16T Cosθ Dipole Configuration

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
D2 conceptual design and field quality optimization Ramesh Gupta, BNL Slide No. 1 Nov. 13, 2013 D2 Conceptual Design and Field Quality.
Advertisements

Mechanical Analysis of Dipole with Partial Keystone Cable for the SIS300 A finite element analysis has been performed to optimize the stresses in the dipole.
Mechanical Design & Analysis Igor Novitski. Outlines Electromagnetic Forces in the Magnet Goals of Finite Element Analysis Mechanical Concept Description.
HL-LHC Corrector Magnet 3D design status Giovanni Volpini on behalf of the LASA team CERN, February 25, 2014.
Development of a Curved Fast Ramped Dipole for FAIR SIS300 P.Fabbricatore INFN-Genova Development of a Curved Fast Ramped Dipole for FAIR SIS300 P.Fabbricatore.
S. Caspi, LBNL HQS Progress Report High Field Nb 3 Sn Quadrupole Magnet Shlomo Caspi LBNL Collaboration Meeting – CM11 FNAL October 27-28, 2008.
Superconducting Large Bore Sextupole for ILC
H. Felice - P. Ferracin – D. Cheng 09/11/2013 Update on structure CAD model.
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research Further optimization of the solenoid design A.Efremov, E.Koshurnikov, Yu.Lobanov, A.Makarov, A.Vodopianov GSI, Darmstadt,
2 nd Joint HiLumi LHC – LARP Annual Meeting INFN Frascati – November 14 th to 16 th 2012 Helene Felice Paolo Ferracin LQ Mechanical Behavior Overview and.
The construction of the model of the curved fast ramped superconducting dipole for FAIR SIS300 synchrotron P.Fabbricatore INFN-Genova The construction.
Development of the EuCARD Nb 3 Sn Dipole Magnet FRESCA2 P. Ferracin, M. Devaux, M. Durante, P. Fazilleau, P. Fessia, P. Manil, A. Milanese, J. E. Munoz.
First approaches J. García, F. Toral, J. Munilla – CIEMAT.
Features: 1. 2D structural analysis (plane stress) 2. Static analysis 3. Quarter symmetric 4. SI units 5. Only the yoke is modeled 6. Material properties.
MQXF support structure An extension of LARP experience Helene Felice MQXF Design Review December 10 th to 12 th, 2014 CERN.
Superconducting Magnet Group Superconducting magnet development for ex-situ NMR LDRD 2003 Paolo Ferracin, Scott Bartlett 03/31/2003.
Subscale quadrupole (SQ) series Paolo Ferracin LARP DoE Review FNAL June 12-14, 2006.
Hybrid Structure with Cooling John Cozzolino LARP Collaboration Meeting Port Jefferson, NY November 4-6, 2009.
Magnet design, final parameters Paolo Ferracin and Attilio Milanese EuCARD ESAC review for the FRESCA2 dipole CERN March, 2012.
Update on Q4 DSM/IRFU/SACM The HiLumi LHC Design Study (a sub-system of HL-LHC) is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
16 T Dipole Design Options: Input Parameters and Evaluation Criteria F. Toral - CIEMAT CIEMAT-VC, Sept. 4th, 2015.
D2 CONFIGURATIONS P.Fabbricatore & S.Farinon INFN Genova  Starting from previous studies done at CERN, BNL and BLNL, possile cross sections of D2 dipole.
S. Lassiter, P. Brindza, M. Fowler, E. Sun - Jefferson Lab G. Markham - NovaTech, B. Wands - Fermi Lab Abstract—Jefferson Laboratory is developing a set.
Cosine-theta configurations for S.C. Dipole Massimo Sorbi on behalf of: INFN LASA & Genova Team Giovanni Bellomo, Pasquale Fabbricarore, Stefania Farinon,
DESIGN STUDIES IR Magnet Design P. Wanderer LARP Collaboration Meeting April 27, 2006.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF D2 MECHANICAL STRUCTURE (DOUBLE COLLARING OPTION) S. Farinon, P. Fabbricatore (INFN-Sezione di Genova) Sept. 24 th 2015.
3 rd ESAC Review, 27 th February to 1 st March 2013, CEA Saclay Fresca2 Dipole Structure Assembly J.C Perez on behalf of Fresca2 collaboration team.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF D2 MECHANICAL STRUCTURE S. Farinon, P. Fabbricatore (INFN-Sezione di Genova) Sept. 17 th 2014.
Preliminary analysis of a 16 T sc dipole with cos-theta lay-out INFN team October 2015.
Page 1 TQC Mechanical Model Igor Novitski / Rodger Bossert May 24, 2006 Results of MM#4 and MM#5.
16 T dipole in common coil configuration: mechanical design
Design ideas for a cos(2q) magnet
Mechanical behavior of the EuroCirCol 16 T Block-type dipole magnet during a quench Junjie Zhao, Tiina Salmi, Antti stenvall, Clement Lorin 1.
Massimo Sorbi on behalf of INFN team:
WORK IN PROGRESS F C C Main Quadrupoles FCC week 2017
Model magnet test results at FNAL
TQS Structure Design and Modeling
D2 Status The contract for the construction of the short model
16 T Cosq DIPOLE Mechanical Analysis
Agenda 9:00  - Welcome ASG speaker 9:10 -  Introduction -       P.Fabbricatore 9:25 - The D2   magnets in HL-LHC   -  E. Todesco.
Segreti, Lorin, Durante 11 July 2017
Estimation of Wake Field, Heating in Modified Beam Pipe
16 T Nb3Sn block dipole EuroCirCol
Cosq configuration - Mechanics
EuroCirCol: 16T dipole based on common coils (DRAFT)
Plans for the PSI Canted-Dipole Program
Mechanical Modelling of the PSI CD1 Dipole
FRESCA2 Update on the dipole design and new calculations
EuroCirCol: 16T dipole based on common coils
16 T dipole in common coil configuration: mechanical design
Bore quench field vs. critical current density
Mechanical results on the double aperture Version V20ar
FCC-hh 16 T, 1.9 K INFN Team October 2015.
the MDP High Field Dipole Demonstrator
Analytical Cost Model (16 T dipole)
Block design status EuroCirCol
Yingshun Zhu Accelerator Center, Magnet Group
MKQXF FEA Model Haris Kokkinos
Large aperture Q4 M. Segreti, J.M. Rifflet
Structural analysis of the CBM magnet coil
MQXF coil cross-section status
P.Fabbricatore & S.Farinon
Large aperture Q4 M. Segreti, J.M. Rifflet
Design of Nb3Sn IR quadrupoles with apertures larger than 120 mm
Design of Nb3Sn IR quadrupoles with apertures larger than 120 mm
FRESCA2 - Coils 1+2 scenario
Q4 development M. Segreti, J.M. Rifflet, E. Todesco
CEPC Final Focus Superconducting Quadrupole and Anti-solenoid Magnets
Orbit Correctors in D2 and Q4 Design options
Cross-section of the 150 mm aperture case
Presentation transcript:

16T Cosθ Dipole Configuration BARBARA CAIFFI on behalf of INFN team: G. Bellomo, P. Fabbricatore, S.Farinon, V. Marinozzi, A.M. Ricci , M. Sorbi and G. Volpini

Outlook Mechanics E.M. Analysis Single aperture: Steel pad Iron pad Double aperture (preliminary analysis, results to be accurately verified) Configuration 1: nominal inter-beam distance, vertical cut in the steel pad, cut at 45o in the iron yoke Configuration 2: optimized inter-beam distance, vertical cut in the steel pad, cut at 45o in the iron yoke Configuration 3: optimized inter-beam distance, vertical cut in the steel pad, horizontal in the iron yoke E.M. Analysis 3D E.M. analysis for the end without connections Conclusions and future developments

Mechanics: single aperture, steel pad Bladder & key configuration Keys length= 20 mm, xkey1=10 mm, ykey1=10 mm, interference key1= 0.1 mm, interference key2= 0.5 mm. Rectangular steel pad, cut vertically, 20-60 mm thick. Circular iron yoke, cut at 45o, 133-175 mm thick. Rectangular shaped steel pad and horizontal and vertical keys allow to decouple x and y component of pre-stress. Al alloy ANSYS model 55 mm 45o cut Iron 133 mm Vertical cut Key1 Intf=0.1 mm 20 mm SS 60 mm Key2 Intf=0.5 mm 175 mm 20 mm

Contact Pressure and Azimuthal Stress Assembly Cool Down Energization Contact Pressure [Pa] Contact Pressure [Pa] Contact Pressure [Pa] Von Mises Stress s eqv [Pa] Von Mises Stress s eqv[Pa] Von Mises Stress s eqv [Pa] seqv peak= 100 MPa s eqv peak=176 MPa s eqv peak= 179 MPa

Double aperture- configuration 1 Nominal inter-beam distance: 125 mm Bladder and Key system: Key 1 and Key 2 interference:0.6 mm Key 3 and Key 4 interference: 0.01 mm Key and Key 6 interference:0.2 mm Iron yoke cut at 45o Vertical cut in the steel pad key4 key3 key5 key2 key6 key1

Double aperture, configuration 1 Assembly Cool Down Energization Contact pressure Von Mises stress Seqvmax=143 MPa Seqvmax=162 MPa Seqvmax=194 MPa

Double aperture- configuration 2 Inter-beam distance: 104 mm Bladder and Key system: Key 1 and Key 2 interference:0.6 mm Key 3 and Key 4 interference: 0.01 mm Key 5 and Key 6 interference:0.2 mm Iron yoke cut at 45o Steel pad cut vertically key1 key2 key3 key4 key5 key6

Double aperture- configuration 2 Assembly Cool Down Energization Contact pressure Von Mises stress Seqvmax=145 MPa Seqvmax=178 MPa Seqvmax=188 MPa

Von Mises Stresses on Mechanical Structures Iron Assembly Cool down Energization sVM peak= MPa sVM peak=335 MPa sVM peak=414 MPa sVM peak=561 MPa Yield limit: >350 MPa Yield limit: >720 MPa Yield limit: >720 MPa Steel sVM peak=344 MPa sVM peak=558 MPa sVM peak=704 MPa Yield limit: 1050 MPa Yield limit: 350 MPa Yield limit: 1050 MPa

Von Mises Stresses on Mechanical Structures Ti Yield limit: 1650 MPa sVM peak=221 MPa Yield limit: 1650 MPa sVM peak=1020 MPa Yield limit: 800 MPa sVM peak=961 MPa Al alloy Yield limit: 690 MPa sVM peak=199 MPa Yield limit: 690 MPa sVM peak=631 MPa Yield limit: 480 MPa sVM peak=439 MPa

Von Mises Stresses on Mechanical Structures Ti Yield limit: 1650 MPa sVM peak=221 MPa Yield limit: 1650 MPa sVM peak=1020 MPa Yield limit: 800 MPa sVM peak=961 MPa Al alloy Yield limit: 690 MPa sVM peak=199 MPa Yield limit: 690 MPa sVM peak=631 MPa Yield limit: 480 MPa sVM peak=439 MPa

Double aperture- configuration 3 Nominal inter-beam distance: 104 mm Bladder and Key system: Key 1 interference:0.5 mm Key 2 interference:0.6 mm Key 3 and Key 4 interference: 0.01 mm Key 5 interference:0.2 mm Key 6 interference:0.25 mm Horizontal cut in iron yoke Vertical cut in steel pad key1 key2 key3 key4 key5 key6

Double aperture- configuration 3 Assembly Cool Down Energization Contact pressure Von Mises stress seqvmax= 156 MPa seqvmax= 166 MPa seqvmax= 191 MPa

Von Mises Stresses on Mechanical Structures Assembly Cool down Energization sVM peak= 651MPa sVM peak= 743MPa sVM peak= 857 MPa Yield limit: >350 MPa Yield limit: >720 MPa Yield limit: >720 MPa Steel sVM peak= MPa sVM peak= 684 MPa sVM peak= 575 MPa sVM peak= 760 MPa Yield limit: 350 MPa Yield limit: 1050 MPa Yield limit: 1050 MPa

Von Mises Stresses on Mechanical Structures Ti Yield limit: 800 MPa sVM peak= 1110 MPa Yield limit: 1650 MPa sVM peak= 236 MPa Yield limit: 1650 MPa sVM peak= 1020 MPa Al alloy Yield limit: 690 MPa sVM peak= 193 MPa Yield limit: 690 MPa sVM peak=185 MPa Yield limit: 480 MPa sVM peak= 385 MPa

Von Mises Stresses on Mechanical Structures Ti Yield limit: 800 MPa sVM peak= 1110 MPa Yield limit: 1650 MPa sVM peak= 236 MPa Yield limit: 1650 MPa sVM peak= 1020 MPa Al alloy Yield limit: 690 MPa sVM peak= 193 MPa Yield limit: 690 MPa sVM peak=185 MPa Yield limit: 480 MPa sVM peak= 385 MPa

Single aperture, iron pad Al alloy 55 mm 45o cut Iron Key1 Intf=0.1 mm Vertical cut 133 mm iron 60 mm Key2 Intf=0.5 mm 175 mm Keys length= 20 mm, xkey1=10 mm, ykey1=10 mm, interference key1= 0.1 mm, interference key2= 0.5 mm. Rectangular steel pad, cut vertically, 20-60 mm thick. Circular iron yoke, cut at 45o, 133-175 mm thick. Rectangular shaped steel pad and horizontal and vertical keys allow to decouple x and y component of pre-stress.

Single aperture, iron pad Assembly Cool Down Energization Contact pressure Von Mises stress Seqvmax=124 MPa Seqvmax=172 MPa Seqvmax=187 MPa

Single aperture, iron pad Assembly Cool down Energization Von Mises stress on iron pad and yoke are below yield strength of the new proposed iron material

3D E.M. Analysis Roxie Model- side opposite to the connections The 3D model includes also the iron yoke, but here only the coil is shown.

NORMAL 3D INTEGRAL RELATIVE MULTIPOLES 3D Harmonic Analysis Preliminary optimization based on geometrical parameters in the end has been performed. B3 B5 B7 B9 B11 NORMAL 3D INTEGRAL RELATIVE MULTIPOLES b 1: 10000.00000 b 3: 4.89034 b 5: 5.30343 b 7: 1.99606 b 9: 0.97365 b11: 0.74835 Bn(10-4B0) Zpos [mm]

Conclusions and further developments Double aperture mechanical configurations have been investigated: Configuration1: nominal inter-beam distance (125 mm), vertical cut in the rectangular steel pad, cut at 45o in the iron yoke. Requirements on stress on conductors and on mechanical structures are fulfilled, though contact pressure in particular for 1st layer is not sufficient. Configuration2: inter-beam distance =104 mm, vertical cut in the rectangular steel pad, cut at 45o in the iron yoke. Requirements on stress on conductors and on mechanical structures are fulfilled, as well as contact pressure. Configuration3: inter-beam distance =104 mm, vertical cut in the rectangular steel pad, horizontal cut in the iron yoke. Requirements on stress on conductors are fulfilled, as well as contact pressure. Stress on mechanical structures, and in particular in the iron are higher than the limit. The feasibility of an iron pad has been investigated, giving good results on single aperture. Still to be implemented on double aperture. 3D E.M. analysis of the integrated harmonics has been performed with Roxie for the side opposite to the connections. Even if the result is still preliminary, harmonics are already quite optimized.