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/
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)
Top Related