Protection study options for HQ01e-3 Tiina Salmi QXF meeting, 27 Nov 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
0 - 0.
Advertisements

TQM05 (coil #36) Test Summary 1. TQ coil #36 in a mirror structure Coil #36 tested with a radiation resistant impregnation material 0.7-mm diameter Nb.
Past Tense Probe. Past Tense Probe Past Tense Probe – Practice 1.
QXF Quench Protection: issues and plans Giorgio Ambrosio Fermilab QXF Video-meeting August 1, 2013 The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High.
2 nd Joint HiLumi LHC – LARP Annual Meeting INFN Frascati – November 14 th to 16 th 2012 LBNL: Helene Felice – Tiina Salmi – Ray Hafalia – Maxim Martchevsky.
Chapter 31B - Transient Currents and Inductance
1 QXF heater proposal M. Marchevsky, H. Felice, T. Salmi, D. Cheng, G. Sabbi, LBNL.
MQXF state of work and analysis of HQ experimental current decays with the QLASA model used for MQXF Vittorio Marinozzi 10/28/
Test Result overview: Timeline, highlights and challenges H. Bajas TE-MSC-TF.
CLIQ Coupling Loss Induced Quench Magnet protection system for HQ test Overview 1) CLIQ system overview 2) Adding lead to pizza box 3) remote triggering.
HQ02b : Test plan overview Test plan overview: Main elements and Open questions H. Bajas TE-MSC-TF H. BAJASUpdate meeting on HQ02b assembly and test plan02/05/2014.
Overview of main results from first HQ02a test For HQ meeting 7/30/13.
Coil parts & Instrumentation issues for LQ/HQ coils tested at Fermilab HQ/LHQ coil parts task force.
HQ02b Meeting 4/24/14High Miits Study – G. Sabbi 1 High MIITs Study GianLuca Sabbi Video meeting on HQ02b test results – April 24, 2014.
Impact of Cu/NonCu on Quench Protection 1 Impact of Cu/NonCu on MQXF Quench Protection G. Ambrosio, V. Marinozzi, E. Todesco Conductor Video Mtg. April.
LQ Goals and Design Study Summary – G. Ambrosio 1 LARP Collab Mtg – SLAC, Oct , 2007 BNL - FNAL - LBNL - SLAC LQ Goals & Design Summary Giorgio Ambrosio.
HL-LHC/LARP, QXF Test Facility Workshop– R. Carcagno QXF Test Requirements Ruben Carcagno BNL Workshop December 17, 2013.
First draft of the CLIQ test plan for the HQ2b magnet Emmanuele Ravaioli Thanks to Hugo Bajas & GianLuca Sabbi 02/05/2014.
Design optimization of the protection heaters for the LARP high-field Nb 3 Sn quadrupoles M. Marchevsky, D. W. Cheng, H. Felice, G. Sabbi, Lawrence Berkeley.
Brookhaven - fermilab - berkeley US LHC ACCELERATOR PROJECT LHC IR Quad Heaters.
QXF instrumentation trace development
QXF protection heater design : Overview and status Tiina Salmi QXF quench protection meeting April 30, 2013.
LARP CM15 Magnet Testing Working Group SLAC, November 2 nd 2010.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study (a sub-system of HL-LHC) is co-funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme 7 Capacities Specific Programme,
HFM High Field Model, EuCARD WP7 review, 20/1/2011, Philippe Fazilleau, 1/16 EuCARD-WP7-HFM Dipole Conceptual Review Nb 3 Sn dipole protection Philippe.
MQXF protection – comparison between 1 or 2 power supplies Vittorio Marinozzi 06/08/
HL-LHC Annual Meeting, November 2013HQ Planning – G. Sabbi 1 HQ Status and Plans G. Sabbi High Luminosity LHC Annual Meeting Daresbury, UK, November 11-14,
LQ Quench Protection – G. Ambrosio 1 LQ DS video Mtg – May. 23, 2007 BNL - FNAL - LBNL - SLAC Long Quadrupole Quench Protection Giorgio Ambrosio LQ DS.
E. Todesco PROTECTION IN MAGNET DESIGN E. Todesco CERN, Geneva Switzerland With help from B. Auchmann, L. Bottura, H. Felice, J. Fleiter, T. Salmi, M.
HQ01e3 test summary December 2012 M. Marchevsky, LBNL.
Test Program and Results Guram Chlachidze for FNAL-CERN Collaboration September 26-27, 2012 Outline Test program Quench Performance Quench Protection Magnetic.
QXF quench heater delay simulations Tiina Salmi, T. Salmi.
Upper limits for QPS thresholds for selected 600 A circuits B. Auchmann, D. Rasmussen, A. Verweij with kind help from J. Feuvrier, E. Garde, C. Gilloux,
1 Quench Protection Workshop - 04/29/2014 QXF heater design M. Marchevsky, D.W. Cheng (LBNL) E. Todesco (CERN) T. Salmi (Tampere UT) G. Chalchidze, G.
HQM01 Test Summary Outline -Magnet Instrumentation and Shim System -SG Data -Short Sample Limits -Quench Training at 4.6 K and 2.2 K -Ramp rate and Temperature.
FRESCA II dipole review, 28/ 03/2012, Ph. Fazilleau, M. Durante, 1/19 FRESCA II Dipole review March 28 th, CERN Magnet protection Protection studies.
1 QXF / SQXF heater design update M. Marchevsky (12/03/13)
QXF protection meeting, 4/29/14HQ High Miits Study – H. Bajas, G. Sabbi 1 HQ02 High MIITs Studies Preliminary findings and next steps Hugo Bajas, GianLuca.
MQXF protection: work in progress and plans Vittorio Marinozzi 9/23/ QLASA calibration with HQ02 data.
Tiina Salmi and Antti Stenvall, Tampere University of technology, Finland FCCW2016 Roma, April 13 th, 2016 Quench protection of the 16T dipoles for the.
Study of the HTS Insert Quench Protection M. Sorbi and A. Stenvall 1 HFM-EuCARD, ESAC meeting, WP 7.4.1CEA Saclay 28 feb. 2013,
Protection heater design for MQXF outer layer *Using long Super- Heating Stations for ensuring quenhces at low currents* Tiina Salmi, Tampere.
Heaters for the QXF magnets: designs and testing and QC M. Marchevsky (LBNL)
HQ02A2 TEST RESULTS November 7, 2013 FERMILAB. HQ02 test at Fermilab 2  First HQ quadrupole with coils (#15-17, #20) of the optimized design o Only coil.
MQXFS1 Test Results G. Chlachidze, J. DiMarco, S. Izquierdo-Bermudez, E. Ravaioli, S. Stoynev, T. Strauss et al. Joint LARP CM26/Hi-Lumi Meeting SLAC May.
MQXFSM1 results Guram Chlachidze Stoyan Stoynev 10 June 2015LARP meeting.
2 nd LARP / HiLumi Collaboration Mtg, May 9, 2012LHQ Goals and Status – G. Ambrosio 11 Quench Protection of Long Nb 3 Sn Quads Giorgio Ambrosio Fermilab.
LQS01a Test Results LARP Collaboration Meeting 14 Fermilab - April 26-28, 2010 Guram Chlachidze.
MQXFS1 Protection heater delays vs. Simulations 9 May 2016 Tiina Salmi, Tampere university of technology Acknowledgement: Guram Chlachidze (FNAL), Emmanuele.
Inner Triplet Protection Strategy LHC & HL-LHC Daniel Wollmann with Inputs from B. Auchmann, G. Ambrosio, R. Denz, P. Fessia, E. Ravaioli, F. Rodrigues.
CHATS-AS 2011clam1 Integrated analysis of quench propagation in a system of magnetically coupled solenoids CHATS-AS 2011 Claudio Marinucci, Luca Bottura,
Cold powering test results of the 11 T cosθ model magnets at CERN Gerard Willering With thanks to Jerome Feuvrier, Vincent Desbiolles, Hugo Bajas, Marta.
S. Feher MICE Magnet Readiness Review RAL, June 28th, 2016
D1 and D2 powering and protection
11T Magnet Test Plan Guram Chlachidze
MQY-30 Test Result Report
When we generate power we ramp up the voltage for transmission (up to V) and then when it arrives at homes we ramp it back down for convenient use.
MQXF Quench Protection and Meeting Goals
MMI^2T limits for magnets, what are they and how where they developed
Update on voltage calculations
Update on circuit protection simulations of the HL-LHC Inner Triplet circuit Matthias Mentink, Circuit specifics + STEAM simulations: Samer Yammine, LEDET.
MBHSP02 test STATUS and first results
Hilumi WP3 meeting, 1 October 2014
Electrical Quality Control (QC): coil to coil parts
Guram Chlachidze Stoyan Stoynev
PANDA solenoid quench calculations
MQXFS1e – PH-to-Coil hipot tests
Long term behavior and high-QI test in the MQXFS program
Long term behavior of MQXFS1
Electrical integrity of magnets and coils
Presentation transcript:

Protection study options for HQ01e-3 Tiina Salmi QXF meeting, 27 Nov 2012

Outline Proposals: 1.Protection heater delay at 14 kA / 80% short sample limit 2.Current decay after outer layer protection heater activation: Study MIITs vs. operating current 3.Normal zone propagation velocity 4.Options for high MIITs quenches Summary Time for discussion 2

1. PROTECTION HEATER DELAY 3

Protection heater delay at high current I/Iss = 80%, 14 kA, or the highest current possible based on HQ performance PH voltage 230 V Set the protection delay to 15 ms (to see quench starts also in lower field areas) Fire one PH circuit (use other circuits and R dump to protect) Measure the delay to quench in various segments of the coils Test all the 4 PH circuits (2IL/2OL): 4 quenches Low risk for excessive MIITs or high cryostat pressure 4 time line Fire PH Q PS Off, fire other PH, activate R dump Prot. delay 15 ms t det PH delay

2. PROVOKED PROTECTION WITH OL PH: MIITS VS. OPERATING CURRENT 5

Concept Real quench protected with only OL PH Test: Provoked quench to estimate MIITs decay Difference to real quench: MIITs decay due to PH + quench back (No initial quench) MIITs total = MIITs det + MIITs decay’ MIITs det : I mag ~constant, easy to estimate for various t det MIITs decay’ : I mag decay due to initial quench + PH + quenchback PS off Fire OL PH Test result: MIITs decay vs. I mag 6 Conservative estimation

Test procedure 1.Deactivate IL PH and R dump 2.Set OL PH voltage to 250 V (nominal setting) – Or highest possible based on hi-pot performance 3.Ramp to a constant I mag – Start with 5 kA – Increase 1.5 kA for each quench 4.Provoke the protection trigger: – Fire OL PH and switch off PS 5.Measure MIITs decay after the trigger 6.Monitor cryostat pressure and MIITs decay (T hotspot ) -Terminate the test if approaching safe limits (t.b.d.) -E cryo = LI mag 2 /2 7.Verification with a spontaneous quench using regular delay and ramp procedure if MIITS are above 14 (t.b.d.) 7

Advantages Controlled, gradual increase in E cryo and MIITs  Reduced risk to test facility and magnet Conservative estimation of MIITs for real quench: Sum MIITs decay and MIITs for an estimated detection time No initial quench in the magnet  Lower total MIITs and T hotspot The first comparison with HQ02 can be done at low current and low MIITs 8

HQ01e-3 test: Situation Only one OL strip is connected in each coil – 4 out of 8 strips in OL are disconnected due to electrical problems – In IL 7 strips out of 8 are connected Proposal: Perform this test using only the available 4 OL PH strips (out of 8) – Establish the test procedure – Also, this probes the redundancy requirement, which states that an accelerator magnet should be protectable with only 50% of heaters working Total number of quenches depends on the pressure rise in the cryostat – Max 8 quenches, if I mag up to 15.5 kA, + verification quench(es) Data on cryostat pressure vs. E cryo useful for the high MIITs quenches (discussed later) 9

3. NORMAL ZONE PROPAGATION VELOCITY 10

Quench propagation velocity Spontaneous quenches with progressively increased protection delay to allow time for normal zone propagation in pole-turn voltage tap signals Gaining  1 MIITs per step, up to  16 MIITs, or per MTF capabilities   4-5 ms additional protection delay per step at 15 kA quench current 3-4 study quenches + 1 verification quench Note: if for some reason the magnet consistently quenches in C7 multi-turn, we skip the above part and proceed with the rest of MIITs studies 11 time line Q PS Off, fire other PH, activate R dump Prot. delay t det

4. MORE OPTIONS FOR HIGH MIITS QUENCHES 12

Options for high MIITs quenches IF safe MTF range established and magnet not degraded: 1)Spontaneous quench with only OL PH and R dump, to see the additional MIITs (expected Miits) (1 quench) 2)Spontaneous quenches with delayed R dump Info about cryostat pressure vs. E cryo useful for defining the delay Ultimate goal to delay R dump beyond the end of current decay – Eventually remove IL PH if MIITs and MTF allow » Eventually delay/remove also OL PH » Magnet self-protecting? 2-3 quenches + 1 verification quench (estimation) 13 time line Q t det PS Off, fire PH ~ 1 ms R dump dump delay

Summary of the proposals 1/2 1.Protection heater delay at 14 kA / 80% short sample limit -Measure delay in different coil segments -Low risk to magnet and MTF -4 quenches 2.Current decay after OL PH activation: Study MIITs decay vs. operating current – Provoked protection with only OL PH: Current decay due to R mag by PH, and potential quench back – Gradual increase in current (from 5 kA, in 1.5 kA steps, up to 15.5 kA) – Potentially high MIITs and cryostat pressure, at higher currents – Max 8 quenches + potential verification quenches 3.Quench propagation velocity using training quenches with delayed protection – Max allowed MIITs 16, cryostat pressure needs to be monitored – 3-4 quenches + verification quench 14

Summary of the proposals 2/2 4.High MIITs quenches, if safe MTF range established and magnet not degraded – Spontaneous quench with only OL PH, to see the additional MIITs – Spontaneous quenches with delayed R dump (Eventually delay/remove also IL and OL PH) – High risk to magnet – Possible degradation needs to be assessed with a verification quench after every increase in MIITs – High risk to MTF – Cyostat pressure needs to be monitored – 3-4 quenches + potential verification quenches 15

16 Thank you. Discussion is open.

Abbreviations PH = Protection Heater R dump = Dump resistor PS = Main Power Supply IL = Inner Layer OL = Outer Layer MIITs decay = MIITs for the current decay after trigger MIITs det = MIITs for the constant current before detection MIITs total = Total MIITs for a quench hotspot temperature I mag = Magnet current R mag = Magnet resistance E cryo = Energy dissipated in the cryostat L = Magnet inductance T hotspot = Adiabatic hotspot temperature 17