1 / 10

Simulation of CLIC Pulse Compressor Cavity

This report presents experimental results and thermal analysis of the CLIC pulse compressor cavity, including temperature differences, thermal gradients, and displacement observations. Findings suggest that reducing temperature differences and thermal gradients can decrease the risk of relative displacement between components.

hulme
Download Presentation

Simulation of CLIC Pulse Compressor Cavity

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. Simulation of CLIC Pulse Compressor Cavity Report, April 10th, 2013 Luca Dassa (EN/MME-ES)

  2. Experimental results

  3. Thermal analysis Model calibration Emissivity of the Ni coating: not available (light grey surface, not shining, higher value expected than polished Ni, higher than the one from a SS316L raw new machined flange)

  4. Thermal analysis Thermal gradients • Temperature difference • Max temperature difference: 380 °C • Thermal gradients during heating • There are not thermal gradients into the PC cavity component. • The maximum gradient into the cooling cap is about 30 °C Thermal gradients during cooling There are not thermal gradients into the PC cavity component. (Maximum ΔT=15 °C) Into the 316LN cooling cap the maximum gradient is about 85 °C

  5. Static analysis heating 0.43 mm 3.2 mm Cu OFE 316LN

  6. Static analysis Vertical displacement cooling Cu OFE 316LN The two components are separately studied. The order of magnitude for differential deformation is not comparable with the observed displacement (sub-millimetre range). The two components are separately studied. The order of magnitude for differential deformation is not comparable with the observed displacement (sub-millimetre range).

  7. Partial conclusions • PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS • heating • high difference in temperature between the PC Cavity (Cu OFE) and Cooling Cap (316LN) up to 380 °C • high difference in thermal dilatation (vertical): up to 3.2 mm • no odd deformation of the Cu component (no thermal gradients) • cooling • highest gradient on the Cooling Cap during cooling: up to 85 °C • order of magnitude in displacement/deformation not comparable with the shift • REMARKS • results can be used for qualitative comparison between alternatives but cannot be used to predict accurately how the structure will behave • removing high temperature difference and high thermal gradient will decrease the risk of relative displacement between components

  8. Further analyses (1) The difference in vertical displacement is about 1.4 mm Low Cu emissivity! The heat exchange is driven by radiation No interesting advantages

  9. Further analyses (2) No interesting advantages The difference in vertical displacement is about 1.5 mm

  10. Conclusions • CONCLUSIONS • lower ramp-up reduces the temperature difference (and consequently the displacement difference) • no significant improvement manufacturing the Cooling Cap in Cu OFE • no significant improvement adding shields • REMARK • e-beam welding, if possible, can remove any thermal gradient or difference in temperature

More Related