ALIGNMENT TESTS Review of CLIC Two Beam Module lab program 06/11/2013 On behalf of CLIC pre-alignment team

Summary 4 main tasks/objectives of the alignment tests on TBTM: Validation of measurement methods for the alignment tests Validation of the pre-alignment strategy on short range Inter-comparison between alignment systems on short range Study of the alignment of supports and components when the conditions change: Additional constraints like waveguides, connection to vacuum pipes, vacuum Thermal tests Conclusion : resources needed and next tasks Initially foreseen on an independent mock-up 2

Validation of measurements methods for the alignment tests Objectives: To have a range of tools: Allowing precise and accurate measurements Allowing cross check of measurements Taking into consideration the small space available around the module Several instruments qualified using CMM measurements as reference (Leitz Infinity: 0.3 μm + 1 ppm) Romer arm AT401 Micro-triangulation Performances (over 2 m) ~ 10 µm ~ 5 µm Drawbacks Limited rangeDisplacement of the prism, contact with the object Needs permanent stations 3

Validation of measurements methods for the alignment tests Inter-comparison between micro-triangulation and AT401: Two MB girders equipped with both types of fiducials and measured on CMM Alignment of girders measured by the two instruments and compared 4

Validation of measurements methods for the alignment tests Other methods to be considered for the alignment tests: Photogrammetry This could be very interesting for thermal tests as it is very quick: a series of pictures is needed on site, then analysis can be performed far from the module. Not ready for such an accuracy, targets need to be adapted (R&D needed) Other methods to be considered for integration purposes: 3D scans To solve the problems of integration that were met (3D models did not correspond to what was installed a lot of time lost) Postponed due to lack of time 5

6 Fiducialisation of components Fiducialisation of their common support Alignment on a common support Whole assembly ready to be aligned Validation of the pre-alignment strategy on short range Strategy of pre-alignment:

Budget of alignment errors Requirements: Budget of error: The zero of each component will be included in a cylinder with a radius of a few microns: 14 µm (RF structures & MB quad BPM) 17 µm (MB quad) 20 µm (DB quad) StepsASMB quad Achieved Zero of components to fiducials5 µm10 µm???? Fiducials to sensor interface on support5 µm Yes Sensor interface on support5 µm Yes Sensor measurement w.r.t straight reference 5 µm Yes Stability knowledge of the straight reference 10 µm Yes, on short range Total error budget14 µm17 µm The combination of the 3 first steps is the object of PACMAN 7 Validation of the pre-alignment strategy on short range

Determination of the position Reference network: layout and configuration of sensors Comparison of the alignment of the mean axis of the Ves by AT401 and alignment sensors X (µm)Z (µm) MC1-E-512 MC1-S10-5 MC2-E-4 MC2-S-11-7 Difference between coordinates of mean axis extremities calculated by 2 different methods 8 Validation of the pre-alignment strategy on short range

Re-adjustment Two solutions studied in parallel: Algorithms of re-positioning: relative ok, absolute to be tested Linear actuators Cam movers Ok when no constraints Not ready Validation of the pre-alignment strategy on short range 9

Case of the supports: Girder: Mean axis of the V-shaped supports: Boostec: radius of the cylinder containing the center of the V-shaped support : 6μm and 4μm Micro-Contrôle: radius of the cylinder containing the center of the V- shaped support: 7.5 μm and 5.5 μm Girder + cradle: Measurements out of the range of the CMM: accuracy ~ 15 µm, some faults detected. Total length above 2 m Different types of fiducials implied different types of measuring devices sometimes outside the range of measurement. Articulation point: Not so bad at the beginning Degradation along time (shocks, loads, constraints) Validation of the pre-alignment strategy on short range 10

Case of the components: 2 steps: Determination of the position within a few microns Alignment on the support PETS: Assembly ok No problem on alignment (on V-shaped supports) DB quad: System of adjustment not ok, no stability of the position (offset of 200 μm w.r.t. theoretical position) => new system under design AS: Assembly not ok Validation of the pre-alignment strategy on short range 11

Inter-comparison between alignment systems oWPS versus cWPS: Summary of sensor performances oWPS (μm)cWPS (μm) Noise28 Repeatability< 1.5< 2 Reproducibility< 2< 3 Interchangeability Resolution< 0.5 Accuracy of measurement of oWPS is ~ 20 µm and needs to be improved Accuracy of measurement of cWPS is ~ 5 µm thanks to new benches and new procedures of calibration. Noise of cWPS is a serious drawback for active alignment and needs to be understood. 12

Inter-comparison between alignment systems cWPS versus NIKHEF alignment systems: 2 main systems installed by NIKHEF (+1 in longitudinal) RasDifRasNik Development of sensors Qualification NIKHEF) Integration in 3D models Installation & analysis of data Length between girders not the same Use of oWPS interface Choice of the components Software, preparation of database Influence of T° Necessity of thermal shielding Exchange of 3D models Longitudinal position of cradles not good Interferences with other systems One cradle with problem 13

Inter-comparison between alignment systems Need to develop an inclinometer that is absolute: To avoid 2 wires per beam, 4 wires per module, as in lab and CLEX Difficulty: absolute measurement combined with kinematic interface Development of a special measurement bench and special tool, to be tested on TBTM Next step: development of a rad hard version (manufacturers are not interested to do this in-house development) 14

Alignment of components & supports when conditions change Test of DOF of girders along 3 steps of installation: Step 0: components installed Step 1: connection of the bellows of the vacuum tank with PETS and AS Step 2: connection of the waveguides between AS and PETS Step 3: connection of the vacuum network between TANK and AS. 15

Alignment of components & supports when conditions change Thermal tests: introduction First tests performed between 20°C and 40°C to check that the performed measurements are correct: Network all around the room on the concrete beams of the ceiling and walls Fiducials of the girders considered as reference of measurement (low thermal expansion of the girder): best fits were performed with measurements performed at 20°C by CMM, to check the coefficient of thermal expansion.) Redundancy of measurements and study of the residuals Special care for all the measurements: Nobody else inside Station < 45 Use of a heavy tripod Warm-up of instruments Cross-check with other methods (photogrammetry, micro-triangulation under study) Nb of days: 26 Stations: 165 Measurements: >

Alignment of components & supports when conditions change Thermal tests: some particular cases 17 Repeatable measurements Warm-up of DB components has no impact on MB components The initial misalignment of components that is important in some cases makes the displacements more difficult to be understood

Alignment of components & supports when conditions change Vacuum tests Displacement of girders Roll: DB: ~ 1mrad (T0-1), ~ 0.1 mrad (T0-2) MB: mrad (T0-1), 0 (T0-2) Displacement of cradles 18

Alignment of components & supports when conditions change Vacuum tests Displacement of cradles versus girders Non repeatability Consequences: Fiducialisation lost: no possibility to perform again absolute measurements re-measure on CMM needed ZTS vvu Kosice has copied this solution for CLEX same problem for CLEX no possibility to align the components in an absolute way Articulation point lost 19

Alignment of components & supports when conditions change Vacuum tests Independence of girders 20 Impact on components: Less than 10 μm for PETS and DBQ1 Longitudinal displacements of 678 μm for DBQ2 Displacements of 115 μm in radial for AS1

Next tasks Validation of measurements methods: Measurements of 1 module take ~ 1 day: to improve the speed if needed up to 30, R&D needed [0.2 FTE] Development of photogrammetry and micro-triangulation (if possible to have permanent stations) [0.2 FTE] Implementation of 3D scans [0.2 FTE] Validation of the pre-alignment strategy: Validation of absolute repositioning algorithm (if module re-fiducialised) DB quad support: Validation of the prototype Design of the support Qualification on DB type 1 Inter-comparison between alignment systems: Cross-check measurements of RasNik, RasDif and cWPS Re-installation of oWPS once recalibrated and comparison between cWPS and oWPS Impact of temperature on sensors. 21

Next tasks Alignment and fiducialisation of components Type 0-1: Transport tests (and re-alignment of all components and girders if needed) Any additional tests Refiducialisation of the module Type 0-2: Control of assembly and fiducialisation of components AS and PETS Control of their alignment on girders Alignment of the 2 modules type 0, tests of actuators, tests of articulation point, etc. Tests with constraints, T°, vacuum Type 1: Control of assembly of PETS, AS Fiducialisation of DB quad, PETS, AS Design, order, assembly of the cradle linking MC girder to Boostec girder (MB) Assembly of articulation + cradles on Epucret girder Alignment cradle versus girder on MB and DB side Fiducialisation of girders + cradles Fiducialisation of supports + stabilization system + MB quad 22

Next tasks Alignment and fiducialisation of components Type 1: Assembly of cam movers Installation and validation of cam movers (+ control/command system) Installation and validation of alignment sensors (on cradles and MB quad) (+ acquisition system + software + database) Aligment of all the supports Tests of actuators and cam movers Tests of absolute repositioning Tests with constraints? Transfer Type 0- Type 1: Study of the new configuration (longitudinal problem to be solved) Design of new parts, procurement, assembly,… Fiducialisation of new cradles Dismounting, marking on the floor, drilling, reinstallation of the new solution Alignment of the new configuration 23

Next tasks Alignment and fiducialisation of components Type 4: Assembly, fiducialisation of DB girder Manufacturing (redesign?) of articulation point Fiducialisation of components: DB quad Design of supporting system (and sensor interfaces), procurement, fiducialisation Control of assembly of MB quad, MB quad + stabilization system, MB quad + stabilization system + supporting system Preparation of the algorithms of repositioning Installation and validation of cam movers (+ control/command system) Installation and validation of alignment sensors (on cradles and MB quad) (+ acquisition system + software + database) Alignment of type 4 Tests of actuators and cam movers Tests of relative, absolute repositioning Tests with constraints? 24

Resources linked to the TBTM in lab Study of cam movers 1 FTE (PhD student)0.4 FTE in 2014 ? Mechatronics 0.7 FTE (PJAS student)0.3 FTE in FTE in FTE in 2014 Fiducialisation, alignment 1 FTE (fellow)0.8 FTE in FTE in 2014 Sensors, actuators 1 FTE (fellow –PJAS?)0.6 FTE in FTE in FTE in 2014 Mechanics, prototypes 0.5 FTE (FSU)0.3 FTE in FTE in 2014 Supervision M. Sosin: 0.3 H. Mainaud Durand: 0.6 Help from ABP/SU (oWPS, photogrammetry, scans, second operator) CLIC TBTM in lab 25

Summary of the situation Alignment tests on TBTM Development and qualification of sensors Development and qualification of actuators Integration of alignment systems Fiducialisation with the metrology lab Mechanical designs Design of articulation points & cradles Study of new methods of measurements Development of acquisition system, databases, analysis scripts Implementation of a measurement lab Alignment tests on CLEX 26

List of publications IPAC 2011: Theoretical and practical feasibility demonstration of a micrometric remotely controlled pre-alignment system for the CLIC linear collider, H. Mainaud Durand et al. Validation of micrometric remotely controlled pre-alignment system for the CLIC test setup with 5 DOF, H. Mainaud Durand et al. MEDSI 2012: Issues & feasibility demonstration of positioning closed loop control for the CLIC supporting system using a test mock-up with 5 DOF, M. Sosin et al. CLIC MB quadrupole active pre-alignment based on cam movers, J. Kemppinen et al. FIG 2012: Augmentation of total stations by CDD sensors for automated contactless high precision metrology, S. Guillaume IWAA 2012: Validation of the CLIC alignment strategy, H. Mainaud Durand et al. oWPS versus cWPS, H. Mainaud Durand et al. IPAC 2012: Strategy and validation of fiducialisation for the pre-alignment of CLIC components, S. Griffet et al. 27

List of reports : Evaluation du laser tracker AT401 par 1 CMM : Simulation dun réseau applicable à un module CLIC : Fiducialisation & pre-alignment : Pre-alignment solutions applied to girders : Fiducialisation & dimensional control : Poutres Boostec: tolérances à contrôler sur site : Poutres Epucret: tolérances à contrôler sur site : Contrôle des poutres Boostec sur site : Evaluation des performances du prototype de micro-triangulation : Evaluation des performances du bras de mesures Romer Multi Gage : Contrôle des poutres Micro-Contrôle sur site : Emplacement des fiducielles et interfaces capteur sur les poutres de la maquette TM : Measurements of MB supporting systems, fiducialisation : Qualification of linear actuators from ZTS vvu Kosice : Contrôle de la position des poutres Micro-contrôle au bâtiment : Evaluation du laser tracker AT401 par des mesures du banc de micro- triangulation : Inter-comparison of measurements performed on the micro-triangulation bench : Mesures laser tracker sur les poutres TM0 de la maquette CLIC : Coordonnées des fiducielles des composants de la maquette CLIC : Alignement des DBQ sur la maquette TM : Contrôle des PETS à laide du bras Romer Multi Gage, confrontation aux mesures CMM : Inter-comparaison par des mesures sur la maquette CLIC TM0: micro- triangulation et laser tracker AT401 28

List of reports : Influence de linstallation des DB quad et PETS sur lalignement des poutres : Procédure de fiducialisation des 4 premières structures accélératrices et calendrier associé : Fiducialisation des 4 premières structures accélératrices: résultats et analyse : Fiducialisation du 2 ème stack TM0: résultats et analyse : 1 er et 2 ème stack TM0:alignement avant EBW, contrôle sur poutres après : Rattachement des plaques aux extrémités de la maquette CLIC : Test T-Scan CS : Mesures de la maquette avant RFN : Rapport de test à réception du bras Romer Multi Gage 12/12/ : Dimensional control and fiducialisation of DB girder (Epucret) for the TM1 of the lab : Influence of different factors on the mock-up (connection between the different components and thermal test) : Control of the position of the components during the assembly steps : Tests des nouveaux supports photogrammétriques : Tests des nouveaux supports 1.5 amagnétiques aux aimants amovibles : ZTS linear actuators test report : Historique des décalages des points darticulation sur la maquette test module : Variations des lectures des capteurs lors du changement de température de la maquette du test module : Impact du vide sur lalignement de la maquette CLIC Test Module : Test de contrainte lié aux connexions entre le MB et le DB de la maquette CLIC test module 29