CLIC Permanent Magnet Quadrupole update 27 th January 2011 Mechanical Engineering status update N. Collomb1

Integration issues (recap) N. Collomb2 Mechanism clash with Flange and Vessel Interference clash with girder Gearbox bracket interfering with vacuum pump

November Development N. Collomb3 Major changes: 1.Motor moved to top (vertical) 2.T-Gearbox different 3.Side-plate with rails continuous 4.Core – faceplate redesigned 5.Yoke Assembly redesigned 6.Cap – faceplate size reduction 7.Ball-screw nut bracket shallower and 1 piece Previous schematic

Dimensions (figures in brackets from previous schematic) N. Collomb mm (438.5) mm (368.5) 850 mm (654) 388 mm (385) 270 mm (262) 230 mm magnet Aperture Ø70 mm 260 mm Nosepole aperture: Ø28 mm

Current Development N. Collomb5 Major changes: 1.Backlash Couplings removed 2.Right Angle Gearbox input – output corrected 3.Side-plate rails moved inwards 4.Core – faceplate thinned 5.Yoke Assembly wedge chamfered 6.Cap – faceplate size reduction (width and thickness) 7.Ball-screw nut bracket recessed 8.Support Bracket shallower 9.One piece gearbox bracket Previous schematic

Dimensions (figures in brackets from November schematic) N. Collomb mm (398.5) mm (330.5) 793 mm (850) mm (388) 270 mm (270) 230 mm magnet 254 mm (260)

Provisional Integration check (December model) N. Collomb7 Much reduced clash, clash nonetheless. Flange diameter reduction or move 25mm to avoid clash Reduced interference, need to check if girder component can be recessed accordingly move 25mm?

Provisional Integration check (December model) N. Collomb8 Still unsure if something is fastened here Reduction in length (to Nov. model) and width means smaller recess cut in girder part Further Magnet width reduction not possible (unless we have bespoke right angle gearbox)

Summary The current design is as small as we can make it. Contradicting the above, we can reduce the width by having a special right angle gearbox design. Most components are still ‘off-the-shelf’ thus cost effective. A reduction in length of the magnet (30mm or 11%) would solve the girder interference issue, but would mean that we can’t achieve the strength required. The correction feature is under design and an estimate of the accuracy required is needed. Please advice! There are suggestions in the following slides for the flange interference. I have kept the magnetic centre in the same relative position along the beam axis as previously. Dimitry/Alexandre to integrate latest magnet CAD model into latest CAD girder model and provide feedback on questions in discussion section. N. Collomb9

Suggestion N. Collomb10 Could only move entire vessel in CAD. Propose to move “Flange only”. Moved vessel by 25mm to check – O.K. Interference

Suggestion N. Collomb11 DN160 instead of DN 200 – O.K. Interference

Suggestion N. Collomb12 322mm wide cut out (2x2mm clear) 30mm deep cut out (3mm clear)

Discussion –Can the flange be reduced in diameter (DN200 to DN160)? –If not, can it be moved 25 mm towards the end of the vessel? –Can the girder rail component have a recess machined into it to clear the magnet (plus correction)? –If there is something fastened to the girder “in front of” the magnet, would it interfere? Discussion with manufacturers are entering final stage. Material selection for guide rails is under investigation (magnetic permeability). Assembly points have been discussed and a revised design (not affecting envelope) has been completed. We could start detailing a number of components for manufacture. N. Collomb13