PSB dump replacement 17 th November 2011 LIU-PSB meeting Alba Sarrió.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SPL Intercavity support Conceptual design review 04/11/ A. Vande Craen TE/MSC-CMI.
Advertisements

First Wall Heat Loads Mike Ulrickson November 15, 2014.
Internal H0/H- dump Cesare Maglioni, Melanie Delonca Thanks to: R. Chamizo, R. Versaci, O. Aberle, J. Borburgh.
1 Activation problems S.Agosteo (1), M.Magistris (1,2), Th.Otto (2), M.Silari (2) (1) Politecnico di Milano; (2) CERN.
February 17-18, 2010 R&D ERL Ady Hershcovitch R&D ERL Beam Dump Ady Hershcovitch February 17-18, 2010 Beam Dump.
Hall D Photon Beam Simulation and Rates Part 1: photon beam line Part 2: tagger Richard Jones, University of Connecticut Hall D Beam Line and Tagger Review.
April 6th 2009Olympus Meeting at DESY, F.Brinker1 Vacuum system Available beam scraper Beam dimensions, Target cell Machine Studies on February 7 th 2009.
The JPARC Neutrino Target
PSB dump endoscopy 30 th May 2013 Alba Sarrió on behalf of EN-STI-TCD Thanks to Pascal Mesenge (EN-MME)
T. Horn, SHMS Optics Update SHMS Optics Update Tanja Horn Hall C Users Meeting 31 January 2009.
PSB H 0 -H - Injection: Sectorisation Analysis C.Pasquino, J. Hansen, P.Chiggiato LIU - PSB Ho-H- Injection Meeting 1.
Study of a new high power spallation target concept
LAGUNA/LBNO WP4: secondary beam line status report M. Calviani, P. Velten, A. Ferrari, I. Efthymiopoulos, C. Lazaridis (CERN) + M. Zito, V. Galymov (CEA),
PS Booster Studies with High Intensity Beams Magdalena Kowalska supervised by Elena Benedetto Space Charge Collaboration Meeting May 2014.
IFE Plant Structural Concepts Including Shielding and Optical Stability Requirements Thomas Kozub, Charles Gentile, Irving Zatz - PPPL.
SHMS Optics Studies Tanja Horn JLab JLab Hall C meeting 18 January 2008.
NML High Energy Beam Absorbers and Dump 29-August-2011 Beams-doc-3928.
Tungsten Calorimeter Model Calculations and Radiation Issues Pavel Degtiarenko Radiation Control Group, Jefferson Lab.
PSB Beam Dump Cooling Constraints Glen Mason EN-CV 30 August 2012.
Radiation safety evaluation for “KAMABOKO” Main Linac Tunnel KEK-APL : T.Sanami, S.Ban KEK-ACC : A.Enomoto, M.Miyahara ILC Mechanical & Electrical Review.
PSB dump: proposal of a new design EN – STI technical meeting on Booster dumps Friday 11 May 2012 BE Auditorium Prevessin Alba SARRIÓ MARTÍNEZ.
XFEL-INJ1/2 DUMPS Remarks / Requirements, Injector Beam Dynamic Review Meeting, DESY, Mon. 23. October 2006 ‹#› XFEL - INJ 1/2.
F. Regis, LINAC4 – LBS & LBE LINES DUMP DESIGN.
N_TOF Technical Report INTC, CERN 21 May 2007 P. Cennini AB-ATB n_TOF Technical Coordinator Status of the old Target Removal Status of the old Target Removal.
Internal H0/H- dump M. Delonca, C. Maglioni On behalf of EN/STI Thanks to: A. Christov, S. Mathot, C. Pasquino, A. Patapenka.
STATUS OF H0/H- DUMPS M. Delonca – LIU meeting 29/11/2012 Thanks to: C. Maglioni, A. Patapenka, C. Pasquino, A. Perez, N. Mariani.
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe FZK - EURATOM ASSOCIATION 05/14/2005 Thomas Ihli 1 Status of He-cooled Divertor Design Contributors: A.R. Raffray, and The.
Status of the new Target Design n_TOF Collaboration meeting, Paris 4-5 December 2006 P. Cennini AB-ATB Status of the old Target Removal Status of the old.
Beam loads & dump concepts T. Kramer, B. Goddard, M. Benedikt, Hel. Vincke.
Radiation Protection aspects for SHIP Doris Forkel-Wirth, Stefan Roesler, Helmut Vincke, Heinz Vincke CERN Radiation Protection Group 1 st SHIP workshop,
Investigation of a “Pencil Shaped” Solid Target Peter Loveridge, Mike Fitton, Ottone Caretta High Power Targets Group Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK.
Activation around dump shielding, and design of beam line mask Mathieu Baudin, RP Genevieve Steele, EN-STI Helmut Vincke, RP.
Presentation at BBC, Linac 4 Commissioning Dump at 50 and 100MeV 1 Øyvind Dahle Lauten, EN-STI.
SPL-SB and NF Beam Window Studies Stress Analysis Matt Rooney, Tristan Davenne, Chris Densham March 2010.
Risk Analysis P. Cennini AB-ATB on behalf of the n_TOF Team  Procedure  Documents in preparation  Conclusions Second n_TOF External Panel Review, CERN,
GRAN SASSO’S HADRON STOP Temperature’s behaviour under specified beam conditions Barbara Calcagno.
NToF - Radiation Protection M. Brugger, P. Cennini, A. Ferrari, E. Lebbos, V. Vlachoudis CERN AB/ATB/EET.
Bubble Chamber Radiator Thermal Analysis 5.0 MeV, 9.5 MeV Beam Energy Fredrik Fors Mechanical Engineering 8/20/2015.
Radiation Protection studies for the Linac4 / Linac2 interface Joachim Vollaire, DGS-RP 28/09/2015 Linac4 Coordination Meeting.
3 MeV H - chopper beam dump Presentation by L.Bruno 1 3 MeV H - Chopper Beam Dump Pre-design study By L.Bruno AB/ATB M.Magistris AB/OP M.Silari TIS/RP.
Characterization of the nTOF Radioactive Waste M. Brugger, P. Cennini, A. Ferrari, V. Vlachoudis CERN AB/ATB/EET.
PSB DUMP REPLACEMENT: STRATEGY & STATUS LIU-PSB Meeting 90 A. Sarrió, F. Loprete, A. Perillo-Marcone 22 th November 2012 LIU-PSB.
Awake electron beam requirements ParameterBaseline Phase 2Range to check Beam Energy16 MeV MeV Energy spread (  ) 0.5 %< 0.5 % ? Bunch Length (
Simulation of heat load at JHF decay pipe and beam dump KEK Yoshinari Hayato.
Present status of production target and Room design Takashi Hashimoto, IBS/RISP 2015, February.
4´th ISOE European Workshop on Occupational Exposure Management at NPP´s March 2004 – Lyon France “ALARA” versus reactor safety concern - A practical.
HEBT Design Considerations Jingyu Tang, Xiangqi Wang, Hao Hao, Jiajia Tian IHEP, USTC International Review Meeting on Accelerator Physics Design of C-ADS,
High Energy Dump of the Super Proton Synchrotron at CERN – Present and Future designs A. Perillo-Marcone (EN-STI) Contributions from several colleagues.
Target Systems and Monolith Design Update Rikard Linander Group Leader Monolith and Handling April 2, 2014.
Internal H0/H- dump M. Delonca On behalf of EN/STI Thanks to: A. Christov, C. Maglioni, S. Mathot, C. Pasquino, A. Patapenka.
LBNE 2.4MW Absorber NBI 2014 Presented by Brian Hartsell Contributions by: Kris Anderson, Yury Eidelman, Jim Hylen, Nikolai Mokhov, Igor Rakhno, Salman.
V. Raginel, D. Kleiven, D. Wollmann CERN TE-MPE 2HiRadMat Technical Board - 30 March 2016.
Chiara Di Paolo EN-STI-TCD Material Choice for the Vacuum Window at the Exit of BTM.
New nTOF target: Design Issues
ISIS TS1 Project: Target Design and Analysis
Heating and radiological
X PS Internal Dump Core Review François-Xavier Nuiry Giulia Romagnoli
Analyses to Support Waste Disposition of SNS Inner Reflector Plug
The Interaction Region
Radiation protection of Linac4 M. Silari Radiation Protection Group
Peter Loveridge High Power Targets Group
Dump Core Studied Design Solutions
Final Focus Synchrotron Radiation
Pierre-Alexandre Thonet
Federico Carra – EN-MME
Recirculating CO2 System
CFS consideration on the Main Dump and around
Hall C Users Meeting 31 January 2009
Monte Carlo simulations for the ODIN shielding at ESS
BGC Collaboration Meeting –
Presentation transcript:

PSB dump replacement 17 th November 2011 LIU-PSB meeting Alba Sarrió

LOCATION x 2

3

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DESIGN EXISTING DUMP: Geometry: - Sliced design (15 disks) Material: - Structural Steel (disks) - Stainless steel 304/316 (pipes, joints, elbows...) Dimensions: - L = 483 mm -  = 220 mm Beam parameters: - Designed in the 60’s for an 800 MeV energy - Current energy: 1.4 GeV - Intensity: 8e+12 particles (p+) - Pulse period: 1.2 s Total Beam Power: - ~1.5 kW Historical diagram of peak beam intensities (provided by Thomas Hermanns) 4

NEW DESIGN: constraints and decision-making Simplicity: use of classic materials and of simple design principles A system easy to access and to repair in case of need Low maintenance design Minimize any risk of failure (water, vacuum…) Constraints in layout, assuming that the current shielding is kept – Reasons to remove the concrete blocks: so that they do not constrain the diameter of the dump – Reasons to keep the concrete blocks: difficult work in a highly radiated area (more restrictive ALARA procedure) 5

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DESIGN EXISTING DUMP: Geometry: - Sliced design (15 disks) Material: - Structural Steel (disks) - Stainless steel 304/316 (pipes, joints, elbows...) Dimensions: - L = 483 mm -  = 220 mm Beam parameters: - Designed in the 60’s for an 800 MeV energy - Current energy: 1.4 GeV - Intensity: 8e+12 particles (p+) - Pulse period: 1.2 s Total Beam Power: - ~1.5 kW NEW DUMP: Geometry: - Sliced design (33 disks) Material: - Copper alloy (disks) Dimensions: - L = 1435 mm -  = 220 mm Beam parameters: - Energy: 2 GeV - Intensity: 1e+14 particles (p+) - Pulse period: 1.2 s Total Beam Power: - ~26.7 kW 6

BEAM SIZES Need to optimise beam sizes Minimum beam sizes: – Small values increase thermal load and mechanical stress – Need to increase the minimum as much as possible Maximum beam sizes: – High values increase spread to a point where a large part of the beam misses the target – Critical when defining the layout of the dump (position of cooling pipes, shielding...) – Need to reduce the maximum as much as possible 7

1 SIGMA-BEAM SIZES (by Thomas Hermanns) Maximum beam size at the dump core: 1 sigma horizontal plane: mm 1 sigma vertical plane: mm Minimum beam size at the dump core: 1 sigma horizontal plane: 6.53 mm 1 sigma vertical plane: mm 8

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS (BASED ON THE NEW DESIGN) Parameters: – Sliced geometry L = 1435 mm  = 220 mm – Copper alloy – Energy: 2 GeV – Intensity: 1e+14 particles (p+) – 1 sigma-beam size (old values from Thomas Hermanns): Horizontal plane: 6.53 mm Vertical plane: mm Results (from ANSYS, thermal analysis): – ∆T after 1 pulse: 20 ⁰C – ∆T steady state: 76 ⁰C Results (from FLUKA): – 21% of the PRIMARY (BEAM) particles escape the system (radially) ∆Tmax in steady state ~ 100 ⁰C MeltT(~1000 ⁰C), Critical T (~300 ⁰C) 9

OPTIONS TO COPE WITH THE ENERGY / PARTICLES LOST? 1.Remove the concrete blocks: change all of the new design, change the ALARA, etc. 2.Impose a certain beam size (optical focusing), optimal in terms of layout/ALARA, which has to be checked for thermal stress. Keep the concrete blocks and adapt the geometry of the new dump to the existing layout ‘COMPLETE CHANGE’ ‘PARTIAL CHANGE’ 10

 Hole in the wall = 1000 mm  Concrete block = 960 mm  Hole in the concrete = 300 mm LAYOUT: CROSS SECTION 11

5 sigma-beam size (max) ½ FWHM (1.17 sigma-beam size) (max)  V = 472  H = 266  V = 162  H = 72 MAXIMUM BEAM SIZES (by Wolfgang Bartmann) Energy = 2 GeV 12

at window [mm]at dump core [mm] 1.17 sigma-beam size (vertical plane)51 (  81 (  5 sigma-beam size (vertical plane)141 (  236 (   window [mm] 220  dump core [mm] 220  hole in concrete [mm] 300 MAXIMUM BEAM SIZES (by Wolfgang Bartmann) 1.17 sigma-beam size (max) 5 sigma-beam size (max) 13

WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AS A MAXIMUM BEAM SIZE? Cross section (imperfection of the surface, new shielding, cooling pipes...) Recommended 5 sigma-beam size: – Horizontal plane = 85 mm – Vertical plane = 85 mm r required = 85 mm 14

REQUIRED BEAM SIZES REQUIRED MAXIMUM BEAM SIZE:Present values of 5 sigma-beam size (max): - at dump core GeV It needs to be shrunk by a factor of 5.5 REQUIRED MINIMUM BEAM SIZE: Maximum service temperature of Copper ~ 300 – 350 ˚C Assuming ∆Tmax in steady state ~ 300 ⁰C The minimum beam size can shrink up to a factor of 2.3: 15

OPTIONS SOLUTIONPROSCONS 1. FULL CHANGE (remove the dump and the existing concrete blocks) -More freedom in elaborating the new design -No constraints regarding the diameter of the dump -If the dump can be bigger in diameter, beam sizes would not be such a constraint -The concrete blocks can be replaced by any other material, one that can act as a more efficient shielding. Reduction in dose rates in the area. Fulfilling RP’s requirements -Much bigger work load in a highly radiated area -The works would take much longer -More restrictive ALARA procedure -Due to the objects' age and their degraded state, there’s no guarantee that the concrete blocks would come out of the wall easily (or at all). -Special tools would be required to dismantle the concrete blocks -Special machines would be required for the transport and disposal of the radioactive waste -A big part of the line (BTM, BTY and ejection) would need to be dismantled temporarily in order to allow the machines to access the area 2. PARTIAL CHANGE (keep the concrete blocks and adapt the geometry of the new dump to the existing layout) -Faster and easier dismantling of the old object and assembly of the new one -Less restrictive ALARA procedure -Safer for workers (who would be exposed to much lower dose rates for a shorter time) - Beam sizes constrain the design, making it more complicated 3. NEW LOCATION (find a different site for the dump) 16

CONCLUSIONS Preliminary simulations have been performed Some issues have been identified: layout, space, access restrictions, beam sizes... A comparative study on the replacement of the PSB dump has been done WHAT’S NEXT? A decision has to be made before March 2012 by the LIU-PSB Working Group An opinion from RP is required by the same time 17

THANK YOU 18