1. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Beta-Beam Baseline Elena Wildner, CERN For WP4 19/01/2011 1 EUROnu mid term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011

2. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Choice of radioactive ion species Beta-active isotopes Production rates Life time Dangerous rest products Reactivity (Noble gases are good) Reasonable lifetime at rest If too short: decay during acceleration If too long: low neutrino production Optimum life time given by acceleration scenario In the order of a second Low Z preferred Minimize ratio of accelerated mass/charges per neutrino produced One ion produces one neutrino. Reduce space charge problems NuBase t 1/2 at rest (ground state) 1 – 60 s 1ms – 1s 6He and 18Ne 8Li and 8B 19/01/20112

3. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 19/01/20113 Baseline inclination Longer baselines need higher energy neutrinos -> Longer decay-times and less flux…

4. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 4 The Beta Beam boundaries Based on CERN boundaries Based on existing technology and machines Bunching and first acceleration: ECR, linac Rapid cycling synchrotron Use of existing machines: PS and SPS Relativistic gamma=100 for both ions Detector 130 km away Achieve an annual neutrino rate of 2.9*10 18 anti-neutrinos from 6 He 1.1 10 18 neutrinos from 18 Ne top-down approach 19/01/20114

5. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 19/01/20115 Beta Beam Options FP6 EURISOL Beta Beam 6He and 18Ne ions (“low-Q”) Gamma boost 100 Neutrino Energy ~ 3.5 *100 MeV Memphis WC detector, Frejus FP7 EUROnu Beta Beam 8B and 8Li ions (“high-Q”) Gamma boost 100 Neutrino Energy ~ 16.0 *100 MeV Argon or WC detector, Gran Sasso/Canfranc

6. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 619/01/2011 The EUROnu scenarii B  ~ 500 Tm, B = ~6 T, C = ~6900 m, L ss = ~2500 m  = 100 BASELINE = what we can reasonably offer today. Or is this what the project wants? Better for physics? But no 8B yet.

7. 19/01/2011 EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 7 Pick competitive realistic scenarii Less collective effects Collective effects important We can get 8Li “easily”, but not 8B

8. 8 Cavities for small duty factors 20 bunches, 5.2 ns long, distance 23*4 nanosseconds filling 1/11 of the Decay Ring, repeated every 23 microseconds ~10 14 ions, 0.5% duty (supression) factor for background suppression !!! Hardware not yet confirmed, Maybe 10 MChF 19/01/2011 8 EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011

9. 9 19/01/20119 Open mid-plane Quadrupole Opening angle Acknowledgments (magnet design): F Borgnolutti, E. Todesco (CERN) Parametric Approach!!

10. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 10 19/01/201110 Cost: Decay Ring Tunnel, Shafts Tunnel 4.5 m diameter 10 MChF / kilometer -> 70 M ChF Two Shafts: 20 MChF Extra Galleries for electronics? By Experience Tunnel and shafts: 30 % of Project Cost

11. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 11 19/01/201111 RCS 80 MChF Capital Cost

12. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Production ring 7 Li(d,p) 8 Li 6 Li( 3 He,n) 8 B 7 Li 6 Li 12 Supersonic gas jet target, stripper and absorber  12m circumference  mirror symmetrical structure  1.5T dipoles  5 quadrupole-families  Dx = 0 in cavity-section  best choice of Dx in target-section depends on wedge angle of the target 19/01/2011 Production does not work Optimization of cooling ongoing Experiments and simulations

13. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Collection device 19/01/2011 13 Design is known Cost will be known to a good level We do not know how it will perform

14. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Choice for production 19/01/201114 TypeAcceleratorBeamI beam mA E beam MeV P beam kW TargetIsotopeFlux S -1 Ok? ISOL & n-converter SPLp0.12 10 3 200W/BeO6He5 10 13 ISOL & n-converter Saraf/GANILd25401000C/BeO6He5 10 13 ISOLLinac 4p416064019F Molten NaF loop 18Ne2 10 13 ISOLCyclo/Linacp107070019F Molten NaF loop 18Ne2 10 13 ISOLLinacX13He> 170213600MgO 80 cm disk 18Ne2 10 13 P-RingLinacX27Li0.160254d8Li?1 10 14 P-RingLinacX26Li0.1602543He8B?1 10 14 Experimentally OK On paper may be OK Not OK yet

15. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 WBS 19/01/201115 10 M ChF (100%?) Not costed by WP4 (maybe cost driver…) Not costed (too complicated and time consuming for this presentation, probably not cost driving for beta beams at CERN)

16. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Project Beta Beam Level 2 19/01/201116  Options

17. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Infrastructures Services 19/01/201117 Decay Ring Tunnel taken into account Other infrastructures included (not cost drivers?)

18. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Project Beta Beam Level 2/3 19/01/201118 WBS for source Courtesy T. Lamy Costs will be known Not included!

19. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Project Beta Beam Level 3/4 19/01/201119

20. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Not in WBS & Costing (yet) 19/01/201120  Manpower  Running Costs  Maintenance  Dismantling  Existing machines: specific upgrades  Sharing of existing infrastructure  Contingency (30% ???)  Surface buildings (3000 ChF/m2 in Geneva)  Etc.  Production part not included yet

21. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Safety & RP 19/01/201121 Two cases: New machines-Existing machines Existing machines: The case for beta beams has to be integrated/enhanced Safety in general: Integration would not, to first order, change the safety system RP: Absorber & Collimators may need to be added Not the same activation, new calculations and considerations The PS, the RCS and the Decay Ring are looked at, not collimation Absorber & Collimators may need to be added New machines: see next slides

22. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 Safety, what is needed 19/01/201122 1.Safety systems for warm machine: 1.access system 1.access control system 2.access safety system 2.Fire detection system 3.Evacuation alarm system 4.Gas detection 2.Safety systems for cold machine 1.1. access system 1.Access control system 2.Access safety system 2.Fire detection system 3.Evacuation alarm system 4.Gas detection 5.Oxygen deficiency hazard detection system Electrical risks are not covered by these systems. Powering systems may be interlocked with the access system. Cryogenic risks are only covered in the case of accidental release inducing oxygen deficiency. Add a general alarm monitoring system that collects all level 3 alarms (life threatening) to the Safety control room."

23. 19/01/2011 EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 23 1. Environment: 1.Stray radiation -> dose to public 2.Releases of radioactivity by air into the environment - > dose to public Releases of radioactivity by water into the environment -> dose to public Incident and accident scenarios -> dose to public 2. Workers: 1.Shielding -> prompt ionizing radiation -> dose to worker 2.Air activation -> dose to workers 3.Water activation (infiltration water, cooling water), -> dose rates around beam pipes and ion exchangers 3. Induced radioactivity in accelerator components 1.Activated fluids and contamination risk (closed circuits, etc.) 2.Optimized design of components (material composition, optimized design for maintenance and repair) 3.Optimized handling of devices, remote handling Ventilation and pressure cascades 4. Estimate of doses to workers and total, collective dose.... 5. Remote Control 6. Interlocks and access 7. Radiation monitoring System (like RAMSES) 8. Buffer Zones for Cool Down Repair Workshop (access control, filters, fire proof…) 9. Dismantling and Radioactive waste treatment (high costs!) 10. Operational Dosimetry system 11. Individual monitoring Laboratory for analysis of environmental samples and radioactive samples 12. Closed systems (cooling water?) 13. Dismantling and Radioactive waste treatment (high costs!) RP, what is needed

24. EUROnu mid-term meeting, RAL, Jan 2011 How continue? 19/01/201124  Man power needed for serious costing is high  Therefore (depending on how serious…)  We need a clear mandate to knock on doors  We need the HW experts  Civil engineering  …and the help to cost objects, assemblies  …and evaluate R&D part  …and to cost integration (existing infrastructure)  Clear guidelines, similar for all 3 facilities