4.1 Article

RRR characteristics of niobium along the welding directions for SRF cavities

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
Volume 69, Issue 6, Pages 984-988

Publisher

KOREAN PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.3938/jkps.69.984

Keywords

Superconducting cavity; Niobium; Residual resistivity ratio; RRR; Electron-beam welding; Zone refining

Funding

  1. Rare Isotope Science Project - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (MSIP)
  2. National Research Foundation (NRF) of the Republic of Korea [2011-0032011]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2011-0032011] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prototype cavities for the superconducting LINAC, named RAON, have been made and tested by the rare isotope science project (RISP) in South Korea. The cavities are quarter-wave resonators (QWRs), half-wave resonators (HWRs) and two types of single-spoke resonators (SSR1, SSR2). All cavities have been made of niobium (Nb) of high residual resistance ratio (RRR) grade. The RRR value decreased (degraded) during electron-beam welding due to the incorporation of impurities from the surroundings. Therefore, the RRR value must be maintained to ensure the cavity's performance. Conventional e-beam welding, a process to join two niobium parts thermally, has been performed so that the cavity can be fabricated in a structurally-favorable way without considering a preferential welding direction. Thus, we analyzed the RRR characteristics in terms of the welding direction, if any favorable direction existed, to improve the RRR value. Also, we analyzed the RRR results as a function of the vacuum level, the distance from welding center, and the type of welded side. In this study, the RRR along the welding direction, including as a function of the welded side and the vacuum level, will be discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available