1 / 16

11T Dipole for the LHC Collimation upgrade A Case Study

11T Dipole for the LHC Collimation upgrade A Case Study. Chris Segal Agnieszka Priebe Giovanni Terenziani Herve Dzitko Michele Bertucci. 05/02/13. Wire Parameters and Cabling. Cu stabilizer matrix with Cu/non-Cu ratio of 1.5 Strand diameter of 0.8 mm with filament diameter of 25 um.

annick
Download Presentation

11T Dipole for the LHC Collimation upgrade A Case Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 11T Dipole for the LHC Collimation upgrade A Case Study Chris Segal AgnieszkaPriebe Giovanni Terenziani HerveDzitko Michele Bertucci 05/02/13

  2. Wire Parameters and Cabling Cu stabilizer matrix with Cu/non-Cu ratio of 1.5 Strand diameter of 0.8 mm with filament diameter of 25 um 1.42mm 15.8 mm Strand Diameter = 0.8 mm

  3. Superconducting area (SC) copper area (Cu) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1.5 : 1.0

  4. Load Line and Short Sample Conditions 2050 1640 Bpeak_ss = 14.37 T  100% field in the coil Bpeak_op = 11.5 T

  5. Coil Layout The angles needed to cancel B3 and B5 are (48°,60°,72°) or (36°,44°,64°) There is a system of two equations, but with three unknowns, there is a degree of freedom allowing for a set of solutions rather than only one Either layout removes the sextuple and decapolecontribution Inner layer needs more wedges since its closer to aperture α2 α3 α1

  6. EM Forces, stress Fx = 2.53 MN/m Fy = -2.25 MN/m σ = -265 MPa

  7. Dimension iron yoke, collar, shrinking cylinder DipoleSection

  8. Limitation in Magnetic support structure design • Iron can’t take more than 2T (Bsat) • Thickness of iron yoke = 21cm • Magneticpressure on ironyoke

  9. Compare Short sample, operational conditions, and margins with NbTi “Every [superconductor] is a [great superconductor]. But if you judge [NbTi] by its ability to [upgrade the LHC for high luminosity], it will live its whole life believing that it is [a poor superconductor].” -Einstein “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” 11T (NbTi saturation)

  10. Cos(θ) vs Block • Block cable is not keystoned, perpendicular to the mid plane • Additional internal structure needed • Ratio central field/current density is 12% lower  less effective than cosθ • Bss is around 5% lower than by cosθ • J ~ Cos(θ) • Selfsupportingstructure • Circular opening, compact coil • Easy winding, has long history of use

  11. High Pre-Stress vs Low Pre-Stress • Less damage for the Sc parts. • Optimal training • Unloading but still good quench performance • Stable plateau butsmalldegradation

  12. Support StructureCollar-based vs Shell-based • Low field: shrinking outer shell • High field: collars + outer shell • Very high field: bladders, intermediate coil supports. • If a magnet training does not improve from 4.2 to 1.9K, there is a mechanical limitation.

  13. Yoke Bladder Shell Pad Axial rod Key Coil Filler Support Structure: Collar-based vsShell-based • Advantages: • Can deliver very high pre-stress • Large pre-stress increase at cool-down • Easily adjustable • R&D issues: • Coil alignment accuracy • Length scale-up • Advantages: • Proven coil positioning • Proven length scale-up • R&D issues: • Deliver required pre-stress • Max. stress at assembly

  14. Courtesy of Peter Lee, Florida State University

  15. Courtesy of Peter Lee, Florida State University

  16. References CERN Accelerator School on Superconductivitylectures (2013): • Ezio Todesco,"Magnetic Design of SC Magnets" • Pierluigi Bruzzone,"SuperconductingCables" • Fernando Toral, "Mechanical Design of SC Magnets" Thanks for listening!

More Related