HiRadMat
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 22

HiRadMat Proposal HRMT-22: Tungsten Powder Target Experiment PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 86 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

HiRadMat Proposal HRMT-22: Tungsten Powder Target Experiment (A follow-up to the HRMT-10 ‘W-Thimble’ Experiment in 2012) Chris Densham, Otto Caretta, Tristan Davenne, Mike Fitton , Peter Loveridge, Joe O’Dell (RAL) Ilias Efthymiopoulos, Nikolaos Charitonidis (CERN).

Download Presentation

HiRadMat Proposal HRMT-22: Tungsten Powder Target Experiment

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Hiradmat proposal hrmt 22 tungsten powder target experiment

HiRadMat Proposal HRMT-22:

Tungsten Powder Target Experiment

(A follow-up to the HRMT-10 ‘W-Thimble’ Experiment in 2012)

Chris Densham, Otto Caretta, Tristan Davenne, Mike Fitton, Peter Loveridge, Joe O’Dell(RAL)

Ilias Efthymiopoulos, Nikolaos Charitonidis

(CERN)


Previous in beam test hrmt 10 2012

Previous In-Beam Test: HRMT-10, 2012

  • Single tungsten powder sample in an open trough configuration

  • Helium environment

  • Remote diagnostics via LDV and high-speed camera

  • Successfully identified a beam intensity eruption threshold

Beam

Open trough Assembly

LDV/camera

Tungsten powder response to a 440 GeVproton beam pulse at HiRadMat


Hrmt 10 what we learned

HRMT-10: What We Learned

  • Identified an Energy threshold, beyond which significant eruption of the powder occurs

  • Lift height correlates with deposited energy

  • Eruption velocities are low when compared to liquid metal splashes

HRMT-10: Open Questions

  • Can Aerodynamic processes alone be shown to account for the observed response? Or is there something else going on?

  • Can we rule out other mechanisms such as:

    • direct momentum transfer between grains (i.e. shock-transmission through the bulk solid)

    • An electrostatic mechanism

    • Trough Wall vibrations exciting the powder


Apparatus for the hrmt 22 in beam test

Apparatus for the HRMT-22 In-Beam Test

Top window to view sample disruption

Outer Vessel

Lighting re-configured to allow a view of the full trough length

Inner Vessel

High Speed Camera

LDV

Horizontal linear stage to switch between samples

Sample #1

‘Small’ particles

Trough

Sample #4

‘Large’ particles

Tube

Sample #3

‘Small’ particles

Trough

Sample #2

‘Large’ particles

Trough


Key improvements for a the hrmt 22 experiment

Key Improvements for a the HRMT-22 Experiment

1. Test in both vacuum and helium environments

If we see an eruption in vacuum then it cannot be due to an aerodynamic mechanism.

  • 2. Vessel updates

    Elongated beam windows to facilitate hitting multiple samples. Extra optical window in the lid permits a view of the disrupted sample from above.

  • 3. New Trough Concept

    multiple samples, stiff (high natural frequency), thermally linked to vessel.


Key improvements for a the hrmt 22 experiment1

Key Improvements for a the HRMT-22 Experiment

4. Use mono-dispersed spherical tungsten powder

To facilitate better correlation of results with analytical / theoretical pressure drop and drag models.

5. View along the full length of the trough

To allow better correlation of lift vs energy deposition as the shower builds up along the sample

30 cm long sample

6. Reconfigure the lighting rig

More intensive lighting to permit a faster camera frame rate

Energy deposited in a tungsten powder samplefrom FLUKA simulation


Hrmt 22 outer containment vessel

HRMT-22 Outer Containment Vessel


Hrmt 22 inner containment vessel

HRMT-22 Inner Containment Vessel


Hiradmat proposal hrmt 22 tungsten powder target experiment

43kg total mass

42675


Experiment outline

Experiment Outline

Start

Vacuum

2x1011ppp

Vacuum

1x1012ppp

Helium

2x1011ppp

Sample #1

Small grains

Open Trough

Eruption ?

Eruption ?

Eruption ?

N

N

N ?

Sample #2

Large grains

Open Trough

Y

Y

Y

Vacuum

Same beam

Helium

2x1011ppp

Sample #3

Small grains

Open Trough

Helium

2x1011ppp

Option ‘A’

Higher Intensity

Option ‘B’

Vary the Beam Posn.

Vary intensity and monitor container wall with LDV

Sample #4

Large grains

Closed Tube

End


Preliminary pulse list

Preliminary Pulse List

Allow for a total budget of up to 1e13 protons (a few extra shots?)


Temperature jump in vessel components

Temperature Jump in Vessel Components

  • Observed eruption threshold is well below the melting temperature of tungsten

Observed Eruptions

  • Note: We do not intend to approach the melting point in the tungsten grains or any other part of the apparatus.


Activation studies fluka model geometry

Activation Studies: FLUKA Model Geometry

Inner Container (Al)container

Powder Sample (W)

Outer Container (Al)

BEAM

Beam Window (Ti alloy)

  • Irradiation Profile used in the simulations : 1 x 1013protons in 1 second – 440GeV/c, sigma = 2mm

  • Cooling times : 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 2 months, 4 months

  • Precision simulations: EMF-ON, residual nuclei decays, etc…


Activation dose rates sv h

Activation Dose Rates (μSv/h)

Maximum dose rate on the sample: 3.7 Sv/h

Maximum dose rate on the sample: 103 mSv/h

Maximum dose rate on the sample : 9 mSv/h

1 week

1 day

1 hour

Maximum dose rate on the sample : 925 μSv/h

Maximum dose rate on the sample : 476 μSv/h

Maximum dose rate on the sample : 241 μSv/h

1 month

2 months

4 months


Activation dose rate summary

Activation Dose Rate Summary

  • A cool-down time of several months is foreseen prior to manually handling the container.

  • We do not plan to remove the powder sample from its container post irradiation.


Radiation protection assessment

Radiation Protection Assessment


Radiation protection assessment1

Radiation Protection Assessment

  • Precautions for the Experiment:(ALARA principle)

  • Offline setup

  • Remote instrumentation/ diagnostics

  • Double containment of the powder

  • Cool-down prior to dismounting the vessel from the experiment table

  • Do not plan to remove the sample from its container for post irradiation measurements


Other safety considerations

Other Safety Considerations


Other safety considerations1

Other Safety Considerations

  • Precautions for the Experiment:(ALARA principle)

  • Hydraulic pressure test

  • Helium Leak test

  • Non-flammable materials

  • Inert gas / vacuum environment

  • Low-voltage connections between control room and experiment table

  • Off-line trial survey/alignment


Cfd model of pressure rise in sealed sample holder

CFD Model of Pressure rise in sealed sample holder

0.25 bar

Inner containment vessel rated for 2 bar internal pressure

As a result of convection between gas and hot powder the gas temperature and pressure in the sample holder can increase

Peak pressure and temperature depend on cooled surface area of container


Sample cool down time time between shots

Sample cool down time (time between shots)

  • Wall temperature (t3) maintained by water-cooled base

  • Sample temperature (t1) depends on pulse intensity

  • Exponential temperature decay – depends on natural convection between powder and helium and between helium and cooled containment box

  • In 7 minutes the temperature has returned to within 1% of its value before the pulse

T2

T1

T3


Summary

Summary

  • In 2012 the HRMT-10 experiment we observed beam-induced eruptions in a tungsten powder target. A new experimental cell has been designed for the follow-up HRMT-22 experiment.

  • The rig incorporates the successful safety and containment features implemented with the first experiment:

    • Double containment

    • Remote diagnostics

    • Offline setup

  • The improvements in the design include:

    • The possibility to house multiple independent samples

    • The possibility to test in vacuum and helium environments

    • Wider camera field of view

    • More intense lighting (higher camera frame rate?)

    • Mono-dispersed spherical powder


  • Login