Lead Berkeley Lab experimentalists Reed Teyber, a research scientist in the Superconducting Magnet Program (SMP) in the ATAP Division, and Diego Arbelaez, a staff scientist in the Engineering Division, working with the SMP team, recently completed a successful test of the CCT5+GA insert, a novel two-magnet system that showcases the Lab’s capabilities in support of the U.S. Magnet Development Program. The test involved a hybrid magnet with a high-temperature (LN₂) core and low-temperature (LHe₂) shell conducted within the facility’s cryostat.

Like all experiments, the team experienced challenges, including reduced helium generation, personnel changes, and unexpected equipment damage, which they worked collaboratively to overcome. Studying their success in rapidly managing these challenges offers valuable insights into achieving experimental success.

Key factors contributing to this success included:

1. Experimental Design Review. The team, which included scientists, engineers, and technicians, held regular planning meetings leading up to the experiment. This collaborative approach has been a best practice in SMP and ATAP for many years and has proved successful when preparing for the experiment design review. These meetings allowed the team to focus on the experiment’s design and procedures and manage any challenges that may arise. This approach provides a collegial and safe space for discussion and constructive feedback.
2. Clear Work Planning and Control (WPC). The team revised WPC documentation before the test to ensure clarity and relevance. During this review, they eliminated hazards to reduce risks for the workers operating under the WPC document.
3. Challenges related to the liquid helium plant’s aging infrastructure required quick adaptation. The team’s strong communication and collaboration allowed them to effectively manage leaks and degraded parts and address other issues.
4. Implementing Safeguards Into the Experimental Design. The team discussed how potential failures in the electrical system could impact the experiment. They implemented safeguards to prevent downstream equipment damage or risks to personnel. This proactive approach ensured safe failure scenarios (e.g., switches were selected to safely absorb an upstream component failure without further energy transfer to the rest of the system.)

Conclusion

The experiment was successful because the team carefully planned each step and identified potential issues and solutions ahead of time. The entire SMP team contributed to the planning, which helped achieve a positive outcome. The team showed adaptability and learned from successes and challenges as the experiment progressed. The collaborative approach and proactive planning to experimental design review in SMP and ATAP have been successful and are closely aligned with the Lab’s values of respect, trust, and teamwork.

For more information on ATAP News articles, contact caw@lbl.gov.