fpix upgrade – status of co 2 cooling s tudies

1

FPIX Upgrade – Status of CO2 Cooling Studies

S.Grünendahl, FNAL

for the FPIX Upgrade Mechanical GroupH. Cheung, G. Derylo, S.G., S. Kwan, C.M. Lei, E.

Voirin (Fermilab) K. Arndt, Q. Liu (Purdue)

S.Grünendahl – CMS Pixel CO2 Meeting March 19, 2013

2

FPIX CO2 Cooling Areas of Progress

March 19, 2013 S.Grünendahl – CMS Pixel CO2 Meeting

Tests since previous meeting::2/12 1.4mm ID outer half-disk loop2/14 1.4mm ID inner half-disk loop2/21 1.6mm ID full length loop2/27 Multi-blade disk w/TC 5022 pocket slots for blade-ring jointFEA study of through slot joint

3 Half Disks

Port Cards and POH

End Flange

DC-DC converters

Pipes and Cables

CO2 cooling tubes and flex cables

3

Loop Tests UpdateFull length stainless steel tubing assemblies with dummy heat loads• Measure temperatures vs. flow &

pressure drop• Initial finding: pressure drop larger

than in simulation• Adding concentric heat exchanger,

to guarantee subcooled liquid, and fine-grained RTD placement to confirm transition to two-phase flow

• New studies:• variations in tube

diameter• inner/outer half

lengths configurations


Supply Line

Return Line

Optional Concentric Tube Heat Exchanger

DC-DC & POH Evaporator

FPix Detector Evaporator

Supply & Return Manifolds

Existing Copper Lines

Manifold PP1 PP1 PP0 Near SC Endflange Inside FPix SC Inside FPix

Supply Line

Return Line

1st Half-Disk

3rd Half-Disk 2nd Half-Disk

4

Loop Setup


subcooler

Fine grained RTD placement to locate onset of two-phase flow

5

1.6mm ID Full Loop Test


6

Loop Tests: Combined Results


7

Loop Tests: Combined Results II


8

Joao’s CalculationsOuter loop, full heat load, lowest stable experimental mass flow (0.65 g/s) and 1.5 times l.s.e.m.f. (1.07 g/s)


9

Joao’s Calculation I


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-25

-20

-15

-10

Length [m]

Tem

pera

ture

[°C

]

FPix HD Series RDT | m = 0.65g/s | Qtotal = 157.00W | dP = 0.99Bar | dT = 3.47°C

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 919.5

20

20.5

21

Pre

ssur

e [B

ar]

Theory Wall TemperatureTheory CO2 Temperature

Theory CO2 Pressure

100 150 200 250 300 350

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-40°C -30°C -20°C -10°C 0°C 10°C 20°C 30°C

Enthalpy [kJ/kg]

Pre

ssur

e [B

ar]

m = 0.65g/s | Qtotal = 157.0W | Pin = 20.69Bar | Tin = -20.00°C | dP = 0.99Bar | xout = 0.86

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

100

200

300

400

500

600

Vapor Quality

Mas

s V

eloc

ity [k

g/m

2 .s]

G = 194kg/m2.s | q = 2.22kW/m2 | Psat = 20.68Bar | xout = 0.29 | xdryout = 0.88

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Vapor Quality

Mas

s V

eloc

ity [k

g/m

2 .s]


10

Joao’s Calculation II


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-21

-20

-19

-18

-17

-16

-15

-14

Length [m]

Tem

pera

ture

[°C

]

FPix HD Series RDT | m = 1.07g/s | Qtotal = 157.00W | dP = 1.16Bar | dT = 3.10°C

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 919.6

19.8

20

20.2

20.4

20.6

20.8

21

Pre

ssur

e [B

ar]

Theory Wall TemperatureTheory CO2 Temperature

Theory CO2 Pressure

100 150 200 250 300 350

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-40°C -30°C -20°C -10°C 0°C 10°C 20°C 30°C

Enthalpy [kJ/kg]

Pre

ssur

e [B

ar]

m = 1.07g/s | Qtotal = 157.0W | Pin = 20.85Bar | Tin = -20.00°C | dP = 1.16Bar | xout = 0.52

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Vapor Quality

Mas

s V

eloc

ity [k

g/m2 .s

]


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

200

400

600

800

1000

Vapor Quality

Mas

s V

eloc

ity [k

g/m2 .s

]


11

Calculation vs. ExperimentLots of discussion and progress on understanding of difference simulation vs. experimentMany calculations by Joao (Thanks!)My conclusion:• all except Delta P seem to

agree• difference maybe not all that

surprising: Even (easier) single phase flow depends a lot on parameters like e.g. tube roughness that are hard to control


(From Eric & Joao)

12

Loop Test ConclusionBoth parallel (with 1.4mm ID) and serial (with 1.6mm ID) are viableDecision will have to take into account complexity, material accounting and redundancy/failure tolerance considerations


13

Multi-blade Tests: TC 5022 in Pocket Joints

Improved joint geometry control (dry fit to equalize radial play for all blades before assembly)


A1 silicon 1 ctr -12.35A2 silicon 2 ctr -12.61A3 silicon 3 ctr -12.82A4 Blade 1 ctr -12.49A5 Blade 2 ctr -12.85A6 Blade 3 ctr -13.40A7 silicon 1 i -13.07A8 silicon 2 i -13.39A9 silicon 3 i -13.15

A10 silicon 1 o -13.34A11 silicon 2 o -13.94A12 silicon 3 o -13.67A13 Blade 1 i -13.29A14 Blade 2 i -13.70A15 Blade 3 i -13.53A16 Blade 1 o -14.42A17 Blade 2 o -14.90A18 Blade 3 o -14.68B1 Ring i 1 -15.72B2 Ring i 2 -15.16B3 Ring i 3 -15.64B4 Ring o 1 -16.35B5 Ring o 2 -15.85B6 Ring o 3 -16.39B7 silicon 4 ctr -11.70B8 Blade 4 ctr -12.00B9 silicon 4 i -13.05

B10 Blade 4i -13.27B11 Ring i 4 -15.22B12 silicon 4 o -13.16B13 Blade 4o -13.82B14 Ring o 4 -16.29B18 tubing mid -18.45B19 tubing in -18.84B20 tubing out -19.67

-12.6-12.8 -11.7

-12.9-13.4 -12.0

-13.1-13.4

-13.2

-13.9

-13.7

-13.2

-13.3-13.7

-13.5

-14.9

-14.7

-13.8

-15.7-15.2

-15.6

-15.9

-16.4

-16.3

∆T=0.3

∆T=0.6

∆T=-0.3

∆T=1.0

∆T=1.0

∆T=0.6

∆T=1.0

∆T=1.7

∆T=2.5

∆T=0.2

∆T=0.3

∆T=0.3

∆T=2.4

∆T=1.5

∆T=2.1

∆T from CO2 to inner ring = 3.5 4.1 3.6 4.0

-13.1-13.3-15.2

∆T=0.2∆T=1.9

-12.4-12.5

∆T=0.1

-13.3

-14.4

-16.4

∆T=1.1

∆T=2.0

∆T from CO2 to outer ring = 2.9 3.4 2.9 3.0

∆T from CO2 to silicon center = 6.9 6.7 6.4 7.6

14

Ansys vs. Experiment


Good match using data sheet material properties and nominal dimensions (i.e. no fudge factors)

15

ConclusionTC 5022 pocket joint fully qualified• Necessary joint QC depends on blade manufacturing tolerances; in any

case doable, even if a bit labor intensive


16

Blade-Ring Joint FEA Studies

Motivation: Through slot might have practical advantages for half-disk assembly


Maximum Silicon Temperature

Radial Thermal Conductance (W/m^2/K)

2 5 10 25 50

Axial Conductance

2 0.91 -2.50 -5.13 -8.30 -10.65

5 -6.90 -7.70 -8.40 -10.14 -11.30

10 -10.03 -10.35 -10.59 -11.30 -11.83

25 -12.00 -12.08 -12.30 -12.34 -12.50

50 -12.73 -12.76 -12.78 -12.86 -12.94

Maximum Silicon Temperature

Radial Thermal Resistance (cm^2*K/W)

5 2 1 0.4 0.2

Axial Resista

nce

5 0.91 -2.50 -5.13 -8.30 -10.65

2 -6.90 -7.70 -8.40 -10.14 -11.30

1 -10.03 -10.35 -10.59 -11.30 -11.83

0.4 -12.00 -12.08 -12.30 -12.34 -12.50

0.2 -12.73 -12.76 -12.78 -12.86 -12.94

Nominal joint parameters (material & thicknesses)

Conclusion: radial heat transfer less important => might want to look at through slot again

(Caveat: Studies without CF in joint area – repeat with CF)

17

Blade-Ring Joint FEA Studies II

Better structural strength if carbon fiber cladding continues into joint pocket/slot

Simulation looks ok


S.Grünendahl – CMS Pixel CO2 Meeting 18

FPIX Cooling Layout ‘Decision Tree’ (from Kirk)

March 19, 2013

Left vs. Right HCs Symmetric (3 main

lines)or

Asymmetric (2+2 main lines)

HD Inner + Outer in

Series (1.6mm ID HD

tubing)

HD Inner + Outer inParallel

(1.4mm or 1.6mm ID HD tubing)

2 + 4 3 + 3

3 inners+

3 outers

Outer-inner-outer+

Inner-outer-inner

19

291396

η = 1.3 η = 1.6

η = 2.1

η = 2.5

2x8s 2x8s 2x8s

Z loc. TBD shown 491mm from IP

161

45

2x8s 2x8s 2x8s

Full geometry

20

η = 1.6

η = 2.1

η = 2.5

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

η = 1.6

η = 2.1

η = 2.5

2x8s

2x8s

Segmentation alternative #0 - Baseline - 1st HD on one main line + 2nd and 3rd HDs in parallel on the other main line = two

main cooling loops per Half-Cylinder

2nd + 3rd disks

1st disks

3 hits3.5 hits

3 hits

4 hits3 hits

2 hits

21

η = 1.3

η = 1.6

η = 2.1

η = 2.5

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

η = 1.3

η = 1.6

η = 2.1

η = 2.5

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

Outer-inner-outer

4 hits3 hits

2.5 hits

Inner-outer-inner

3 hits3.5 hits

2.5 hits

Segmentation alternative #1 – two cooling loops per Half Cylinder

(Total 4 cooling loops per end)

η = 1.6

η = 2.1

η = 2.5

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

η = 1.6

η = 2.1

η = 2.5

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

22

Segmentation alternative #2 - All outers in parallel + all inners in parallel

on two main cooling loops per Half Cylinder

All Outers

4 hits3.8 hits

1.5 hits

All Inners

3 hits2.5 hits

3.5 hits

23

η = 1.6

η = 2.1

η = 2.5

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

η = 1.6

η = 2.1

η = 2.5

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

Segmentation alternative #3 – three cooling loops per two Half-Cylinders


2nd + 3rd disks

1st + 3rd disks

3 hits3.5 hits

3 hits

4 hits3.5 hits

3 hits

24

η = 1.6

η = 2.1

η = 2.5

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

2x8s

Segmentation alternative #3 – three cooling loops per two Half-Cylinders (cont.)


1st + 2nd disks

4 hits4 hits

3 hits

25

Summary Loop tests show both parallel cooling loops with

1.4mm ID and serial loops with 1.6mm ID are viable solutions

Multi-blade tests: TC 5022 in pocket slot has been fully qualified for blade – ring joint

Further multi-blade assembly tests for carbonized and soldered joint are in preparation

Discussion on optimizing the FPIX cooling loop connection scheme is underway


26

Backup Slides• Progress in related areas, from Purdue• Delta p vs. flow for different diameters• Tables for loop measurements


• Designed custom front-end tools to pick-and-place HDI onto bare 2x8 bump-bonded modules.

• Semi-automated module assembly trials with prototype HDI will take place once these custom tools are fabricated.

• Work in progress to build a practical design and installation sequence for mounting, connecting, and cooling double-stacked port cards/POH in service (half) cylinders.

Custom tools for pick-and-placing the HDI onto the 2x8 bump-bonded

module

Progress@Purdue (from Kirk):

28

Delta P vs. Flow


S.Grünendahl – CMS Pixel CO2 Meeting 29

Loop Measurement Tables

March 19, 2013

fpix upgrade – status of co 2 cooling s tudies

Documents

previous meeting

liu purdue s

id inner halfdisk loop221

id outer halfdisk loop214

multiblade tests

joaos calculationsouter

loop testmarch

joaos calculation iimarch