liu external beam dump review external beam dump option a: branching off from lss6

LIU external beam dump review

External beam dump option A: branching off from LSS6

J.L. Abelleira

Thanks to: F. Velotti, B. Goddard, M. Meddahi, H. Vincke, R. Fernández Ortega, B. Blanco, L. Faisandel, A. Fabich, K. Cornelis

30th July 2014

External beam dump option A: branching off from LSS6 2

Branching off from LSS6This talk summarizes the different possibilities to install a beam dump using the LSS6 extraction system and profiting from the existing tunnelsSummary:• Locations for the dump tunnel• Magnets and optics• HiRadMat: operational issues

TT61

TNC


Dump locations• Different locations have been explored: TT61 and TNC

Fast extraction LSS6

Beam


TT61: Magnets

2xMBB2xMBB

4xMBS

2xMBB

4xMBS

In place of TT61 HiRadMat

4xMBS Off On4xMBS On Off2xMBB

2xMBE (-)2xMBB(+)

TT66.MBB.660205TT66.MBB.660213


TT61: vertical bending

There are three options for the vertical plane:

1. Use existing TT61 till the end (with its slope)

2. Excavate new tunnel under TT61 to bend the beam to the horizontal

3. Bend the beam with an intermediate angle

ϴ 40 mrad

ϴ80 mrad

ϴ0

0<ϴ<80 mrad

Beam

6

TT61: Option 1. vertical bending

SPS external dump study

• 6 MBE will bend the beam by 40 mrad, required to follow the tunnel

• No need for civil engineering.• The tunnel has an inclination which leads to the surface.

6xMBE

100 m

Option 1 consists in using the existing TT61 tunnel.

Beam

Beam

7

TT61: Option 1. lateral shielding


100 m

• Do we have enough shielding to HiRadMat?

Beam

• 3-meter separation*: enough to avoid activation but masks HiRadMat operation

3 m

• 8-meter separation*: needed to not radiate HiRadMat

H. Vincke

End HiRadMat

Position of the dump to not radiate HiRadMat

SPS external dump study 8

TT61: Option 1. surface shielding

600 m


TT61: Option 1

One could think of such a shielding….

600 m

The shielding will provide a muon dose < 10 S/year on the surface*:

~ 4000 m3 of concrete to cost ~1.8M €

Blockage of the line

+

*See H. Vincke’s talk


TT61: Option 2

>140 m

3.4 m

We could also bend horizontally and use the soil (molasse) as shielding


TT61: Option 2

11

Option 2 consists on excavating the tunnel to send the beam horizontally.• It requires a big effort in terms of civil engineering• Same vertical magnets as in option 1, but with

opposite polarity

3 m

As in option 1, we could extend the line


TT61: Option 3

Angle [degrees] Angle [mrad] Distance [m]

0.46 8.0 28160.55 9.6 21551.33 23.2 13202.36 41.2 8404.70 82.0 5920.50 8.7 28061.0 17.4 16641.5 26.2 11692.0 34.9 9302.5 43.6 8153.0 52.4 7443.5 61.1 580

Bending with 0<ϴ<80 mrad and use the ground as shielding

B. Blanco, R. Fernandez (GS/SE)

More than 500 m, less than 10 Sv year


TT61: Option 3

From H. Vincke’s talk

Muon dose for 2E18 protons being sent on a Carbon/Iron dump being followed by concrete* to stop all muons

*Assume the same shielding for molasse


TT61: Option 3

• Option 3 can help alleviate the tight constraints on the civil engineering for a safely radiation to the surface.

• In order to define the angle, we have to find a compromise between magnet cost, civil engineering cost and radiation.

• We have already a relation between the angle and the length of natural shielding. • It looks like the most promising option for a dump in TT61.

• Is it feasible to excavate the tunnel?


TNC

Beam dump

Beam direction

~170 m


TNC: dump location

Potential location of the dump

dump

Soil water activation?

A Fabich


TNC. Dump beam line

3xMBS @ 1.23 T

Only a set of elements added:

Beam direction


TNCBeam

direction

Actual HiRadMat dump will need to be moved.


TNC: Optics, beam sizes and dumpLIU HL-LHC

N 2.00x1011 2.32x1011

εN[m] 1.33 2.08nb 288σ 3x10-4

HL-LHCLIUParticles in dump

5-sigma beam sizes

𝐴𝑥 ,𝑦=𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑔 ∙√𝛽𝑥, 𝑦 ∙𝜖𝑁 ;𝑥 ,𝑦

γ 𝑟 β𝑟+ ¿¿¿

Beam diverges: no need for additional quadrupoles


TNC: operational aspects

The TNC-option is the most interesting one in terms of civil engineering costs, but the impact on HiRadMat operation shall be included in the considerations.

A typical HRM experiment takes place once a month. Roughly 3 accesses are needed:

The conditions of HiRadMat access are detailed in EDMS-1155061 (link), which also indicates the times required for activation cool down of air and the following flush ventilation.

access Time [h]Installation 1

23

666

Experiment 12

22

Post-experiment 12

66

Note: cool down before access

A. Fabich

https://edms.cern.ch/document/1155061/2


TNC: Integration implications:

Detailed integration studies to be performed. At first:

• Without a modification of the present HRM line there is almost no space available for installation of the beam dump line

• Modifying the HRM beam line. Need to displace all the beam line, including a major intervention of the existing dump.

- Element highly activated- If moved to the right, the access/service corridor is narrowed

• These integration works need a detailed technical study

A. Fabich


TNC: RP implications

Possible issues:• Water activation. • Access in TT61

If we need to locate the beam dump in the center of the cavern, additional beam elements will be needed and will imply additional complications with the integration with HIRADMAT.

• An upgrade of the present ventilation system may be necessary

A. Fabich, H. Vincke


Summary of all the options

Pros. Cons.

TT61

Option1 • no civil engineering works

• needed for the horizontal bending: 8xMBS+4xMBB

• Access not allowed in neighbouring areas

• Shielding required: complete block of existing line

Option2 • Horizontal radiation. Less problematic than option 3 • Civil engineering works

• Partial block of TT61• Radiation to be

evaluatedOption3 • Less vertical bending

magnets• Less civil engineering

works than option 2

TNC • No civil work• only 3xMBS needed

• HiRadMat: integration and operation

For all the options considered: • Interlock system issues (same as in LSS4-option)• HiRadMat access in case of beam loss


Preliminary cost estimation

• No cost estimation for the civil works

• We have spare MBE, QTL

• Need for the switches (MBS) - TT61: ~1.44 MCHF*- TNC: ~0.64 MCHF * (including power converters)

• TED-like block: 0.5MCHF

• Shielding block: 13k€

• Vacuum systems to be checked

See F. Velotti’s talk

*400kCHF per power converter 80kCHF per MBS unit


Conclusions

• The most feasible option is TNC, but it is not compatible with HiRadMat operation.

• TT61 option 3 is the most promising option compatible with HiRadMat operation, but the difficulty of the civil works is even harder than in LSS4


Thank you…

…For your attention


backupGIS TT61

TT66.QTLD.660200 QTLD.610200(no name) BPCK.610202

TT66.MBB.660205 MBS.610204 (off)TT66.MBB. 660213 MBS.610209 (off)

MBS.610214 (off) MBS.610219 (off) MBS.610230 (-) MBS.610235 (-) MBS.610240 (-) MBS.610245 (-) MBB.610250 (-) MBB.610455 (-) MBE.610350 (-) VERTICAL MBE.610360 (-) VERTICAL MBB.610335(+) MBB.610340(+)


backup

F. Velotti

estimation of the expected protons per year to be dumped in the SPS, after LS2

backup


backup

liu external beam dump review external beam dump option a: branching off from lss6

Documents

tncexternal beam dump

dump tunnelmagnets

existing tt61

vertical plane

existing tunnelssummary

lss6 extraction system

intermediate angle

different possibilities