Review on Boundary-Induced Coupling Currents
Boundary-Induced Coupling Currents (BICCs) are generated in multistrand superconducting cables during a field sweep if a) the field sweep and/or b) the electrical contacts between the strands of the cable vary along the cable. Typical parts in a coil which cause large BICCs are the connections between two cables in or outside a coil and the coil ends of racetrack magnets.
In the first part of the paper several approaches for describing and calculating BICCs are reviewed. Attention is paid on the steady-state as well as the time dependent solutions.
In the second part of the paper the consequences of BICCs on the behaviour of magnets are discussed. These are additional field variations along the magnet length, additional coupling losses and a non-uniform distribution of coupling losses and current among the strands, resulting in a reduced stability. Several effects are illustrated by means of measurements on model dipole magnets. It is shown how the additive effect of all the BICCs in a coil is rather unpredictable so that similar coils can have rather different BICC related behaviour.
KeywordsContact Resistance Transport Current Coupling Loss Field Sweep Magnet Length
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.G. Ries and S. Takâcs, “Coupling losses in finite length of superconducting cables and in long cables partially in magnetic field”, IEEE Trans. on Magn. MAG-17, pp. 2281–2284 (1981).Google Scholar
- 4.Krempasky, C. Schmidt, “Influence of a longitudinal variation of dB/dt on the magnetic field distribution of accelerator magnets”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 66 (12), pp. 1545–1547 (1995).Google Scholar
- 7.A.A. Akhmetov, A. Devred, and R. Schermer, “Current loop decay in Rutherford-type cables”, SSCL preprint 485 (1993).Google Scholar
- 8.A.P. Verweij, “Current redistribution in the cables of LHC magnets”, CERN LHC project note 90 (1997).Google Scholar
- 9.S.A. Egorov, “AC coupling losses in superconducting cables of finite length”, ITER–RF–MS/A CL–02–09–94 (1994).Google Scholar
- 10.A.A. Akhmetov and T. Ogitsu, “Periodicity of eddy currents in flat Rutherford-type cables”, SSC internal note MD-TA-245 (1993).Google Scholar
- 11.A.A. Akhmetov, K. Kuroda and M. Takeo, “Influence of sample geometry on amplitude of eddy current oscillation in Rutherford-type cables”, IEEE Trans. Appl. SC 5 (2), pp. 725–728 (1995).Google Scholar
- 17.A.P. Verweij, Electrodynamics of Superconducting Cables in Accelerator Magnets, PhD thesis University of Twente, The Netherlands (1995).Google Scholar
- 20.W.B. Sampson and A.K. Ghosh, “Induced axial oscillations in superconducting dipole windings”, IEEE Trans. Appl. SC5, pp. 1036–1039 (1995).Google Scholar
- 21.A.A. Akhmetov, K. Kuroda, T. Koga, K. Ono and M. Takeo, “Decay of long current loops in the superconducting cables”, Proc. 2“d EUCAS 1, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 527–530 (1995).Google Scholar
- 22.E.A. Badea, “Numerical calculation of the magnetic field produced by currents circulating through two opposite strands of a Rutherford-type cable”, SSC internal note MD-TA-262 (1993).Google Scholar
- 23.H. Bruck et al., “Observation of a periodic pattern in the persistent-current fields of the superconducting HERA dipole magnets”, DESY 91–01 (1991) or Proc. ‘81 IEEE Part. Acc. Conf., pp. 2149–2151 (1991).Google Scholar
- 26.L. Bottura, L. Walckiers and R. Wolf, “Field errors decay and ”snap-back“ in LHC model dipoles”, IEEE Trans. Appl. SC 7, pp. 602–605 (1997).Google Scholar