4.4 Article

An MgB2 Superconducting Shield Prototype for the Future Circular Collider Septum Magnet

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TASC.2019.2920359

关键词

Magnetic shielding; MgB2; proton accelerators; septum magnet; superconducting accelerator magnets; superconducting composites

资金

  1. FCC Study Group
  2. European Commission under the FP7 Research Infrastructures Project EUCARD-2 [312453]
  3. Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office [K124945]
  4. Janos Bolyai Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A passive superconducting shield was previously proposed to realize a high-field (above 3 T) septum magnet for the Future Circular Collider proton-proton ring (FCC-hh). This paper presents the experimental results of a potential shield-material, MgB2, at a temperature of 4.2 K. A cylindrical shield with a wall thickness of 8.3 mm was manufactured by the reactive liquid magnesium infiltration technique using extra large grain (similar to 160 mu m) boron precursor, and tested in a transverse magnetic field. The shield was stable against flux jumps on the virgin curve, but suffered from flux jumps at low-field levels after high-field exposure. The tube could shield a magnetic field of 2.75 T on its surface before field penetration to its interior. Parameters of the critical current density of the material could be estimated from simulations, which indicate a steeper J(c)(B) curve than observed previously for large grain (similar to 100 mu m) MgB2, and predict a slightly better shielding performance (3 T) with an ideal geometry. Relaxation of the shielding currents is at an acceptable level. We estimate that a self-supporting shield of a wall thickness of 14 mm could be adequate for the construction of a 3-T septum magnet, if the flux jump problem can be solved. This thickness would correspond to a total septum thickness (including beam pipes, etc.) of around 22 mm, which is an acceptable figure for the FCC-hh.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据