CLIC SD0 Procurement 1st Meeting

Thursday 14 Mar 2013, 10:00 → 11:30 Europe/Zurich

30-4-40 (CERN)

michele modena

Slides SD0_Meeting.pdf

1st SD0 Procurement Meeting:

Present: M. Modena, A. Aloev, M. Bruyas, C. Lopez, R. Lopez, E. Solodko, P. Thonet, A. Vorozhtsov

Minutes:

- The program of the CLIC SD0 Prototype procurement was presented by Michele
- The computation prepared by Alexander where shown.
- Discussion on critical aspects of the procurement (see 1 page of document)
- Wide discussion on the design and consequences for the procurement.

Two scenarios seems possible:
a) do as much as possible on the path followed for the QD0 procurement but assembly 2-3 longitudinal modules in order to get experience useful for a future assembly of a mid-size (or full size) QD0 in its configuration for L* of 3.5 m.
b) investigate an alternative design starting from a more classical Halbach concept (PM and Permendur wedges assembled in a cylindrical configuration and then add the return yokes and coils.

The scenario a) seems more straightforward. Critical points would be:

1. Maximum dimensions of PM blocks manufacturing. Also minimum dimension (angle) of the wedges could be a problem (ACTION PIERRE with potential Suppliers).
2. Maximum Permendur block procurement (ACTION  MICHELE and PIERRE)
3. Maximum transversal  dimension for electro-erosion (ACTION CARLOS)
4. PM insertion and extraction tooling (not critical but to be carefully studied).
5. Machining of the return yokes must be micrometric precise (achievable tolerance to be checked ACTION CARLOS)
6. A consensus seems present towards a more fractioned components procurement with more assembly at CERN (in order to get experience that is one scope of the procurement).

The scenario b) needs special studies. In general is not to be excluded to produce two prototypes with the two scenarios (TBD). In this case I suggest starting with scenario a).
Other ACTIONS:

• Contact CLIC Beam dynamics Team to have a more precise indication of the magnets boundary conditions in terms of parameters (min S gradient, length, multipole content, tenability) ACTION MICHELE and ALEXANDER.
• Planning is not critical but the work seems compatible with engagement within LS1, to be better defined(it will strongly depends by procurement choices); reasonably  in the range of 14-18 months.

 
Next meeting in 2-3 weeks. More design (Alexander, Evgeny) expected and info from potential Suppliers (Pierre, Carlos, Michele).