Modification of the trapped field in bulk high-temperature superconductors as a result of the drilling of a pattern of artificial columnar holes

TL;DR

This study investigates how drilling artificial columnar holes in bulk high-temperature superconductors affects their trapped magnetic field, combining numerical models and Hall probe measurements to analyze the impact of different hole patterns.

Contribution

It introduces a comprehensive comparison of numerical models and experimental results to understand the effect of hole patterning on trapped flux in superconductors.

Findings

Centered rectangular lattice minimizes magnetization loss

Numerical models agree well with experimental data

Drilling reduces trapped magnetic flux, especially in non-centered patterns

Abstract

The trapped magnetic field is examined in bulk high-temperature superconductors that are artificially drilled along their c-axis. The influence of the hole pattern on the magnetization is studied and compared by means of numerical models and Hall probe mapping techniques. To this aim, we consider two bulk YBCO samples with a rectangular cross-section that are drilled each by six holes arranged either on a rectangular lattice (sample I) or on a centered rectangular lattice (sample II). For the numerical analysis, three different models are considered for calculating the trapped flux: (i), a two-dimensional (2D) Bean model neglecting demagnetizing effects and flux creep, (ii), a 2D finite-element model neglecting demagnetizing effects but incorporating magnetic relaxation in the form of an E-J power law, and, (iii), a 3D finite element analysis that takes into account both the finite height of the sample and flux creep effects. For the experimental analysis, the trapped magnetic flux density is measured above the sample surface by Hall probe mapping performed before and after the drilling process. The maximum trapped flux density in the drilled samples is found to be smaller than that in the plain samples. The smallest magnetization drop is found for sample II, with the centered rectangular lattice. This result is confirmed by the numerical models. In each sample, the relative drops that are calculated independently with the three different models are in good agreement. As observed experimentally, the magnetization drop calculated in the sample II is the smallest one and its relative value is comparable to the measured one. By contrast, the measured magnetization drop in sample (1) is much larger than that predicted by the simulations, most likely because of a change of the microstructure during the drilling process.