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


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


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, ...


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


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)


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


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) (+)


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


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


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


“TQ” Inner Layer, not graded

108 126 173 152


Paolo Graded

119 172 124 118


Vadim graded (#7)

135 128 135 107


Reference cross-sections

“TQ” inner layer Graded

307 T/m 317 T/m


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

larp collaboration meeting, april 26-28, 2006gian luca sabbi hq design study (wbs 2.1.4.1) larp...

Documents