sPHENIX HCal discussion

["Kistenev, Edouard" <kistenev AT bnl.gov>]

John, 

you really made me worried - I was under impression that we are not planning to make IHCal a heat sink for every heat source around. It will not work. My assumption always been the air is flowing in the space between EMC and IHCal and probably even between IHCal and solenoid. Al is too good a heat conductor for IHCal to be left to its own defenses. Some information answering my questions is enclosed. To some extent it may also explain high temperature in 1/11 area (if I read the numbering correctly). 

Edward

One can find even better compilation at 

https://www.engineersedge.com/properties_of_metals.htm

Al is much more conductive compared to steel of many other "choice" materials for calorimetry - almost transparent. 

Metal, Metallic Element or Alloy	Temperature - t -  (oC)	Thermal Conductivity  - k -  (W/m K)
Aluminum	-73	237
"	0	236
"	127	240
"	327	232
"	527	220
Aluminum - Duralumin (94-96% Al, 3-5% Cu, trace Mg)	20	164
Aluminum - Silumin (87% Al, 13% Si)	20	164
Aluminum bronze	0 - 25	70
Aluminum alloy 3003, rolled	0 - 25	190
Aluminum alloy 2014. annealed	0 - 25	190
Aluminum alloy 360	0 - 25	150
Antimony	-73	30.2
"	0	25.5
"	127	21.2
"	327	18.2
"	527	16.8
Beryllium	-73	301
"	0	218
"	127	161
"	327	126
"	527	107
"	727	89
"	927	73
Beryllium copper 25	0 - 25	80
Bismuth	-73	9.7
"	0	8.2
Boron	-73	52.5
"	0	31.7
"	127	18.7
"	327	11.3
"	527	8.1
"	727	6.3
"	927	5.2
Cadmium	-73	99.3
"	0	97.5
"	127	94.7
Cesium	-73	36.8
"	0	36.1
Chromium	-73	111
"	0	94.8
"	127	87.3
"	327	80.5
"	527	71.3
"	727	65.3
"	927	62.4
Cobalt	-73	122
"	0	104
"	127	84.8
Copper	-73	413
"	0	401
"	127	392
"	327	383
"	527	371
"	727	357
"	927	342
Copper, electrolytic (ETP)	0 - 25	390
Copper - Admiralty Brass	20	111
Copper - Aluminum Bronze (95% Cu, 5% Al)	20	83
Copper - Bronze (75% Cu, 25% Sn)	20	26
Copper - Brass (Yellow Brass) (70% Cu, 30% Zn)	20	111
Copper - Cartridge brass (UNS C26000)	20	120
Copper - Constantan  (60% Cu, 40% Ni)	20	22.7
Copper - German Silver (62% Cu, 15% Ni, 22% Zn)	20	24.9
Copper - Phosphor bronze (10% Sn, UNS C52400)	20	50
Copper - Red Brass (85% Cu, 9% Sn, 6%Zn)	20	61
Cupronickel	20	29
Germanium	-73	96.8
"	0	66.7
"	127	43.2
"	327	27.3
"	527	19.8
"	727	17.4
"	927	17.4
Gold	-73	327
"	0	318
"	127	312
"	327	304
"	527	292
"	727	278
"	927	262
Hafnium	-73	24.4
"	0	23.3
"	127	22.3
"	327	21.3
"	527	20.8
"	727	20.7
"	927	20.9
Hastelloy C	0 - 25	12
Inconel	21 - 100	15
Incoloy	0 – 100	12
Indium	-73	89.7
"	0	83.7
"	127	75.5
Iridium	-73	153
"	0	148
"	127	144
"	327	138
"	527	132
"	727	126
"	927	120
Iron	-73	94
"	0	83.5
"	127	69.4
"	327	54.7
"	527	43.3
"	727	32.6
"	927	28.2
Iron - Cast	20	52
Iron - Nodular pearlitic	100	31
Iron - Wrought	20	59
Lead	-73	36.6
"	0	35.5
"	127	33.8
"	327	31.2
Chemical lead	0 - 25	35
Antimonial lead (hard lead)	0 - 25	30
Lithium	-73	88.1
"	0	79.2
"	127	72.1
Magnesium	-73	159
"	0	157
"	127	153
"	327	149
"	527	146
Magnesium alloy AZ31B	0 - 25	100
Manganese	-73	7.17
"	0	7.68
Mercury	-73	28.9
Molybdenum	-73	143
"	0	139
"	127	134
"	327	126
"	527	118
"	727	112
"	927	105
Monel	0 – 100	26
Nickel	-73	106
"	0	94
"	127	80.1
"	327	65.5
"	527	67.4
"	727	71.8
"	927	76.1
Nickel - Wrought	0 – 100	61 – 90
Cupronickel 50 -45 (Constantan)	0 - 25	20
Niobium (Columbium)	-73	52.6
"	0	53.3
"	127	55.2
"	327	58.2
"	527	61.3
"	727	64.4
"	927	67.5
Osmium	20	61
Palladium		75.5
Platinum	-73	72.4
"	0	71.5
"	127	71.6
"	327	73.0
"	527	75.5
"	727	78.6
"	927	82.6
Plutonium	20	8.0
Potassium	-73	104
"	0	104
"	127	52
Red brass	0 - 25	160
Rhenium	-73	51
"	0	48.6
"	127	46.1
"	327	44.2
"	527	44.1
"	727	44.6
"	927	45.7
Rhodium	-73	154
"	0	151
"	127	146
"	327	136
"	527	127
"	727	121
"	927	115
Rubidium	-73	58.9
"	0	58.3
Selenium	20	0.52
Silicon	-73	264
"	0	168
"	127	98.9
"	327	61.9
"	527	42.2
"	727	31.2
"	927	25.7
Silver	-73	403
"	0	428
"	127	420
"	327	405
"	527	389
"	727	374
"	927	358
Sodium	-73	138
"	0	135
Solder 50 - 50	0 - 25	50
Steel - Carbon, 0.5% C	20	54
Steel - Carbon, 1% C	20	43
Steel - Carbon, 1.5% C	20	36
"	400	36
"	122	33
Steel - Chrome, 1% Cr	20	61
Steel - Chrome, 5% Cr	20	40
Steel - Chrome, 10% Cr	20	31
Steel - Chrome Nickel, 15% Cr, 10% Ni	20	19
Steel - Chrome Nickel, 20% Cr, 15% Ni	20	15.1
Steel - Hastelloy B	20	10
Steel - Hastelloy C	21	8.7
Steel - Nickel, 10% Ni	20	26
Steel - Nickel, 20% Ni	20	19
Steel - Nickel, 40% Ni	20	10
Steel - Nickel, 60% Ni	20	19
Steel - Nickel Chrome, 80% Ni, 15% Ni	20	17
Steel - Nickel Chrome, 40% Ni, 15% Ni	20	11.6
Steel - Manganese, 1% Mn	20	50
Steel - Stainless, Type 304	20	14.4
Steel - Stainless, Type 347	20	14.3
Steel - Tungsten, 1% W	20	66
Steel - Wrought Carbon	0	59
Tantalum	-73	57.5
"	0	57.4
"	127	57.8
"	327	58.9
"	527	59.4
"	727	60.2
"	927	61
Thorium	20	42
Tin	-73	73.3
"	0	68.2
"	127	62.2
Titanium	-73	24.5
"	0	22.4
"	127	20.4
"	327	19.4
"	527	19.7
"	727	20.7
"	927	22
Tungsten	-73	197
"	0	182
"	127	162
"	327	139
"	527	128
"	727	121
"	927	115
Uranium	-73	25.1
"	0	27
"	127	29.6
"	327	34
"	527	38.8
"	727	43.9
"	927	49
Vanadium	-73	31.5
"	0	31.3
"	427	32.1
"	327	34.2
"	527	36.3
"	727	38.6
"	927	41.2
Zinc	-73	123
"	0	122
"	127	116
"	327	105
Zirconium	-73	25.2
"	0	23.2
"	127	21.6
"	327	20.7
"	527	21.6
"	727	23.7
"	927	25.7

• Thermal Conductivity Online Converter

Alloys - Temperature and Thermal Conductivity

Temperature and thermal conductivity for 

• Hastelloy A
• Inconel
• Nichrome V
• Kovar
• Advance
• Monel

alloys:

---

From: sPHENIX-HCal-l <sphenix-hcal-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of John Haggerty <haggerty AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 11:48 AM
To: Lajoie, John G [PHYSA] <lajoie AT iastate.edu>
Cc: sphenix-hcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov <sphenix-hcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-hcal-l] iHCAL thermal testing

 

John et al.,

Sorry I couldn't stay to discuss this but here are a few more comments
based on what I did hear:

Things to do next:

1- make sure all the preamps are actually powered and reading their
thermistors
2- make sure the preamp thermistors are actually attached somewhere we
want to know the temperature
3- stick a temperature sensor on the hottest IB component (I guess
that's the LDO)
4- take another couple hours of data

I'm not sure whether it makes sense to try to thermally isolate the
sector completely from the environment, we should kick this around a bit
more, and I'll talk to Rob about it; he has a good feeling for thermal
issues.

I'm no expert on thermal management, but I've played around with things
like this:

> https://www.powerstream.com/temperature-rise-in-an-electronics-enclosure.htm

to see if what we observe seems consistent with what we expect, and it
seems to me to make sense to provide an air inlet so we have a
controlled way for air to enter the sectors rather than relying on
random leaks.  I think the only way we could do better would be to
thermally attach the interface board to a cooling plate which would be
in thermal contact with the sector structure (making the entire IHCAL
the heat sink), but I sort of doubt it's warranted based on what we've
seen so far.

Edward asked about the pattern of temperatures, which I think does not
measure what we want to know, because I'm not sure what the thermistors
are in contact with (air? aluminum? the preamp?), so I would not draw
any conclusions without another test (which will also have more of
them).  I should add that trying to get excellent and long-lived thermal
contact to thermocouples or thermistors is not so easy; glue tends to
give way, the sensors are small, and it's not so easy to get the SiPM
temperatures even in the EMCAL, and it's harder in the HCAL.

I think there is no path to cooling the SiPM's, so we're going to have
to learn to live with the noise at room temperature, which is less good
for the IHCAL the the OHCAL, since the neutron dose is less than the
emcal according to Jin's simulation, but it's not order of magnitude
less like the OHCAL, but we can only do what we can do.

On 2021-01-05 15:33, Lajoie, John G [PHYSA] wrote:
> Hi John H,
>
> Thanks for showing the slides on the iHCAL thermal tests today, it's
> great to get that rolling. It makes sense that you see temperatures
> similar to the oHCAL sectors.
>
> What I am having a hard time getting my brain around is what sort of
> tests we have to do to convince ourselves that we are OK, and whether
> or not the thermal solution that has been designed for the iHCAL is
> adequate (or needed?).  As I see it there are two things we need to
> address:
>
> - The LDO's on the boards at the end of the sector don't like to get
> too hot. I think you saw a 60C peak? Obviously with the colling tube
> and vanes in the bay that will help somewhat but can we put a
> thermistor on the LDO's?
>
> - The iHCAL is in a different situation than the oHCAL. The oHCAL can
> just radiate all it's heat out the back, while the iHCAL is sandwiched
> between the EMCal and the cryostat.  A standalone sector test that
> shows temperatures similar to the oHCAL is fine, but what happens when
> it is installed? I really don't know how to answer this question. It
> may be that all the heat is transferred to the frame and exits though
> the end rings, but I'd feel more comfortable with an expert telling me
> that was a valid assumption.  In particular I don't want to find we
> present some sort of heat load to the cryostat.
>
> I absolutely do NOT want to over complicate the iHCAL thermal testing.
> Before we go further, is there some additional expertise at BNL that
> we could tap into to sanity check our approach?  If we could get some
> input that would better define the key tests we have to do we could
> save a lot of time.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> John Lajoie
>
> he, him, his
>
> Professor of Physics
>
> Iowa State University
>
> (515) 294-6952
>
> lajoie AT iastate.edu

---
John Haggerty
haggerty AT bnl.gov
cell: 631 741 3358
_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-HCal-l mailing list
sPHENIX-HCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-hcal-l