SPD cooling Test bench Preliminary results CERN (Geneva) 12-01-11
description
Transcript of SPD cooling Test bench Preliminary results CERN (Geneva) 12-01-11
SPD cooling Test benchPreliminary results
CERN (Geneva) 12-01-11
A. FrancesconUniversità & INFN Padova
1
Summary
• Description of the test bench experimental setup
• Clean filters characterization• Masked filters tests• Pollution test
2
Why a test bench
Problems in the SPD cooling system (and related losses in detection efficiency)
+Difficult theoretical evaluation of the problem
=Experimental test bench
3
The plant
The ideal plant:- Exact replica of the real plant- Many measuring points (T, p, flow) along the stave and the whole plant
Temporary plant:- Similar to the real plant (smaller scale)- Many measuring points- Being upgraded for larger flow
Meanwhile:We use a thermosiphon plant built by the EN/CV/DC group’’
4
Two-phase thermosiphon plant
ChillerCondenser
Dummy Load
18𝑚
Natural circulation of the Fluid (C4F10)- On the liquid phase by gravity- On the gas phase by pressure difference 5
Test bench schema
PP4 filter and
pressure
PP3 filter and
pressure6
Test bench
7
Setup characteristics
1) Available pressure difference (supply-return) dp= ~ 2,5 bar
2) Nominal flow ~ 3,7 g/s (without filters)
3) The sector is an exact replica of an SPD sector from the mechanical/hydraulic point of view;The only difference is that in this case power on the sector is not generated by the detector but with a power supply (so the power can be adjusted very simply).
8
Filters characterization
Clean 60 um filter Clean 20 um filter
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 40
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
DP vs Flow
0 W50 W100 W150 W200 W
Flow [g/s]
Dp [b
ar]
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Dp vs Flow
0 W50 W100 W150 W200 W250 W
Flow [g/s]
Dp
[bar
]
9
Filters characterization
N.B. This is the situation that we have now in the cavern:- 60 um filter in PP4- 60 um filter in PP3
N.B. Dp is measured only on the secon filter (PP3).0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Pressure drop on the second filter vs Flow
0 W100 W150 W
Flow [g/s]
Dp [b
ar]
Two 60 um clean filters
in series
10
Filter Dp and flow variations with the power applied to the sector
60 um clean filter
0,5 g/s decrease
100 mbardecrease
11
Flow variations with the power applied to the sector for different flowrate
0 50 100 150 200 250 3000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2,5 g/s2 g/s1,5 g/s1 g/s
Power [W]
Flow
[g/s
]
Clean 60 um filter
12
Impedance of different filter combinations
13
Bubbles formation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
PP4 [bar]
PP4 [bar]
Starting bubble formationPP4=2,13 bar
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
5
10
15
20
25
T [°C]
T [°C]Starting bubble formation T=18°C
bar
Closing point
°C
Closing point 14
Bubbles formation point on the p-h diagram
Liquid
Liquid+Gas
GasT=18°CP=2,13 bar
15
Masked filters3 different type of masked filter used (all clogged with epoxy glue):
- Spot masked filter: filter clogged with 6 dot (dot diameter ~1 mm & clogged surface ~50% )
- Diffuse masked filter: filter clogged in a diffusive way (clogged surface ~50%)
- Center masked filter: filter clogged in the middle part of the surface (clogged surface ~65%)
Spot filter Center filter
16
Influence of the clogging type on the flow
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Flow vs Valve position @ 0 W
spotdiffusecenterClean 60 um filter
Valve position
Flow
[g/s
]
17
Dp vs Flow for different clogged filters
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 40
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Dp vs Flow @ 0 W
Spotdiffusecenter60 um clean
Flow [g/s]
Dp [b
ar]
18
Pollution tests
4 kind of Goodfellow calibrated metal particles:
1) 0,4-12 um carbon vitreous powder2) 20-50 um carbon vitreous powder3) 80-200 um carbon vitreous powder <75 um carbon powder4) <75 um carbon powder
Test procedure:
1) The powder has been introduced in the pipe upstream both filters2) Vacumm has been made downstream both filters3) Flow and Dp across the PP3 filter has been evaluated for different flowrate and different power applied to the sector
19
Powder sample
Due to technical problems- Difficult handling of very small
particles- Powder adehesion on the pipe wall
and on the instruments- …
the real amount of powder is ~50%.
0,4-12 um carbon vitreous powder0,25 g of powder
20
After the insertion of 0,25 g (nominal) of 0,4-12 um carbon vitreous powderNote PP4 (bar) Dp (bar) Flow (g/s) Valve fully open Values just after the opening of the valve
3,456 0,599 2,845
2 min. later 3,450 0,596 2,833 133 W applied on the sector
3,514 0,547 2,676
165 W applied on the sector
3,527 0,522 2,622
220 W applied on the sector
3,562 0,501 2,551
0 W applied on the sector 3,445 0,599 2,827
N.B. With clean 60 um filter and clean circuit:Valve fully open PP4=3,67 bar Dp=0,48 bar Flow=3,5 g/s
With epoxy glue 50% diffuse clogged filter:Valve fully open PP4=3,665 bar Dp=0,484 Flow=3,368 g/s
After the insertion 0,5 g (nominal) of powder:Valve fully open PP4=2,47 bar Dp=0,355 Flow=1,155
Pollution test: 0,4-12 um
21
Pollution test: 80-200 um
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 W powder flow0 W nominal flow (without filter)0 W 60 um filter flowFl
ow [g
/s]
I insertion
II insertion
Stop&Start with vacuum
III insertion
Stop&Start
22
Pollution test: 20-50 um
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.53.35
3.4
3.45
3.5
3.55
3.6
3.65
3.7
3.75
3.8
0 W powder flow0 W nominal flow (without filter)0 W 60 um filter
Flow
[g/s
]
Stop&Start
I,II and III insertion
Steps
23
Pollution test: <75 um
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 W powder flow0 W nominal flow (without filter)0 W 60 um filter100 W powder flowFl
ow [g
/s]
II insertion
IV insertion
I insertionIII insertion
24
Stepsteps
Pollution test: 0,4-12 um (small amount)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 W powder flow0 W nominal flow (without filter)0 W 60 um filterFl
ow [g
/s]
Powder insertion
Stop&Start
Stop&Start with
vacuum
25
Inserted another little amount (~ 0,05 g) of 0,4-12 um carbon powder
Note Power [W]
PP4 [bar] Dp [bar] Flow [g/s]
Powder inserted 0 W 2,315 0,050 0,650
Stop&Start with pipe shaking 0 W 2,270 0,050 0,495
PP4 filter placed in PP3 position
0 W 4,045 1,519 1,484
26
Conclusions
• Powder clogging results to be more effective than epoxy glue clogging
• Powder crossing through the PP4 filter and following deposition on PP3 filter observed
• Flow variation with Stop&Start observed
27
28
29
Filter characterization
30
Clean 20 um filter
31
Two clean 60 um filter in series
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Pressure drop on the second filter vs Flow
0 W100 W150 W
Flow [g/s]
Dp [b
ar]
32
Spot clogged filter: filter clogged with 6 dot (approx. diameter 1 mm & approx. clogged surface 50% )
33
Center clogged filter:filter clogged in the middle part of the surface (approx. clogged surface 65%)
34
0,4-12 um carbon vitreous powder0,25 g of powder
35
Diffuse clogged filter:filter clogged with 6 dot (approx. diameter 1 mm & approx. clogged surface 50% )
36
Two portions Of 0,4-12 um carbon powder inserted in the same time (0,5 g in total)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1600
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Flow [g/s]PP4 [bar]
Flow [g/s]
PP4 [bar]
37
80-200 um carbon vitreous powder0,2 g inserted in different times
Note Power [W]
PP4 [bar] Dp [bar] Flow [g/s]
I insertion 0 W 3,360 0,498 2,819
100 W 3,390 0,470 2,715
II insertion 0 W 3,305 0,460 2,8
100 W 3,350 0,430 2,684
Stop&Start 0 W 3,280 0,460 2,815
NIGHT STOPRestart after vacuum
0 W 3,310 0,490 2,778
III insertion 0 W 2,185 0,073 0,776
100 W 2,224 0,075 0,749
38
-75 um carbon powder~ 0,15 g inserted in different times
Note Power [W] PP4 [bar] Dp [bar] Flow [g/s]
I insertion 0 W 2,777 0,173 2,235
100 W 2,822 0,169 2,192
II insertion 0 W 2,742 0,172 2,183
100 W 2,802 0,166 2,132
III insertion 0 W 2,565 0,147 1,898
100 W 2,624 0,138 1,839
IV insertion 0 W 2,422 0,102 1,487
100 W 2,464 0,101 1,457
39
20-50 um carbon vitreous powder~ 0,15 g inserted in different times
Note Power [W] PP4 [bar] Dp [bar] Flow [g/s]
I insertion 0 W 3,015 0,217 2,650
100 W 3,075 0,204 2,551
II insertion 0 W 2,650 0,146 2,135
100 W 2,715 0,138 2,065
III insertion 0 W 2,168 0,032 0,915
100 W 2,190 0,030 0,895
Stop&Start 0 W 2,138 0,040 0,795
40
Test with a little amount (~ 0,05 g) of 0,4-12 um carbon powder
Note Power [W] PP4 [bar] Dp [bar] Flow [g/s]Starting condition(before inserting powder)
0 W 3,312 0,311 3,026
Powder insertion 0 W 3,031 0,337 2,495Stop&Start 0 W 2,885 0,323 2,238Stop&Start 0 W 3,373 0,663 2,489Stop&Start with vacuum 0 W 3,162 0,540 2,060Stop&Start 0 W 3,463 0,685 2,255Start&Stop with vacuum(PP3 filter replaced)
0 W 3,120 0,224 2,600
Stop&Start (with pipe shaking)
0 W 3,134 0,236 2,670