Overview of main results from first HQ02a test

For HQ meeting 7/30/13

164 MPa +/- 11

Target: 169 MPa

HQ02a cool-down SG data – shell – H. Felice, May 9 meetinghttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/WeeklyUpdates/2013/2013-05-09/

Avg: -360 me (+/- 493)

Target: -720 me

HQ02a cool-down SG data -- coil – H. Felice, May 9 meetinghttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/WeeklyUpdates/2013/2013-05-09/

Lower ramp rate

4.5 K 1.9 K

Ramp rate studyHeater studyMIITs study

2.1 - 4.5 K

80% of SSL (150 T/m)

92% of SSL16.2 MIITs

HQ02a quench history – G. Chlachidze https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

All ramp rate quenches initiated in the mid-plane blocks of coil #17 No quenches when ramping down from 14605 A at ramp rates of 13-300 A/s

HQ02a ramp rate dependence – G. Chlachidze https://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Manual trips without extraction at different currents Only outer layer heaters protecting the magnet

16.2 MIITs in coil 16 (80 ms dump delay)Tmax = 234-258 K

QI limit for HQ02

HQ02a quench integral study – G. Chlachidzehttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

10 mΩ dump resistor resulted in 2 MIITs less quench integral

HQ02a quench integral study with small dump – G. Chlachidzehttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

1: Delay vs. Imag• Imag: 5-14.6 kA (30-84% SSL)• 4.5, 1.9 K• VPH: ~ 250 V (τ: 44-49 ms)• Pw0: 52-56 W/cm2

• IL & OL PH

2: Delay vs. PH power• Imag = 12 kA (66% SSL)• 1.9 K• VPH: 200 – 300 V (τ: 45 ms)• Pw0: 30 – 70 W/cm2

• OL PHPH delayTime

Volta

ge

VPH, Pw0

τ = RC Voltage tap signal

• Imag constant • Fire PH (1 or more strips)• PH delay: Time between heater firing

and quench initiation

HQ02a heater delay study – T. Salmihttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

HQ01e, 0.025 mm Kapton

HQ02,0.076 mm Kapton

No difference between 1.9 K

and 4.5 K

Delay ~ 18 ms @ 80% SSL

+10 ms

+ ~20 ms

HQ01e: 45 W/cm2

HQ02: 55 W/cm2

HQ02a heater delay study – T. Salmihttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Test procedure:1. Fire all OL PH (Pw0 ~ 55 W/cm2, τ = 30 ms)2. Measure time when OL quench (tq,OL)3. Measure time when IL quench (tq,OL)4. Propagation time = tq,IL-tq,OL

Above 70% of SSL, propag. time < 25 ms

HQ02a propagation from OL to IL – T. Salmihttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

This cycle was preceded by a quench, so harmonics during pre-cycle are different

Reproducibility in all harmonics is very good

Reproducibility across different accelerato cycles – J. DiMarcohttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

b3 variation along axis – J. DiMarcohttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

a3 variation along axis – J. DiMarcohttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

a4/b4 variation along axis – J. DiMarcohttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Central bn vs expectations – X. Wanghttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Central an vs expectations – X. Wanghttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Warm-cold correlation – J. DiMarcoRef: MT23 presentation/paper

Persistent current TF vs models using measured strand magnetization – X. Wanghttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Persistent current b6 vs models – X. Wanghttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Persistent current decay at injection – J. DiMarcohttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Eddy current harmonics as function of ramp rate, HQ02 vs HQ01 – X. Wanghttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Spikes in harmonics driven by flux jumps, 4.5 vs 1.9 – J. DiMarcohttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Much smaller effect at 1.9K, as observed in HQ01

HQ01e HQ02

b6 b6

Spikes in harmonics driven by flux jumps, HQ02 vs HQ01 – J. DiMarcohttps://plone.uslarp.org/MagnetRD/ModelQuadrupoles/HQ/Meetings/2013/2013-06-28/

Much smaller effect in HQ02 (compare at 4.5K)