[PPT] - Heater delays: Simulations and experimental data T. Salmi (TUT), PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Heater delays: Simulations and experimental data

T. Salmi (TUT),

and the magnet test teams at LBNL, FNAL and CERN Quench protection topical meeting, Apr 29 2014

SLIDE 2

Outline

Delays in HQ
Delays in LQ
Delays in 11 T
Delays in QXF
Summary of delays and modeling uncertainties at 80% and 50%
References
Additional material: Delays in HD3, Simulation uncertainty analysis,

simulation parameters

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

2

SLIDE 3

HQ01 and HQ02 – Outer layer

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 20 40 60 80 100 PH delay [ms] Magnet current / SSL [%]

HQ02a (1.9 K) HQ02a (2.2 K) HQ02 (4.5 K) HQ02b (1.9 K) Sim., HQ02 (1.9 K) Sim., HQ02 (4.5 K) HQ01e (1.9 K) HQ01e (4.4 K) Sim., HQ01e (1.9 K) Sim., HQ01e (4.5 K) HQ01e, C8 (4.5 K)

HQ01, 25 µm polyimide HQ02, 75 µm polyimide PH peak power = 50-55 W/cm2, τ = 40-45 ms

Thicker insulation:

10 – 30 ms longer delay

Impact of Top negligible
Different coils and test

stations: Exp. variation up to 10 ms

Same, well

controlled test specification

Very good modeling

agreement

SLIDE 4

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 PH Delay [ms] Magnet current / SSL

Meas. HQ01e
Meas. HQ02a1
Meas. HQ02a2

Simulation HQ02 Simulation HQ01

Meas. HQ02b

HQ01 and HQ02 – Inner layer

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

4

HQ01, 25 µm polyimide HQ02, 75 µm polyimide PH peak power = 50-55 W/cm2, τ = 40-45 ms Top = 1.9 K

No difference in exp. btw

HQ01 and HQ02

Not clear why
Stronger increase of delay

at lower current than in OL

Model match well HQ02 at

high current, but does not catch the low current behaviour

HQ01 delays longer than

predicted by model

SLIDE 5

HQ02 – Delay vs. power

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

5

T = 1.9 K, τ = 40-45 ms Kapton thickness = 75 µm

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 20 40 60 80 PH Delay (ms) Power (W/cm2)

HQ02a2, OL, 14.6kA HQ02a2, OL, 12 kA HQ02a1, OL, 12 kA HQ02a1, OL, 14.6 kA Simulation 12 kA (OL) Simulation 12 kA, tau = 90 ms Simulation 14.6 kA (OL) HQ02a2, IL, 14.6 kA

τ = 90 ms

IL OL OL

Saturation around

50 W/cm2

A few ms gain

possible above that

Good modeling

agreement for OL

(IL not yet done)

SLIDE 6

LQ

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

6

PH peak power = 40 W/cm2, τ = 35 ms Kapton thickness = 25 µm

HS HS WS WS gaps HS HS WS WS No gap

Longer delay than in HQ01
Wide segment (WS) has 5 times

less heating power but is still important

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 20 40 60 80 100 PH delay [ms] Magnet current / SSL [%] LQS01 (4.5 K) Sim., LQ, no gap (4.5 K) Sim., LQ, 10 mm gap (4.5 K) HQ01, 45 W/cm2, (4.5 K)

SLIDE 7

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 40 60 80 100 Delay time [ms] Magnet current / SSL [%]

Exp. (PH-1L) (4.6 K)

Model-Bmax (4.6 K)

Exp. 1-L (1.9 K)

Model-Bmax (1.9 K)

50 100 150 200 250 40 60 80 100 Delay time [ms] Magnet current / SSL [%]

Exp. 2-L (4.5 K)

Model-Bmax (4.5 K) Model - Bmax 1.9 K

Exp. 2-L (1.9 K)

11 T (MBHS P01) - Delays

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

7

Kapton 203 µm Kapton 76 µm PH peak power = 18.5 W/cm2, τ = 25 ms Kapton 76 or 203 µm

Simulation for cable Bmax

SLIDE 8

11 T (MBHS P02) - Delays

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

8

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 5000 10000 15000 PH delay (ms) Current (A)

OL 4.5 K (HFU1/2) OL 1.9 K (HFU1/2) OL 4.5 K (HFU2) OL 1.9 K (HFU2) New, Bmax, 4.6 K New, Bmax, 1.9 K P(0) = 40 W/cm2, tau 16 ms

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 4000 9000 PH delay (ms) Current (A)

Meas., tau 16 mst Meas., tau 31 ms Simul., tau 16 ms Simul., 31 ms P(0) = 40 W/cm2, 4.6

Kapton 114 µm Delays vs. Imag and Top Impact of tau (RC) PH peak power = 40 W/cm2, τ = 16 or 31 ms Kapton 114 µm (incl. adhesive)

Simulation For Bmax

SLIDE 9

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 5000 10000 15000 20000 PH delay (ms) Magnet current (A) IL Option 2 IL Option 1 OL

QXF

T. Salmi

9

IL – Option 1 OL IL – Option 2

120 mm 40 mm Cu Cu SS

Simulation for 100 W/cm2, τ = 47 ms All with polyimide 50 µm

SLIDE 10

S ummary – Delays at ~80% S S L

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

10

Magnet

Ins. Btw. PH

and bare cable PH power and τ (RC) Measur. Simulat. Delta (ms) |Delta| (%) HQ01e (C9) – OL

25 µm Kapt + 90 µm G10 45 W/cm2 40-45 ms

8 10 2 25 HQ01e (C9) – IL

25 µm Kapt + 90 µm G10 50 W/cm2 40-45 ms

13 7

5

46 HQ02a1 (C20) – OL

75 µm Kapt + 90 µm G10 55 W/cm2 45 ms

18 16

2

11 HQ02a1 (C20) – IL

75 µm Kapt + 90 µm G10 55 W/cm2 50 ms

11 10

1

9 LQ (OL)

25 µm Kapt + 90 µm G10 40 W/cm2 35 ms

11
11 T* (MBHSP01)

(Thinner ins.)

76 µm Kapt + 200 µm G10 ~19 W/cm2 25 ms

25
11 T* (MBHSP01)

(Thicker ins.)

203 µm Kapt + 200 µm G10 ~19 W/cm2 25 ms

55
11 T* (MBHSP02)

114 µm Kapt + 200 µm G10 ~40 W/cm2 16 ms

24 29 5 19 QXF (OL)

50 µm Kapt + 150 µm G10 100 W/cm2 47 ms

12
QXF (IL)

50 µm Kapt + 150 µm G10 100 W/cm2 47 ms

9

SLIDE 11

S ummary – Delays at ~50% S S L

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

11

Magnet

Ins. Btw. PH

and bare cable PH power and τ (RC) Measur. Simulat. Delta (ms) |Delta| (%) HQ01e (C9) – OL

25 µm Kapt + 90 µm G10 45 W/cm2 40-45 ms

20 22 2 10 HQ01e (C9) – IL

25 µm Kapt + 90 µm G10 50 W/cm2 40-45 ms

19 12

7

37 HQ02a1 (C20) – OL

75 µm Kapt + 90 µm G10 55 W/cm2 45 ms

40 37

3

8 HQ02a1 (C20) – IL

75 µm Kapt + 90 µm G10 55 W/cm2 50 ms

25 21

4

16 LQ (OL)

25 µm Kapt + 90 µm G10 40 W/cm2 35 ms

16 21 5 24 11 T* (MBHSP01) (Thinner ins.)

76 µm Kapt + 200 µm G10 ~19 W/cm2 25 ms

82 78

4

5 11 T* (MBHSP01) (Thicker ins.)

203 µm Kapt + 200 µm G10 ~19 W/cm2 25 ms

207 235 28 13 11 T* (MBHSP02)

114 µm Kapt + 200 µm G10 ~40 W/cm2 16 ms

69 51

18

36 QXF (OL)

50 µm Kapt + 150 µm G10 100 W/cm2 47 ms

28
QXF (IL)

50 µm Kapt + 150 µm G10 100 W/cm2 47 ms

34 (opt. 1)

28 (opt. 2)

SLIDE 12

S

me references

Model and simulations:

T. Salmi, et al., IEEE, trans. on appl. supercond., 24 (3), 2014
T. Salmi, et al., IEEE, trans. on appl. supercond., 24 (4), 2014
T. Salmi, et al., Proc. WAMSDO, 2013

HQ delay measurements and parameters:

H. Bajas, et al., IEEE, trans. on appl. supercond., 23 (3), 2014
G. Chlachidze, et al., IEEE, trans. on appl. supercond., 24 (3), 2014
F. Borgnolutti, et al., IEEE, trans. on appl. supercond., 24 (3), 2014

LQ delay measurements and parameters:

G. Ambrosio, et al., IEEE, trans. on appl. supercond., 21 (3), 2014
G. Chlachidze, et al., TD-10-001, 2001
T. Salmi, et al, Proc. CEC, vol. 57, 2012

11 T delay measurements and parameters:

A. V. Zlobin, et al., IEEE, trans. on appl. supercond., 24 (3), 2014
G. Chlachidze, Proc. WAMSDO, 2013
E. Barzi, et al., FERMILAB-TM-2552-TD

QXF parameters:

SQXF1 design report v2b, downloaded from the US LARP plone site, March 14, 2014

Also information, data, and input from Guram C., Fred N., Helene F., Bernhard A, Maxim M., ……

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

12

SLIDE 13

Additional material

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

13

SLIDE 14

HD3

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

14

Layer 1 Layer 2 HD3 Layer 1 HD3 Layer 2

PH peak power = 42 W/cm2 (V = 225 V), 55 W/cm2(V = 260 V), τ = 48 (L1), 42 (L2) ms Kapton thickness = 25 µm Layer 2 (outer) Layer 1 (inner)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 PH delay [ms] Magnet current [kA]

Meas. L1, VPH = 260 V
Meas. L1, VPH = 225 V
Sim. C1, VPH = 225 V, 4th turn
Sim. C1, VPH = 225 V, 8th turn
Sim. C1, VPH = 260 V, 4th turn
Sim. C1, VPH = 260 V, 8th turn

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 PH delay [ms] Magnet current [kA]

Meas. L2, VPH = 260 V
Meas. L2, VPH = 225 V
Sim. C1, VPH = 225 V, 4th turn
Sim. C1, VPH = 225 V, 9th turn
Sim. C1, VPH = 260 V, 4th turn
Sim. C1, VPH = 260 V, 9th turn

SLIDE 15

S imulation sensitivity analysis

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

15

8
6
4
2

2 4 6 8 Cu cp Cu k G10 cp G10 k

Polyim. cp
Polyim. k

SS cp SS k Epoxy cp SC cp SS ρ Relative influence on the delay [%] Variable +/- 10% HQ02 +10% HQ01 +10% HD3 +10% HQ02 -10% HQ01 -10% HD3 -10%

20
10

10 20 Magnetic field PH power or voltage Cable ins. thickness Polyimide thickness SS thickness Cable width PH coverage Cu/Non-Cu PH tau RC RRR Epoxy fraction Top ins. thickness Bottom ins. thickness Initial temperature* Relative influence on the delay [%] Variable +/- 10% HQ01 +10% HD3 +10% HQ01 -10% HD3 -10%

An individual input parameter, or material property, is varied by +/- 10%
The relative delay response is studied
A delay at 80% of SSL

Biggest impact: Field, PH power and cable insulation thickness

SLIDE 16

S imulation parameters (to be completed)

QXF HQ01/HQ02 11 T (MBHSP01 / MBHSP02) HD3 (C3, C1) SSL @ 1.9 K (kA9 19.3 / 18.3 15.4 / 16.0 20.7 (C3) SSL @ 4.4 K (kA) 17.5 / 16.6 13.8 / 14.3 18.7, 18.9 Operation current 17500 A Bpeak field at Iop 12.1 T Transposition pitch (mm) 109 # of strands 40 35 40 51 Strand diam. (mm) 0.85 0.8 / 0.778 0.7 Cu fraction 0.55 1.05 / 1.20 1.02 0.83, 0.65 RRR 150 190 / 155 100 150, 100 Reacted cable width (mm) 18.5 15.0 14.9 22.0 Insulation (mm) 0.15 0.09 / 0.1 0.1 + 0.1 0.1 Voids fraction (epoxy) 0.15 0.12 / 0.15 0.12 0.12 Bc20m and C for Jc fit 30.88 T and 1519 TA Midplane thickn. (per coil) (mm) 0.250 0.35 0.35 0.55 Insulation btw IL ss heater and the bore (mm) 0.150 0.25

0.635 (to L1)

4/29/2014

T. Salmi

16