1 / 15

Magnetic Analysis

Magnetic Analysis. Jin-Young Jung. Quarter period model for HXU. Pole width : 4.2 cm Pole height : 2.74 cm Pole thickness: 0.53 cm PM width : 5.5 cm PM height : 3.39 cm PM thickness : 1.07 cm . Quarter period model for SXU. Pole width : 4.2 cm Pole height : 5.04 cm

sari
Télécharger la présentation

Magnetic Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Magnetic Analysis Jin-Young Jung

  2. Quarter period model for HXU • Pole width : 4.2 cm • Pole height : 2.74 cm • Pole thickness: • 0.53 cm • PM width : 5.5 cm • PM height : 3.39 cm • PM thickness : • 1.07 cm

  3. Quarter period model for SXU • Pole width : 4.2 cm • Pole height : 5.04 cm • Pole thickness: • 1.01 cm • PM width : 6.6 cm • PM height : 6.24 cm • PM thickness : • 1.74 cm

  4. Magnetic field and field roll off • For calculation accuracy, results using finer mesh (mesh size: 0.05 mm in air gap region) are compared with the current model using less finer mesh (mesh size: 0.1 mm in air gap region) . • It shows there is not much difference in Beff (~0.1%) between the two models. • For better accuracy, it may need much finer mesh but it will take lots of computation time. (The finer mesh model took two days for computation.)

  5. B effective

  6. End design • HXU end design is performed. • HXU end for 10 mm gap is optimized and then applied for 7.2 mm gap and 20 mm gap. • Scalar potential is normalized for the poles. • SXU end using the HXU end design configuration is calculated for preliminary dimensions of the quote.

  7. End design geometry for 10 mm gap HXU • 2d results are compared with 3d and it has close match. • For optimization purpose and reducing computation time, 2d calculation is used. • 3d calculation for confirmation and full SXU design are not completed yet. PM #1 PM #2 PM #3 PM #4 PM #5 PM #6 PM #7 pole #1 pole #2 pole #3 pole #4 pole #5 pole #6 pole #7

  8. Scalar potential for poles (10 mm gap HXU)

  9. Second integral for 10 mm gap (HXU) internal shift: 15.6 mTm2 (requirement: ± 50 mTm2) displacement: 6.9 mTm2 internal kick: 0.528 mTm

  10. Second integral for 7.2 mm gap (HXU) displacement: 6.8 mTm2 internal shift: -23.8 mTm2 (requirement: ± 50 mTm2) internal kick: -11 mTm

  11. Second integral for 20 mm gap (HXU) internal kick: 18 mTm internal shift: 72.6 mTm2 (requirement: ± 50 mTm2) displacement: 5.7 mTm2

  12. End design performance vs. gap • Due to the variations of Br values in end blocks, • tuning is required for end poles.

  13. Peak field vs. pole block size: For higher magnetic field, much larger block volume is needed. Primary cost differential will be due to increased block volume Cost will approximately scale with pole height Cost related to block size

  14. Appendix

  15. Sensitivity matrix for perturbations in 1% Br change (HXU)

More Related