1. Epument Girder simulation and Module Showroom upgrade For CLIC meeting 2015 Petri Tikka, Helsinki Institute of Physics focusing on exploring the possibilities of Epument Girder and making the CLIC showroom presentation more diverse

2. Contents of the presentation What was done in the past, how to replicate and where to go from there Study for the Girder Study of Epument material Comparing Al, SiC and Epument Girder + Cradle solutions Conclusion of solution comparison Goal to make an advanced version of Epument Girder (integrated with Cradle) Integrated Girder+Cradle concepts Concepts are benchmarked against techincal requirements of girder set by earlier research Chosen Girder+Cradle concept To explore what is possible (additional aspects) CLIC showroom Current situation Previous work For the future: T0 and T1 Modules For the future: PETS and SAS in detail Model Data Analysis

3. Study for the Girder Search for references:  Study of the supporting system for the clic two-beam module (2010)  Study and application of micrometric alignment on the prototype girders of the clic two-beam module (2011)  Fabrication and validation of the prototype supporting system for the clic two-beam modules (2011) Main notes: } Nick Gazis Girder technical requirements Girder material comparison Comparison of girder shapes  Max weight on top of the girder – considered to be 400kg/2m?  10-15 µm deformation considered to be a benchmark  Epument has (the most) similar deformation values to SiC  Girder shapes to provide ideas (manufacturability)

4. Study of Epument material Search for material:  RAMPF company (previously Epucret); producer of Epument 145B Main notices: Epument 145B technical data sheet Young’s modulus is rather low (45 GPa) Tensile and Flexural strength low (compared to SiC) Compressive strength high -> noted in stress analysis (<150MPa) Thermal expansion coefficient comparable to steel Low thermal conductivity Highest rigidity??? Note: Thermal properties were not tested

5. 5 5 Cradle and Girder and their connection was taken under inspection Comparing Al, SiC and Epument Girder + Cradle solutions Boundary conditions:  Structure is fixed from 3 points (green)  Added pressure is normal to top side of girder  Contact between girder and cradle is bonded at the sides (blue), frictionless from the bottom (red)  In integrated solution all contacts are bonded Chain of logic:  Aluminium Cradle and Silicon Carbide Girder  Aluminium Cradle and Epument Girder  Epument Cradle and Girder integrated together Fixed support & Pressure Connections Comparison of solutions Simpified design of girder and cradle Load: weight on top of girder 400kg/m and 400kg/2m

6. 6 6 Results are comparable to the results from the papers  Difference: Girder vs. Girder + Cradle Deformation of Al Cradle and Epument Girder vs integrated Epument version (~1,5µm) Conclusion of solution comparison Al Cradle and Epument Girder Al and Epument properties  Young’s modulus of Al and Epument (70 Gpa vs 45 Gpa)  Half of the deformation in Cradle comes from Girder and other half from Cradle itself -> rather even distribution  However, thermal expansion coefficient of Al higher than Epument. Thermal expansion coefficient of Epument is optimized to be comparable to steel Epument Cradle and Epument Girder (integrated)

7. 7 7 In Al Cradle and SiC Girder most of the deformation occurs at Cradle  Al is much more soft than SiC  If more modules would be simulated, there would be no sag in girder Conclusion of solution comparison We do not want to use SiC for Girder  SiC is harder to machine and there is no easy possibility to add inlets SiC is super expensive  Thermal expansion coefficient of Epument is appealing Epument enables more possibilities to innovate and integrate other systems Al Cradle and SiC Girder Al and SiC properties Results indicate that Al cradle and SiC girder would be the best choice according to deformation (mechanical aspects) but...

8. 8 8 Dimensions are utilized from the actual support structure, Girders and Cradle When integrating Girder and Cradle together factors to be noted where:  Structural integrity  Manufacturability  Possibility to add additional aspects Integrated Girder + Cradle concepts Rectangular and triangle shaped girders where tested with loads of 400kg/m and 400kg/2m Structure concepts Boundary conditions:  Structure is fixed from 3 points (same as before)  Added pressure is normal to top side of girder  No need to define contact point (homogenous structure)  Cradle structure same for all concepts Original mass per girder was 240kg  Given that the mass of triangular shape is acceptable...

9. 9 9 Triangular shape was chosen for the Girder  With one cradle (master) the moulding process should be feasible (According to TUT) Additionals aspects to be considered were integrated cooling system and a place for electronics (box) Chosen Girder + Cradle concept Concept still has room for upgrading and improvement  Hilts of the Cradle were mimiced from the original Cradle  Hilts could be designed more sturdy  Study the thermal qualities of Epument girder  Proper testing of the load (max weight on top of the girder)  Further ideas for integration of systems into the girder

10. 10 CLIC Showroom: current situation Goal was to aswer for a need to enhance the show with a more coherent module CLIC needs a module that is as good as the detector Old T0 New T0 New T1 Current illustration of the module Current illustration of the detector Multimedia presentation tool used in the showroom is Impress (developed my CERN Media Lab)

11. 11 CLIC Showroom: previous work Original 3Ds Max Module design was based on Dmitry Gudkov’s work Old T0 New T0 New T1 Original 3Ds Max T0 module Software to be used was 3Ds Max  Important factor was to keep the polygon count of the model as small as possible (< 100000) Problems:  Wrong tools (boolean)  Model impossible to modify  Textures can not be added (easily) Problem area (discontinuity in surface)

12. 12 CLIC Showroom: for the future T0 and T1 Modules Through self-education models T0 and T1 were created. Old T0 New T0 New T1 New T0 ModuleNew T1 Module Before / After

13. 13 CLIC Showroom: for the future PETS and SAS in detail Next phase is to implement these to the show! Old T0 New T0 New T1 Idea was to create more detailed models of PETS and SAS:  Inner structure visible PETS with inner structure being visible SAS and a copper disk

14. 14 Final words Thank you for your attention!