1 / 21

TARGET HALL OVERVIEW

TARGET HALL OVERVIEW. I. Bailey Cockcroft Institute / University of Liverpool. Andriy Ushakov, DESY FLUKA simulations with simple target geometry.

ronli
Download Presentation

TARGET HALL OVERVIEW

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. TARGET HALL OVERVIEW I. Bailey Cockcroft Institute / University of Liverpool

  2. Andriy Ushakov, DESY • FLUKA simulations with simple target geometry. • For baseline design, equivalent dose rate for a Ti ( W) alloy target wheel, 1 week after shutdown, after 5000 hours of running, 1m from wheel is ~170 (120) mSv/h • NB 65m (43m) of undulator assumed (shorter than baseline). • Reduction to level of 0.03mSv/h requires ~15cm of Pb shielding • EU exposure limit is 20mSv/year • See presentation in tomorrow’s target session. Recap of Talks from RAL Positron Source Meeting, Sep 2006. Remote-handling needed (c.f. 20mSv/h manual worker limit at LHC)

  3. Recap of Talks from RAL Positron Source Meeting, Sep 2006. • Tim Broome, RAL • Remote-handling orientation (vertical / horizontal) • Replacement strategy (modular / component) • Required time for exchanging targets?

  4. Handling Concepts - Horizontal T. Broome, RAL, Sep 2006 Services remain connected, target moved to an integral remote handling cell for replacement.

  5. Handling Concepts - Vertical T. Broome, RAL, Sep 2006 Services disconnected and target removed to a storage facility. Later can be worked on in a separate remote handling facility Smaller footprint than horizontal but transfer flasks are required

  6. Comments on the proposed target design • Remote Handling must be considered from the outset • All service connections have to be remotely handled so choose a system with a minimum of connections • Consider radiation cooling (to eliminate problems with the water systems (seals etc) • If water cooling is used why not drive the wheel with the water and eliminate the motor • Instrumentation is often a key item and can be the life limiting and present a significant remote handling challenge • It looks like remote vacuum connections will be required. • For a 10-8 mbar vacuum this will require development • Definition of end of life of the target assembly is useful but very difficult T. Broome, RAL, Sep 2006

  7. Recap of Talks from RAL Positron Source Meeting, Sep 2006. • Chris Densham, RAL • The ISIS Horizontal layout used as starting point • Complete target and services system to be on rails and moved in and out of the beam • Vertical installation may have some advantages (space, cost) but likely to be slower to change targets (days or weeks - not hours)

  8. Single Target Station - Side View C. Densham, RAL, Sep 2006 Remote handling cell Services trolley (target cooling, cryogenics for solenoids) Target module Service lines

  9. Target hall layout 50 m C. Densham, RAL, Sep 2006 UPT Target AMD Pre-Acceleration system B (in operation) Electron linac Target AMD Pre-Acceleration system A (Target module withdrawn into hot cell)

  10. Topic Summary - RAL positron source meeting, Sep 2006. • Topic Action Items: • Target Hall Vinod Bharadwaj • More activation/damage calculations • Identify what numbers are needed from the calculations • Figure how to do the simulation – which program(s) etc. • identify people to do the simulations • include detailed layout of hardware: • OMD, SW RF, TW RF, solenoids, shielding • Define target hall dimension requirements • target hall occupancy needs • needed shielding • what is in the hall and what is on the surface • scenarios for all the needed repair/replacement operations • KAS target hall • Does ILC plan to have a central hot cell facility? • e+ , dumps etc. • will it be useful for the positron stuff • Re-visit two/one target requirement (availability, R&R time,……)

  11. More sophisticated activation simulations interfacing FLUKA to ASTRA, etc (see Andriy Ushakov’s presentation) • More sophisticated FLUKA input geometry (L. Fernandez-Hernando, ASTeC, DL) • Cost driven decision to adopt smaller target hall • Vertical remote-handling concept (c.f. SNS and PSI) developed by RAL • Fortnightly remote-handling and activation phone meetings started. Progress Since RAL meeting

  12. Target Geometry Drawn in SimpleGEO Drive shaft(includes water channel) Target wheel (includes water channel) 5 cell rf cavity. L. Fernandez-Hernando,DL, 25/01/2007 e.g. s/c OMD • A few glitches found in exporting geometries between SimpleGEO and FLUKA. • Should be able to begin simulations in a few weeks.

  13. Mini target hall • 2 target stations • Surface reprocessing • ~25% of full target hall size (~250m2) Alternative Target Hall Layout V. Bharadwaj, 17th October 2006

  14. Micro target hall • 1 target station • Surface reprocessing • ~8% of full target-hall size (~100m2) Alternative Target Hall Layout V. Bharadwaj, 17th October 2006 New baseline.

  15. Remote Handling and Target Removal EUROTeV: WP4 (polarised positron source) PTCD task I. Bailey, J. Dainton, L. Zang (Cockcroft Institute / University of Liverpool) D. Clarke, K. Davies, N. Krumpa, J. Strachan (CCLRC Daresbury Laboratory) C. Densham, J. Rochford, B. Smith, M. Woodward (CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) J.L. Fernandez-Hernando, D.J. Scott (CCLRC ASTeC Daresbury Laboratory / Cockcroft Institute) P. Cooke, P. Sutcliffe (University of Liverpool) In collaboration with Jeff Gronberg, David Mayhall, Tom Piggott, Werner Stein (LLNL) Vinod Bharadwaj, John Sheppard (SLAC)

  16. Target Removal/Replacement Showing Storage Cell M. Woodward, 24th Jan 2007 Beam Pipe

  17. Target Module and Plug with Support Services Cryocooler (if required) + vacuum pump + water pump M. Woodward, 24th Jan 2007 Details of vertical drive for target wheel not yet considered.

  18. Target Module and Plug with Support Services (2) M. Woodward, 24th Jan 2007

  19. Estimated Target Changeover Times M. Woodward, 24th Jan 2007 ~28 Hours Removal

  20. Estimated Target Changeover Times ~25 Hours Replacement M. Woodward, 24th Jan 2007

  21. Topic Action Items: • Target Hall Vinod Bharadwaj • More activation/damage calculations • Identify what numbers are needed from the calculations • Figure how to do the simulation – which program(s) etc. • identify people to do the simulations • include detailed layout of hardware: • OMD, SW RF, TW RF, solenoids, shielding • Define target hall dimension requirements • target hall occupancy needs • needed shielding • what is in the hall and what is on the surface • scenarios for all the needed repair/replacement operations • KAS target hall • Does ILC plan to have a central hot cell facility? • e+ , dumps etc. • will it be useful for the positron stuff • Re-visit two/one target requirement (availability, R&R time,……) Discussion Sufficiently understood? FLUKA + …? Regular meetings between DESY, DL, Liverpool, ANL, SLAC Underway between DL and DESY Started this process Any progress?

More Related