4.4 Article

Bending and Twisting Characteristics of REBCO Lap Joint With Indium

Journal

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TASC.2023.3261841

Keywords

Strain; Bending; Testing; Indium; Resistance; Fabrication; Stress; Bending and twisting characteristics; fusion magnets; high-temperature superconductors; joint-winding; joints

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes joint-winding methods for high-temperature superconducting (HTS) magnets in advanced helical reactors. The JTB and TBJ procedures for curved-joint fabrication were designed and the joint resistance was evaluated. The JTB procedure could be applied to large-scale helical coils, while the TBJ procedure could be adopted for smaller-scale helical coils.
Joint-winding of high-temperature superconducting (HTS) magnets has been proposed for an advanced helical reactor, the FFHR-d1 reactor. In the fabrication method, stacked tapes assembled in rigid structure (STARS) conductors-in which a simple stack of rare-earth barium copper oxide (REBCO) tapes within a metal casing-are connected using a bridge-type mechanical lap joint with indium foil inserted. Previous studies showed sufficiently low joint resistances in straight conductors, although curved joints would be necessary for the fabrication of helically-wound HTS coils. In this study, we devised joint, twist, and bend (JTB) and twist, bend and joint (TBJ) procedures for the curved-joint fabrication. We evaluated the joint resistance as a function of bending and torsional strain for the JTB procedure as well as the joint resistance as a function of bending radius or twist pitch for the TBJ procedure. Based on the experimental results and discussion, the JTB procedure could be applied to large-scale helical coils-such as those used in the FFHR-d1 reactor-whereas the TBJ procedure could be adopted for smaller-scale helical coils such as those used in the FFHR-a1 reactor.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available