Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

A Summary of the Fermilab Magnetic Measurements Of MICE Spectrometer Solenoid 2 M. Tartaglia 18 January 2013.

Published byCameron McGee Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "A Summary of the Fermilab Magnetic Measurements Of MICE Spectrometer Solenoid 2 M. Tartaglia 18 January 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 A Summary of the Fermilab Magnetic Measurements Of MICE Spectrometer Solenoid 2 M. Tartaglia 18 January 2013

2 The Spectrometer Solenoid M1 M2 E1 C E2 40 cm diameter warm bore 2.6m long cryostat SS2 under test; SS1 under repair All coils wound on one machined Aluminum (6061-T6) Mandrel; Outer Aluminum Bands

3 Solenoid Power, Control & Monitoring Testing and Measurements used 3 power supplies: Configured to power M1-only, M2-only, E1+C+E2 in series

4 The Measurement System Hall Probe: Senis 10T probe (S/N5406) Field Readout:Keithley 2700 Mux/DMM – Student developed Labview system Probe positioning System – Probe mount with close pair of bearings shaft side – Long G10 shaft (sections) with continuous scale – Scribe line to keep probe angular orientation – Stainless Steel guide tube (2 joined sections) Tested in TC1206 at 4 T to ensure non magnetic joint – Guide Tube positioning plates at each end Tube positioning slots Machined to 0.1mm precision G10 capture rings each end fix the Z position reference

5 The Measurement System

6 3D Hall probe calibration checked against NMR probe up to 4 T at Fermilab MTF in Tevatron dipole TC1206; stainless steel guide tube and seam also verified as non- magnetic.

7 The Measurement System Coordinate Systems – Probe Readout: +Z is from M1 towards E2 +Y is up +X is to the left as viewed from M1 looking toward E2 – Probe Position: +Z is from M1 towards E2; measured wrt M1 end of the guide tube (fixed by capture rings wrt end plates) “X100” is really X= -100 mm in probe frame “Y100” is really Y= -100 mm in probe frame – Field: Bz points from E2 to M1 (along –Z); Opera matches Data +Bx +By +Bz

8 The Measurement System Magnet Current Readout – Visual front panel display on each PS – Internal shunt recorded by LINUX monitoring sys. – Digital values agreed with nominal settings (<1%) Measurement Procedure (2 people) – Start a new file for each Z-scan Encode coils, current, date into file name – Move Guide Tube to desired location, adjust ref. angle – Manually position probe in Z (moving in or out) 1 or 2 cm steps, except when centering bearings near end – Adjust probe angle to align scribe mark – Manually enter current, Z position to Labview GUI – Trigger reading of Hall probe voltages (avg ~3/min) Automatically recording 10 measurements for each Z step

9 The Measurement History 6/11/2012 – 0 A noise, offset levels – Checkout 10 A M1+M2, X0Y0 6/12 – 0 A noise, offset check – M2 50A scans, X0Y0; X100Y0; X0Y100 – ECE 50A scans, X0Y0; X100Y0 6/13 – Shaft jammed in tube; removed and repaired (Z shifted!) – M1 50A scan, X0Y0 – ALL 185 A started (3 points), then Quench 6/14 – ALL 150A scans, X0Y0; X100Y0; X0Y100

10 The Magnetic Model Opera2D is adequate (assuming cyl. symmetry) – Independently modeled in Opera3D by Marc B. As-Built Geometry and Winding Data Used – MICE note 207, table 5 for SS2 (SS1 is VERY close) – Dimensions known at room temperature to 50μm – Thermal Contraction Coefficient ? I used 3*10 -3 This gives 7.5 mm shrinkage over the magnet length! 4*10 -3 is probably a better number for Aluminum… Generate {Bz, Br} vs Z to match each data set −For Specified coils at 50A or 150A, at R=0 and R=100mm −Fine 1mm spacing in Z, to make best match to data

11 The Magnetic Model

12 The Data Analysis Use MATLAB to calculate dBz, dBr (data-model) – For each data set, determine Z offset to give best agreement to match Bz (by eye; to ~± 2mm) – For each Z data, the program: calculates averages, errors of the 10 Bx, By, Bz data measurements calculates BxCor= Bx + α ·Bz, where α=-.016 (later -.018) – Due to constant X-Z tilt of the probe (this is ~ 1 degree) Loops through array of model points, finds index of (Z model -Z offset ) that is closest to Z data then calculates dB=B data -B model for that Z data Writes a new excel spreadsheet of B’s and dB, vs Z – Run program separately to generate dBz and dBr Plot data, model, differences in Excel

13 Summary of Results 1)Zoffsets, from best match of Bz DateCoilsCurrentPositionZoffset, cm 6/11M1M210X0 Y0(-40.0) 6/12M250X0 Y0-40.0 6/12M250X100 Y0-40.2 6/12M250X0 Y100-39.8 6/12ECE50X0 Y0-39.8 6/12ECE50X100 Y0-39.8 6/13M150X0 Y0-41.4 6/13ALL185X0 Y0QUENCH! 6/14ALL150X0 Y0-41.6 6/14ALL150X100 Y0-41.6 6/14ALL150X0 Y100-41.6 Shaft stuck

14 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z M1M2 on axis

15 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z M1 on axis

16 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z M2 on axis

17 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z M2 off axis

18 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z M2 off axis

19 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z ECE on axis Why the slope?

20 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z ECE off axis Why the slope?

21 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z ALL on axis 100 G shift in measured Bz 1A change is 2.25T/150A =150 G

22 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z ALL off axis Why the slope?

23 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z ALL off axis Why the slope?

24 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z: Maximum dBz(data-model)/Bz DateCoilsCurrentPositionM1M2ECE 6/11M1M210X0 Y0~1%~7 % 6/12M250X0 Y02.5% 6/12M250X100 Y02.5% 6/12M250X0 Y1003.0% 6/12ECE50X0 Y00.5% 6/12ECE50X100 Y00.5% 6/13M150X0 Y00.5% 6/14ALL150X0 Y00.5%1.0%3.0% 6/14ALL150X100 Y00.5%1.0%3.0% 6/14ALL150X0 Y1000.5%1.0%3.0% Small discrepancies might be improved by a) Z scale (use CTE=4 10-3), b) slight radial offsets (next section)

25 Summary of Results 2)Bz vs Z: Sensitivity to radial position? For small R, not very: look at M2-only, at peak Bz: at R=0.1m for dR=10mm, dBz/Bz~5/375=1.3% (ECE: even less)

26 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Sensitivity to radial position M1 example @ 50A Br vs Z at R=0.1m Br vs R at peak (Z=-0.3m) Br ~linear with R; dBr/dR= 9.1 G/mm @R=0.1m

27 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Bx and By offsets Bx(0A) ~ +4 to +5 GBy(0A) ~ 0to -5 G

28 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: M1 on axis - easily affected by probe tilts Consistent with radial offsets ~ 1mm from magnetic axis

29 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: M2 on axis – peak dB/dR ~ 5 G/mm @ R=0:  X ~ +2 mm,  Y ~ -2.5 mm

30 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model M2 off axis – Bx at X=-100mm (compare to –Br(0.1m))

31 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data - Model M2 off axis – peak dBr/dR = 6.7 G/mm @ R=0.1m  X~0 (<1mm); By affected by probe rotations!

32 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model M2 off axis – By at Y=-100mm (compare to –Br(0.1m))

33 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data - Model M2 off axis – either  Y~ -4mm (or some coil ellipticity?) Bx affected by probe rotations

34 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model ECE on axis – peak dB/dR ~ 9.4 G/mm @ R=0:  X ~ +3 mm,  Y ~ -4 mm Why the slope?

35 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model ECE off axis – Bx at X=-100mm (compare to –Br(0.1m))

36 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data - Model ECE off axis –  X ~ +5 mm,  Y (probe rotation)

37 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model ALL on axis – dBr/dR=18.5, 29.3 G/mm at R=0 @ E1,E2  X~ +1.3, +2.1  Y~ -7.4, -7.3 mm Why the By slope? Shift in Bx due to 2 mrad change in probe tilt

38 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model ALL off axis – Bx at X=-100mm (compare to –Br(0.1m))

39 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data - Model ALL off axis –  B model /1mm = { 25.7, -11.0, 7.5, -4.5, 17.5, -29.0 } T/mm  X ~ { 4.7, 1.6, 14.1, 4.2, 7.3, 5.5 } mm (30 G corr. for Bx shift = 1 mrad) (probe rotated in Y)

40 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data vs Model ALL off axis – By at Y=-100mm (compare to –Br(0.1m))

41 Summary of Results 3)Br vs Z: Data - Model ALL off axis –  B model /1mm = { 25.7, -11.0, 7.5, -4.5, 17.5, -29.0 } T/mm  Y ~ { -5.8, ҉, -16.7, -14.7, -15.4, -14.1 } mm (probe rotated in X)

42 Summary of Results 2)Br vs Z:  X,  Y (in mm) DateCoilsCurrentPositionM1M2E1E2 6/11M1M210X0 Y0 6/12M250X0 Y0+2.0 -2.5 6/12M250X100 Y0<1 6/12M250X0 Y100 -4.4 6/12ECE50X0 Y0+3.6 -4.3+3.6 -6.7 6/12ECE50X100 Y0+4.8+5.0 6/13M150X0 Y0~1 6/14ALL150X0 Y0+1.3 -7.4+2.1 -7.3 6/14ALL150X100 Y0+4.2+7.3+5.5 6/14ALL150X0 Y100 -14.7 -15.4 -14.1 Not completely sure what conclusions we can draw from these numbers

43 Summary of Results 2)Br vs Z: 1)There appears to be a small slope dX/dZ and dY/dZ ~1-2 mrad wrt meas. axis 2)Did cold mass move after the quench (or at 150A due to greater ext. forces)? (or, what else might be going on?) 8 mm shift ! On axis/ Off axis difference

44 Lessons Learned Improvements To Make – Stiffer beam or tube; Key/slot to fix probe angle – Digital encoder for Z-position (e.g., “string pot”) – Bearings along the length, better shaft centering – Better yet, Motorize and automate the scans Piezo motor - Has to operate in high field. Short probe holder between bearings, drawn by motor Additional Data to Take – Each coil powered separately, on & off axis – Wider range of currents, better current monitors Capture current from the shunt directly, with probe V’s

Download ppt "A Summary of the Fermilab Magnetic Measurements Of MICE Spectrometer Solenoid 2 M. Tartaglia 18 January 2013."

Similar presentations

MICE Magnetic Investigation of T2 MICE/ISIS Target Meeting 17 th September 2010 P J Smith – University of Sheffield.

MICE Magnetic Investigation of T2 MICE/ISIS Target Meeting 17 th September 2010 P J Smith – University of Sheffield.
CM-18 June 20071 The Measurement and Monitoring of the Field from the MICE Magnets Michael A Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, USA Frank Filthaut.

CM-18 June The Measurement and Monitoring of the Field from the MICE Magnets Michael A Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, USA Frank Filthaut.
Magnet quench during a training run Magnet electrical circuit schematic PROGRESS ON THE MODELING AND MODIFICATION OF THE MICE SUPERCONDUCTING SPECTROMETER.

Magnet quench during a training run Magnet electrical circuit schematic PROGRESS ON THE MODELING AND MODIFICATION OF THE MICE SUPERCONDUCTING SPECTROMETER.
The 23 rd MICE Collaboration Meeting -1- ICST/HIT Jan.13 to 17, Harbin/China Large Prototype Coil Test and Plan 2009-01-15 Fengyu Xu Institute of Cryogenics.

The 23 rd MICE Collaboration Meeting -1- ICST/HIT Jan.13 to 17, Harbin/China Large Prototype Coil Test and Plan Fengyu Xu Institute of Cryogenics.
23 October 2005MICE Meeting at RAL1 MICE Tracker Magnets, 4 K Coolers, and Magnet Coupling during a Quench Michael A. Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

23 October 2005MICE Meeting at RAL1 MICE Tracker Magnets, 4 K Coolers, and Magnet Coupling during a Quench Michael A. Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
LCLS Undulators October 14, 2004 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / SSRL MMF Review Introduction to the LCLS Undulators Heinz-Dieter Nuhn,

LCLS Undulators October 14, 2004 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / SSRL MMF Review Introduction to the LCLS Undulators Heinz-Dieter Nuhn,
Yurii Levashov Undula t or fiducialization test Oct. 14, 2004 Undulator Fiducialization Test Results Fiducialization Tolerances.

Yurii Levashov Undula t or fiducialization test Oct. 14, 2004 Undulator Fiducialization Test Results Fiducialization Tolerances.
Use of a commercial laser tracker for optical alignment James H. Burge, Peng Su, Chunyu Zhao, Tom Zobrist College of Optical Sciences Steward Observatory.

Use of a commercial laser tracker for optical alignment James H. Burge, Peng Su, Chunyu Zhao, Tom Zobrist College of Optical Sciences Steward Observatory.
1 The Genoa Tracker Solenoids and their Contribution toward a New Design Michael A. Green Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Pasquale Fabbricatore.

1 The Genoa Tracker Solenoids and their Contribution toward a New Design Michael A. Green Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Pasquale Fabbricatore.
Isaac Vasserman Magnetic Measurements and Tuning 10/14/2004 1 I. Vasserman LCLS Magnetic Measurements and Tuning.

Isaac Vasserman Magnetic Measurements and Tuning 10/14/ I. Vasserman LCLS Magnetic Measurements and Tuning.
Yurii Levashov LCLS Undulator Fiducialization October 20, 2005 *Work supported in part by DOE Contract DE-AC02-76SF00515 1 LCLS.

Yurii Levashov LCLS Undulator Fiducialization October 20, 2005 *Work supported in part by DOE Contract DE-AC02-76SF LCLS.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science U.S. Department.

A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science U.S. Department.
Velo to T Alignment - Reminder General Strategy  Perform relative VELO-to-IT/OT alignment using  X,  Y at the center of magnet and  X,  Y (each.

Velo to T Alignment - Reminder General Strategy  Perform relative VELO-to-IT/OT alignment using  X,  Y at the center of magnet and  X,  Y (each.
(FEA) Analysis P J Smith University of Sheffield 27 th November 2008.

(FEA) Analysis P J Smith University of Sheffield 27 th November 2008.
Zachary Wolf Undulator Oct 12, 2006 1 LCLS Undulator Tuning Zack Wolf, Yurii Levashov, Achim Weidemann, Seva Kaplounenko,

Zachary Wolf Undulator Oct 12, LCLS Undulator Tuning Zack Wolf, Yurii Levashov, Achim Weidemann, Seva Kaplounenko,
Solenoid Magnetic Field Mapping Paul S Miyagawa University of Manchester Objectives Mapper machine Mapper software Simulation Corrections Fitting Future.

Solenoid Magnetic Field Mapping Paul S Miyagawa University of Manchester Objectives Mapper machine Mapper software Simulation Corrections Fitting Future.
Coil Manufacture, Assembly and Magnetic Calibration Facility for Warm and Cold Magnetic Measurements of LHC Superconducting Magnets CERN AT-MTM 1 / 21.

Coil Manufacture, Assembly and Magnetic Calibration Facility for Warm and Cold Magnetic Measurements of LHC Superconducting Magnets CERN AT-MTM 1 / 21.
April 24, 2008 FNAL ILC SCRF Meeting 1 Main Linac Superconducting Quadrupole V. Kashikhin, T. Fernando, J. DiMarco, G. Velev.

April 24, 2008 FNAL ILC SCRF Meeting 1 Main Linac Superconducting Quadrupole V. Kashikhin, T. Fernando, J. DiMarco, G. Velev.
Page 1 Christian Grefe, DESY FLC Status of PCMAG fieldmapping analysis Annual EUDET Meeting Paris, 08.10.2007 Status of PCMAG fieldmapping analysis Christian.

Page 1 Christian Grefe, DESY FLC Status of PCMAG fieldmapping analysis Annual EUDET Meeting Paris, Status of PCMAG fieldmapping analysis Christian.
19 Nov 08,ILC08Cherrill Spencer Rotating Coil System Description 1 Short description of the SLAC rotating coil system used to measure the CIEMAT-made prototype.

19 Nov 08,ILC08Cherrill Spencer Rotating Coil System Description 1 Short description of the SLAC rotating coil system used to measure the CIEMAT-made prototype.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google