – Rear-shunt Separate Nosepole pieces (High µ/µ 0 steel) Rear-shunt Yokes (High µ/µ 0 steel) Support Pillars (height adjustable) N. Collomb PM Block encased in Alu frame Aluminium Side-plate 19 th March 15 11

Python Design proposal option two, principles Front and rear held in position using rear-shunt, connecting-plate and side-plate (Al-Alloy), Rail above and below and to side (as far away as possible from PM), single motor – dual drive system, LM system as guide (little load), split yoke design, PM in frame supply Carriage saddle (AL-Alloy) HSR Rail system Long Ballscrew with 2 nuts Aluminium Frame with PM bonded and clamped in position 3 off Support Pillars (height adjustable) N. Collomb 19 th March 15 12

Pro: Python Design proposal option two; pro - con 1. Separate Nosepole piece for accurate positioning 2. No interconnecting block required 3. Linear Motion system familiarity (High Strength Quadrupole) 4. “Off-the-shelf” components such as, LM system, motor and gearboxes 5. PM supplied in frame – no additional assembly required 6. Can cater for larger forces without too much of a design change (side-plate) 7. Can cater for support components and Fiducial markers on connecting plate 8. Ball-screw top and bottom driven by one motor means synchronised motion 9. Option for separate curved nose-pole piece exists 10. Can be broken down into convenient subassemblies N. Collomb 19 th March 15 13

Con: Python Design proposal option one; pro - con 1. Component tolerance needs to be constricted 2. Permanent Magnet insertion requires substantial jigs and fixtures 3. Permanent Magnet insertion must occur early on in assembly process 4. Bonding material may deteriorate – clamping force of frame may cause PM fractures 5. Pre-assembled systems (connecting plate, ballscrew & saddle) sensitive to misalignment. Same for side-plate and rails 6. Linear Motion system bridges yoke & rear shunt – magnetic distortion (symmetric) 7. Nosepole piece adjustment required after rear shunt assembly (with PM in place) 8. Post machining requirement more likely as component/subassembly adjustment is limited 9. Rear shunt contributing only very marginally to the magnetic performance 10. Rather wide (1. 9 m) and heavy at 4070 kg. N. Collomb 19 th March 15 14

Conclusion The evaluation of the principles applied in option one and two points to a final design making use of features from both. The rear shunt may not be required, thus the continuation of the yoke (to form a “C”) must be maintained by either the suggested back-plate or shunt shape component. Preferably no yoke supporting side-plate arrangement should be used. To keep cost down the Permanent Magnet should be plain as in option 1. A separate nosepole piece is recommendable to permit fine adjustment if required. Additional benefits are the raw material procurement (common size) and manufacture (closer tolerance). N. Collomb 19 th March 15 15

Conclusion Using a “pillars and “back-plate” arrangement” to take the attractive force load permits the linear motion system to be kept “small” due to minor load inducement (provided the PM is centrally positioned). The drive system should be as compact as possible (short and low volume) to minimise magnetic influences. Assembly process must be safe and sequential, ideally with the PM insertion last. Support features and Fiducial markers mustn’t interfere with operation and magnetic performance. N. Collomb 19 th March 15 16