1. QA: BNL Measurements D. Lynn (BNL), LBNL Mechanical Meeting, Sep 2012 1

2. Preliminary Discussion of QA Techniques Previously Presented - Have made many measurements since then } 1.3 m stave, 1.2 m co-cure stave } } 1.3 m stave } Georg obtained quote } No action 2

3. Standard 1.3 m Stave (SS) Co-Cured (CC)1.2 m Stave Measurements on standard stave and co-cured stave to follow No bus on SS. SS used ~ 80 gsm fiber CC used ~ 45 gsm fiber 3 Weights are in grams

4. 4 Flatness Flatness is somewhat of an ill defined-defined for a floppy stave. There is local flatness (e.g. bumpiness), particularly with co-cure stave facings. What we have been measuring instead is shape, or profile. The stave shape or profile depends upon how the stave is supported. Thickness (or uniformity of thickness) is another concept; we have not been measuring this. Profile measurements are made with displacements lasers stepping 1- 5 mm in longitudinal direction and spaced typically ~ 1cm apart in transverse direction.

5. Stand Stave Profiles: 4 Point Support 5

6. Standard Stave Profiles: Five Location Frame Support 6

7. Co-cured Stave Profiles: 4 Point Support 7

8. Co-cured Stave Profiles: 5 CF-Peek bracket support 8

9. 5 CF-Peek Bracket Support for CC, 5 Location Frame Support for SS CC 9 SS

10. 5 CF-Peek Bracket Support, Side 1 – Side 2 Differences in side one vs side two dominated by bus cable differences in longitudinal directions 10

11. Co-cure stave transverse profiles dominated by bus tape features 11 Note: Side 3 is actually side 2

12. 12 1.3 m Standard Stave Core Bend Tests Same slope implies stiffness is not dependent on orientation Difference is due to 0 gravity initial bow. Average  H = 340 um Bend Tests with Profile MeasurementsRoom Temp vs. -30 deg-C bend tests with various support separation Illustrates stiffness is independent of temperature We have not yet extracted a core shear modulus from the data

13. Facing thickness = 250 um Facing Modulus from data ~ 320 GPa Bending Stiffness from data ~ 87 Nm 2 Facing includes properties of bus cable. E.g. the thickness includes the bus cable and the modulus is therefore an effective modulus Facing thickness = 370 um Facing Modulus from data ~ 135 GPa Bending Stiffness from data ~ 57 Nm 2 1.3 meter Stave I compared to 1.2 meter Stave II co-cure stave: Bending stiffness 13

14. 14 Temperature Dependence of Bending stiffness SS bending stiffness has no discernible dependence upon temperature. CC bending stiffness has a discernible dependence upon temperature. Due to bus tape adhesive? Effect is small however.

15. 15 1.3 m Stave Core Resonant Frequency Measurements Measure frequency response to impulse. Compare frequency response of simple end support (lowest stave frequency) and frame support, where frame support mimics US style brackets with elastic peek brackets. First resonant frequency with end support is 18 Hz (14 Hz is simulation value). First resonant frequency jumps to 156 Hz with frame (5 brackets) support. End SupportFrame Support 18 Hz 60 Hz108 Hz156 Hz Impact Response with Stave in Frame 64 Hz

16. 16 4 Point Bend Tests and Resonant Frequency Test 4 Point Bend Test Equation Simply Supported Stave Resonant Frequencies Equation 1.3 meter stave frequencies Measured Equation with D = 87 Nm 2 (from 4 point bend test) Else if use measured f 1 = 18 Hz to predict D, get D = 111 Nm 2 Note: Original talk used wrong equation on right.

17. 17 4 Point Bend Tests and Resonant Frequency Test 4 Point Bend Test Equation Simply Supported Stave Resonant Frequencies Equation 4 point bend test assumes neglects stave mass M Resonant frequency test sensitive to mass M Is it useful to do both tests? What sort of defects can we expect to be sensitive to with these tests? Note: Original talk used wrong equation on right.

18. Hello Georg, I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you as I’ve been out of town for the week. The cost of the unit is approximately $46,000 USD, including software and hardware. Is that within your budget range? If you give me your full contact information I put together a quotation for you. I’ve attached some background information on our device. Can you tell me about the application you foresee for our device? If so I can provide additional background information. Best regards, Bob Lasser Imperium, Inc. Proposal from 2011 Oxford Upgrade Talk Georg’s Preliminary Quote April 2012 18

19. 19 1.3 m Stave Core Convective Heating Characterization Side ASide B Thermal image of chilled stave core with total power input ~ 125 W Comparison of Side A and B shows very similar distribution with systematic difference less than 1 deg-C Work remains to determine how effective this technique can be used as a QA measure

20. IR Camera Calibration and Determination of Emissivity Emmisivity =.89 and ambient box temperature = measured was result of calibration of our standard black spray paint and gave good correspondence Intended to do new calibration and surface of stave can’t be painted and we expected a different emissivity value would be needed. However e =.89 gave excellent correspondence over full range of temepratures -25 deg-C to 38 deg-C. 20

21. Can We Thermal Image Co-cured Staves ? 125 um thick kapton 75 um thick kapton + adhesive (kapton tape) Kapton is somewhat transparent in the 8-14 um range (seems to imply that it would be difficult to thermal image co-cured staves) But apparently adhesive adds opaqueness (but in this case was not fully opaque; still, this seems to imply maybe adhesive in kapton bus will permit thermal imaging) 21

22. 22 Thermal Imaging of Co-cured Staves Must edit out these features from thermal image

23. SS vs CC Temperature Profile -- SS stave emissivity of 0.87 -- CC stave emissivity of 0.83 23 Did not expect such similar profiles Extra impedance of bus cable compensated by low vertical impedance of thinner facings? SS CC

24. 24 Increased Spatial Resolution is Possible Our software can export each frame into an excel file. Movie may create hundreds of frames. M. A. Pleier (BNL) wrote Root program to input data from hundreds of excel files and create high resolution plots like one on the left At the moment however I’ve lost this ability to generate such plots 35 cm themo-mechanical stavelet

25. 25 IR Calibration of Co-cured Stave

26. Sensitivity/Usefulness of Convective Heating Idea is to normalize temperature profile plots by measuring net power input into stave (we do this with single phase flow and measuring temperature difference between inlet and outlet temperatures….I have just not done this yet). Sensitive to gross errors?? E.g. low CGL/hysol thermal conductivity around pipe? Smaller defects? Graham Beck is studying this. Changes after thermal cycling?? What else? 26

27. 27 Backups

28. 28

29. 29

30. Can We Thermal Image Co-cured Staves ? We painted a black rectangle on co-cured facing from LBNL We heated the facing on a hot plate Very small difference in thermal temperature readings between label A (on painted kapton), and on label B (unpainted). Facing temperature peaks in center not due to emissivity, changes but hot plate configuration (or potentially vignetting….needs to be checked) More testing needs to be done, but it looks promising Painted Rectangle 30

31. 31 IR Calibration of Co-cured Stave