Ultralight carbon fiber structures first test campaign Enrico
Ultra-light carbon fiber structures: first test campaign Enrico DA RIVA (EN-CV-PJ) Manuel GOMEZ MARZOA (EN-CV-PJ) 18 th July 2012 E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 1
Outline § Thermal tests done over the structure already tested by the Bari team. Pipe OD [mm] Pipe thickness [mm] 1. 5 0. 035 Pipe ID [mm] 1. 43 CF strip thickness tcs [mm] 0. 07 CF tangential coverage β [deg] 270 Pitch p+w [mm] 7. 5 Fiber width w [mm] 1. 5 Separation central line fibers p [mm] 6 Angle fibers with pipe axis α [deg] E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 23 2
Setup description E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 3
Setup procedure 1. Assemble the circuit 2. Connect the sensors to the Data Acquisition System through ELMB cards Ø Existing channel configuration used: no need to recalibrate ELMB 3. Build up the PVSS panel 4. Connect the circuit bypassing prototype: flush water Ø Check the reading of the sensors 5. Connect prototype and flush water 6. Start measurements § Heater emissivity: ε=0. 86 (for thermo camera) § Insulation placed over the PTs and connectors E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 4
Results § Six cases done, corresponding to the experiments done in Bari § An absolute power equal to 11. 7 W applied to heater (see Bari presentation): Ø Rheater = 27. 2 Ω Ø P = I 2 R; I= (11. 7/27. 2)0. 5 = 0. 65 A Ø V = I R = 0. 65*27. 2 = 17. 7 V § From case number 3 onwards, insulation was put over the aluminum connectors and the PTs at the piping § Temperature of the heater remains stable even when increasing the flow rate N m [kg h-1] P [W] Tin [o. C] Tout [o. C] T 1 [o. C] T 2 [o. C] T 3 [o. C] T 4 [o. C] pin [bar] pout [bar] ΔP [bar] 1 7. 6 11. 7 15. 3 16. 21 29. 42 29. 231 29. 004 27. 655 2. 74 2. 47 0. 27 2 8. 124 11. 7 15. 14 16 29. 083 29. 031 28. 673 27. 372 2. 76 2. 47 0. 29 3 8. 224 11. 7 14. 8 15. 78 29. 5 29 28. 8 27. 5 2. 72 2. 41 0. 31 4 11. 41 11. 7 14. 66 16. 44 28. 4 27. 9 27. 8 27. 1 2. 98 2. 41 0. 57 5 13. 7 11. 7 14. 5 15. 2 28 27. 4 27. 2 26. 7 3. 23 2. 42 0. 81 6 15. 8 11. 7 14. 62 15. 1 27. 9 27. 34 27. 13 26. 7 3. 47 2. 4 1. 07 E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 5
Results – Thermal pictures Hotspot outside the stave cooling area Inlet/outlet 7. 60 lpm 8. 12 lpm 8. 22 lpm 11. 41 lpm 13. 70 lpm 15. 8 lpm Silicon E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 6
Results – Thermal pictures (Bari) E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 7
Results – Thermal pictures § Hotspots on the heater: 8. 22 lpm Inlet/outlet Silicon § Hottest point is at the heater end, outside the Points Temperature [°C] a 34. 17 b 31. 53 water at the pipe turn and the stave by thermal c 31. 38 d 31. 38 conduction along the heater. e 30. 78 f 30. 03 g 30. 03 h 29. 88 cooled area (silicon) § Heater is supposed to be cooled there by the E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 8
Results – Thermal pictures § Temperature along three lines at the stave: 8. 22 lpm Inlet/outlet Silicon T line 1 T line 2 T line 3 E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 9
Results § The first test (@7. 6 lpm) can be neglected, the results do not follow the trend of the rest. § Noticeable decrease of silicon maximum temperature when transition to turbulent flow happens (~ 12 lpm). E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 10
Results ΔT wall-water m [l/h] V [m/s] Re Δp exp [bar] Δp duct [bar] HTC (lam) HTC (Gniel) LAM TURB 7. 60 8. 12 8. 22 11. 41 13. 70 15. 80 1. 31 1. 40 1. 42 1. 97 2. 36 2. 73 1649 1762 1784 2475 2972 3427 0. 29 0. 31 0. 57 0. 81 1. 05 0. 12 0. 13 0. 17 0. 45 0. 56 1646 1646 3596 4162 4268 7465 9594 11462 3. 2 3. 2 1. 45 1. 22 0. 70 0. 54 0. 45 § Difference in pressure drop with the expected theoretical values is due to the connectors, piping, etc. These losses can be considered as k*1/2*ρ*v 2, where k is a constant dependent on the setting and can be calculated. § ΔT wall-water: establishes the margin of improvement by using a better cooling system for this setup: HTC wall-fluid [W m-2 K-1] Tmax Silicon [o. C] 1646 43. 02 5000 39. 25 10000 38. 22 E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 11
Outcome 1. Experiences can be run fast and reliably. 2. Uncertainty: big § Sensors (PTs, NTCs, p sensors, flow meter). § Thermo camera: -/+4 o. C below 100 o. C § Systematic: depends on the setup (assembly of sensors, NTCs over heater). § Thermo camera shooting point: not fixed this time (reflections can appear). Ø Results qualitatively significant 3. Standardized setup necessary: § Stave support for quick replacement. § Tripod for thermo camera. § NTCs glued to the heater to enhance local contact. 4. Evaporative cooling system little improves thermal performance, but could ensure better T distribution. 5. Water tests can be repeated using the same absolute power as in the Bari experiences (13. 7 W corresponding to 0. 71 A current) E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 12
Ultra-light carbon fiber structures: first test campaign Enrico DA RIVA (EN-CV-PJ) Manuel GOMEZ MARZOA (EN-CV-PJ) 18 th July 2012 E. Da Riva/M. Gomez Marzoa WG 4 Meeting - 18 th July 2012 13
- Slides: 13