β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - INDICO-FNAL (Indico) · 2019-02-01 · 5. The Helium...
Transcript of β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - INDICO-FNAL (Indico) · 2019-02-01 · 5. The Helium...
In partnership with:
India/DAE
Italy/INFN
UK/STFC
France/CEA/Irfu, CNRS/IN2P3
β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design
Vikas Kumar JAIN, SCDD, RRCAT, Indore
PIP-II β=0.90 & 0.92 Jacketed Cavity FDR
1 February 2019
Outline
• Dressed HB 650 Cavity Description
• Similarities and differences in b = 0.9 &
b = 0.92 Helium Vessel and Cavity
• Helium vessel requirements for HB650 cavity
• Code applicability and analysis
• FEM analysis
• Joint design for helium vessel
• Summary
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
Dressed HB 650 Cavity Description
Dressed cavity consists of following
components:-
1. Bare cavity
2. Helium vessel
• Long Cylinder
• Support lugs
• Lifting lugs
• Helium inlet
• 2-phase pipe assembly
• Tuner mounting lugs
3. Bellow assembly
4. FP transition spool
5. MC transition spool
6. Main Coupler assembly (external)
7. Field Probe Assembly (external)
8. Bellow restrain (Safety Bracket)/
Tuner (external)
9. Magnetic shielding (external)
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
Similarities and differences in b = 0.9 & b = 0.92 Helium Vessel
and Cavity
b = 0.9 b = 0.92 Similarities
1. ID & OD same (440 mm & 450
mm)
2. Same supporting lug gap
3. Identical tuner lug location
4. Helium inlet stubs & 2-phase pipe
is same
5. Similar Magnetic shielding
Differences
1. Length for b = 0.92 is more
2. Cavity stiffness of b = 0.92 is 1/5th of b = 0.9
3. Bellow position nominal dia is different
4. End groups are different
5. Tuner support for b = 0.9 needs additional
attachment
6. Beam tube dia. Is different
650 MHz b = 0.9 & b = 0.92 Dressed Cavity
Cross-section
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
Helium vessel requirements for HB650 cavity
1. The Helium vessel shall be fabricated from a material which should not stress
the cavity upon cool-down. Titanium Gr2 is most common material for
this purpose.
2. The Helium vessel shall be designed to house a 2 K helium bath sufficient to
remove up for CW dissipated power, with appropriately sized supply and
return piping. For HB650 it is 32.5 watts for CW dissipated power
3. It must meet the requirements of the Fermilab ES&H Manual for cryogenic
pressure vessels (as per code) and be rated at an MAWP (Maximum
Allowable Working Pressure). MAWP at HB650 is 2.05 bars at room
temperature and 4.1 bar at 2 K
4. Every effort should be made to minimize the weight and physical size of the
helium vessel in all dimensions. Economy
5. The Helium vessel design has to support effective magnetic shield and to
avoid mag. field penetration to the cavity Proper Magnetic shielding
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
Code applicability and analysis Code analysis is intended to demonstrate that the PIP-II SRF cavities conform to the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code (the Code), Section VIII, Div. 1, to the greatest extent possible. Where Div. 1
formulas or procedures are prescribed, they are applied to this analysis.
For those cases where no rules are available, the provisions of Div. 1, U-2(g) are invoked.
However, SCRF cavities (helium vessel) does not comply with Div. 1 of the Code in the following ways:
• Category B joints in titanium must be either Type 1 butt welds (welded from both sides) or Type 2 butt
welds (welded from one side with backing strip) only (see Div. 1, UNF- 19(a)).
Some category B (circumferential) joints are Type 3 butt welds (welded from one side with no backing
strip).
• All joints in titanium vessels must be examined by the liquid penetrant method. (see Div. 1,
UNF-58(b)).
No liquid penetrant testing are performed on the vessel.
• All electron beam welds in any material are required to be ultrasonically examined along their entire
length. (see UW-11(e)).
No ultrasonic examination are performed on the vessel.
Stress Analysis Approach Internal/External Pr. Load Thermal Contraction Load Tuner Extension
Helium Vessel UG-27/UG-28 U-2(g) U-2(g)
U-2(g) is satisfied in this analysis by the application of the design-by-analysis rules of the Code,
Section VIII, Div. 2, Part 5.
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
FEM Simulations
Loadings
The cavity is subjected to following loads:
1. Gravity
2. LHe liquid head
3. Thermal contraction due to 2K
4. Tuner extension (cavity compression)
5. Pressure (internal and external)
Load
Case Loads
Condition
Simulated
Applicable
Temperatur
e
Applicable
Stress
Catego
ries
1
Gravity
P1 = 2.05 bar
P2 = P3 = 0 Warm Pressurization 293 K
Pm, PL, Q,
Pm + Pb , PL
+ Q
2
Gravity
Liquid Helium
head
P1 =4.1 bar
P2 = P3 = 0
Cold operation, full
LHe, maximum
pressure – no thermal
contraction
2 K
Pm, PL, Q,
Pm + Pb , PL
+ Q
3
Cool down to 2 K
Tuner extension
of 1.5 mm *
(Cavity
compressed
by 1.5 mm)
Cool down and tuner
extension, no primary
loads
2 K
Q
4
Gravity
Liquid Helium
head
Cool down to 1.88 K
Tuner
extension
of 1.5 mm
P1 = 4.1 bar
P2 = P3 = 0
Cold operation, full
LHe inventory,
maximum pressure –
primary and secondary
loads
2 K Q
5
Gravity
P1 = 0
P2 = P3 = 1 bar
Insulating and beam
vacuum upset, helium
volume evacuated
293 K
Pm, PL, Q,
Pm + Pb , PL
+ Q
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
X = 0
Y = 0
Z = 0
X = 0
Y = 0
Y = 0
Z = 0 Y = 0
MC End
FP End
Boundary Conditions
X = Radial/ Transverse Y = Vertical Z = Axial
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
SCL on Cells, end groups and Helium Vessel For b = 0.9& 0.92 Cavities
Helium Vessel
b = 0.9
b = 0.92
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
Material SCL
Membra
ne
Stress
MPa
Classificat
ion Ratio
NbTi-Ti 6 4.32 Pm 0.05
NbTi-Ti 15 1.11 Pm 0.01
Ti 16 1.46 Pm 0.02
Ti 17 31.6 Pm 0.32
Ti 18 19.95 Pm 0.20
Ti 19 51.98 Pm 0.88
Ti 20 18.93 Pm 0.32
Ti 21 5.41 Pm 0.09
Ti 22 2.62 Pm 0.04
Material SCL
Membrane
Stress
+Bending
MPa
Classificatio
n Ratio
NbTi-Ti 6 6.88 Pm+Pb 0.05
NbTi-Ti 15 5.26 Pm+Pb 0.04
Ti 16 17.05 Pm+Pb 0.19
Ti 17 43.11 Pm+Pb 0.29
Ti 18 141.1 Pm+Pb 0.95
Ti 19 82.9 Pm+Pb 0.93
Ti 20 37.30 Pm+Pb 0.42
Ti 21 6.28 Pm+Pb 0.07
Ti 22 5.13 Pm+Pb 0.06
LC1 for Jacking Locations For b = 0.92 Cavity
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
LC1 for Jacking Locations For b = 0.9 Cavity
Material SCL Membrane Stress
Pm (MPa) Ratio
NbTi-Ti 10 2.8 0.05
Ti 11 3.5 0.06
Ti 12 0.63 0.01
Ti 13 0.6 0.01
Ti 14 17.4 0.18
Ti 15 27.2 0.46
Ti 16 20.3 0.34
NbTi-Ti 17 11.5 0.19
Material SCL
Membrane Stress
+ Bending
stresses Pm
+Pb (MPa)
Ratio
Nb-NbTi 5 6.8 0.30
NbTi-Ti 10 5.7 0.06
NbTi-Ti 11 4.05 0.05
Ti 12 1.85 0.02
Ti 13 11.5 0.13
Ti 14 188.6 1.26
Ti 15 29.4 0.33
Ti 16 24.2 0.27
NbTi-Ti 17 23.1 0.26
Similarly LC2 to LC5 were checked and found within limit for both
cavities for jacketed location.
Bellow location -14 re-examined for b=0.9 and it is recommended
to go for reduced MAWP instead of 2.0 bar at room temperature.
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
The elastic analysis for following types of
failure:
• Buckling – protection is assured by demonstrating the
appropriate factor of safety on the critical linear (Euler)
buckling load (Part 5, Section 5.4)
• Cyclic failure (fatigue) – protection is assured by
showing that a fatigue analysis is not necessary for the
design conditions (Part 5, Section 5.5.6)
• Cyclic failure (ratcheting) – protection is assured by
compliance with secondary stress limits (Part 5, Section
5.5.6)
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
• Joint design is common for both 0.92 & 0.9 cavity in the helium vessel
• There are two categories of joints in the vessel:-
Non-vacuum boundary joints (10 Nos.) on vessel
Tuner Lug
Support lug
Lifting lug
Vacuum boundary joints
Penetration in the vessel
• Helium inlet lines
• 2-phase pipe welding
Helium vessel to transition spools
• FP end
• MC end
Joint design for helium vessel
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
Non-Vacuum boundary Joints
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
Vacuum Boundary Joints
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain
650 MHz b = 0.9 &0.92 Helium Vessel End Joints
β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas
Kumar Jain
01-Feb-2019
Summary
Both b = 0.9 & b=0.92 Helium vessel are designed & analyzed as
per code.
b = 0.9 cavity is stiff hence the tuning stroke was limited which
call for a tighter control of frequency.
b = 0.9 cavity recommended for reduced MAWP at room
temperature due to higher stresses in bellow.
For all load cases are examined for both types of jackets are
found satisfactory, other issues like fatigue, ratcheting etc. are
also examined.
All weld requires joint qualification as per code. (Discussed in the
dressed cavity review).
01-Feb-2019 β=0.90 & β=0.92 Helium Vessel Design - Vikas Kumar Jain