Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:46:32.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physical constraints at design of a high current inductor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2014

A.V. Kharlov ,
B.M. Kovalchuk ,
E.V. Kumpyak ,
G.V. Smorudov  and
N.V. Tsoy
A.V. Kharlov*
Affiliation:
Institute of High-Current Electronics, Siberian Division of Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
B.M. Kovalchuk
Affiliation:
Institute of High-Current Electronics, Siberian Division of Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
E.V. Kumpyak
Affiliation:
Institute of High-Current Electronics, Siberian Division of Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
G.V. Smorudov
Affiliation:
Institute of High-Current Electronics, Siberian Division of Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
N.V. Tsoy
Affiliation:
Institute of High-Current Electronics, Siberian Division of Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: A.V. Kharlov, 2/3 Academichesky Ave., 634055 Tomsk, Russia. E-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

High voltage, high current inductors are required for many high pulsed power systems, incorporating capacitor banks. Those inductors simultaneously serve both as a pulse shaping and protection element in R-L-C circuits. A 25 kV/70 kA protection inductor on inductance of 1 mH with low stray field was designed, manufactured, and tested. It was designed as a quasi-toroidal system, consisting of four coils (with 0.25 mH inductance each) evenly distributed in the perimeter of a square. The structure of coils was optimized to withstand a huge electromagnetic force produced by a 70 kA current. The 0.25 mH coil is made as multi-layer solenoid (six layers) from a copper wire (6 × 4 mm2 net cross-section) with fiberglass insulation. Layers are connected in parallel in order to decrease active resistance of the coil. This 0.25 mH coil was tested at 70 kA peak current with a pulse length of about 20 ms, which corresponds to the action integral at about 32 × 106 A2s. Maximum magnetic field inside the coil is about 12 T. A finite element analysis with the ELCUT software was used to calculate the magnetic field, temperature rise, and stresses in the protection inductor. The typical maximum stresses in our design are 100 MPa in copper coils and 140 MPa in fiberglass body tubes; these are both below the yield strength for these materials. Simulations results are compared with the experimental tests and good agreement is observed.

Keywords

Capacitor bankLow stray fieldProtection inductorToroidal coil
Type
Research Article
Information
Laser and Particle Beams , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 471 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, R.A., et al. (2003). Proc. 14th IEEE Pulsed Power Conf. Dallas, TX, pp. 793–796.Google Scholar
Cavailler, C., Fleurot, N., et al. (2004). Plasma Phys. Contr. Fusion 46, B135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrardt, J. & Chaput, J.M. (2010). LMJ on its way to fusion. J. Phys. 244, 032017.Google Scholar
Hinkel, D.E., et al. (2013). Plasma Phys. Contr. Fusion 55, 124015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, S.C., Merritt, E.C., Moser, A.L., Awe, T.J., Brockington, S.J.E., et al. (2012). Phys. Plasmas 19, 123514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundertmark, S., Schneider, M. & Vincent, G. (2013). IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 41, 1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, E.L. (1976). Proc. 1st IEEE Pulsed Power Conf. Lubbock, TX, pp. IIC-1–IIC-10.Google Scholar
Kovalchuk, B.M., Kharlov, A.V., et al. (2008 a). IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 36, 2651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovalchuk, B.M., Kharlov, A.V., et al. (2008 b). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 79, 053504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kharlov, A.V. (2010). IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 38, 2474–2478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lv, Y., Qiu, L., Zhang, S., Tang, Y. & Li, L. (2010 a). IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 20, 1211.Google Scholar
Lv, Y., Qiu, L., Tang, Y. & Li, L. (2010 b). IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 20, 1936.Google Scholar
McNab, I.R., Fish, S. & Stefani, F. (2001). IEEE Trans. Magnet. 37, 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.H., Moses, E.I. & Wuest, G.R. (2004). Nucl. Fusion 44, S228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, J.R., Rickel, D.G., Swenson, C.A., Schillig, J.B., Ellis, G.W. & Ammerman, C.N. (2008). IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 18, 587–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witham, K., Merritt, B.T., Holloway, R.W., Gritton, D.G. & Oicles, J.A. (1981). Proc. 3rd IEEE Pulsed Power Conf. Albuquerque, NM, pp. 385–391.Google Scholar
Zherlitsyn, S., Wustmann, B., Herrmannsdörfer, T. & Wosnitza, J. (2012). IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 22, 4300603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar