QXF requirements relevant to optimization and selection of conductor and cable parameters

10/16/2013 QXF Requirements – G. Sabbi, E. Todesco 1

QXF requirementsrelevant to optimization and selection of

conductor and cable parameters

GianLuca Sabbi, Ezio Todesco

Internal review of conductor for HL-LHC IR Quadrupoles

October 16, 2013


Acknowledgement

• CERN: H. Bajas, M. Bajko, L. Bottura, R. DeMaria, S. Fartoukh, P. Ferracin, M. Juchno

• BNLM. Anerella, A. Ghosh, J. Schmalzle, P. Wanderer

• FNALG. Ambrosio, R. Bossert, G. Chlachidze, J. DiMarco, M. Yu

• INFN/LASAG. Manfreda, V. Marinozzi, M. Sorbi

• LBNL: F. Borgnolutti, D. Dietderich, A. Godeke, H. Felice, M. Martchevsky, X. Wang

• SLACY. Cai, Y. Nosochkov

Information for this talk was derived by design, fabrication, test and analysis results from many colleagues


Introduction

• Formal requirements for the IR quadrupole performance and each of the sub-components will be established through the HiLumi design study, with support from model magnet R&D (esp. HQ/LHQ) and the first results from QXF models (depending on target dates for TDR vs. QXF test schedule)

• At this stage, we have a good degree of understanding of performance goals, key priorities, constraints and trade-offs

• Purpose of this presentation is to review the impact of these factors on the conductor/cable design choices, provide guidelines for optimization and specifications, and formulate some questions for discussion

• Feedback from this meeting and future ones covering individual areas of the QXF design (mechanics, quench protection etc.) will be used to determine if present QXF targets should be maintained, or if changes are necessary to reach an optimal and balanced performance


Magnetic Performance• Target operating condition is 140 T/m in 150 mm aperture (1.9 K)

• Chosen maximum (practical) cable width to help reach high field• Nevertheless, with current assumptions, design cannot meet target

operational point at 80% on the load line (we are at 82%)• In addition, some of the assumptions made seem too optimistic

• Higher critical current density at high field would be very beneficial to:• Restore 80% operating point on the load line; account for degradation

during coil fabrication, assembly, pre-load and excitation; allow an increase of Cu/non-Cu fraction for quench protection

Mains parameters of the QXF_v1 magnet

unit Real iron yoke% of Iss % 100 82Current kA 21.25 17.46Gradient T/m 168 140

Peak field T 14.51 12.06F. Borgnolutti et al,MT23


Magnetic performance assumptions

Critical current density assumed for calculations:• 2450 A/mm2 at 12 T, 1400 A/mm2 at 15 T (4.2 K) • 3100 A/mm2 at 12 T, 1900 A/mm2 at 15 T (1.9 K)

Can this be increased? (do not focus on contractual issues relevant to the specification for procurement, but rather on technical expectations for different design choices)

• 1.2 Cu/non-Cu ratio. This parameter could be adjusted to redistribute margins (if available) on magnetic performance or quench protection

• 5% degradation (attributed to cabling, no additional degradation during coil fabrication, pre-load and excitation)

Jc at 15 T 4.2 K Op. gradient ss gradient Margin

(A/mm2) (T/m) (T/m) (adim)1400 140 172 0.8161500 140 175 0.8011600 140 178 0.787


Specs and Parameterizations (A. Godeke)

Wire specification Derived parameters Cable: -5%Bapplied Wire specification RW Btotal XS

12 Jc-non-Cu-12-4.2 2450 A/mm^2 Ic-12-4.2= 631.9 12.27 600.315 Jc-non-Cu-15-4.2 1400 A/mm^2 Ic-15-4.2= 361.1 15.15 343.0

Layout 108/127diameter 0.85 mm Wire-area 0.567 mm^2Non-Cu-frac 45.45% Non-Cu-Area 0.258 mm^2

S.F.-corr 0.429 T/kAFil-region 89%

https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/DesignStudies/QX-CD/ShortSample/LARP-MQXF-Wire-Specification_and_Short-Sample-Limit-130625.xlsm

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

6 8 10 12 14 16

Wire

curr

ent d

ensit

y [A

/mm

^2]

Total magnetic induction [T]

Wire Je versus total magnetic field

4.2

1.9

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

6 11 16

Criti

cal c

urre

nt [A

]

Applied magnetic induction [T]

Round wire critical current versus applied magentic field at 4.2 K

Parameterization

Wire specification





Mechanical Performance• QXF mechanical design is very challenging: another step in aperture and field

• Chosen maximum practical cable width to help decrease coil stresses • Design target: pole compression up to 155 T/m (10% above nominal)

• Coil (pole) stress is 100 MPa during loading (warm) and 180 MPa cold: this should be compared with respective limits for permanent degradation

• Mid-plane stress at excitation is ~150 MPa: this should be compared with limit for reversible degradation (taking into account the available margin)

• Preload window is very narrow (or closed): • Need sufficient pre-load to satisfy acceptance criteria (provisionally, 4

quenches to nominal, 10 quenches to 10% above nominal (155 T/m) • But stress levels are already in the range where we expect conductor

degradation possibly preventing to reach 10% above nominal• Higher critical current would increase pre-load margin, this can come in some

combination of high Jc and low degradation in particular under transverse stress• If sufficient margins cannot be obtained, we may be forced to decrease the

operating gradient, in this case coil stresses can quickly improve


Mechanical design parametersReference Optimization

Keypole mat Ti Al Ti G10

Coil σeqv (b) 102 111 96 102

σeqv (k) 67 71 70 75

σeqv (v) 82 88 85 90

σeqv (c) 165 179 174 185

σeqv (g) 162(1) 171(1) 150(1), 133(2) 160(1), 144(2)

Iron σeqv (b) 181 190 180 188

σeqv (k) 195 194 168 171

σeqv (v) 216 214 190 184

σI (c) 217 211 185 180

σI (g) 230(1) 227(1) 199(1), 197(2) 196(1) ,193(2)

pblad (gap) 42 (755, 773) 42 (765,784um) 40 (683,705um) 40 (685,706um)

Pcont -2,-10(1) -10, -17(1) -5, -6(1) -27, -20(2)

-12, -12(1) -35, -27(2)(1)=(90% Iss, (2)=80% Iss

Analysis steps: (b)ladder, (k)ey, (v)essel welding, (c)ooldown, (g)radientMariusz Juchno, CM20


Preload windows in TQS03

TQS03a: 120 MPa pole/ave, 156 MPa peak (pre-load), 153 MPa excitation: 93% SSLTQS03b: 160 MPa pole/ave, 208 MPa peak (pre-load), 204 MPa excitation: 91% SSLTQS03c: 200 MPa pole/ave, 260 MPa peak (pre-load), 255 MPa excitation: 88% SSL

260 MPa @ 4.5K, 0A

TQS03cAnalysis(H. Felice,P. Ferracin)

255 MPa @ 4.5K, SSL

TQS03 training(M. Bajko et al.)

As pre-load is increased, training is decreased/eliminated, but max gradient decreases


Pole quenchesPole stress during

ramp to quench

Mid-plane

Quenches

• Asymmetric shims in HQ01e: more uniformity, improved training without degradation

• Continue and refine these studies in HQ02/03

Preload windows in HQ01• HQ01d: pole quenches and strain gauge data indicate insufficient pre-load, mid-plane

quenches indicate excessive pre-load

M. Martchevsky, P. Ferracin, H. Felice


Field quality and dynamic effectsAt nominal gradient:

• Most critical to machine performance. Main challenge is the control of non allowed harmonics, requiring uniformity of coil geometry and properties

• This requires uniform size/properties for strand and cable (and insulation)

During ramp:

• HQ has demonstrated good control of eddy currents effects using a core with partial (60%) coverage

• Flux-jump effects observed at 4.5 K, need to better understand and cure, but effect is much less pronounced at 1.9 K

At injection:

• Expectations for QXF, based on models validated in HQ, are consistent with our target of 20 units at injection for 108/127 and higher stacks

• Weak dependence on effective filament size• Smaller filaments also help to decrease variability in magnetization• Effective methods to control magnetization harmonics are available


Field quality targets

Normal Geometric Saturation Persistent Injection High Field Injection High Field Injection High Field3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.820 0.820 0.820 0.8204 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.570 0.570 0.570 0.5705 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.420 0.420 0.420 0.4206 4.000 -3.200 -20.000 -16.000 0.800 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.1007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.190 0.190 0.1908 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.1309 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070

10 0.150 0.000 4.000 4.150 0.150 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.20011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.02612 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.01813 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.00914 -0.040 0.000 0.000 -0.040 -0.040 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023

Skew3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.8004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.6505 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.430 0.430 0.430 0.4306 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.3107 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.190 0.190 0.1908 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.1109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080

10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.04011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.02612 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.01413 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.01014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005

Systematic Uncertainty RandomTriplet field quality version 2 - November 6 2012


Fabrication tolerances and random errors

J. DiMarcoX. Wang

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

harm

onic

s σ(u

nits

)

Harmonic order

fit

normal

skew

• Simulation of random errors due to coil fabrication tolerances fits HQ01 measured harmonics (n=3 to 7) for a block positioning error of 30 µm

• Flat dependance for n>7 attributed to limited probe sensitivity• HQ02 analysis underway


Non-allowed harmonics in HQ

• Some of the sextupole and octupole components are at the upper limits or beyond the range of variability expected from random error analysis

• Both in HQ01 and HQ02, although largest errors are in different harmonics• Longitudinal scan shows smooth dependence, possibly an end effect• HQ03 will provide a much more relevant benchmark, with uniform cable,

parts and coil fabrication processes

X. Wang

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Nor

mal

(uni

ts a

t Rre

f = 4

0 m

m)

Harmonic order

bn-HQ01d (13.4 kA, 4.4 K)bn-HQ01e (14.1 kA, 4.4 K)bn-HQ02a (14.6 kA, 1.9 K)s+u+1σs+u

HQ 30 μm positioning tolerance-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Skew

(uni

ts a

t Rre

f = 4

0 m

m)

Harmonic order

an-HQ01d (13.4 kA, 4.4 K)an-HQ01e (14.1 kA, 4.4 K)an-HQ02a (14.6 kA, 1.9 K)s+u+1σs+u

HQ 30 μm positioning tolerance


Persistent current harmonics in HQ

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 5 10 15 20

b6 (u

nit a

t R.

ref =

40

mm

)

Current (kA)

updownOpera-upOpera-down

Validation of analysis method using HQ01 (54/61+108/127) and HQ02

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Mag

netiz

ation

[mT]

Applied field [T]

54/61-up

108/127 up

54/61-down

108/127 down

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5000 10000 15000

b6 [u

nit a

t Rre

f = 4

0 m

m]

Current [A]

up - HQ01e3

down - HQ01e3

54 + 108

down ramp

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

mag

netiz

ation

a3

(uni

t at

R =

40 m

m)

Current (kA)

HQ02a, 1.9 K

HQ01e, 4.4 K

X. Wang

Magnetization data (OSU)

HQ01 magnetization harmonics

HQ02 magnetization harmonics

Skew sextupole, HQ01 vs HQ02


Sub-element size as a function of stack

D w Subelement Size d s

Wire Diameter, mm

54/61 Stack

84/91 Stack

108/127 Stack

144/169 Stack

192/217 Stack

252/271 Stack

# of Sub-elements, N 54 84 108 144 192 252

1 93 74 66 57 49 430.85 79 63 56 48 42 370.8 74 60 52 45 39 34

0.778 72 58 51 44 38 330.7 65 52 46 40 34 30

132/16950 microns


Persistent current harmonics in QXF

TF b6 b10 b14 b18

T/m/kA Unit at Rref = 50 mm108/127 -0.0368 -19.3 4.9 -0.8 0.0144/169 -0.0330 -16.4 4.2 -0.7 0.0

90% 85% 86% 86% 187%

108/127 -0.0683 -32.3 3.7 -0.8 -0.0144/169 -0.0592 -27.7 3.2 -0.7 -0.0

87% 86% 87% 87% 85%

108/127 -0.0021 -1.3 0.0 -0.0 0.0144/169 -0.0018 -1.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0

87% 87% 86% 87% 87%

1 kA, ~ injection

Second up-ramp data

1.5 kA, negative peak

17.3 kA, nominal level

• Given the same Jc, harmonics due to magnetization reduce by ~ 14%, consistent with the sub-element size reduction

X. Wang


Quench protectionProtection of QXF is very challenging. We need to improve our understanding of the limits, and explore all possible routes to mitigate this problem

• Chosen wide cable to help protection (spread the energy on more material)- further increase not practical (cable design, overall size/fringe field)

• Limited improvements from individual factor/component, so we will need to combine them in order to obtain a meaningful gain- Heater design, enhanced quench-back, detection algorithms...

• If sufficient gains are not obtained, we may be forced to decrease the operating gradient, in this case protection margins can quickly improve

From the conductor standpoint, there are two main areas of interest:

1. Increase of Cu/non-Cu ratio. The “practical” range is limited and in this range we have a relatively small effect, but it can contribute to the solution

2. Suppress flux jumps that can make quench detection more challenging, possibly requiring higher thresholds and/or longer validation times


• Increasing Cu/non-Cu from 1.2 to 1.5 requires 12% more Jc to maintain operating point at 80% of the load line (or we lose 3% on the load line)

• The hot spot temperature decreases by 30 K and the reaction time increases by 3.5 ms

• For comparison, improvement is similar to lowering the gradient by 5 T/m

Impact of Cu/non-Cu ratio

Cu-Non_Cu ss gradient Margin Time margin Hotspot DT

(adim) (T/m) (adim) (ms) (K)1.2 172 0.814 33.3 -1.3 169 0.828 34.6 -101.4 167 0.838 36.2 -201.5 165 0.848 37.7 -29

Cu-Non_Cu Op. gradient Margin Time margin Hotspot DT

(adim) (T/m) (adim) (ms) (K)1.2 140 0.819 33.3 -1.2 135 0.789 37.5 -271.2 130 0.760 47.7 -581.2 125 0.731 67.6 -95


Hot spot temperature vs. Cu/non-Cu ratio

V. Marinozzi, QXF meeting presentation 5/22/2013


Stability margins

• Sufficient stability is an essential pre-condition for achieving operating conditions • Design choices for strand and cable need to ensure stable operation and

adequate margins • As a general guideline in LARP we have required a factor of 2 margin from

operating current to stability current (Is) • We have discussed increasing it to a factor of 3 for QXF. Is this

required? What are the trade-offs with respect to other performance parameters, depending on strand/cable design?

• QXF strand diameter was not increased proportionally to cable width in part due to stability considerations• This could change based on assessment of stability margin for larger

diameter strands of various designs, but at this point we would also need to demonstrate strong benefits to justify its impact on schedule


Flux-jump effects

• At 4.5K, HQ02a @FNAL has much smaller spikes than HQ01@LBNL, CERN• Significant decrease from 4.5K to 1.9K (observed both at CERN and FNAL)

HQ01@LBNL,X. Wang

HQ01@CERN,H. Bajas

HQ02@FNAL,J. DiMarco

• Smaller amplitude and higher frequency at 1.9K

• FJ amplitude not much larger for 54/61 then 108/127

HQ01@CERN,H. Bajas

HQ01@CERN,H. Bajas


Cable design considerations

• Wide cable is required from magnetic, mechanical and quench protection considerations

• The strand diameter was not increased proportionally mainly due to stability considerations, leading to higher aspect ratio• For review: assess based on benefits to cable performance, stability

margin for larger diameter strands of various designs, keeping in mind impact on schedule (see QXF plan presentation)

• Low degradation/damage is required by magnetic, mechanical and stability considerations

• Cable mechanical stability has been given a lower priority, as long as it can be mitigated by improved winding techniques and end part design

• HQ02 demonstrated the benefits of the core in suppressing eddy current harmonics and ramp rate dependence, but core size/location for QXF needs to be further optimized


Control of dynamic effects with core

No quench

HQ01 HQ02

M. Martchevsky, G. Chlachidze, J. DiMarco, X. Wang


Core size and position optimizationIssue Implications on core designCable mechanical stability No core or core biased to thick edge

Dynamic field quality Partial core

Fast down-ramp Wide core (high Rc)

Quench back (driven by losses) Narrow or no core (low Rc)

Stability (current sharing among cable layers) Narrow or no core (low Rc)

Quench propagation velocity TBD

Core in both layers Core in inner layer only

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ISCC

mul

tipol

e re

ducti

on

Core coverage

B2, i

B6, i

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ISCC

mul

tipol

e re

ducti

on

Core coverage

B2, i+o

B6, i+o

X. Wang


Production issuesPiece length:• At this stage, we don’t need to discuss the contractual issues related to

negotiating a minimum piece length• Rather, focus on our analysis/understanding of the distributions that

manufacturers will be able to achieve and how the design or future process optimization can influence them

• Establish a reasonable target for wire losses due to piece length. Example: For <10% loss we need typical piece lengths of ~5 times with respect to what is needed for one cable UL• Cable length for Q1/Q3: 430 m + 50 m to account for various factors• Cable length for Q2a/b 710 m + 60 m to account for various factors

• With the above assumptions, need “typical” pieces of 2-2.5 km for Q1/Q3 and 3.5-4 km for Q2

Uniformity of conductor properties: • This will be key to field quality. Past history has shown slow improvements

and periodic deteriorations. Need consistent production and detailed QA.


Summary

• Higher GxA is the main reason we seek to use Nb3Sn in HL-LHC IR • QXF performance targets present considerable challenges from the

magnetic, mechanical and quench protection standpoint• Improvements in conductor and cable performance can help to mitigate

some of these challenges • Increase of critical current density at high field will benefit magnetic,

mechanical and quench protection design • Increase the Cu/Sc ratio would give some benefit on quench protection,

but requires that sufficient margin on the load line is available• Persistent current harmonics are acceptable and differences are small

in the practical range of effective filament size being considered• Impact of a modest variation of the effective filament diameter on

magnetization and field quality, the size of FJ stability thresholds, stability and quench validation windows should be assessed as part of this review

• Uniformity of strand/cable properties will be critical

QXF requirements relevant to optimization and selection of conductor and cable parameters

Documents

Transcript of QXF requirements relevant to optimization and selection of conductor and cable parameters