Scribd
Upload
23 views3 pages

High MN Steels-Fermilab

Uploaded by

brunizza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views3 pages

High MN Steels-Fermilab

Uploaded by

brunizza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

TS-SSC 90-105

17-DEC-1990

From: FNAL::JBS
To: BOSSERT,CARSON,GREGG,KERBY,MANTSCH,TNICOL,PEWITT,JOHNZ
CC: MYSELF
Subj: Nitronic 33 for end clamp filler laminations
Nitronic 33 looks to me to be at least as good a material for the end
clamp filler laminations as Kawasaki steel. The idea in using high Mn
steel was to get a closer match to the thermal contraction of iron than
is achieved with standard stainless steel. The Nitronic 33 data sheet
shows an integrated thermal contraction from 293 to 89 K of 0.215~.
Assuming that it scales to 4 K by the same fraction as 304 and 316, the
integrated contraction to 4 K would be 0.24~ . This is 0.03~ more than
iron, while the Kawasaki steel is 0.04~ less than iron. If, as Tom
Nicol quotes Tom Reed, the thermal contraction is linear in the
Manganese content, the •ideal• material would have about 20~ Manganese,
very close to the Carpenter Technology 18-18 Plus which Tom says in
unavailable in sheet or plate.
The permiabi lity of Nitronic 33 is 1.002 from 293 down to LN
temperatures (as far as the Armcol data sheet goes) . This is somewhat
smaller than Armco quotes for Nitronic 40: 1.005 at 77 K. This is
certainly small enough for the end laminations where the only
restriction is that the field at the conductors in the end not be
enhanced .
I see no technical reason to choose one of Kawasaki KHMN30L or Armco
Nitronc 33 over the other. If Nitronic 33 is more readily available
then we should use it.
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Fermilab Technical Support I Engineering


P.O. Box 500 ·Batavia, Illinois· 60510
FAX; (708) 840·8036

December 15, 1990


To: Distribution

From: T. Nicol

Subject: Domestic high-Mn steel sources


I spent a few hours this past week looking into the possibility of
locating a source for high-Mn steel in the U.S. Below is a summary of my
findings.
I first contacted Dick Reed at NIST (formerly NBS) in Boulder. Dick
has just completed a consulting job for BNL and General Dynamics in
which he was looking for high-Mn steel for some x-ray lithography
magnets. He steered me to Armco, U.S. Steel, and Allegheny Ludlum.
Armco makes the nitronic series with which most of us are familiar.
U.S. Steel at one time made something called 'Tenelon' which had about
15% Mn, but is said to be out of that business. Allegheny Ludlum at one
time made something called '18-18 Plus' (18% Mn), but has since licensed
that recipe to Carpenter Technology, a specialty steel house. Carpenter
makes two high-Mn alloys; '15-15 LC' with 16% Mn (sic) and '18-18 Plus'.
Unfortunately, Carpenter's alloys are only made in bar form, not sheet or
plate. The reference material, Kawasaki 'KHMN30L' is 28-30% Mn.
In my initial talk with Dick Reed he confirmed that the high Mn
content is what yields the low permeability and low coefficient of thermal
expansion of Mn alloy steels. He also estimates that the difference in
thermal expansion between alloys, to first order, varies linearly with the
Mn content.
My feeling from the sum total of these contacts is that the closest
we're going to get in a readily available alloy is 'Nitronic-33' (13% Mn) from
Armco. Assuming the linear variation in thermal expansion is right,
'Nitronic-33' should yield about 2.2 mils/inch shrinkage from 300K to 4K
based on values of 2.6 and 1.7 for 316L stainless and 'KHI\1N30L'
respectively. The number for iron is about 2.1. I have a product data sheet
for 'Nitronic-33' in my office if you're interested. Armco's information
gives data for shrinkage of 2.15 mils/'mch over the range from 293K to 89K
so I suspect the above estimate of 2.2 is pretty close.
There may be other sources that I haven't found, but it seems likely
we would have run across them by now. Low demand for the material is
compounded by the fact that manganese is evidently really nasty stuff in the
manufacturing process. In any case, Dick Reed will be here this coming
week for the design review. I'm sure he would be glad to expound upon his
knowledge and experience if anyone has further interest.

Distribution:
R. Bossert
J. Carson
G. Kobliska I Q,,v-..._ _ _ ___
J. Kerby
K. Leung - SSCL
P. Mantsch
E. Pewi.t t
J. Strait
J. Zweibohmer

You might also like