LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006Gian Luca Sabbi HQ Design Study (WBS 2.1.4.1) LARP...
-
Upload
elmer-poole -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006Gian Luca Sabbi HQ Design Study (WBS 2.1.4.1) LARP...
LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
HQ Design Study
(WBS 2.1.4.1)
LARP Collaboration Meeting
April 26-28, 2006
N. Andreev, E. Barzi, S. Caspi, D. Dietderich, P. Ferracin, A. Ghosh, V. Kashikhin, I. Novitski,
GianLuca Sabbi, A. Zlobin
BNL - FNAL - LBNL - SLAC
2LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
HQ Design Study Goals & Milestones
1. Develop HQ design and R&D plan in preparation for model fabrication:
- Magnetic, mechanical and quench analysis- R&D issues, magnet parameters and features
2. Provide input to LHC IR quad conceptual design and analysis:
- Optics, IR layout, radiation deposition, cryogenics studies
FY06-Q1/Q2 HQ design objectives and target parameters; sub-task guidelines Definition of preliminary conductor and cable parameters Study and discussion of magnetic and mechanical design options Magnetic analysis and design of coil ends
FY06-Q3/Q4 Comparison of magnetic design options Selection of HQ coil design(s) Mechanical analysis and design of magnet ends
FY07-Q1/Q2 Feedback from model magnet and supporting R&D (TQ, SQ, LR) Evaluation of mechanical structures (both analysis and test results) Selection of HQ mechanical design(s) Analysis of fabrication cost and schedule
FY07-Q3/Q4 Feedback from conductor and cable R&D Design optimization and final parameters R&D plan development Documentation and reporting
FY06:Focus on
coil
FY07:Focus onstructure
3LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
HQ Design Issues
Conductor: - strand (optimal design, critical current at high field)- cable (limits on maximum width & keystone angle)
Magnetic: - number of layers (cable design, winding issues)- use of wedges, conductor grading, end field optimization- Lorentz stresses
Mechanical: - collar-based vs. shell-based structure- structure and coil alignment- end axial support
Integration: - coordination with model magnet, supporting R&D- coordination with IR magnets study- fabrication, cost and schedule considerations- target parameters, design features, R&D plan
4LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Cross-section analysis and selection
• Same current density. How to account for cabling/stress degradation• Strand parameters (diameter, cu/sc): consistent (same) and practical• Cable parameters (no. str., angle, compact.): consistent (same) & approved • Iron yoke: same distance from coil and magnetic properties
Pre-conditions for comparison:
Criteria for comparison:
• Maximum gradient• Coil stress distributions• Practicality, cost and schedule: strand procurement, use of TQ tooling (coils)• Winding/Fabrication issues: minimum radii, spacer design, radial placement• Complications vs. R&D interest/features• Coil volume, Quench protection, Field quality, ...
5LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Critical current assumptions
Field OST-4.2 OST-1.9 VK-4.2 VK-1.9 Field Delta-4.2 Delta-1.912 3100 4029 3000 3827 12 3.216934 5.00337213 2538 3379 2452 3209 13 3.401234 5.02972614 2057 2812 1982 2672 14 3.666126 4.97033215 1630 2322 1579 2206 15 3.119768 5.00062616 1250 1896 1235 1800 16 1.220604 5.03873317 1522 1449 17 4.810403
Proposed Jc Assumptions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
11 13 15 17Field [T]
Jc
[A
/mm
2]
OST-4.2
OST-1.9
VK-4.2
VK-1.9
6LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Reference strand parameters
B, T
T=4.2K T=1.9K
Jc(B,T), A/mm2 dJc(B,T)/dB,
A/mm2/TJc(B,T), A/mm2 dJc(B,T)/dB,
A/mm2/T
12.0 3000 -591 3827 -663
12.5 2716 -547 3507 -617
13.0 2452 -507 3209 -575
13.5 2208 -470 2931 -536
14.0 1982 -435 2672 -500
14.5 1772 -403 2431 -466
15.0 1579 -372 2206 -435
15.5 1996 -405
16.0 1800 -377
16.5 1618 -351
17.0 1449 -326
Assumed Cu/Sc ratio: 0.87 (based on RRP 54/61)
7LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Cable parameters
DRD 12/15/2005
Coil design Unit3-layer (wide)
3-layer (narrow)
2-layer (wide)
2-layer (narrow)
Coil layer 1+2 3+4 1+2 3+4 1+2 3+4 1+2+3 1+2+3 1+2 1+2Strand diameter mm 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.8Cu fraction % 53 53 53 60 (?) 40 53 53 53 53 53No strands 27 27 23/24 27 27 27 31/32 27 37/38 36/37Width mm 10.025 10.025 10.025 10.025 10.025 10.025 13.5 10.025 20.05 15.75Mid-thickness mm 1.26 1.26 1.4 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.4 1.26 1.75 1.4Keystone deg 1.3 1.13 1.4 1.13 1.3 1.13 0.85 1.3 ? 0.7Insulation (azimutal) mm 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125Insulation (radial) mm 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125Insulated mid-thickness mm 1.51 1.51 1.61 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.61 1.51 ? 1.61Reference radius mm 60.7 76.5 60.7 76.5 60.7 76.5 72.9 65.925 75.7 69.25Desired keystone deg 1.42 1.13 1.52 1.13 1.42 1.13 1.26 1.31 ? 1.33Major Thickness/2D 0.98 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.98 0.94Minor Edge compaction 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.93
Cable Criteria 1: For mechanical stability of the cable the ratio of the Major Edge Thickness to twice the wire diameter needs to be about 0.98 or less. Cable Criteria 2: To minimize cabling damage the Minor Edge Packing Factor should be about 0.93 or Less.
Criteria 2 may be too aggressive and produce cabling damage. We may have to reconsider this in the future. Pitch angle all ~14.5%
4-layer w/o grading 4-layer w/grading 4-layer w/grading
8LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Number of Layers
Compared 2, 3, and 4-layer coil designs from the design and fabrication standpoint
2-layer design:
• smallest number of parts and fabrication steps (+)• requires a cable with large aspect ratio (-)• difficulties in design of the end parts and in coil winding (-)
3-layer design:
• reduce the cable width (+)• maintain a continuous winding in each quadrant, minimize joints (+)• constraints to the coil design: more axial space for the coil ends (-)
4-layer design:
• twice as many coils, tooling and fabrication steps as to 2-layer design (-) • can reach 40 mm coil width while limiting the cable width (+)• allows grading of the outer two layers at small extra cost (+)• Allows re-use of some TQ tooling (and perhaps coils) (+)
9LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Yoke Parameters
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12I, kA
b6,
10-4
35 mm
30 mm
25 mm
20 mm
15 mm
10 mm
5 mm
Coil-yoke distance varies – OD 280
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12I, kA
TF
(I)/
TF
35(0
)
35 mm
30 mm
25 mm
20 mm
15 mm
10 mm
5 mm
0.84
0.88
0.92
0.96
1
1.04
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
I, kA
TF(I)
/TF
280
(0)
280 mm260 mm240 mm220 mm200 mm180 mm
Yoke OR varies
Assumptions for preliminary magnetic optimization:
• Yoke OD 250 mm• Coil-yoke distance 10 mm• Non linear B-H curve
10LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Selected 4-layer cross-sections
Note: gradients are in quotes because they are not all computed in a consistent manner
Vadim #7“317 T/m”
Vadim #6“309 T/m”
Paolo graded“313 T/m”
Paolo “TQ”“307 T/m”
GRADED NON GRADED
11LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Coil Stress Analysis
Cross-section designs considered:
• “TQ” inner layer, not graded• Paolo graded• Vadim graded (# 7)
Magnetic assumptions:
• Real iron• Rin iron = Rout coil + 5 mm• Rout iron = 280 mm• Gradient = 300 T/m
Mechanical Assumptions:
• Layer 1-2 and Layer 3-4 bonded• Layer 2-3 sliding
12LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
“TQ” Inner Layer, not graded
108 126 173 152
13LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
“TQ” Inner Layer, not graded
108 126 173 152
14LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Paolo Graded
119 172 124 118
15LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Paolo Graded
119 172 124 118
16LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Vadim graded (#7)
135 128 135 107
17LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Vadim graded (#7)
135 128 135 107
18LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Reference cross-sections
“TQ” inner layer Graded
307 T/m 317 T/m
19LARP Collaboration Meeting, April 26-28, 2006 Gian Luca Sabbi
Summary
• Two reference cross-sections were selected
• Next steps:
•Magnetic: • Refine cable parameters (feedback from materials R&D)• Preliminary design of coil ends; peak field issues• Complete magnetic cross section (2 options)
• Mechanical• More detailed comparison of preload requirements • Design of structure
• Comparison with larger aperture designs • Magnetic, mechanical, quench• Cost and schedule