Status Brussels GANTRY O Bouhali J DHondt L
Status Brussels GANTRY O. Bouhali, J. D’Hondt, L. Van Lancker CMS week – December 2003 ÊRecovered from the Gantry PC crash during Pilot Run R 6 4 same situation as before the Pilot Run is achieved for R 6 ËComparison of modules measured in Aachen and Brussels 4 completely independent measurements (test of Gantry !!) 4 large differences partially understood (calibration & pin positions) ÌPosition of reference markers on assembly plate ÍHard-ware adaptations for the assembly plate ÎPlans for the near and further future
Comparison modules measured in Aachen and Brussels ÊPilot run modules R 6 were re-measured in Aachen large differences between nominal and measured marker positions on average of ~30 -40 mm (with extremes up to 150 mm) not observed in Brussels 4 independent measurements test of Gantry precision 4 try to understand the difference calibration plates pin positions
Brussels Comparison modules measured in Aachen and Brussels Sensor 1 Aachen plate R 6. 1 and R 6. 2 only plate R 6. 1 Sensor 2
Comparison modules measured in Aachen and Brussels ÊPilot run modules R 6 were re-measured in Aachen large differences between nominal and measured marker positions on average of ~30 -40 mm (with extremes up to 150 mm) not observed in Brussels 4 independent measurements test of Gantry precision 4 try to understand the difference calibration plates pin positions Ë The shifts from the nominal marker positions measured in Aachen are different for position 1 and 2 on plate R 6. 1 at the level of ~20 mm ÌOn the Gantry modules were measured in the 3 positions… differences were observed also at the level of ~20 mm
Pin positions on assembly plate Far from the pins the shift should be larger … exactly what we observe Supply plate Assembly plate pu t ~21 cm in good module ~7 cm + Mod 1 Mod 2 true Mod 3 +
Reference markers on the assembly plate The calibration plate from Karlsruhe doesn’t cover the full Gantry plate … Bari plate is even smaller (comparison between both plates will be made) … R 6 situation Frame ref. Pin Ass. Ref. mark + + Mod 1 Mod 2 Mod 3
Reference markers on the assembly plate The calibration plate from Karlsruhe doesn’t cover the full Gantry plate R 5 situation Frame ref. Pin Ass. Ref. mark + + Mod 1 Mod 2 Mod 3
Reference markers on the assembly plate Solved by using another reference marker in the calibration region … it has been tested and it works with a significant improvement … R 6 situation Frame ref. Pin Ass. Ref. mark new + + + Mod 1 Mod 2 Mod 3
Hard-ware adaptations for the assembly plates ÊThe thickness of the carbon frames isn’t invariant 4 this and the capton level could induce vaccuum problems (if frame is to thick) sensor level capton level 700 mm 900 mm CF level height R 6 / R 5 R 3 frame level 40 mm Ë Thick frames will not be used, until thin ones are used Ì We will use special paper (with vaccuum holes) to increase the sensor level after having used all thin frames
Outlook for the near future ÊTest the use of the stiffeners when plate (R 6) comes back from Aachen (then all other plates for same modifications) ËRe-calibrate Gantry and measure pin positions (all R 6 plates) ÌAssemble three R 6 modules with the remaining three hybrids ( final test of the Gantry precision ) ÍWith the experience accumulated with R 6 plates we can define the assembly parameters for R 5 plates ÎIssues : pick-up tool, pin positions, reference markers, …
Outlook for the further future (January) ÊStart full production of R 6 modules when hybrids arrive 4 max. 6 modules/day (only 2 plates) 4 before arrival of hybrids we will only use one R 6 plate ËPilot run for R 5 N and R 5 S 4 when parameters are modified and tested (dry assembly) ÌStart full production of R 5 modules ÍDetermine the parameters for the R 3 assembly plates èable to produce R 6 and R 5 modules when hybrids arrive somewhere late January 4 nominally 6 modules for R 6 / day 4 nominally 6 modules for R 5(S or N) / day èhence in total 4 plates / day ( ≡ nominal proposal )
- Slides: 11