Subject: Re: Copper Alloys--> some update ? some good news!
From: Ang Lee
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:21:11 -0500
To: Fernanda Gallinucci Garcia , Rob Reilly , Larry Allen
CC: Ang Lee

Hi Rob and all,
1) Any luck to 1" thick plate for C19400 ?
2) Any ideas yet with "SS vaccum shell  with heat  sink inside" ?
 
3)  Here is some of my update :
 
    a) .I did some quick calculations for " SS vaccum shell with heat sink " approach. Just based on the current design, to get some rough ideas.  I have assumed all material being  SS316  for all 6 sided  section. With 1" copper (C10200_ SB 187) heat sink sitting on top of SS plate, max temperature is T=484 K (100% contact) and T=660 K (50% contact).  It is 50K higher than C19400. The quick accessment for the stress seems satisfied the ASME code requirement due to SS higher allowable. The main issue here is the how do you bond two pieces together since it is critical for " heat sink " idea to work. I do like the ourside since it is selfsupport and " sandwitched between plate, rather than inside which  strickly relies on the bolt or other means ? This is just a quick accessment to indicate
this approach is indeed feasible.
 
    b) This is bit good news actually. I suddenly realized we could just fine or better by putting  an extra piece of cheap copper on top of the current design to make it work for the same reason.  Instead of  using 1"_ SB187 copper for current design, 2" thick  of C10200_ SB187  will work.  it is a single piece which has no connection risk as "ss+heat sink" and also it is a common copper and easy to find.  The max temp is about ~406 K for 100% and ~480 K for 50% contact (worst case). 2" thick top plate distributed heat very well, specially in the less perfect contact case. The quick accessment for the stress is also satisfied the code requirement.
 
I do like #(b) above since it is simple and less chance to fail. By using 2" thick of common copper (SB187 temp 060, or SB152 H00,or H01), the current design seems  working
 
option (b)  is much better.
 
I will be off  next week and back to office on april 19, 2010.   I probably should get more details of analysis done on that week if you do like #(b) or #a or other  and then we could meet on April 27 ?
 
 Think about , Let me know.
 
regards,
Ang
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fernanda Gallinucci Garcia" <fgarcia@fnal.gov>
To: "Ang Lee" <alee@fnal.gov>
Cc: "Rob Reilly" <reilly@fnal.gov>; "Lawrence J Allen" <allen@fnal.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: Copper Alloys

> Dear Ang,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail. I'd suggest that we should hold off the
> report draft and investigate the SS with copper heat sink scenario.
> Rob, Is this something that you can design "easily" and get the geometry
> to Ang this week?
> Please advise
> Fernanda
>
>
>
> Ang Lee wrote:
>> Rob,
>> I think this is indeed another very good alternative !worth to
>> investigate, too.
>>
>> But, I have to split time between nova and dump for  this week. So,
>> I could do either a report draft for C19400 , or to looking into the
>> stainless vacuum shell with a copper heat sink.
>> but Not both. So, maybe Fernanda can make a final call on this. which
>> one should go first? let me know.
>>
>> But,  my opnion is that we probably should take a look on that, 
>> maybe, we could postpone the draft report for a week or two
>> , I would let Fernanda decide on that since the linac upgrade has its
>> own time schedule.
>> let me know.
>>
>> Rob: In case we need to look the "SS vaccuum shell with heat sink", do
>> you have any preference :
>> 1)on the shell shape? cylindrial ? or six sided like current design?
>> 2) what kind of stainless steel?
>> 3) how do you connect the heat sink with the vacuum shell  to maintain
>> a good contact, weld or bolt?
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Ang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Reilly" <
reilly@fnal.gov>
>> To: "Fernanda Gallinucci Garcia" <
fgarcia@fnal.gov>
>> Cc: "Ang Lee" <
alee@fnal.gov>; "Lawrence J Allen" <allen@fnal.gov>
>> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: Copper Alloys
>>
>>
>>> I'm not finding a supplier that produces C19400 in 1" bar sizes, only
>>> thin strips.
>>> I'll keep looking.
>>> Wondering if we ought to investigate a stainless vacuum shell with a
>>> copper heat sink inside it.
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On 4/12/2010 3:44 PM, Fernanda Gallinucci Garcia wrote:
>>>> Hi Ang,
>>>>
>>>> I guess pending Rob Reilly's opinion on the C19400, I'd assume we
>>>> want to discuss and document
>>>> the material that we will be using on the sleeve. I'd add as an
>>>> appendix a summary of all the other candidates
>>>> that were investigated and the reason why they failed.
>>>>
>>>> Fernanda
>>>>
>>>> Ang Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rob and All,
>>>>> What do you think about C19400 ?
>>>>> Also, do you want me to write up document /report based C19400 ?
>>>>> Let me know.  I'll try to get it done by Friday since I won't be
>>>>> here next week
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Ang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>     *From:* Ang Lee <
mailto:alee@fnal.gov>
>>>>>     *To:* Rob Reilly <
mailto:reilly@fnal.gov> ; Ang Lee
>>>>> <
mailto:alee@fnal.gov>
>>>>>     *Cc:* Lawrence J Allen <
mailto:allen@fnal.gov> ; Fernanda G Garcia
>>>>> <
mailto:fgarcia@fnal.gov>
>>>>>     *Sent:* Friday, April 09, 2010 2:19 PM
>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: Copper Alloys
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi Rob and all
>>>>>     Here is the result for C19400.
>>>>>     I think it is an excellent choice. It combines a high strength and
>>>>>     good conductivity.
>>>>>          Also, keep that in mind that the top plate has 1"
>>>>> thickness. For
>>>>>     the structure load , 1/3" is more than from bottom is more than
>>>>>     sufficient. Therefore, you could
>>>>>     considered 1/3" from bottom mainly for the structure purpose and
>>>>>     2/3" from top will be mainly for heat distirbustion. The
>>>>>     calcuation indicates that the thermal stress is indeed
>>>>>     very low at 1/3" from bottom and satified the code requiement even
>>>>>     under 50% contact case (this case is very close to 0% contact).
>>>>> If you could maintain a good contact, the current design should be
>>>>>     adequate by using C19400 .
>>>>>     regardsm
>>>>>     Ang
>>>>>
>>>>>         ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>         *From:* Ang Lee <
mailto:alee@fnal.gov>
>>>>>         *To:* Rob Reilly <
mailto:reilly@fnal.gov>
>>>>>         *Cc:* Lawrence J Allen <
mailto:allen@fnal.gov> ; Fernanda G
>>>>>         Garcia <
mailto:fgarcia@fnal.gov>
>>>>>         *Sent:* Friday, April 09, 2010 8:58 AM
>>>>>         *Subject:* Re: Copper Alloys
>>>>>
>>>>>         Rob,
>>>>>         Thanks for the point it out !
>>>>>         I've checked alloys thermal conductivity for */B169 C61400 &
>>>>>         B171 C63000./*
>>>>>          K=~57 W/mK for C61400 and K=~37 W/mk for c63000
>>>>>         Therefore, it is too low (Compared with SB-187, K=~380).  For
>>>>>         100% contact case, it is still ok. But for 50% contact, the
>>>>>         temperature is too high ~1100 K due
>>>>>         to the lower conductivity. Therefore,both c61400 and c63000 is
>>>>>         NOT suitable due to its thermal conductivity, even it has a
>>>>>         high strength at the elevated temperature.
>>>>>                  So, I'm check othere possible material/options
>>>>>                  1) One of them is C19400__high strength modified
>>>>> copper
>>>>>         Cu=2.35 Fe-0.3P-0.12 Zn. Please check ! it has a 18 ksi yield
>>>>>         strength at (500 F) and K=260 W/m K for the conductivity.
>>>>>         It is somewhere between C6xxxxx and C102XXX  for its
>>>>>         conductivity and strength. I'm checking it and will keep all
>>>>>         of you posted soon.
>>>>>                  2)  or we could make a bi-metal type for the top
>>>>> plate: maybe
>>>>>         0.5" for the c61400  for strength requirement and 0.5" for
>>>>>         C102XX(pure copper) for the heat desserpation reason. (then,
>>>>>         we have both high strength and conductivity. I did not know it
>>>>>         will work or not yet. How do we/you  make there two piece
>>>>>         copper together with a good bond ?
>>>>>                  3) Rob: if you could talk to some venders cand see
>>>>> if with
>>>>>         some special temper, we could get higher  strength at an
>>>>>         elevated temperature like yield stress=25 ~30 ksi at T=400-500
>>>>>         F for C102XXX type copper.  ASME  Table Y gives much high
>>>>>         yield strenght , Sy~30 ksi for (T=400F) for smls pipe with H80
>>>>>         temper (SB-42,SB-75, SB111) for C10200? If we could get it for
>>>>>         the plate,that will be it!
>>>>>                  4) other? active cooling ?
>>>>>                           let's one at time, I'll update you for #
>>>>> 1 soon
>>>>>                  Ang
>>>>>                                                               
>>>>> -----  Original Message -----
>>>>>         From: "Ang Lee" <
alee@fnal.gov <mailto:alee@fnal.gov>>
>>>>>         To: "Rob Reilly" <
reilly@fnal.gov <mailto:reilly@fnal.gov>>
>>>>>         Cc: "Lawrence J Allen" <
allen@fnal.gov
>>>>> <mailto:allen@fnal.gov>>; "Fernanda G Garcia"
>>>>> <
fgarcia@fnal.gov <mailto:fgarcia@fnal.gov>>
>>>>>         Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:12 AM
>>>>>         Subject: Re: Copper Alloys
>>>>>
>>>>> > Hi Rob,
>>>>> > I'll checking into it and get it back to you.
>>>>> > Ang
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> > From: "Rob Reilly" <
reilly@fnal.gov <mailto:reilly@fnal.gov>>
>>>>> > To: "Ang Lee" <
alee@fnal.gov <mailto:alee@fnal.gov>>
>>>>> > Cc: "Lawrence J Allen" <
allen@fnal.gov
>>>>> <mailto:allen@fnal.gov>>; "Fernanda G Garcia"
>>>>> > <
fgarcia@fnal.gov <mailto:fgarcia@fnal.gov>>
>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:59 PM
>>>>> > Subject: Copper Alloys
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Ang,
>>>>> >> Looking up alloys B169 C61400 & B171 C63000, I see they
>>>>>         have increased
>>>>> >> amounts of Al, Ni & Fe. Does the addition of these elements
>>>>>         change the
>>>>> >> thermal conductivity significantly from B187 C11000? Should
>>>>>         the FEM take
>>>>> >> this into account?
>>>>> >> Rob
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Security, Privacy, Legal

Security, Privacy, Legal