4.5 Article

Optimum Design and Performance Analysis of Superconducting Cable with Different Conductor Layout

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 15, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en15238893

关键词

HTS cable; topology; CORC; AC loss

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation [52172271]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB25000000]
  3. China International Nuclear Fusion Energy Program [2022YFE03150200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper focuses on the design and layout optimization of high-temperature superconducting (HTS) cables. Finite element models were built for cables with different structures, and their performance was analyzed using cable performance evaluation indicators. The CORC double-layer structure was determined as the best solution. The AC loss of the cable and the performance of the cooling system were calculated and found to be satisfactory.
Compared with the traditional cable, the high-temperature superconducting (HTS) cable has the advantages of low loss and large capacity transmission. At present, the research on HTS cables mainly focuses on the calculation of AC loss, the performance under specific working conditions and cooling system design. Relatively little research has been carried out on the basic design and overall layout optimization of the cables. In this paper, an HTS cable with a rated current of 4 kA was designed. Firstly, according to the selected superconducting cable parameters, the body design of cables with different structures was carried out and the corresponding finite element models were built. Then, the performance analysis of HTS cables with different layouts was carried out based on the proposed cable performance evaluation indicators and the CORC double-layer structure was determined as the scheme of this cable. Finally, the AC loss of the cable with this topology was calculated to be 9.81 J/m under rated conditions. The cooling system can ensure the safe operation of the cable in the rated temperature range.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据