Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler – Duke University SEM Analysis of Wire from Aging Test #5 Jack Fowler

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Module Test Layout

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire Samples Analyzed  Xe-CO 2 gas volume u Wire 11 – Production wire with glass encapsulated joint u Wire 12 – Production wire with glass encapsulated joint u Wire 14 – Production wire with glass joint  Xe-CF 4 -CO 2 gas volume u Wire 16 – Production wire with glass encapsulated joint u Wire 18 - Production wire with glass encapsulated joint u Wire 20 – Pre Series 1 (.3 to.4  m) with PEEK joint u Wire 24 - Production wire with glass encapsulated joint Wire analysis Performed at Analytical Instrumentation Facility at North Carolina State University

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 11 Segment 1  Very small pores  Fine scratches  No deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 11 Segment 3  Very small pores  Fine scratches  No deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 11 Segment 4  Very small pores  Fine scratches  No deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 11 Segment 5  Very small pores  More scratches, these are probably made during production  No deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 11 Segment 5 Close up  Medium size pores ~0.25  m, more densely populated than upstream  No deposits  Grain boundary very defined

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 12 Segment 5  Very small pores  One large scratch that does not appear to have compromised the wire  No deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 12 Segment 6  Very small pores  Many scratches, probably made in production  No deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 12 Segment 6 Close Up  Very small pores  Fine scratches, wire has not been compromised  No deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 12 Segment 7  Very small pores  Few scratches  No deposits  Some surface contamination

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 12 Segment 7 Close Up  Very small pores  Small scratch  No deposits  Defect in gold plating does not appear to have enlarged

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 1  Very small pores  One large scratch along top surface  No deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 2  Very small pores  One scratch along center, appears the same as the rest of the surface  Some small white deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 3  Many pores of all sizes  Surface is covered with deposits, analysis indicates they are Au

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 3 Close Up  Note how the deposits seem to be in clusters  Again the elemental analysis indicates only Au

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 4 in CWS  Wire appears very clean and undamaged

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 4 beside CWS  Wire surface appears smooth  Many large white deposits.  These show up as Au, C, O and F.

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 4 Surface Analysis  This is the elemental analysis of the dark areas around the deposits  Note the C and F peaks. The C is greater than the F.

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 4 Surface Analysis  This is a elemental analysis of the white deposits  Note the C and F peaks have become equal

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 4 Close Up  Here is a close up of the gold damage

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 4 Epoxy  This shows the region where the epoxy meets the wire.  The epoxy is covered with deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 4 Epoxy Surface Analysis  Note the large F and C peaks on the surface of the Epoxy.  Note also the absence of Au

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 5  Many pores of all sizes  Surface is covered with deposits, the analysis indicated Au  Also note dark appearance of surface

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 5 Close Up  Many pores of all sizes  Note the grain boundaries have lost their definition

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 6  Many pores of all sizes  Surface is covered with deposits, Au only

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 16 Segment 6  Note that the large scratch does not appear to have been damaged more than the rest of the surface

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 7  Many pores of all sizes  Surface deposits have drastically reduced

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 24 Segment 7 Close Up  Many pores of all sizes  Note the pores occur on the grain boundaries  Surface deposits have drastically reduced

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 20 Segment 1  Surface appears normal  Light scratches  No deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 20 Segment 3  Wire is still in good condition  Fine pores  No scratches  No deposits

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 20 Segment 4  Heavy damage of gold plating  Large deposits  Analysis indicates the deposits are mainly Au

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 20 Segment 4  Heavy damage to wire

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 20 Segment 4  Wire coming out of wire joint  Surface of the wire shows heavy deposits  The PEEK appears undamaged

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Wire 20 Segment 5  Many pores  Heavy deposits  These deposits contained Au and W

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Summary  It is clear that the wire is damaged  Xe-CO 2 wire only exhibit small pores on surface  Xe-CF 4 -CO 2 wires show heavy damage, both Au removal and deposits  It appears that the damage increases in the high radiation areas and as you move downstream in the straw  Thicker Au plating protects the wire longer  There is fluorine detected on the surface of the wire  We detected no silicon on the surface

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP To Do  Inspect incoming wire for pores u We have never seen these pores on unused wire  Confirmation of the test results u This should be done when IU gets their test results  Evaluate the possibility of water being trapped on surface, that may accelerate the damage  Evaluate differences from earlier tests

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Thin Plating Comparison

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP What are the Deposits? Si or Au

Feb ’02, TRT Meetings Jack Fowler, Duke HEP Surface Damage