1 / 49

Status Report on HIRADMAT I. Efthymiopoulos , EN/MEF

Progress since last presentation Location – preferred solution & alternatives Beam line design Experimental area status Further information : http://lhc-collimation-project.web.cern.ch/lhc-collimation-project/HiRadMat.htm. Status Report on HIRADMAT I. Efthymiopoulos , EN/MEF.

aliya
Download Presentation

Status Report on HIRADMAT I. Efthymiopoulos , EN/MEF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Progress since last presentation • Location – preferred solution & alternatives • Beam line design • Experimental area status • Further information : http://lhc-collimation-project.web.cern.ch/lhc-collimation-project/HiRadMat.htm Status Report on HIRADMATI. Efthymiopoulos, EN/MEF IRADD –WG Meeting CERN, February 11, 2009 Slides taken from HIRADMAT presentation to A&T management R. Assmann, C. Hessler, I. Efthymiopoulos, H. Vincke with input from many other colleagues….

  2. High Radiation to Materials The project

  3. Why? LHC beam: many orders of magnitudes above the damage thresholds of most robust materials. Planned intensity upgrades toughen the situation: Necessary to do beam tests of near-beam components before installation into the LHC! LHC is not a test bed! Thermal shock waves damage materials much below melting point!See beam damage found in TT40 tests of TCS collimator: 60 deg C shock heating (factor 18 below Cu melting point) gave 0.2 mm plastic deformation. Measured and fixed for series production. Most close-beam devices of the LHC have not been tested with beam: copper collimators, tungsten collimators, boron nitride injection protection (TDI), TCDQ, dump blocks, windows, ... Thermal shock wave effects on SC magnets at cryo temperatures not measured. Test facility (HiRadMat) included in the project proposal for phase II collimation: collimation upgrades cannot proceed without such a test bed. Test facility HiRadMat reviewed in WG for irradiation facilities. Need confirmed in December 08 memo from L. Linssen et al. To be useful, need 450 GeV LHC-type beam, from pilot to 288 nominal bunches!Controllable spot size to change power density (beta, emittance effect).

  4. Where? • CFC collimators tested in 2004 and 2007 in TT40! Why not repeat it there or in LHC? • TI2 and TI8 lines are now in beam operation (LHC ring will be): • Avoid interferences: vacuum interventions, access restrictions due to irradi-ation (higher levels with high Z materials), damage to BI from showers, … • Exclude risks: contamination internal and external to vacuum, water leak into vacuum, high Z materials can “explode”, … • Risks of serious damage not excluded: Many collimators (e.g. phase II coll. from SLAC) have lower design robustness, damage (benign!?) is expected. Reason why phase I metallic collimators and absorbers were not tested in TT40. • Space constraints: TT40 space is very limited and can only fit reduced length standard collimators. No easy possibility to generate more space.Reason why longer absorbers (TDI, TCDQ) could not be tested in TT40. • Lack of infrastructure: Higher risk or cryo tests require infrastructure (ventilation, crane, cryo, …) that is not available in TT40 and could not be installed easily. •  Early on focus to identify area where foreseen tests can be performed without any risk for LHC and CNGS operation: TT60, WANF area identified by Brennan…

  5. When? Our goal: Test facility ready for first prototype tests in autumn 2010! This would allow the following scenario for collimation phase II: 2010 – HiRadMat operational in autumn 2010. First generation prototypes (CERN/SLAC) tested in HiRadMat. 2011 – Tested prototypes disassembled and analyzed. Construction of second generation prototype. Include lessons from LHC operation (phase I). 2012 – Beam test of second generation phase II design in LHC and/or HiRadMat (depending on maturity of design). Decision on phase II choices. 2013 – Phase II production. 2014 – Readiness of phase II collimation for LHC operation. Delays in HiRadMat will delay the later progress! This is why we push! We can gain time when no second generation prototype is required! Note: Delay would also be a problem for SLAC/LARP which wants to deliver a tested and mature design, requiring prior beam tests at CERN!

  6. Update on beam design

  7. Required Beam Parameters Christoph Hessler, TE/ABT/BTP

  8. Studied Locations for HiRadMat Beam Christoph Hessler, TE/ABT/BTP

  9. Studied Locations for HiRadMat TT60 Beam SPS TI 2 T1 target area (option B) Beam TT61 tunnel (option C) End of common part with TI 2 transfer line T9 target area / WANF (option A) 50 m Christoph Hessler, TE/ABT/BTP

  10. Beam Line Layouts T9 (option A): MBS switching magnets B190 QTL MBB T1 (option B): T1 target T9 target TT61 (option C): QTR MBE TT60: Common part with TI 2 New transfer line 50 m Christoph Hessler, TE/ABT/BTP

  11. Cost Estimate all prices in kCHF Christoph Hessler, TE/ABT/BTP

  12. Update on experimental area

  13. HIRADMAT: WANF the preferred solution TCC1, around T1 target area • Option-C • Clean tunnel to work • Close to TI2 line; possible to move further downstream, however the tunnel has very steep slope (8%) • Relatively narrow tunnel ; difficult to put lateral shielding and manipulate large objects • Difficult access conditions in the area • Ventilation: SPS exhaust goes through TT61 • Option-B • Downstream the T1 target B C • Option-B • Free area of >10m downstream T1 • Two measurement positions possible • Locations for electronics in downstream areas + TT61 • No crane available, remote handling to be done with rail system • Dismantling of T1 elements (head) • Ventilation: TCC6 serves as the exhaust of SPS via TT61 • Separate volume for HIRADMAT? • Radiation in downstream areas, and TI2/LHC • Option-C • Upstream part of TT61 tunnel A • Option-A • Old WANF tunnel (half)

  14. The TCC6/WANF complex Layout – today’s status T1 target TI2 line to LHC TT61 tunnel – old extraction to West Area WANF tunnel : T9 target & Secondary beam Horn T9 collimator He tank Fe-shielding Decay Tube Horn He-tank Old proton beam (dismounted) Intensity Monitor BA7 Access shaft (material & personnel)

  15. The TCC6/WANF complex WANF Tunnel during installation - 1992

  16. The TCC6/WANF complex WANF tunnel – September’08 He-tank T9 target

  17. High-Power Radiation Facility (HIRADMAT) Design parameters for the experimental area • Specification document • Additional requirements for the exp. area will depend on the type of equipment and test planned • Safety and RP constraints should come in addition • Discussions within the WG – major issues presented today, details to come with the technical design of the facility

  18. HIRADMAT in the WANF tunnel Layout proposal • Cleanup the whole tunnel • Dismantle/condition WANF equipment • Horns/He-tanks could be stored locally until disposal path (and budget) agreed • Move the rest to waste • Maintain escape passage from tunnel end • Test area upstream the T9 target • Convert T9 to a beam dump • Remove target head and replace with special blocks like in CNGS hadron stop: Graphite core, Al plates with cooling • Add lateral shielding (concrete) • Reuse blocks from T1 (TAX area) to add downstream shielding

  19. HIRADMAT in the WANF tunnel Pros/cons of the proposal • The WANF tunnel is perfectly adequate to the foreseen usage • Test areas and nearby locations for irradiations with separate access • Overhead crane with remote manipulation • Closed ventilation loop available • Nearby areas for preparation/cool-down of test equipment • The remaining parts of the WANF proton and secondary beam have to be dismantled • However WANF has been deteriorating for almost a decade, cleaning-up and re-using the tunnel for an irradiation facility is in the interest of the organization and RP guidelines • Dismantling the WANF secondary beam is feasible • Expected collective radiation dose not excessive compared to other works (more in H.Vincke’s talk) • The equipment (horns, He-tanks, etc.) was designed to be easily dismountable • The T9 which is the “hotest” part will be re-used • Water infiltrations in the tunnel must be treated • T1 has to be dismantled (at least the downstream part) to allow easy access for installation and service of the new beam line equipment

  20. HIRADMAT Facility Operation/maintenance • HIRADMAT will be a FACILITY to run for the LHC lifetime (and beyond?) • The Exp. Area must be carefully designed from the beginning to satisfy the needs for the future users • This affect the services, installation, etc. that would be hard to add/modify afterwards due to radiation levels • M&O costs and safety conditions should be included in the project • Personnel access, external users, waste, etc. • Surface labs/offices …

  21. HIRADMAT in the WANF tunnel Materials budget envelop Note: • These are preliminary estimates without detailed analysis of the works • No (known) contingency added • The items in blue may be staged • The status of services (ventilation, electricity, cooling, etc.) will be defined following inspections in situ • The clean-up, conditioning (and dismantling) of WANF equipment will be done by a specialized company • Few contacts already; specs and tendering in preparation • The dismantling procedure will be defined and agreed by safety officials and RP • Need the “green light” to advance the studies and come with a better estimate • The dismantling cost of HIRADMAT includes dismantling of all WANF items • Would very much depend on the operation of the facility, materials used, etc.

  22. Radiation Protection Issues Backup slides

  23. Radiation survey (24/9/08) around the T9 Target – WANF area Old TAX blocks storage 5 to 10 300 6.5 100 65 260 900 400 at 40 cm Dose Rate in µSv/h 300 • Dose rate inside and downstream the target shielding will be significantly higher than 1 mSv/h • Gamma spectroscopy of concrete samples taken in the area showed that the concrete tunnel structure is radioactive

  24. Dismantling of the WANF AREA • The WANF facility was already once fully dismantled in 1992. • For the removal of the old WANF beam line a collective dose of 210 mSv was taken by the personnel. The full refurbishment of the area caused an additional collective dose of 170 mSv. • According to reports from that time, the residual dose rate in the area of the target was at least 2 times higher than today. • Hence, as a first order estimate we can expect a collective dose which is a factor of 2 lower than the one received in 1992. • From the RP point of view it is recommended that the zone is dismantled. The dose rate will not drop substantially in the next 10 years. However, the area conditions (rust, dirty) worsen with time. • Space for the radioactive WANF material still has to be found. Hence, a reuse of radioactive material (e.g.: WANF target station) in the beam dump is advisable.

  25. Dose rate profile in the empty WANF tunnel (after removal of beam line) 110 m Radiation in this area might be considerably higher since beam line equipments in this area were not taken into account in this first estimate Position of target station

  26. Dose rate (uSv/h) seen by a person (1.8 m) walking through the empty tunnel Profile taken over Dy = 60, Dx = 180, along the beam line x z Location of Target station y Profile taken over Dy = 60, Dx = 180, beside target station Most preferable place for installation work can be found upstream the target station.

  27. In case HIRADMAT cannot be installed upstream the WANF target station location  Bypass tunnel leading to low radiation location Effect of bypass tunnel Tunnel made of40 cm concrete walls + 20 cm concrete floor reduces dose rate from 200 uSv/h to 5 uSv/h Tunnel made of40 cm concrete walls (no additional floor) reduces dose rate from 200 uSv/h to 60 uSv/h

  28. Summary for full loss and operational scenario Dose rate after1E16 protons in 200 days + 1 month of cooling • The dose rate level in the tunnel after one year of operation is higher than the dose rate in the empty WANF tunnel. • The long term irradiation levels are mainly caused by the two elements installed in the beam line and not by the concrete walls • In case the carbon jaws are replaced by copper or tungsten jaws, the dose rate will increase significantly mSv/h

  29. Summary • WANF area is still radioactive • From the RP point of view it is recommended to dismantle the WANF area. Storage space for radioactive waste has to be found. Radioactive material (e.g.: WANF target station) should be reused as beam dump. • In terms of the radioactivity distribution in the WANF area it would be preferable to install HIRADMAT upstream the target location • Residual dose rates caused by one year of HIRADMAT operation (generic model) was calculated to be higher than the current dose rate of the empty WANF tunnel

  30. Status - next steps

  31. Wrap Up for Discussion The need for a 450 GeV beam test area on thermal shock waves for the LHC is well established and accepted at the technical level. We propose the WANF area for setting up a facility for testing close-beam devices with beam-induced thermal shock waves, prior to installation into sensitive accelerator environments. This safe test bed will address all needs for the nominal/upgraded LHC: beam tests on collimators, absorbers, cables, SC magnet modules, instrumentation, windows … Radiation and safety aspects have been considered: strong support to move into WANF instead of irradiating a new tunnel area (e.g. TT61)! Cost:3.3 MCHF(TL, base facility) + 0.5 MCHF(clean-up WANF) + 0.6 MCHF(upgrade) Our goal was 2.0 – 2.5 MCHF. No cheaper solution found! Some cost should not be paid by us (WANF clean-up)!? Possibilities to get additional budget? Reminder budget phase II collimation total: 5.1 MCHF (CERN) + 0.7 MCHF (EU). This must cover the collimator prototyping work and the beam test facility! Was defined top-down. Less than originally hoped from EU.

  32. Strategic input required before we can invest more work. • Can the accelerator sector top management support: • The approach taken (test risky elements before installation into the LHC, one common beam test facility for qualification and analysis of different near beam devices). • The proposed solution (WANF). • If not supported: What alternatives should be considered? • If our proposal is supported, then we suggest to move ahead: • Define detailed work packages and budgets for various groups. • Start procurementprocedures (orders, MS, call for tender, …). • Agree with SLAC formally on deliverables (pending DOE support). • Present details in March/April 2009 collimation phase II project review for final approval.Candidate dates for review: March 19/20 – Mar 31/Apr 1 – Apr 28/29

  33. Backup slides

  34. Thank You! M. Meddahi, B. Goddard (TE/ABT/BTP) D. Smekens, J. Bauche (TE/MSC) C. Bertone (EN/HE) D. Missiaen (BE/ABP) A. Beuret, G. Le Godec (TE/EPC) G. Vandoni (TE/VSC) R. Jones (BE/BI) B. Pirollet (EN/CV) J. Wenninger (BE/OP) J. Ramillon (EN/MEF) Christoph Hessler, TE/ABT/BTP

  35. Layout • Preliminary study → discuss main issues, not technical details • Dismantling of WANF → a possible (minimal) scenario • Schedule & budget envelop estimate • If not in WANF where else ? HIRADMAT In the WANF TunnelI. Efthymiopoulos, EN/MEF HIRADMAT Meeting CERN, January 26, 2009 HIRADMAT-Exp.Area Working Group EN/MEF : I. Efthymiopoulos, A. Pardons, M.Lazzaroni, N. Gilbert AB/SU : G. Roy, L. Bruno SC/RP : N. Conan, H. Vincke, D. Forkel-Wirth, L. Ulrici EN/HE : A. Calderone, Y. Bernard, K. Kershow EN/CV : J. Inigo-Golfin EDMS No : 984446

  36. First radiological estimates for the HIRADMAT project H. Vincke and N. Conan

  37. Optics Simulations (T9) Example: Beam radius (1s) at target: 1.0 mm x (m) y (m) s (m) s (m) Christoph Hessler, TE/ABT/BTP

  38. Remarks on the Cost Estimate • No contingency included • Cost estimate is for beam line only and is based on agreed beam delivery points • ~250 kCHF could be saved if non-standard not refurbished power convertors would be used, but exploitation costs will be ~450 kCHF higher • Need a decision now to meet 2010 start-up deadline Christoph Hessler, TE/ABT/BTP

  39. HIRADMAT in the WANF tunnel Schedule • Assuming WANF is the accepted location of the facility : • Project milestones: • March’09 : prepare detailed study – review • March’09-Sep’09 : • Dismantling of WANF ; system/services maintenance • Dump design, procurement, construction • Sep’09 – shutdown : limited access due to LHC operation • >Shutdown’09 : installation • October ’10 : facility ready for beam • Tendering & Finance committee will be an important factors in the planning • Resources in various groups must be discussed/agreed

  40. HIRADMAT in the WANF tunnel Summary • The HIRADMAT is an important facility for key components of LHC and its upgrades • The presented implementation in the WANF tunnel satisfies all the requirements, and is in agreement with RP and safety guidelines • The required (partial)dismantling of WANF is certainly an issue, however not significantly different from other works in the tunnels • The other options (TCC6, TT61) would compromise the operation of the facility, most likely without major gain in cost • To advance the studies and come with better budget estimate and planning, resources from several groups must be allocated to the project. Therefore the presentation today!

  41. Arguments against installation in TI8 (TJ8) or TT40 area • LHC and CNGS beam goes through the same area • Due to the high dose rate around the equipment after the test, operation of LHC and CNGS will be jeopardized in case beam line equipment has to be repaired in the surroundings of the test area • Significant waiting times before installation have to be expected • Due to these reasons test areas should be installed in dedicated areas only • The same argument can also be used for the installation close to the T1 target position in TT60/TI2 area (option B in Ilias’ presentation).

  42. Simulation procedure to obtain residual dose rate in the empty tunnel • Two steps: • Simulation of the beam impact in the target producing a radionuclide “inventory” in the concrete tunnel. Beam parameters used : 10 years of operation (2E19 protons per year) + subsequent cool down of 10 years. • Simulation of the decay of radionuclides (beta or gamma emission) in the concrete considering only the empty beam tunnel (without beam line elements)  dose rate map

  43. Procedure to obtain dose rate results considering the concrete only • The dose rate of the concrete cannot be measured directly: • The surrounding beam line elements are highly radioactive and overshadow the dose rate coming from the concrete • The concrete with the highest radioactivity is inaccessible (blocked by beam line components) • FLUKA simulations have to be conducted to obtain first ideas about the radioactivity level of the empty area. • Drawbacks: the simulation results are only as good as the input parameters of the simulations: • Details of geometry (target and shielding parameters) • Concrete composition (real composition unknown, typical CERN concrete was used in the simulations) •  Results should be seen as indication and not as accurate number

  44. Details of target station used in simulation (Information taken from ACAD file, received from M. Lazzaroni) Iron shielding Be-target Marble shielding Beam

  45. Generic studies concerning residual dose rate levels caused by the future HIRADMAT collimator irradiation • 2 irradiation scenarios • Short term scenario: impact of 10 subsequent full SPS beam cycles (3.3E13 protons per cycle) • Long term scenario: 1E16 protons equally distributed over 200 days • 5 cooling times • 1 hour • 12 hours • 1 days • 1 week • 1 month Beam line elements Concrete wall TCDI (carbon) collimator Beam Estimates are based on the report “CERN-SC-2004-018-RP-TN”: Remnant dose rates in the area of a TCDI collimator after 200 days of normal operation and after an accidental beam loss; Helmut Vincke

  46. 1E13 protons Irradiation time: 2d , cooling time: 1d Carbon collimator Tungsten collimator Hot spot: ~ 13000 uSv/h Hot spot: ~ 460 uSv/h

  47. 1E13 protons Irradiation time: 2d , cooling time: 1w Carbon collimator Tungsten collimator Hot spot: ~ 1500 uSv/h Hot spot: ~ 150 uSv/h

  48. 1E13 protons Irradiation time: 2d , cooling time: 1m Carbon collimator Tungsten collimator Hot spot: ~ 220 uSv/h Hot spot: ~ 40 uSv/h

More Related