1 David Santoyo Petal Locking Points: AUW Nov 2014 Petal Locking Points

1David Santoyo Petal Locking Points: AUW Nov 2014

Petal Locking Points


EC stiffening disk is located between d6 and d7

Latest considerations – EC design

BH mechanically decoupled from EC at final positionLength of rails and inner cylinder reduced down to disk 7. service modules still extend beyond the BH


Service tray x16

We loose some space

to insert petals

between disk 7 and 6 due to

stiffening disk.

Petals have to be

inserted inclined

w.r.t. discs since there

is not enough RΦ clearance.


Blades

HC Korex-5/32-2.4(or Structural foam)

1mm thick ‘T’ beamCF T300/RS3

0.18mm thick XN50/RS3 CF facing

Petal insertion guide

In this model blades play an important structural role. They provide

Quasi-kinematic locking points for the petal andthe required stiffness while allowing to reduce the Z distance between petals in a disk

and cope with the required hermeticity for low momentum tracks and

They are very low density structures (can be made even lighter)


Locking points (nose side)

A peek through screw or a dowel pin. (R, Z and Φ constrains)

A rotating flap (Z constrain)


Locking points (opposite to nose)

If petals must be inserted in angle the local supports should be

adapted for that constrain

Preliminary design to insert petals in angle


Locking points (opposite to nose)

HC Korex-5/32-2.4(or Structural foam)

0.18mm thick XN50/RS3 CF facing

Insertion guideConstrains Z

and Φ


8 service trays ?

Petals connected in series on both sides of the service

tray

By removing every second service module, the space

for petal insertion is increased

Recent developments from NIKHEF show that cooling 2 petals in series would be more efficient for the given pipe diameter. https://indico.cern.ch/event/306927/session/0/contribution/23/material/slides/

We could reduce the number of module services by a factor 2.See “common mechanics session”.


Service tray x8

Space available to insert petals

increases

Petals can be inserted parallel to disk plane

May allow for new

insertion methods


EC Finite Element Model

Update to FEA results shown in

https://indico.cern.ch/event/306927/session/10/contribution/92/material/slides/


FEA global structure: adding Si modules

- Si wafers- 0.3 mm- 1.31 g/cc- 7 GPa

- Thermal glue- 0.2 mm- 2.34 g/cc- 112.4 GPa

Silicon sensors added to the petals to check out how much they affect to the EC

structure behaviour

Petal local supports being studied


1st CASE 2nd CASE 3rd CASE

Max. VM structure 2,34MPa 4,25MPa 5,29MPa 7,43MPa 5,54MPa 8,1MPa

Max. VM Petal 2,1MPa 4,03MPa 5,15MPa 7,26MPa 5,4MPa 7,92MPa

Max. VM Blade 1,92MPa 2,62MPa 1,98MPa 2,05MPa 1,65MPa 1,37MPa

Max. DX STATIC 12,9um 9,93um 14um 12,5um 13,9um 12um

Max. DY STATIC 19,5um 16,5um 23,8um 22,7um 23,1um 21,1um

Max. DZ STATIC 3,17um 2,64um 4,4um 4,08um 3,85um 5,08um

1st Frecuency Mode 22,163Hz 22,632Hz 21,834Hz 22,317Hz 21,957Hz 22,397Hz

Max. DX PSD 3σ 7,32um 6,75um 8,07um 7.95um 7,95um 7,65um

Max. DY PSD 3σ 5,52um 5,04um 5,85um 5.76um 5,76um 5,58um

Max. DZ PSD 3σ 9,45um 8,43um 9,75um 8.58um 9,78um 8,55um

How does affect Si wafers for EC structure analysis?


Summary

Still too “conceptual” Seems to work on the simulations We need to find proper implementations of the locking

mechanisms that do not hinder petal insertion and removal Shall we insert by

➘ sliding along blade or ➘ (if space allows) parallel to disk or➘ By first inner radius and then upper radius ?

Blade’s C-channel opposite to nose, constrain effectively in z and Φ “Nose” fixation and blade’s C-channels constrain R, Z and Φ Is the petal properly fixed in Z with the nose fixation and the flap?

We may want to add some extra fixation Is it petal insertion “friendly” ? Need to exercise and characterize

with Endcap mock-up

Documents

1 David Santoyo Petal Locking Points: AUW Nov 2014 Petal Locking Points