MQXF protection – comparison between 1 or 2 power supplies Vittorio Marinozzi 06/08/2015 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
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.
Advertisements

Protection study options for HQ01e-3 Tiina Salmi QXF meeting, 27 Nov 2012.
MQXF Quench Protection Analysis HiLumi workshop – KEK, Tsukuba Vittorio Marinozzi 11/18/2014.
Zian Zhu Superconducting Solenoid Magnet BESIII Workshop Zian Zhu Beijing, Oct.13,2001.
CM-18 June Magnet Conductor Parameters and How They affect Conductor Selection for MICE Magnets Michael Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley.
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/
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.
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.
Susana Izquierdo Bermudez. OUTLINE 1. Margin and MIITs overview 2. Quench study based on FNAL 11T tests results 1. Longitudinal quench propagation 2.
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.
1 QXF heater parameters G. Chlachidze, M. Marchevsky March 13, 2014.
Design Features: still to be determined and open questions P. Ferracin 4 th Joint HiLumi LHC-LARP Annual Meeting November 17-21, 2014 KEK, Tsukuba.
Brookhaven - fermilab - berkeley US LHC ACCELERATOR PROJECT LHC IR Quad Heaters.
MQXF Quench Protection G. Ambrosio on behalf of the MQXF team With special contribution by: S. Izquierdo Bermudez, V. Marinozzi, E. Ravaioli, T. Salmi,
QXF protection heater design : Overview and status Tiina Salmi QXF quench protection meeting April 30, 2013.
11 T Nb3Sn Demonstrator Dipole R&D Strategy and Status
E. Todesco HL-LHC: OUTLOOK ON PROTECTION FOR IR MAGNETS (WP3) E. Todesco CERN, Geneva Switzerland CERN, 23 rd April 2015 MPE meeting.
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.
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.
MQXF Design and Conductor Requirements P. Ferracin MQXF Conductor Review November 5-6, 2014 CERN.
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.
New options for the new D1 magnet Qingjin Xu
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.
Circuit Protection: Progress and Challenges at HL-LHC B. Auchmann (WP 7) on behalf of many people in WPs 3, 6, 7, 11 and Mr. Circuit.
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.
WAMSDO, January 16, CERNModels and experimental results – G. Ambrosio 11 Models and experimental results from LQ, HQ (… and more) and QXF Giorgio.
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)
Quench Protection Maximum Voltages G. Ambrosio, V. Marinozzi, M. Sorbi WG Video-Mtg January 14, 2015.
Cosine-theta configurations for S.C. Dipole Massimo Sorbi on behalf of: INFN LASA & Genova Team Giovanni Bellomo, Pasquale Fabbricarore, Stefania Farinon,
TE-MPE –EI, TE - MPE - TM 8/12/2011, Antonopoulou Evelina RQS circuit Simulation results Antonopoulou Evelina December 2011 Thanks to E. Ravaioli.
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.
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.
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,
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:
D1 and D2 powering and protection
Status of QLASA Tool Adapter
WORK IN PROGRESS F C C Main Quadrupoles FCC week 2017
MQY-30 Test Result Report
Quench estimations of the CBM magnet
MQXF Quench Protection and Meeting Goals
Protection of FCC 16 T dipoles
MMI^2T limits for magnets, what are they and how where they developed
Quench protection of the MAGIX high-order correctors
Tiina Salmi, Tampere University of Technology
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.
Protection Database Tool
Quench Protection Measurements & Analysis
Hilumi WP3 meeting, 1 October 2014
Electrical Quality Control (QC): coil to coil parts
PANDA solenoid quench calculations
MQXFS1e – PH-to-Coil hipot tests
Quench calculations of the CBM magnet
Electrical integrity of magnets and coils
Presentation transcript:

MQXF protection – comparison between 1 or 2 power supplies Vittorio Marinozzi 06/08/2015 1

2 Summary: 1.Assumptions made in the simulations 2.Hot spot temperature considering 1 or 2 PS (QLASA)  Nominal cases  Failure scenarios 3.Voltages considering 1 or 2 PS (ROXIE)  Nominal cases  Failure scenarios (work in progress)

3 1.1 Assumptions in simulations - PH  Quench assumed to be induced on all the turn covered by heaters  Average delay times used for high-field and low-field zone  Delay times computed by CoHDA (Tiina Salmi)  Heating stations are simulated, but not pre-heat (conservative)  Transversal and longitudinal propagation computed by QLASA

4 1.1 Assumptions in simulations - PH

5 Protection parameters Current [A]16470 Inductance [mH/m]8.21 Lenght [m]31.1/16.8 Dump resistor [mΩ]50 (820V) Dump resistor delay [ms]5 Validation time [ms]10 Cu/Non-Cu1.2 Bare cable width (mm)18.15 Bare cable average thickness (mm)1.525 Cable insulation thickness (mm)0.145 RRR Assumptions in simulations – nominal protection parameters Q1Q2aQ2bQ3 Q1Q m / 1 PS 16.8 m / 2 PS No quench back Dynamic effects on the inductance (iron & IFCC) Dynamic effects on the inductance (iron & IFCC)

6 2.1 Hot spot temperature - nominal 31.1 m (1 PS)Hot spot temperature [K]MIITs [MA 2 s] No dynamic effects Dynamic effects (14 mm pitch) Dynamic effects (19 mm pitch) m (2 PS)Hot spot temperature [K]MIITs [MA 2 s] No dynamic effects Dynamic effects (14 mm pitch) Dynamic effects (19 mm pitch) Just < 5 K gain using 2 PS instead 1 PS !  Magnets can be considered safe

7 2.1 Hot spot temperature - nominal τ 1PS ~ 4 s τ 2PS ~ 2 s Power dissipated on Rd: 1.26 MJ with 1 PS (4 % of the stored energy) 1.25 MJ with 2 PS (7 % of the stored energy) Power dissipated on Rd: 1.26 MJ with 1 PS (4 % of the stored energy) 1.25 MJ with 2 PS (7 % of the stored energy)

8 2.2 Hot spot temperature – no IL-PH 31.1 m (1 PS)Hot spot temperature [K]MIITs [MA 2 s] No dynamic effects Dynamic effects (14 mm pitch) Dynamic effects (19 mm pitch) m (2 PS)Hot spot temperature [K]MIITs [MA 2 s] No dynamic effects Dynamic effects (14 mm pitch) Dynamic effects (19 mm pitch)  With only outer-layer protection heaters, protection is not ensured

9 2.3 Hot spot temperature – OL-PH failure in the high-field block 31.1 m (1 PS)Hot spot temperature [K]MIITs [MA 2 s] No dynamic effects Dynamic effects (14 mm pitch) Dynamic effects (19 mm pitch) m (2 PS)Hot spot temperature [K]MIITs [MA 2 s] No dynamic effects Dynamic effects (14 mm pitch) Dynamic effects (19 mm pitch)  Failure is assumed in all the strips of the outer-layer high-field zone Very pessimistic case  A good redundancy is ensured

Hot spot temperature – conclusions  Magnets can be considered safe, if the whole protection system work  Protection heaters on the inner layer are indispensable in order to ensure safety. Alternatively, protection using CLIQ has to be investigated (Emmanuele)  There is not a relevant difference between using one or two power supplies (Q1/Q2a/Q2b/Q3 series or Q1/Q3 and Q2a/Q2b series), on the hot spot temperature point of view  Redundancy is ensured

11 MQXF voltage analysis (work in progress)

MQXF voltages Rd=50 m Ω ~820 V between current leads To ground [V]Turn-turn [V]Layer-Layer [V]Midp-Midp [V] Q1/Q3 (1 Power Supply) Nominal Coil 1 PH failure Q2a/Q2b (1 Power Supply) Nominal Coil 1 PH failure Q1/Q3 (2 Power Supplies) Nominal Coil 1 PH failure Q2a/Q2b (2 Power Supplies) Nominal Coil 1 PH failure “To ground” column to be checked! Ground positioned on the “in” current lead

MQXF voltages-conclusions  To ground voltage is almost independent on the number of power supplies It is about ~1 kV (to be checked) in the nominal case for both Q1/Q3 and Q2a/Q2b It doubles if all the coil1 inner-layer protection heaters fail  Turn-turn voltage too is independent on the number of PS ~27 V for Q1/Q3, ~45 V for Q2a/Q2b in the nominal case ~50 % bigger if all the coil1 inner-layer protection heaters fail  Layer-layer voltage too is independent on the number of PS ~270 V for Q1/Q3, ~450 V for Q2a/Q2b in the nominal case ~4 times bigger if all the coil1 inner-layer protection heaters fail  Midplane-midplane voltage doubles choosing 2 PS instead of 1 PS ~85/150 V for Q1/Q3, ~150/310 V for Q2a/Q2b in the nominal case ~11 times bigger if all the coil1 inner-layer protection heaters fail  Other scenarios are going to be analyzed (only outer layer PH, failure of few PH strips…)