IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, VOL. 26, NO.

2, MARCH 2016

4700507

Analysis of Maximum Voltage Transient of JT-60SA

Toroidal Field Coils in Case of Fast Discharge
L. Novello, P. Cara, A. Coletti, E. Gaio, A. Maistrello, M. Matsukawa, G. Phillips, V. Tomarchio, and K. Yamauchi

AbstractThe voltage transient appearing across and inside

the toroidal field (TF) coils of JT-60SA in case of fast voltage
variation, such as a safety discharge operated by the quench
protection circuit (QPC), can be significantly high. In fact, the
voltage distribution between coils and inside the winding can be
not uniform during fast transient, being influenced by the presence
of parasitic capacitances. A simplified electrical model of the TF
coils has been developed to investigate this aspect. Its robustness
has been proved by means of parametric sensitivity analysis, and
the impact of the included simplifications has been evaluated. The
obtained model has been used in conjunction with an electrical
model of the TF circuit elements, including a simplified model
of the QPC able to reproduce the voltage appearing across its
terminals as observed during experimental operation of the QPC
prototype. The worst case in terms of transient voltage applied to
the winding has been identified, corresponding to a fault to ground
occurring just after QPC operation. It has been verified that the
resulting voltage is largely inside the coil insulation capability
defined by performed insulation voltage tests.
Index TermsElectrical model, fast discharge, JT-60SA, superconducting coils, toroidal field (TF) coils, voltage distribution.

I. I NTRODUCTION

HE satellite tokamak JT-60SA [1] will be equipped with

18 toroidal field (TF) superconducting coils [2], which are
rated for a nominal current of 25.7 kA and supplied with a
nominal voltage of 80 V. In case of loss of their superconductive
status, or in case of other faults requiring a fast deenergization
of the coils, the significant amount of magnetic energy (more
than 1 GJ) stored in the TF coils has to be quickly dissipated by
inserting resistors in series to the coils. This procedure is performed by three quench protection circuits (QPCs) inserted in
the TF circuit [3], which were designed to generate a maximum
voltage not exceeding the TF coil nominal voltage to ground
of 2.8 kV. Basically, each QPC can be considered as a switch
designed to sustain the nominal current of the superconducting
coils in normal operation, as well as to rapidly commutate it into
discharge resistors in case of activation. This function is realized by means of an innovative hybrid mechanical-electronic
Manuscript received October 9, 2015; revised November 18, 2015 and
January 20, 2016; accepted January 20, 2016. Date of publication January 22,
2016; date of current version February 9, 2016. This paper was recommended
by Associate Editor A. Devred.
L. Novello, P. Cara, A. Coletti, G. Phillips, and V. Tomarchio are with the
Broader Fusion Development Department, Fusion For Energy, 85748 Garching,
Germany (e-mail: luca.novello@jt60sa.org).
E. Gaio and A. Maistrello are with Consorzio RFX, 35127 Padova, Italy.
M. Matsukawa and K. Yamauchi are with Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
Naka 319-1184, Japan.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TASC.2016.2521321

dc circuit breaker [4], which is composed of a mechanical

bypass switch (BPS) paralleled to a static circuit breaker (SCB),
assuring low ON-state losses and fast current commutation into
the discharge resistor. The high reliability of the QPC system
is improved by an explosively actuated circuit breaker (named
pyrobreaker) acting as a backup protection in case of failure of
the main circuit breaker.
Both the SCB and the pyrobreaker allow very fast insertion
of the discharge resistors in the TF circuit, the first operating in
few microseconds and the second having an intervention time
of about 200 s. On one hand, a fast operation is beneficial
for the safety of the TF coils, but on the other hand, it can
represent a stress for the coil insulation. In fact, due to the
stray parameters characterizing the coils, the transient voltage
distribution across the coils and across the coil turns is not
uniform. This means that excessive overvoltage can locally
appear even if the total applied voltage is within acceptable
values. Provisions to reduce the applied voltage and the voltage
derivative have been taken in the design of QPC, such as
optimization of the discharge resistor value, minimization of
the stray inductances, and insertion of clamp capacitors.
To investigate the resulting voltage distribution inside the TF
coils in case of QPC operation, a simplified electrical model
of the TF coil, already developed for preliminary analysis of
voltage distribution across a coil [5], has been updated and
included in an electrical model of the TF coil circuit. This paper
describes the developed models, the analysis performed, and the
obtained results.
II. M ODELS
A. TF Coil
Each TF coil is composed of 72 turns, which are connected
in series and arranged in six double pancakes, as described
in Fig. 1.
Each turn is surrounded by half overlapped glass fiber tape
with an insulation thickness of 1 mm, and an additional insulation composed of 1-mm-thick glass-reinforced plastic sheets is
inserted between two adjacent double pancakes. Two adjacent
pancakes are connected by a joint having a resistance of few
nanoohms. The complete winding pack surrounded by a conductive layer is wrapped in a 3-mm-thick glass fiber insulation
and is inserted in a metallic casing. The conductive layer is
electrically connected to the casing in the area of coil terminals,
and the casing is connected to ground at a single point.
In order to obtain an equivalent electric model, each coil
has been modeled as the series connection of 72 inductances,

1051-8223 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

4700507

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, VOL. 26, NO. 2, MARCH 2016

TABLE I
VALUES OF THE M ODEL PARAMETERS

Fig. 1. Scheme of coil cross section; turns are numbered from 1 to 72; filaments
modeling the casing are named A to L.

representing the coil turns. The self-inductance value of each

turn has been evaluated with a finite-element model. The resulting values range from 18.6 to 19.3 H, depending on the size of
the turn itself. The use of the self-inductance value of the turn
is a rough approximation; in fact, each turn is mutually coupled
with all the other turns of all TF coils. Taking into consideration
the fact that all turns are series connected, the effect of the
mutual inductance has been approximated by summing the
values of the mutual inductances between a turn and all
the other turns of the 18 TF coils to the self-inductance value of
the turn itself.
To perform this estimation, which represents a strong simplification whose impact is analyzed in the following, each turn
has been modeled as a filament placed in the turn center. The
mutual inductance values between each couple of the 72 turns
of the 18 TF coils have been calculated, leading to a mutual
inductance matrix of 1296 1296 elements. The mutual inductance Mi,j between the filaments i and j has been calculated
using the Neumann integral, where Rij is the distance between
line elements dsi and dsj , and 0 is the permeability of the
empty space. Thus
Mi,j =

0
4

 

dsi dsj
.
|Rij |

(1)

The resulting equivalent inductance values for the turns range

from 2.35 to 2.57 mH.
The stray capacitances between each turn and the adjacent
turns both in poloidal and radial directions have been considered in the model, and for the more external turns, even
the stray capacitance with the external conductive layer has
been considered. Finally, the stray capacitance between the
conductive layer and the casing has been taken into account.
The stray capacitances have been calculated using the analytical formula for plate capacitors starting from the geometrical
details of the coil and the material property of the insulation.
The total resistance of the conductive layer applied on the
outer surface of the coil to homogenize the electrical field has
been estimated to be about 8 k, based on [6] using a similar
painting, and in the model, this value has been subdivided into
36 sections, each one having a resistance of 220 .
The resulting values are reported in Table I.

The presence of the coil casing as a conductor coupled with

the coil turn has a not negligible effect on the coil current, particularly during fast transient. To take into account this effect,
it is necessary to evaluate the mutual inductance between each
turn and the casing. This has been done by modeling the casing
with 12 separate filaments closed in the poloidal direction.
The definition of filament number and position has an impact
on the dynamic response of the model. In fact, due to skin
effect, fast current transient will lead to a current density higher
near the surface of the casing than on the casing center. For this
reason, the filaments discretizing the casing have been placed
near the casing inner surface, as shown in Fig. 1, in order to
obtain a model that better fits the actual current distribution in
the casing in case of fast transients.
The self-inductance of each filament has been evaluated
with a finite-element model, whereas the mutual inductances
between the filaments representing the turns and the casing
have been calculated using the Neumann integral formula (1).
Finally, to estimate the resistance of each casing filament, an
equivalent reduced cross section of the casing has been assumed
to take into account the skin effect, and the resulting casing
resistance has been divided by the number of filaments. The
resulting circuit model of one TF coil is shown in Fig. 2.
1) Evaluation of the Model Parametric Sensitivity: Since the
evaluation of the coil model parameter values is based on a
number of assumptions, a parametric sensitivity analysis has
been worked out to evaluate the reliability of the coil model.
A simulation has been performed with PSIM [7] applying a
step voltage to the terminal of the coil, and the effect on the
maximum turn-to-turn voltage has been evaluated changing of
20% the value of each parameter.
The model is quite robust: the maximum overvoltage variation is less than 3% with a 20% parameter variation. In
particular, the most sensitive parameter is the stray capacitance

NOVELLO et al.: ANALYSIS OF VOLTAGE TRANSIENT OF JT-60SA TF COILS IN CASE OF DISCHARGE

4700507

Fig. 2. Obtained electrical scheme of the coil.

between two turns adjacent in the poloidal direction inside

the same pancake. Conversely, the variation of the value of
mutual inductance with the casing has a negligible impact on
the maximum turn-to-turn voltage. In fact, a 20% variation of
the mutual coupling values results in a less than 0.1% variation
of the maximum turn-to-turn voltage.
2) Evaluation of the Mutual Inductance Effect: As described
earlier, the developed model includes some simplifications,
such as the fact that the mutual inductance effect between
different coils turns is taken into account just by summing the
values of the mutual inductances to the self-inductance value
of each turn.
To investigate the impact of this assumption, a coil model
implementing the actual effect of mutual inductance between
all turns has been developed. A step voltage has been applied
to this model, and a comparison with the results obtained using
the simplified coil model has been performed.
As shown in Fig. 3, the peak voltage obtained with the two
models is comparable, being overestimated in the simplified
model by only about 16%. Conversely, the settling time of the
voltage transient is completely different in the two models:
the actual effect of the mutual inductance results in a fast
damping of the voltage oscillation, which is not obtained in
the simplified model. This means that the simplified model is
suitable for detecting the worst condition for the coil insulation
as it allows obtaining a conservative estimate of the first peak
voltage, but it is not reliable for evaluation of the following
voltage transient waveform.

Fig. 3. Voltage across the first coil turn, in case of a 1-V step voltage applied
across the coil. Comparison of results obtained using the simplified model
without mutual inductance (the mutual inductance is taken into account just
by summing the value of the mutual inductance to the self-inductance) and the
complete model with the mutual inductances.

B. Circuit

Fig. 4. Simplified scheme of the TF coil circuit.

The 18 TF coils are grouped in three subgroups of six seriesconnected coils. The series connection of the three subgroups
is spaced out by three QPCs, and the current in the TF coils is
provided by a thyristor converter with a dc output voltage of

80 V, allowing a rise up (and down) of the coil current up to

the nominal value in about 25 min. The scheme of the TF coil
circuit is shown in Fig. 4.

4700507

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, VOL. 26, NO. 2, MARCH 2016

The TF coil model described in the previous section has been

inserted in the simulation model of the TF circuit, including
all the TF coils and simplified models of the QPCs and of the
busbars, which is described in the following.
The conductive layer of each TF coil is directly connected to
the casing in a single point, and this connection was placed in
the point closer to the coil terminal. This assumption represents
the worst case in case of fault to ground external to the coil. The
casing of each TF coil is considered to be connected to ground
by means of a 0.1- resistance. The middle point of each
QPC discharge resistance is connected to ground to minimize
the requirements in terms of insulation to ground, through a
resistance of 160 .

Fig. 5. Voltage appearing across QPC during operation with nominal current.
Comparison between experimental data and simulation result.

C. QPC Model
As anticipated, the QPC is equipped with a hybrid
mechanical-static circuit breaker, which is composed of a mechanical BPS paralleled to an SCB. In normal operation, the
current is conducted by the BPS, resulting in low ON-state
power dissipation. In case of QPC operation, the current is first
commutated from the BPS to the SCB and, afterward, from the
SCB to the discharge resistor. From the point of view of the TF
coil current decrease, the effective operation is the commutation
of the current from the SCB to the discharge resistor. In fact,
the current passage from the BPS to the SCB is characterized
by a low voltage (less than 30 V) for a short duration (some
milliseconds), and therefore, its impact on the voltage applied
to the coils is negligible.
Conversely, the current interruption performed by the SCB
takes just some microseconds, and the resulting transient voltage could largely exceed the resistive voltage drop across the
discharge resistor due to the stray inductance of the connection between the SCB and the discharge resistor, and of the
discharge resistor itself. To limit this overvoltage, which could
be excessive also for the static components of the SCB, suitable
clamp circuits have been inserted in parallel to the SCB and in
parallel to the QPC unit. Their value and their position have
been optimized to limit the resulting transient voltage under the
nominal insulation voltage of the TF coils.
The reliability of the QPC operation is increased by the
insertion of a pyrobreaker in series to the hybrid circuit breaker.
In case of failure of the latter, the pyrobreaker is operated,
assuring a fast current commutation into the discharge resistors
and acting as a backup protection. Current interruption tests
performed with the pyrobreaker evidenced that its operation enables interrupting the nominal current in about 200 s. Numerical simulations of the electrical model of the QPC unit showed
that its intervention can generate transient voltage exceeding
the TF coil nominal insulation voltage of 2.8 kV. To reduce
the maximum voltage appearing across QPC terminal without
adding additional dedicated clamp circuits, an optimized layout
of the QPC connections was studied and implemented [8]. This
provision assures that the transient voltage appearing at the
QPC terminal never exceeds the maximum value of 2.8 kV.
Fig. 5 shows an example of QPC operation and, in particular,
of SCB current interruption [9], evidencing that the voltage appearing across the QPC is characterized by two voltage peaks.

The second part of the voltage transient is mainly due to

the stray inductance of the QPC discharge resistor and of its
connections to the SCB. Its value is limited due to the presence
of the clamp capacitor. Unavoidably, even the clamp capacitor
has some stray inductance, and this is the main reason of the
first part of the voltage transient. This transient is very fast and
characterized by high voltage derivative, and its peak voltage is
limited by the presence of the snubber circuits.
To reproduce the experimental voltage waveform without
inserting a too detailed model of the QPC hybrid circuit breaker,
each QPC has been modeled as an ideal switch inserting in
the circuit a discharge resistance of 0.075 , with a snubber
and a clamp capacitor connected in parallel to the ideal switch
(not shown in Fig. 4). The inductance and resistance values
of the QPC internal connections, playing an important role on
the actual voltage waveform, have been estimated based on the
actual QPC prototype and on the experimental results obtained
during its qualification.
D. Busbar Model
A model of the busbars connecting each group of six TF
coils to the QPCs and to the converters has been included in
the circuit. They have been modeled as the series connection
of a resistance and an inductance both for the inlet and outlet
conductors, connected by a capacitance, taking into account the
effect of their stray capacitance.
The related resistance has been obtained taking into consideration their cross section and their length. To obtain the
inductance and the capacitance values, some approximations
have been made, assuming that the cross section of busbars
is circular and considering that the distance between the inlet
and outlet conductors is constant in the whole path. Finally, the
obtained values have been divided by six, assuming that the
inlet and outlet busbar connections for the three groups of TF
coils have the same values.
III. R ESULTS
The combination of the simplified electrical models of the
different components of the TF circuit has been used to simulate
different events resulting in a fast voltage transient across the

NOVELLO et al.: ANALYSIS OF VOLTAGE TRANSIENT OF JT-60SA TF COILS IN CASE OF DISCHARGE

4700507

Fig. 6. Transient voltage across the first turn (turn 1) of coil TF1 and the last
turn (turn 72) of coil TF18 in case of 80-V step voltage applied at the terminals
of the TF converter.

coils, particularly during QPC operation. Not only the voltage

applied to each coil has been evaluated, but also the voltage
between adjacent turns inside the coils has been investigated,
with the aim of identifying the worst case in terms of turn-toturn voltage.

Fig. 7. Voltage across and inside TF coils in case of QPC operation at nominal
current.

During the normal operation, the maximum voltage applied

to the series of 18 coils is the 80-V no-load output voltage
of the TF converter. To study the voltage distribution across
the turns in normal operation, the complete TF circuit model
has been used to simulate the effect of applying a step voltage
of 80 V with the converter. The obtained results showed that
the resulting voltage distribution is not symmetric. In fact, the
position of QPCs in the TF circuit, and therefore the position
of the grounding connections in the midpoint of QPC discharge
resistors, is not symmetrical with respect to the TF coils and
the TF converter, and this implies that the voltage to ground
appearing at the input of the coil TF1 has not the same value as
the one appearing at the output terminal of the coil TF18.
In particular, as shown in Fig. 6, the highest transient voltage
is applied across the first turn of coil TF1, having a peak value
of about 30 V, followed by damped oscillations leading to the
uniform steady-state value of about 0.6 V. The last turn of coil
TF18, instead, experiences a maximum voltage of about 20 V.
As expected, higher transient voltage drops are applied on the
turns closer to the point of application of the external voltage.
Therefore, since the first and twelfth series-connected turns
inside a pancake are adjacent, their insulation is expected to
experience higher voltage stress than the other turns.

The resulting waveforms are shown in Fig. 7. As expected,

the voltage across each group of six series-connected coils has
a waveform very close to that of the voltage applied at the
QPC terminals, which means that the filtering effect of the dc
busbars is negligible. The fast voltage transient applied to the
coils during the first tens of microseconds after QPC operation
results in a not uniform voltage distribution across the seriesconnected coils. In fact, the first and last coils of each group
of six coils have an applied voltage that reaches a maximum
value of about 1 k V at the time of QPC operation, while at the
same time, the voltage applied across the other coils has a much
lower value.
Similarly, the voltage distribution is not uniform across the
turns of a coil. As discussed earlier, the turn experiencing the
higher voltage is the first turn of the first of six coils, having
an applied transient voltage of about 260 V. The same voltage
is symmetrically applied to the last turn of the sixth coil. In
terms of turn-to-turn insulation, the highest voltage is applied
between the first and twelfth turns of the first coil and between
the 61th and 72th turns of the sixth coil, reaching a maximum
value of about 590 V.
It has to be highlighted that those values correspond to transient voltage due to the stray capacitance between the turns and
the surrounding elements, lasting only for some microseconds.
Successively, the QPC voltage is evenly shared between the coil
turns. The voltage sharing between turns is characterized by
oscillations whose amplitude and frequency strongly depend on
the stray capacitance values and the simplification included in
the model.

B. QPC Intervention With Nominal Current

C. Fault to Ground During QPC Operation

In order to evaluate the voltage distribution across the TF coil

turns in case of QPC intervention, the circuit has been charged
up to the nominal current of 25.7 kA by means of an 80-V
dc generator simulating the toroidal ac/dc converter. Then, the
converter voltage has been set to zero, and the three QPCs have
been simultaneously operated, according to the actual QPC
intervention sequence.

The maximum voltage applied across the coils has been

investigated also in case of fault to ground. The fault to ground
has been simulated at different locations and under different
operating conditions to highlight the worst case.
During normal operation, even in the case of TF circuit
supplied with nominal current and with maximum voltage of
converters, a fault to ground does not give rise to significant

A. Normal Operation

4700507

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, VOL. 26, NO. 2, MARCH 2016

voltage transient across the coils. Different is the case of a

fault to ground occurring during QPC operation. In fact, in that
case, a high voltage is applied to coils, and the fault-to-ground
occurrence results in a fast redistribution of this voltage among
the coils.
The possibility of having a fault to ground after QPC intervention should not be considered as a double fault with
negligible occurrence probability. In fact, the QPC operation
corresponds to the higher voltage solicitation across the coils,
and therefore, this is the most probable condition to have a
failure of the insulation toward ground.
In order to identify possible critical overvoltage for the coil
insulation, the fault to ground has been simulated after QPC
intervention, modifying different parameters such as the place
and time of fault-to-ground occurrence, as well as the resistance
value of the fault to ground.
Fault to ground has been simulated at different places, both
within the coils and outside the coils. As expected, it has
been found that the worst case in terms of maximum voltage
appearing across the turn insulation corresponds to a fault
occurring at the coil terminals directly connected to the QPC
terminals (see terminals A, B, C, D, E, and F in Fig. 4). In fact,
due to the connection to ground of the middle point of the QPC
resistor, in normal condition, the voltage to ground seen at that
coil terminal is only half of the QPC voltage. Conversely, in
case of fault to ground of the input terminal of the first coil in a
group of six (for example, terminal A in Fig. 4), the voltage to
ground seen at the output terminal of the sixth coil (see
terminal B in Fig. 4) is the whole QPC voltage, resulting in
a double voltage stress.
It should be highlighted that this case is equivalent to a fault
to ground occurring at a place along the path of the dc busbars
connecting the TF coils to the QPC units and to the power
supply (PS). Their length is more than 300 m, and they have an
articulated path, including some wall penetrations, due to the
fact that the QPC and the PS are located in a building different
from the Tokamak one, which means that the dc busbars are
particularly exposed to the possibility of having a fault to ground.
In terms of fault timing, it has been verified that, as expected,
the worst case corresponds to a fault to ground happening
just after QPC intervention, when the highest transient voltage
appears across the coil turns.
Finally, in terms of resistance value of the fault to ground, the
simulation shows that the fault resistance value starts having an
impact on the maximum transient voltage across the turns when
its value is less than some hundreds of ohms, this value being
comparable with the grounding resistance connected to the
middle point of the QPC. Moreover, no significant variations
are noticed in the transient turn-to-turn voltage when the fault
resistance is reduced below the value of few ohms.
Combining all the conditions described earlier, the highest
turn-to-turn voltage is found between the first and twelfth turns
of coil TF1, as shown in Fig. 8, under the following conditions:
fault to ground appearing few microseconds after QPC
operation;
fault occurring at the output terminal of coil TF18 (see
point F in Fig. 4);
fault-to-ground resistance value of 1 .

Fig. 8. Voltage inside TF1 coil in case of QPC operation at nominal current,
followed by 1- fault to ground at the output terminal of coil TF18.

IV. D ISCUSSION OF R ESULTS

According to the performed analysis, the worst case for the
TF coil interwinding insulation is obtained in case of fault to
ground after QPC intervention, corresponding to a maximum
turn-to-turn voltage of about 1.3 kV.
However, it has to be stressed that the simplifications included in the coil model, such as the treatment of the mutual
inductance effect between turns, produce an overestimation of
the resulting peak voltage and of the duration of the voltage
transient, as already described in Section II. This implies that
the results obtained with the simplified model can be considered
valid for detecting the peak voltage, corresponding to the worst
condition for coil insulation, whereas they are not reliable for
the evaluation of the following voltage transient waveform.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the results obtained with
the simplified model represented a key input for testing and
assessing the suitability of the coil insulation design for the
worst expected operating condition. In fact, ac voltage tests
have been successfully performed by applying at the terminals
of three double pancakes connected in series an oscillating
voltage having a peak value of 3 kV. In addition, a dc voltage
up to 10 kV has been successfully applied between the turns
of a mock-up of a coil for 60 s, proving that the turn-to-turn
insulation has large margins compared with the highest voltage
found with the described analysis.
V. C ONCLUSION
A simplified model of the TF coils and of the TF circuit elements has been developed to investigate the voltage distribution
and the transient peak voltage applied to the coil insulation in
case of fast discharge. The simplifications included in the model
and the range of validity of the obtained results have been
described in this paper. It has been found that, in case of QPC
operation, the highest transient voltage across a coil can reach
up to 1 kV, with a turn-to-turn maximum voltage of about 600 V.
In addition, the worst case in terms of turn-to-turn insulation
has been identified corresponding to a fault to ground occurring

NOVELLO et al.: ANALYSIS OF VOLTAGE TRANSIENT OF JT-60SA TF COILS IN CASE OF DISCHARGE

at the coil terminals just after QPC intervention: in this case,

the interwinding transient voltage can reach a peak value of
about 1.3 kV.
The next step of the analysis will be the development of a
complete 3-D finite-element model of the TF coil to obtain a
more precise evaluation of the peak voltage and of the following
transient voltage waveform that can actually appear in the
identified worst case.
R EFERENCES
[1] Y. Kamada, P. Barabaschi, and S. Ishida, Progress of the JT-60SA project,
Nucl. Fusion, vol. 53, 2013, pp. 112.
[2] V. Tomarchio et al., Design of the JT-60SA Toroidal field magnet, IEEE
Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 572575, Jun. 2010.
[3] E. Gaio et al., Final design of the quench protection circuits for the
JT-60SA, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 557563, Mar. 2012.

4700507

[4] L. Novello, E. Gaio, and R. Piovan, Feasibility study of a hybrid IGCTs

mechanical dc circuit breaker for superconducting magnet protection,
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 7683, Apr. 2009.
[5] A. Coletti et al., JT-60SA power supply system, Fusion Eng. Des.,
vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 13731376, Oct. 2011.
[6] H. Ehmler and M. Koeppen, AC modelling and impedance spectrum test
of the superconducting field coils for the Wendelstein 7-X fusion experiment, Rev. Sci. Instrum., vol. 78, 2007, Art. ID 104705.
[7] PSIM users guide, ver. 10, Powersim Inc., Rockville, MD, USA,
Apr. 2015.
[8] A. Maistrello et al., Analyses of the impact of connections layout on
the coil transient voltage at the Quench Protection Circuit intervention in
JT-60SA, Fusion Eng. Des., vol. 98/99, pp. 11091112, Oct. 2015.
[9] A. Maistrello et al., Experimental qualification of the hybrid circuit
breaker developed for JT-60SA quench protection circuit, IEEE Trans.
Appl. Supercond., vol. 24, no. 3, Jun. 2014, Art. ID 3801505.

Authors biographies not available at the time of publication.