Comparison and Study in Measurement Accuracy of Height

Comparison and Study in Measurement Accuracy of Height Difference between Laser Tracker and Level Men Ling Dong Lan Li bo Wang Xiaolong Institute of High Energy Physics 13/09/2010 1

Introduction § As we know, in accelerator alignment field , we can get a high accuracy vertical network by level. In this meeting, I want to report a conclusion that we can also get a high accuracy vertical network by Laser tracker. § How is the accuracy of vertical coordinates by laser tracker measuring in single station? § From 2001 to 2006, we had ever completed the 4 comparing measurements in height difference between laser tracker and level at BEPCII tunnel. Through analyzing data, we obtain the above result. 2 2 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

The measuring method of height difference using Laser Tracker § The instrument： FARO Laser Tracker § Measuring process: —Adjusting the tracker to level roughly. —Let the tracker to measure the levelness of the instrument finally. —Measuring the 3 dimensional coordinates of control points using the laser tracker in single station. —We construct the level coordinate system by the levelness measured from the tracker in the Insight software. —Extracting the vertical coordinates of control points to calculate the height difference between two points. 3 3 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

Contents n Introduction the comparing measurement and Analysis Result In 2001 n Introduction the comparing measurement and Analysis Result In 2002 n Introduction the comparing measurement and Analysis Result In 2004 n Introduction the comparing measurement and Analysis Result In 2006 n Conclusion 4 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

1. The comparing measurement and Analysis Result In 2001 Transport Line 230 meters Storage Ring Y Y LINAC X BEPC layout X § The measurement Instruments: SMX 4500 Laser Tracker and N 3 Optical Level § Measuring site: The tunnel of BEPC storage ring and LINAC 5 5 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

§ Measuring process: — One group measured the height difference between two adjacent points from R 1 to R 29 in storage ring tunnel and from G 02 W 2 to G 43 W 2 in LINAC tunnel with laser tracker. — Another group measured the height difference between two adjacent points from R 1 to R 2 in storage ring tunnel and from G 02 W 2 to G 43 W 2 in LINAC tunnel with level. 6 6 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

Data in 2001 Amount of height difference compared is 38 7 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

n Calculating method — We calculated two height differences of the same two points according to the two sets of data from Laser Tracker and N 3 Level separately. means the height difference of Point R 1 and R 2 in laser tracker. means the height difference of Point R 1 and R 2 in level. means the comparing error of the height difference between two instruments. — We calculated the comparing error of height difference according to the two sets of height differences. 8. 8 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

The statistic comparing error of height difference: § Results of the statistic comparing error: M 0=0. 089 mm M 0=0. 089 Fig. result of 2001 year 9 9 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

2. The comparing measurement and Analysis Result In 2002 § The measurement Instruments: FARO Laser Tracker and NA 2 Optical Level § Measuring site: Leveling network of BEPC storage ring § Measuring process: One group measured the height difference between two adjacent points from R 1 to R 29 and from R 1 W 2 to R 29 W 2 in storage ring tunnel with laser tracker. — Another group measured the height difference between two adjacent points from R 1 to R 29 and from R 1 W 2 to R 2 9 W 2 i n s t o r a g e r i n g t u n n e l w i t h l e v e l. —

Segment Data in 2002 Amount of comparing height difference compared is 57 11 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

The statistic error of height difference: § Results of the statistic comparing error: M 0=0. 097 mm 12 Fig. result of 2002 year September, 2010 IWAA 2010

3. The comparing measurement and analysis result In 2004 § The measurement instruments: FARO Laser Tracker and NA 2 Optical Level § Measuring site: Leveling network of BEPCII LINAC Laser tracker BEPCII LINAC n The comparing measurement experiment was completed during the period of BEPC LINAC upgraded to BEPCII LINAC 13 13 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

n control monuments distributing of BEPCII LINAC 26 monuments fixed on the wall from LH 2 to LH 58 at a height of 1. 8 meters above the floor spaced at intervals of 8 meters 26 monuments fixed on floor along the foot of the wall from L 2 to L 58 at intervals of 8 meters. 24 monuments on floor along the LINAC girder between L 101 and L 102 spaced at intervals of 8 meters over 230 meters. 14 14 14 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

§ The Laser tracker measured three sections forward and three backward in each station, and 20 monuments can be measured. NA 2 level The tracker was measuring the floor monument Three sections backward Tracker Floor monument Three sections forward 15 15 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

Segment data in 2004 Amount of comparing height difference compared is 260 16 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

The statistic comparing error of height difference M 0: § Results M 0=0. 096 mm M 0=0. 096 17 Fig. result in 2004 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

4. The comparing measurement and analysis result in 2006 § The measurement Instruments: FARO Laser Tracker and NA 2 Optical Level § Measuring site: Leveling network of BEPCII storage ring — Brief introduction of BEPCII storage ring Ø It consists of both the positron and the electron rings. Ø The distance between the beam centerlines of the two rings is 1. 179 m. Ø Their circumference is 237 m. 18 18 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

— control monuments distributing of BEPCII Storage Ring ØThe 3 dimensional tunnel network consist of 201 control points. ØThe 3 dimensional monuments were fixed on the floor and wall of the storage ring tunnel. 67 monuments on the wall about 1. 8 m high 67 monuments along the foot of the wall 67 monuments on floor along the girder spaced at intervals of 6 meters over 237 meters. 19 19 BEPCII layout September, 2010 IWAA 2010

Leveling staff Wall monument 1. 5 inches tooling ball NA 2 level Optical tooling scale fixed on the tooling ball 20 20 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

Segment data in 2006 Amount of height difference compared is 176 21 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

The statistic comparing error of height difference: § Results M 0=0. 067 mm 22 Fig. result of 2006 year M 0=0. 067 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

Tab. Statistic comparing error M 0 of height difference between laser tracker and level in 4 years year M 0 2001 0. 089 mm 2002 0. 097 mm 2004 0. 096 mm 2006 0. 067 mm 23 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

Results of 4 years We calculate the statistic error of height difference to all data of 4 years together. Amount of height difference compared is 531 24 24 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

The statistic difference of height difference: M 0=0. 087 § Results M 0=0. 087 mm 25 Fig. result for 4 years September, 2010 IWAA 2010

Conclusion § Compare error of height difference between laser tracker in single station and level is 0. 087 mm. In the accelerator vertical measurement , laser tracker can instead of level certainly. § From 2007 to 2010, we use laser tracker to measure the tunnel vertical network of BEPCII instead of level throughly. The result of measurement can meet the requirement of accelerator run. The BEPCII alignment is brought about the 3 dimensional measurement in single laser tracker only. 26 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

Thank you for attention! Men Lingling menll@ihep. ac. cn 27 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

28 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

29 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

30 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

abstract § On the basis of data which we measured in the last few years in BEPCII tunnel, we compare and study in measurement accuracy of height difference between laser tracker and level. Compare error of laser tracker in single station and level is 0. 087 mm. The results show that the accuracy of laser tracker measuring vertical network in single station meets the requirement of accelerator physics. the accelerator vertical measurement , laser tracker can instead of level certainly. 31 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

Closed error in 2002 Closed error MH: 32 September, 2010 IWAA 2010

n It was not the closed measurement using laser tracker in 2001 and in 2004. n Closed error of round trip measurement using level was controlled on a range of 0. 3 mm in every year. Closed error MH in 2006 Laser tracker : MH=0. 4 mm Level : MH=0. 25 mm 33 September, 2010 IWAA 2010