I CREATED FOLDERS FOR THE 7 VOLUMES under
\\bnl.gov\c-adnas\babar
I put in the appendix to FOLDER: Volume 5 DESIGN AND QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
5.1 APPENDIX A,B,C,D,E which are the
A Quality Control plan
B Manufacturing inspection standard
C Materials Certs
D Welding procedures and welding qualification operatives
E NDT reports
F Pressure test report
SENSOR TAGS LIST TABLES
FOLDER: Volume 3 MANUAL
3.2.3 VME Table Files Babar solenoid SENSOR TAGS
Thanks,
Roberto
From: Yip, Kin
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 8:18 AM
To: Than, Yatming (Roberto)
Cc: Mills, James A; Franz, Achim; O'Brien, Edward; Phillips, David B; Haggerty, John
Subject: RE: Babar coil without end caps
Hi Roberto,
I’ve seen/heard from you that you’ve scanned quite a bit of document. Can you please dump/copy them to
\\bnl.gov\c-adnas\babar . I have copied the Bob’s PLC and Paul’s “Historical Memo & Email” … I have seen
those pages that you sent me about the pressure/leak check but you must have a lot more than you gave me
(a few pages here or there and like now) …
Can you please copy them the above server so that we all can benefit ? { Just create some folders with the best
folder names that you can think of … }
Kin
From: Than, Yatming (Roberto)
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 8:11 AM
To: Yip, Kin; pasquale.fabbricatore AT ge.infn.it; Haggerty, John
Cc: Mills, James A; Franz, Achim; O'Brien, Edward; Meng, Wuzheng; Phillips, David B
Subject: RE: Babar coil without end caps
Pasquale
We did find information on the strain gages in terms of tag and location ID, and the 2nd table attached appears to be the calibration coefficients for each respective strain gages.
The table also has the 3 temperatures sensors associated to adjust the calibration equation.
The pdf file is for all that was setup in DAQ for all the sensors.
Thank you.
Roberto
Roberto Than
Department Head, Cryogenic Systems, Collider-Accelerator Department
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Building 1005S, MS 1005S, Room 212
Upton, NY 11973-5000
Telephone: (631) 344-7165, Cell 631-487-6842
E-mail:
ythan AT bnl.gov
From: Yip, Kin
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 7:42 AM
To: pasquale.fabbricatore AT ge.infn.it; Haggerty, John
Cc: Mills, James A; Than, Yatming (Roberto); Franz, Achim; O'Brien, Edward; Meng, Wuzheng; Phillips, David B
Subject: Re: Babar coil without end caps
Thanks for the detailed answer. I ( will ) pass your email to the relevant people and. I guess we will have to do some mechanical analysis after magnetic forces are calculated.
Sent from my BNL Verizon Smartphone
------ Original message------
From: fabbric
Date: Fri, Mar 27, 2015 01:16
To: Yip, Kin;Haggerty, John;
Cc: Mills, James A;Than, Yatming (Roberto);Franz, Achim;O'Brien, Edward;
Subject:Re: Babar coil without end caps
Kin,
I only tried to understand how much the magnetic forces
are changing by removing the end caps. The calculation had only a
comparative value with respect the working condition of Babar coil.
In facts the mechanical scenario is complex and cannot be simplified
too much. In brief: the coil is subjected at the same time to the hoop force (due to the axial field)
and to the axial force (due to radial field). Both forces are applied only to the conductor.
The conductor is mainly made of pure Al with low yield strength (about 20 MPa)
and is not able to support these forces. For this reason we have an external mandrel
made of Al alloy (material able to support more than 100 MPa). The mandrel
directly supports the hoop force so providing the hoop strength to the coil .
The mandrel is also able to support the axial force transmitted to if through
the bonding with the coil. How much the coil is safe from a mechanical point of view
can be understood only from a mechanical analysis evaluating the Von Mises stress
and the shear stress in the coil components (Pure Al, Rutherford cable, insulation, mandrel).
This analysis involves not only the effect of magnetic forces but also the cool-down effects
(not negligible stress in the insulation are just given by the cooldown to 4.2 K).
If you use Babar coil with the yoke as is, you do not need any analysis. But if you
remove the end caps, there is a large variation of the axial force (factor 2 more) and
a reduction of the axial force (order of 15%). This in case you can live with a magnetic
field of 1.37 T. If you want to have 1.5 T the axial force further increases.
These changes should induce to review the mechanical analysis. In this framework the knowledge
of the magnetic force on individual conductors is a very good starting point for
the following mechanical considerations.
Best regards
Pasquale
P.S.
Next week I will look for more information about the strain gauges placed on the
tie rods and the alignment of the coil in the yoke
Il 26/03/2015 22:03, Kin Yip ha scritto:
Hi,
> The axial compression increases of 85% (i.e. a bit less than double).
Thanks for your quick calculation. Are you saying an 85% increase on 380 Metric-Ton (and 380 metric-ton amounts to ~10 MPa).
The axial compression 185% => 18.5 MPa ?? Is that what you mean ?
Our local magnet expert (who uses Opera) asks 380 Metric-Ton on what ? And when you calculate the pressure in MPa, what area
do you use ? Just a cross-sectional area ? In his opinion, the epoxy is filled everywhere and the area should be more like circumference*area.
And you can give the area a factor of 2.
( He said that the atmospheric pressure is 0.1 MPa, 10 MPa is like 100 times of that. But these are metal ... very difficult to compress ... )
He also thinks it's better to calculate the force on the individual coil/conductor. ( We'll ask him to calculate that. )
Can you please comment ??
Kin
On 03/26/2015 01:30 PM, fabbric wrote:
Hi all.
I did a fast computation with Comsol removing the
end caps (indeed I put to 1 the magnetic permeability).
At the same current the central magnetic field is reduced from 1.5 T
to 1.37 T and it is more inhomogeneous.
The peak field on the conductor seems to
be a bit higher and placed at the coil
axial ends (so the current cannot be increased
or we have a reduced stability margin).
The axial compression increases of 85%
(i.e. a bit less than double).
My first impression is that this solution could be considered
if you can accept a reduced magnetic field.
Best regards
Pasquale
--
Dr. Pasquale Fabbricatore
INFN Sezione di Genova
via Dodecaneso 33, 16146 Genova Italy
Direct tel + 39 010 3536340
Laboratory + 39 010 3536437
Secret.fax + 39 010 313358
E-mail pasquale.fabbricatore AT ge.infn.it
WEB page http://www.ge.infn.it/~fabbric/
