pacs instrument hardware design review cea-grenoble / dsm / drfmc / sbt / hso cryocoolers/ pacs...
TRANSCRIPT
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 1
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
HSO SORPTION COOLERS
Lionel DUBANDL. Clerc, D. Communal, M. Dubois (BV), JL. Durand, E. Ercolani, L. Guillemet, N. Luchier, L. Miquet, R. Vallcorba
Service des Basses TempératuresCEA-SBT
(CEA/DSM/DRFMC/SBT)
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 2
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
MODELS - GENERAL STATUS
Ref. Feature Objective Status
Structural Model
STMNo thermal capabilities
Validation of interfaces and Kevlar suspension system
Vibration tested room T and LN2 T
Delivered to SPIRE and PACS (Dec. 2002)
Cryogenic Qualification Model
CQM
Almost fully representatice of FM (thermo+heater not
of flight grade)
Qualify the design
• Qualification program carried out
• SPIRE unit delivered to RAL August 19th 2003 - back at SBT for retensioning
• PACS unit delivered to SAp Nov. 6th
Flight Model
FMFlight ready Successfull mission !
Detailed drawings available. Manufacturing phase initiated
Flight Spare
FSFlight ready
Replacement unit in case of FM failure
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 3
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
STRUCTURAL MODEL (STM)
• No thermal capabilities
• Main goal : validation of Kevlar suspension system
• Dummy cooler heart made out of aluminum(was not intended to bevibration tested cold)
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 4
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
VIBRATION TESTS - STM WITH KEVLAR 0.5 and 0.3 mmSinus [0 - 100 Hz]X : 40 GY, Z : 25 GRandom [0 - 2000 Hz]X : 14 G rmsY : 11.3 G rmsZ : 9.9 G rms Visual inspection :
rupture of one "stitch"
CS
L R
OO
M T
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
TE
ST
S
KEVLAR FAILURE
Analysis :Lateralmotion
Rubbing& rupture
high Glevel
Solution at this stage
Kevlar 34Replaced by
Kevlar 11(Ø 0.29 mm to 0.5 mm)
• Stronger• easier to manipulate• Nominal tension x3
Note : lowest resonantfrequency > 450 Hz
All susbsequent tests successfully passed with larger Kevlar cords
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 5
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
Input spectrumRandom [0 - 2000 Hz]20 - 200 Hz : + 3 dB200 - 250 Hz : 0.28 g2/Hz250 - 2000 Hz : - 12 dB≈ 8.06 G rmsSinus [0 - 100 Hz] : 30 G
Both units mountedPACS like.Only X axis tested
SPIRE STM mounted with 0.29 mmKevlar strings on evaporator side
Lower levels
RA
L L
OW
TE
MP
ER
AT
UR
E T
ES
TS
VIBRATION TESTS - SUMMARY OF RESULTS
• Tests at room T : • Tests at 82 K : • Tests at room T Once units warm :
But∆ = 116 Hz
Low temperature : 82 K
NOTE : same signature after warm up at room T
Fre
qu
ency
sh
ift
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 6
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
FREQUENCY SHIFT ?Cold V test on STMs does not make sense- Structure = Ta6V (thermal contraction 1.5 10-3)
- Kevlar strings (-3 10-3, new value at -1.7 10-3 since then)
- Aluminum body for cooler heart (4 10-3)
Internal strings ≈ 13.9 DaN
External strings ≈ 2.9 DaN
Tensioning at room T12 DaN
At low T
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 7
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
fx,y =12π
8AY(b2+r2)ml3
fz =12π
16AYa2
ml3
tension dependent ?
VARIATION OF RESONANT FREQUENCIES WITH TEMPERATURE
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 51 - tensioning (RT)1 - detensioning (RT)2 - tensioning (RT)2 - detensioning (RT)3 - tensioning (RT)3 - detensioning (RT)
Tension (DaN)
∆l (mm)
Kevlar 11 (0.5 mm)length : 155 mm
define a "dynamic" Young’s modulus in real situation
Y300K = 38.7 TE-0.018 + 3.4 TE0.516 (GPa)
Assuming average fit for up and down(TE : tension in N)
Hysteresis betweentensioning - detensioning
Real situation : string + pulleys400
450
500
550
600
0 50 100 150
Resonant frequency (Hz)Calculated frequency
Resonant frequency (Hz)
Tension (N)
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 8
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
CRYOGENIC QUALIFICATION MODEL (CQM)
Both CQMs qualified
SPIRE : 290µm/500 µm stringsPACS : all strings 500 µm
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 9
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
QUALIFICATION PROGRAM
5 days80°C bake out
Room Tvibration tests
Thermal testsNominal perf.
Thermal tests(HCR#2)
Thermal tests(HCR#3)
Thermal tests(HCR#1)
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 10
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 11
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 50 100 150
Sorption pump
Heat switch pump
Heat switch evaporator
Evaporator
Thermal shunt
Cryostat cold plate (Level 0)
Titanium frame (Level 1)
Temperature (K)Temperature (K)
Time (mn)
right scale
left scale
PACS CQM Unit - June 2003HCR# 2 - Second recyclingHSE ≈ 21 K (1.4 mA)300 mW input power to sorption pumpCryostat tilted to 60 degre
RECYCLING PHASE - CRYOSTAT TILTED AT 60°
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 12
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
HEAT FLOWS - CRYOSTAT TILTED AT 60°
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Heat flow at evaporator switch interface (mW)Heat flow at pump switch interface (mW)
Time (mn)
CQM PACSThermal tests June 2003 - HCR #2Level 1 (titanium frame) ≈ 2 KLevel 0 (cryostat cold plate) : 1.62 KSecond recycling
Right scale
Left scale
Integrals give :evaporator switch interface* : 205 Jpump switch interface : 340 J(*: longer condensation to try to reduce the heat flowat the end of the condensation phase)
14 mW heat flow
Cryostat tilted at 60 degreeduring condensation
Note : use of the full 120 mn for the recycling phase, to get a flowing power as low as possible at the end of the phase
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 13
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
CONVECTIVE EFFECTS - CRYOSTAT TILTING
0
20
40
60
80
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 50 100 150
Heat flow at evaporator switch interface (mW)Heat flow at pump switch interface (mW)
Time (mn)
CQM SPIREThermal tests June 2003 - HCR #1Level 1 (titanium frame) ≈ 2.1 KLevel 0 (cryostat cold plate) : 1.65 K
Right scale
Left scale
Integrals give :evaporator switch interface : not relevant (test on orientation)pump switch interface : 344 J (similar PACS = 340)
cryostat at 30 degree angleis further tilted to 60
27 mW heat flow
19 mW heat flow
18 mW heat flow
further tilted to 90
Possibly down to 14 mW
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 14
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
VIBRATION TESTS - CSL JULY 2-4 2003
Inp
ut
leve
ls
X Y Z
SPIRE Sinus[25 - 60]
22.5 G
[25 - 60]
15 G
[25 - 60]
15 G
Random [20 - 2000]
5 Grms 6 Grms 6 Grms
PACS Sinus[5 - 100]
18 G
[5 - 100]
8 G
[5 - 100]
8 G
Random [20 - 2000]
11.5 Grms 4.9 Grms 2.54 Grms
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 15
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
CSL CQM VTESTS (RT) - INSTRUMENTATION
Accelerometers :- two pilotes on adaptating plate- structure- evaporator cold tip- evaporator switch base- pump switch base
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 16
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
MAIN RESULTS
No major failure (lost one wire on HS redunded - CQM PACS)
Cold tip StructureHS evap.
I/FHS pump
I/F
XSPIRE 386 / 15 826 / 3.7138 / 1.9
339 / 19.5
138 / 1.7
368 / 9
YSPIRE 561 / 23.3 1360 / 1.36 705 / 14.8 705 / 17
ZSPIRE
291 / 2.6
397 / 11.7
1130 / 1.8
1580 / 5.8
127 / 1.7
293 / 17.2
136 / 2.8
295 / 12.1
XPACS 558 / 211230 / 3.9
1580 / 5.5
126 / 1.6
337 / 17
132 / 1.8
360 / 14.6
YPACS 653 / 211180 / 3.5
1380 / 3.8
302 / 2.8
653 / 14.5
325 / 4.3
761 / 13
ZPACS
460 / 2.7
532 / 25.6
923 / 6.3
1010 / 5.6
128 / 2.1
305 / 7
134 / 2.6
320 / 7
XX / YY :XX : resonant frequencyYY : corresponding G(0.5 G excitation)
[800 - 1500 Hz]
[300 - 650 Hz]
[300 - 360 Hz]
[125 - 140 Hz]
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 17
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
COOLING POWER CURVES - HEALTH CHECK REPORT
250
300
350
0 20 40 60 80 100
HCR#1 - horizontalHCR#1 - right side upHCR#1 - upside downHCR#2 - horizontalHCR#2 - right side upHCR#2 - upside downHCR#3 - horizontalHCR#3 - right side upHCR#3 - upside down
Temperature (mK)
Cooling power (µW)
CQM SPIRE - Thermal tests June - July 2003 Comparison HCR #1 HCR#2 and HCR#3Level 1 (titanium frame) : 2 KLevel 0 (cryostat cold plate) : ≈ 1.6 K
250
300
350
0 20 40 60 80 100
HCR#1 - horizontalHCR#1 - right side upHCR#1 - upside downHCR#2 - horizontalHCR#2 - right side upHCR#2 - upside downHCR#3 - horizontalHCR#3 - right side upHCR#3 - upside down
Temperature (mK)
Cooling power (µW)
CQM PACS - Thermal tests June - August 2003 Comparison HCR #1 HCR#2 and HCR#3Level 1 (titanium frame) : 2 KLevel 0 (cryostat cold plate) : ≈ 1.6 K
Note : HCR#3/upside downLevel 0 at1.66 K
HCR#1 - CQM PACS :Parasitics estimated at 12 µW ± 10% [Case 1.62 K level 0 - 2 K level 1]Prediction ≈ 10 µW
No significant difference between HCR#1, HCR#2 and HCR#3or rather results consistent within ± 5 mK
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 18
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
AUTONOMY TESTSNominal conditions : L0 = 1.7 K - L1 = 4 K• First test with 10 µW applied load
CQM SPIRE 45 hours @ 290 mK
CQM PACS 35 hours @ 291 mK
m0.L = (Papplied + Pparasitics).time
m0: amount condensed / L: latent heat
1/time versus Papplied
Straight line :m0 and parasitics
• tests with various applied loads
Not within predictions
Tests performed in same conditions every time
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 19
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
AUTONOMY TESTS - MORE DATA
0 5 10-5 0,0001 0,00015 0,0002 0,00025
1 10-5
2 10-5
3 10-5
4 10-5
5 10-5
6 10-5
y = 5,3392e-06 + 0,22163x R= 0,99898
Applied load (W)
Theoretical curve
CQM PACS - Autonomy tests Nominal conditions - L0 = 1.7 K / L1 = 4 K
1/time (s
-1)
0
1 10-5
2 10-5
3 10-5
4 10-5
5 10-5
6 10-5
0 50 100 150 200 250
y = 4,11371e-06 + 2,09004e-07x R= 1
1/time (s
-1)
Applied load (µW)
CQM SPIRE - Autonomy tests Nominal conditions - L0 = 1.7 K / L1 = 4 K
Theoretical curve
Analysis of data• Extra parasitic of 8 to 10 µW
• Cooler undercharged by 10%
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 20
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
EXTRA PARASITIC LOAD ANALYSIS - KEVLAR ?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 2 4 6 8 10
Extracted from evaporator slopeExtracted from sorption pump (heat of adsorption)Theoretical value
Additionnal load from Kevlar (µW)
T structure (K)
CQM PACS - Kevlar thermal load testsL0 average = 1.6 K
Point at 1.916 is taken as the reference.Additionnal load is determinedfrom this point on
OK at least in the range [2 K - 10 K]
Remark : results eliminate possibility of parasitic coming from contact with snubber
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 21
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
EXTRA PARASITIC LOAD ANALYSIS - KEVLAR & TITANIUM
From experimental data : 6.5 µW
Predicted : 6.7 µW
0 2 10-5 4 10-5 6 10-5 8 10-5 0,0001
Experimental dataPredicted (4He case)Predicted (3He case)5 10-6
1 10-5
1,5 10-5
2 10-5
2,5 10-5
y = 1,785e-06 + 0,27397x R= 0,99931
Applied load (W)
Theoretical curve
CQM PACS - Autonomy tests Conditions - L0 = 1.57 K / L1 = 2 K
1/time (s
-1)
0 2 10-5 4 10-5 6 10-5 8 10-5 0,0001
Experimental dataPredicted (4He case)Predicted (3He case)4 10-6
8 10-6
1,2 10-5
1,6 10-5
2 10-5
2,4 10-5
Applied load (W)
Theoretical curve
CQM PACS - Autonomy tests Conditions - L0 = 1.57 K / L1 = 2 KCooler undercharged by 12%
1/time (s
-1)
Cooler operated without strap between switch and evaporator
Parasitic load
Note :cycle limited to 2.2 K / 35 K
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 22
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
EXTRA PARASITIC : GAS GAP HEAT SWITCH + STRAP
250
300
350
400
0 20 40 60 80 100
HCR#1 - horizontalHCR#1 - right side upHCR#1 - upside downHCR#2 - horizontalHCR#2 - right side upHCR#2 - upside downHCR#3 - horizontalHCR#3 - right side upHCR#3 - upside downStrap problem ?HCR#3bis - horizontal after strap fixingHCR#3bis - right side up after strap fixingHCR#3bis - upside down after strap fixing
Temperature (mK)
Cooling power (µW)
CQM PACS - Thermal tests June - September 2003 Comparison HCR #1 HCR#2, HCR#3and HCR after strap fixing
Level 1 (titanium frame) : 2 KLevel 0 (cryostat cold plate) : ≈ 1.6 K
Note : HCR#3/upside downLevel 0 at1.66 K
Degraded performancewith "stressed" strap
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 23
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
LATEST RESULTS - CQM Reset to nominal (strap not gold plated)
0 5 10-5 0,0001 0,00015 0,0002 0,00025
Previous testLast test (new strap)Theory
1 10 -5
2 10 -5
3 10 -5
4 10 -5
5 10 -5
6 10 -5
y = 5,3392e-06 + 0,22163x R= 0,99898
y = 3,0413e-06 + 0,2358x R= 0,99951
Applied load (W)
Theoretical curve
CQM PACS - Autonomy tests Nominal conditions - L0 = 1.7 K / L1 = 4 K
1/time (s
-1)
CQM PACS delivered to SAp November 6th
Nominal conditions : L0 = 1.7 K - L1 = 4 K
With 10 µW applied load
47 hours @ 291 mK
Analysis of data
• Parasitic of 13 µW (predicted 14 µW)
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 24
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
Heat switch - FM/FS models- production of a batch (≈ 10)- selection of best ones for cold tip- thermal characterisation procedure revisited- improved strap
FUTURE ACTIONS
- geometry ?- limit the heat flow in case of contact ?- strap : flexibility
ON going thinking
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 25
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
YOUNG’S MODULUS VERSUS TENSION : IMPACT ON COOLER
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
50
100
150
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Resonant frequency (Hz) Tension at low T (N)
Tension at room temperature (N)
Simulation on pump sidesuspended mass : 178 gramsKevlar thermal expansion :
Abakians's measurement (-1.7 10 -3)
tension RT=
tension LT
Tension at low T
Room temperatureresonant frequency
Low temperature resonant frequency
Sliding ?
PACS INSTRUMENT HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW
CEA-Grenoble / DSM / DRFMC / SBT / HSO Cryocoolers/ PACS IHDR 26
MPE - November, 12-13 2003
KEVLAR TENSION HISTORY
Note : CQM PACS not retensioned at delivery (SAp demand)
0
50
100
150
0 50 100 150 200 250
SPIRE and PACS CQM Coolers qualification programKevlar tension history
PACS CQM - string #1 from capstan (1/8)
PACS CQM - string #6 from capstan (6/8)
PACS CQM -average tension (1/8, 6/8)
SPIRE CQM - string #1 from capstan (1/8)
SPIRE CQM - string #6 from capstan (6/8)
SPIRE CQM -average tension (1/8, 6/8)
Tension (N)
Number of days
A : HCR #1B : 5 days bake out (80 C)C : HCR #2D : Vibration testsE : HCR #3F : last measurement prior to delivery
SiT : sitting in clean roomTR : transport + SiTReT : Retensioning
BReT
A
Sit C
TRD
EF
after Vtest on Y axis
At SBTafter Vtest
B
C
Sit + 4 T test
ReT Sit
Sit
TR
after Vteston X axis
At SBTafter Vtest
D
Sit F
CQM returned to SBT(for replacement of strings following new tensioning procedure)
4 hours 80°C bake out
4 hours 80°C bake out