Advertisement

Longitudinal Component Resistivities of Multifilamentary Composite Strands — Influences of Size Effect and Filament/Matrix Interdiffusion

  • D. S. Pyun
  • E. W. Collings
Part of the An International Cryogenic Materials Conference Publication book series (ACRE, volume 40)

Abstract

Longitudinal resistivity measurements were performed on the electrolytically separated components (shell, interfilamentary matrix, and filaments) of two pairs of un-heat-treated Nb-46.5 wt. %Ti multifilamentary strands (matrices Cu and Cu-0.5 wt. % Mn, respectively) at 295 and 12 K. The measurements were also repeated on the Cu-matrix pair after annealing at 150, 245, and 415°C. It was observed that: (1) The residual resistivity ratio and ρ 12K of the Cu shell of the annealed NbTi/Cu strands ( ≈170 and ≈ 10 nΩcm, respectively) agreed with typical bulk values of OFHC Cu. (2) The Cu-shell resistivities of as-received strands (un-heat-treated) had been enhanced by drawing-induced deformation microstructure. (3) The residual resistivity of the Cu matrix was 4 to 6 times larger than that of the corresponding Cu shell — an enhancement attributable to size effect. (4) Size effect makes a negligible contribution to the resistivity of the Cu-Mn matrix. (5) Annealing at moderate temperatures reduces the shell resistivity; conversely, that of the matrix increases as the annealing temperature is raised above 300°C, presumably as a result of filament/matrix interdiffusion.

Keywords

Matrix Resistivity Filament Diameter Electrolytic Etching Longitudinal Resistivity Residual Resistivity Ratio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. W. Collings, “Applied Superconductivity, Metallurgy and Physics of Titanium Alloys”, Plenum Press, NY (1986).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. N. Wilson, “Superconducting Magnets”, Oxford University Press, NY (1983), Chapter 7; see also Reference. 1, Volume 2, Chapter 20.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Valaris, T. S. Kreilick, E. Gregory, and E. W. Collings, The effects of processing on the filament array in multifilament SSC strand, in “Supercollider 1”, ed. by M. McAshan, Plenum Press, NY, 1990, p. 449.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, “Solid State Physics”, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY (1976), pp. 38 and 52.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. B. Dingle, The electrical conductivity of thin wires, Proc. Roy. 3oc. A 201, 546–560 (1950).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reference 1, Volume 1, p. 170.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reference 1, Volume 2, p. 428; see also Reference 6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. H. Sondheimer, The mean free path of electrons in metals, Adv. Phys. 1, 1–42 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reference 1, Volume 2, pp. 243 et seq and pp. 336 et seq.,respectively.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. J. Carr, Jr., Conductivity, permeability, and dielectric constant in a multifilamentary superconductor, J . Appl. Phys. 46, 4043–4047 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. W. Collings and M. D. Sumption, AC loss and transverse resistivity in multifilamentary strands with matrices of Cu and CuMn, Cryogenics 32 ICMC Supplement, 585–588 (1992).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. S. Pyun
    • 1
  • E. W. Collings
    • 1
  1. 1.Battelle Memorial InstituteColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations