CLIC Permanent Magnet Dipole
Feasibility Proposal
Mechanical Engineering status
N. Collomb
19th March 15
1
Agenda
Python Design proposal; sizing
Python Design proposal; awareness
Python Design proposal option one
Python Drive system option one principles
Python Design proposal option one; pro - con
Python Design proposal option two
Python Drive system option two principles
Python Design proposal option two; pro – con
Conclusion
N. Collomb
19th March 15
2
Python Design proposal; sizing
Component sizing assumptions (0.5m prototype):
Attractive forces (vertical) total: 350kN + 10kN self-weight
Attractive forces horizontal total: 2.5kN (pull on PM)
Position accuracy and precision (motion system): within ±25µm (check!)
Linear motion stroke: 430mm
1mm “air-gap” between Permanent Magnet and Yoke (both; bottom & top)
Relative nose-pole position: within ±10µm
Awareness that some shape modifications are required to Yokes and Permanent Magnet
N. Collomb
19th March 15
3
Python Design proposal; awareness
Points to keep in mind:
Assembly must be possible (stating the obvious)
All components must contain features to permit adjustment during the
assembly process
Linear motion system must be adjustable to allow for manufacturing
discrepancies and assembly based deviations (within tolerance range)
Healthy factor of safety (at least 1.5) must be observed where possible
Forces may require updating; thus component change must be “simple”
Yokes and Permanent Magnet to be kept separate but centralised
N. Collomb
19th March 15
4
Python Design proposal option one
Yokes
(High µ/µ0 steel)
PM
Block
Aluminium
Blocks
Support Pillars
(height adjustable)
Aluminium
Back-plate
N. Collomb
19th March 15
5
Python Design proposal option one principles
Z-section
(6 DOF rail
adjustment)
Precision
Ballscrew
(preloaded)
Ball-screw nut
bridge
Bolt Through
holes (position
to be agreed
with PM
supplier)
Adjustment
pillar recess
HR-type linear
motion rail
system
Aluminium
Side-plate
N. Collomb
19th March 15
6
Python Design proposal option one principles
Front and rear held in position using pillar and back-plate with Al-Alloy interconnecting
block, Rail above and below and to side (as far away as possible from PM), single motor – dual
drive system, LM system as guide (little load), single volume yoke design, PM only supply
UTR90
Right Angle
Gearbox
1:25 ratio
4 HR carriages
per side
(adjustable)
34HSX-208
Stepper Motor
with rotary
encoder
Fixed End Ballscrew support
Back-plate and
drive brackets
DTR90H
T-Gearbox
through axle
1:2 ratio
N. Collomb
Grub-screw
adjustment
19th March 15
7
All up weight
…………wait
…………wait
…………wait
……3262kg
N. Collomb
19th March 15
8
Python Design proposal option one; pro - con
Pro:
1. Large component adjustment range to cater for “slack” manufacturing tolerances
2. No side-plate to support yokes required
3. Linear Motion system familiarity (Low Strength Quadrupole)
4. “Off-the-shelf” components such as, LM system, motor & gearboxes and ball-screw and
nut
5. Permanent Magnet is a single item to procure (no subassembly)
6. Sandwich PM between sturdy side-plate – “large” adjustment & “low” cost
7. Assembly sequence straight forward
8. Can cater for larger forces without design change
9. Can cater for support components and Fiducial markers
10. Ball-screw top and bottom driven by one motor means synchronised motion
11. Option for separate curved nose-pole piece exists (1.5m Dipole Sagitta: 56.6mm, Beam R
= 5m)
N. Collomb
19th March 15
9
Python Design proposal option one; pro - con
Con:
1. Large component adjustment range means each assembly step requires metrology
2. Permanent Magnet insertion requires substantial jigs and fixtures
3. Horizontal yoke adjustment (over and under-bite) limited
4. Rear of magnet adjustment pillar requires removal after back-plate is fixed
5. Linear Motion system overhangs yoke – magnetic distortion (symmetric) check!
6. Large volume yoke may cause procurement and manufacturing issues
7. Loose tolerances permitted in component manufacture may require post machining
N. Collomb
19th March 15
10
Python Design proposal option two
Connecting
Plate, Yokes –
Rear-shunt
Separate Nosepole pieces
(High µ/µ0 steel)
Rear-shunt
Yokes
(High µ/µ0 steel)
Support Pillars
(height
adjustable)
N. Collomb
PM Block
encased in
Alu frame
Aluminium
Side-plate
19th March 15
11
Python Design proposal option two, principles
Front and rear held in position using rear-shunt, connecting-plate and side-plate (Al-Alloy),
Rail above and below and to side (as far away as possible from PM), single motor – dual drive
system, LM system as guide (little load), split yoke design, PM in frame supply
Carriage saddle
(AL-Alloy)
HSR Rail system
Long Ballscrew
with 2 nuts
Aluminium Frame
with PM bonded and
clamped in position
3 off Support Pillars
(height adjustable)
N. Collomb
19th March 15
12
Python Design proposal option two; pro - con
Pro:
1. Separate Nosepole piece for accurate positioning
2. No interconnecting block required
3. Linear Motion system familiarity (High Strength Quadrupole)
4. “Off-the-shelf” components such as, LM system, motor and gearboxes
5. PM supplied in frame – no additional assembly required
6. Can cater for larger forces without too much of a design change (side-plate)
7. Can cater for support components and Fiducial markers on connecting plate
8. Ball-screw top and bottom driven by one motor means synchronised motion
9. Option for separate curved nose-pole piece exists
10. Can be broken down into convenient subassemblies
N. Collomb
19th March 15
13
Python Design proposal option one; pro - con
Con:
1. Component tolerance needs to be constricted
2. Permanent Magnet insertion requires substantial jigs and fixtures
3. Permanent Magnet insertion must occur early on in assembly process
4. Bonding material may deteriorate – clamping force of frame may cause PM fractures
5. Pre-assembled systems (connecting plate, ballscrew & saddle) sensitive to
misalignment. Same for side-plate and rails
6. Linear Motion system bridges yoke & rear shunt – magnetic distortion (symmetric)
7. Nosepole piece adjustment required after rear shunt assembly (with PM in place)
8. Post machining requirement more likely as component/subassembly adjustment is
limited
9. Rear shunt contributing only very marginally to the magnetic performance
10. Rather wide (1.9m) and heavy at 4070kg.
N. Collomb
19th March 15
14
Conclusion
The evaluation of the principles applied in option one and two points to a final
design making use of features from both.
The rear shunt may not be required, thus the continuation of the yoke (to form a
“C”) must be maintained by either the suggested back-plate or shunt shape
component.
Preferably no yoke supporting side-plate arrangement should be used.
To keep cost down the Permanent Magnet should be plain as in option 1.
A separate nosepole piece is recommendable to permit fine adjustment if
required. Additional benefits are the raw material procurement (common size)
and manufacture (closer tolerance).
N. Collomb
19th March 15
15
Conclusion
Using a “pillars and “back-plate” arrangement” to take the attractive force load
permits the linear motion system to be kept “small” due to minor load
inducement (provided the PM is centrally positioned).
The drive system should be as compact as possible (short and low volume) to
minimise magnetic influences.
Assembly process must be safe and sequential, ideally with the PM insertion
last.
Support features and Fiducial markers mustn’t interfere with operation and
magnetic performance.
N. Collomb
19th March 15
16
CLIC Permanent Magnet Dipole
Feasibility Proposal
Presentation End
Questions?
N. Collomb
19th March 15
17
Backup images
N. Collomb
19th March 15
18
ISO Front View
ISO Rear View
N. Collomb
19th March 15
19
Plan View
Side View
Front View
N. Collomb
19th March 15
20