Epument Girder simulation and ModuleShowroom upgradeEpument Girder simulation and ModuleShowroom upgrade
For CLIC meeting 2015
Petri Tikka, Helsinki Institute of Physics
focusing on exploring the possibilities ofEpument Girder and making the CLICshowroom presentation more diversefocusing on exploring the possibilities ofEpument Girder and making the CLICshowroom presentation more diverse
Contents of the presentationContents 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 earlierresearch
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
Study for the GirderStudy 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)
Study of Epument materialStudy 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
• Cradle and Girder and their connection was taken under inspection
Comparing Al, SiC and EpumentGirder + Cradle solutionsComparing Al, SiC and EpumentGirder + 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 girderand cradle
•Load: weight on top of girder 400kg/m and 400kg/2m
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 solutioncomparisonConclusion of solutioncomparison
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
•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 solutioncomparisonConclusion of solutioncomparison
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
• 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 + CradleconceptsIntegrated Girder + Cradleconcepts
• 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
• 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 forelectronics (box)
Chosen Girder + Cradle conceptChosen 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 situationCLIC Showroom: current situation
•Goal was to aswer for a need to enhance the show with a more coherentmodule
•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 CERNMedia Lab)
11
11
CLIC Showroom: previous workCLIC 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 T0and T1 ModulesCLIC Showroom: for the future T0and T1 Modules
•Through self-education models T0 and T1 were created.
Old T0
New T0
New T1
New T0 Module
New T1 Module
Before / After
13
13
CLIC Showroom: for the futurePETS and SAS in detailCLIC Showroom: for the futurePETS 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 wordsFinal words
Thank you for your attention!