Wayne,

 

Here are a few more files for you.  The first PowerPoint examines the prospect of one of the coil legs lifting off the floor during testing.  While this may seem odd, the tendency of the coil in a horizontal position under magnetic loading is to bend around its midplane, such that one leg (southwest) is compressed and the other (northwest) pops up a bit.  In the previous analysis runs I had always made the assumption that the legs would always be touching the floor, thinking that gravity would overcome any upward magnetic force.  This however appears to be an error as forcing the northwest leg to be set against the ground actually causes the coil to bend outward and accommodate the restraint. This bending is a macroscopic effect that propagates all throughout the model and definitely effects the defect-o-meter readings from ANSYS.   I was pleasantly surprised when I looked at the results when I left that leg float. 

 

Also, I updated the earlier results with the now known location of the "Boaters World" deflect-o-meter, the results actually worsened as the meter was positioned closer to the fixed leg (these are the first few slides).  Not that it matters much, but it gives a indication just how important boundary conditions are for this analysis and the experiment.

 

The second file is a data file examining the deflect-o-meter frame by frame and recording the results.  I was basically making sure that it wasn't sticking or that a weird data pattern did not develop during the shot.  The data looks good in that it matches the current profile being driven onto the winding pack.  I might add that I had to guess at a few of the values since the deflect-o-meter display was at times changing during the frame and was blurry.

 

Lastly,  none of what I have described makes the strain gage results any better, that is another issue altogether, which I am currently stumped on.

 

All the best

 

Kevin

 

If you have any questions on any of this please let me know.

 

 

 

 

 

Folks,

 

The good news is that C1 testing went off without a real hitch.  The bad news is that we now have hard data against with to reconcile our analyses.  It reminds me of what Gene Baker said during the tests – If a man has one watch, he knows what time it is.  If a man has two watches, he is never sure. 

 

The data is posted on the Engineering Web at the following URL:

 

http://ncsx.pppl.gov/NCSX_Engineering/R&D_Results/PPPL/C1%20Testing/Index_C1%20testing.htm

 

The data set is largely complete.  The only missing data I am aware of is the TC and strain gage data from the last warm shots (Gernhardt).  Gernhardt has also agreed to provide the summary Excel file from the strain gage testing done prior to C1 testing.  We also do not have any control room data yet, e.g. current waveforms or ground fault currents (Gettelfinger).

 

I would like to document the comparison of our predictions/modeling against C1 performance and the implications for machine design and operation.  We should also identify any needs for future testing.  Gettelfinger is responsible for taking the coil out of the cryostat and delivering to the Mfg Facility for repair.  He should take copious pictures documenting the actual test set-up including the locations of all strain gages and TCs for which we have data.  He should also perform a detailed inspection of the coil to see if anything in its appearance changed.  I believe there are also some post-test winding pack dimensions that need to be taken.  The bases for modeling assumptions (not just the assumptions but the bases for the assumptions) need to be documented.

 

In reviewing the displace-o-meter results, ORNL noted that the agreement between predicted and observed displacements was poor (off by 50%) when an unrestrained (frictionless) constraint was placed on the 3 free legs.  The agreement was perfect when the 3 free legs were assumed to be fixed.  This needs to be resolved (Gettelfinger/Freudenberg).

 

A strawman outline might be as follows:

 

1. Description of the test setup and test plan (Gettelfinger)
2. Summary of test data (Reiersen)
3. Post-test inspection results (Gettelfinger)
4. Comparison with modeling
   1. Cooldown (Reiersen)
   2. Performance during coil operation (Freudenberg)
5. Implications for machine design and operation

1. Cryostat and cryogenic cooling system design and operation (Gettelfinger)
2. Modular coil operating limits (Freudenberg)
5. Recommendations for future testing (Gettelfinger, Freudenberg)

 

Let’s work on this right away while it is fresh in our minds and periodically review the results.  Let’s plan on a telecon at 3pm on Tuesday.  Please advise if this time is inconvenient.  Let me know of any appropriate changes to this course of action.

 

Thanks,

 

Wayne