project design review plan · web viewgeneral, factual observations about material presented which...

In partnership with: India/DAEItaly/INFNUK/STFCFrance/CEA/Irfu, CNRS/IN2P3

PIP-II 800 MeV Booster Injection/Beam Absorber David Johnson, Proton Source DepartmentInjection Absorber Preliminary Technical Design Review 11 - 20 - 2019

2 11/20/2019

Outline

D. Johnson PIP-II Booster njection Absorber Preliminary Design Review

• Current 400 MeV injection layout & Booster Operation

• Brief Introduction to 800 MeV Booster Injection System– Injection parameters– Geometry (Limited space) {existing and new}– Layout– Phase space painting

• Injection Design Constraints/Considerations– Lorentz stripping– Stripping efficiency– Excited states on neutral hydrogen– Injection Loss Budget summary

• Injection Absorber requirements

• Plan for Absorber Design– Potential further Optimization

• Collimation in Beam line– Accident scenario

• ES&H Considerations

• Quality Management considerations

• Schedule

• Summary

Current level of operation

11/20/20193

B:BPL1HA 336 W

Includes stripping eff 99.9%0.1% H0 -> 4.5W -> <350 mrem/hr @1’> max of 700 mr/hr@1’Plus ~ 1% parasitic hits

*

*


injection 4.70E+12 3.008E+02 4.437E+03

Energy rep rate 14.75[eV] efficiency loss survive lost joules watts

injection 4.00E+08 98.700% 1.300% 4.6389E+12 6.11E+10 3.910E+00 5.768E+01bunching 4.00E+08 97.500% 2.500% 4.5229E+12 1.1597E+11 7.422E+00 1.095E+02Notching 4.00E+08 99.000% 1.000% 4.4777E+12 4.5229E+10 2.895E+00 4.270E+01transition 4.30E+09 99.900% 0.100% 4.5184E+12 4.5229E+09 3.112E+00 4.590E+01Extraction 8.00E+09 99.900% 0.100% 4.5139E+12 4.5184E+09 5.784E+00 8.531E+01

TOTAL 95.1% 5.0% 2.31E+11 2.312E+01 3.411E+02

CurrentStripping Efficiency 4.00E+08 9.990E-01

lossLorentz Stripping 4.00E+08 0.00E+00Neutrals to absorber 4.00E+08 1.00E-03H- to absorber (?) 4.00E+08 1.25E-04coulomb scattering 4.00E+08 6.00E-03Nuclear collisions 4.00E+08 6.25E-03excited states 4.00E+08 0.00E+00

TOTAL 1.34E-02

Parameter Before PIP Current PIP-II Units

Injection Energy 400 400 800 MeVRep Rate 7.5 15 20 HzPPP Injected 2 4.7 6.7 E12Protons/hr 0.54 2.538 4.824 E17# turns 1 to 12 1 to 19 292 turnsinjection time 2.2 to 26.4 2.2 to 41.8 550 us

Injected power 0.96 4.512 17.152 kW

11/20/20194

Still limited to 500W (5 min average) loss rate ( i.e 25 J @ 20 Hz) PIP-II will require injection phase space painting due to small linac emittance PIP-II will utilize micro-bunch to bucket injection Increase in injected beam power will require dedicated injection absorber

Current and PIP-II Operational Parameters


5

5.68 m (f-f)

ORBUMPS

Harmonic corrector

foil changer

Inj beam

diagnostics

vacuum bypassBPM

Existing Booster Injection Straight section (L1)

Beam CL” 34” x 48”

11/20/2019D. Johnson PIP-II Booster njection Absorber Preliminary Design Review

H+ & H

0

Was

te b

eam

~4 to 4.5W 350 to 700 mrem/hr

11/20/20196

800 MeV Booster Injection System Key features: Straight increased by 1 meter Reduce GM length by ~0.75 m (to be further optimized) Vertical Injection

Elevation of inj beam at foil dy (ORBUMP)+dy(V paint)

Absorber moved away from aperture Opened up ORBUMP aperture for a single magnet design Dedicated phase space painting outside injection straight Painting design complete Foil heating checked, not an issue Include vacuum bypass Lattice distortion negligible Convoy electron handling - TBD Excited states of H0


H-

H+

H0

H-

foilGradientMagnet

GradientMagnet

ORB

UM

P

ORB

UM

P

ORB

UM

P

ORB

UM

P

ABSO

RBER co

rrec

torBPM

MW

SWBPM

PWC

7

Increase Injection Straight Section Length (move to L11)

• Reduce length of “D” gradient magnet ~30%.

• Increase # turns

• Run on GMPS

• Increase straight by 1 m


190.5mm165.1mm211.5mm Beam pipe f = 31.5mm

H- sX,Y < 2 mm

0.4717m

Lattice with new insert

11/20/20198

Booster lattice with reduced length gradient magnet

Injection Insert


Painting bump

Long 11Long 10 Long 12

Hs09

= 0

.22

mr (

53 G

)

Hs01

0 =

0.30

8 m

r (73

G)

Hs11

= 0

.31

mr (

74

G)

Hs12

= 0

.22

mr (

53 G

)

Vp(m

s10)

= 3

.03

mr

(742

G)

Vp(m

s) =

-1.4

mr

(335

G)

VP(m

s) =

-1.0

9 m

r (26

1 G)

Vp(m

s11)

= 3

.03

mr

(742

G)

Phase Space painting Magnets

11/20/2019 D. Johnson PIP-II Booster njection Absorber Preliminary Design Review9

Painting magnets dual function: phase space painting removing beam from foil

Horizontal painting: Booster correctors <4A , 40A max

Vertical painting : new correctors & supply

10 11/20/2019

Injection Design Constraints: Lorentz Stripping

18 mW1.8 mW


• ORBUMP Fields– Make geometry work– Don’t strip incoming H-– 3rd magnet and excited

states

• Foil Issues– Matching to minimize

parasitic hits from circ. Beam

– Stripping eff. (foil thickness)– Electron handling (~9W)– Single coulomb scattering– Nuclear collisions– Energy straggling

11/20/2019D. Johnson PIP-II Booster njection Absorber Preliminary Design Review11

12

Compare Calculated vs measured n=3 excited state


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7001.00E+00

1.00E+01

f(x) = 0.0867031472423275 exp( − 0.0131937414808663 x )R² = 0.999529324101823f(x) = − 0.000560769943866339 ln(x) + 0.00635198225090449Calculated Yield of n=1+2,3, & H+ based on Gully parameters for 800 MeV

n=3 Logarithmic (n=3) Logarithmic (n=3)Logarithmic (n=3) Logarithmic (n=3) n=3 thick>200Exponential (n=3 thick>200) n=1+2 ProtonsGully data fig 10

Foil Thickness [ug/cm^2]

Yiel

d

Data from Gulley

800 MeV

13

Yield of Stark States (n=3,4,5,6)

Foil Thickness

n 535 mg/cm2 600 mg/cm2

3 1.4 W 0.60 W

4 1.04 W 0.51 W

5 1.01 W 0.53 W

6 0.62 W 0.35 W


100 200 300 400 500 600 700 8000.00010

0.00100

0.01000

f(x) = 0.0762893547730512 exp( − 0.0126796838648273 x )

f(x) = 0.00448791148148148 exp( − 0.00901786749658085 x )

f(x) = 0.0124634109691961 exp( − 0.010402114100661 x )

f(x) = 0.0219478737997257 exp( − 0.0106467692829036 x )

Predicted yield for n =3-6 vs foil thickness

n=4

Exponential (n=4)

n=5

Exponential (n=5)

n=6

Exponential (n=6)

n=3

Exponential (n=3)

Series9

Foil thickness [ug/cm^2]

Abso

lute

yie

ld

Solid data points from: n=3 Gulley Fig. 9

n=4-6 Gully Fig. 10

2.032E-05

2.979E-05

0.00463

300

201102210

003030

021120

012111

Yield depend on foil thickness600 ug/cm2 Yield n=3: 3.5E-5

Yield n=4: 3.0E-5 Yield n=5: 3.0E-5 Yield n=6: 2.0E-5Lost power: n=4: 0.5 W n=5: 0.54 W n=6: 0.35 W(n=4) 10 nondegenerate Stark statesStatistical population uniform: so each state-> 10% total

Time to travel 1m

Assume 17 kW

d = 0.303 m

d = 0.075 m

d = 0.023 mFOIL

N=4 80% (0.5W) 400 mW

not stripped

Opti

mal

pea

k

Curr

ent s

oluti

on

Time to travel 3m

d = 1.0 m

11/20/2019D. Johnson PIP-II Booster njection Absorber Preliminary Design Review14

n=6 n=4n=5

Stripping of H0* in downstream ORBUMP n=1,2,3 Not Stripped

15

Losses due to LA Coulomb Scattering & Nuclear Scattering


Loss = 1.6E-4 * 17 kW = 2.8W Loss = 2.15E-5 * 17 kW = 0.37 W

Loss Budget Summary at Injection

11/20/201916

As a point of reference:current injection 4.5 kWstripping eff 99.9% 4.5 W in neutrals H- missing foil ~10% power or neutralsavg. residual activation 350 mrem/hr @1’max. residual activation 700 mrem/hr@1’on downstream GM

*

Neutrals n=1,2,3 and some fraction n=4Min. pwr. Handling of injection absorber

n = 5 & 6 will go into halo for collimation

define ~1% miss foil*

*

Parameters associated with peak ORBUMP field

Administrative Loss Limit 500 W 25 J at 20Hz for entire cycle

Dependent on foil thickness andNumber of foil hits/particle & cross setion

From Salah


injection 6.70E+12 rep rate 20 Hz 8.576E+02 1.715E+04Energy edfficicncy loss lost injected

Stripping Efficiency 8.00E+08 99.8300% 1.70E-03 1.14E+10 6.69E+12loss lost joules watts

Lorentz Stripping 8.00E+08 1.00E-06 6.70E+06 8.576E-04 1.715E-02Neutrals to absorber 8.00E+08 1.70E-03 1.14E+10 1.458E+00 2.916E+01H- to absorber (?) 8.00E+08 1.00E-02 6.70E+10 8.576E+00 1.715E+02coulomb scattering 8.00E+08 2.15E-05 1.44E+08 1.844E-02 3.688E-01Nuclear collisions 8.00E+08 1.61E-04 1.08E+09 1.381E-01 2.761E+00excited states 8.00E+08 8.68E-05 5.82E+08 7.444E-02 1.489E+00

2.007E+02TOTAL 1.20E-02 9.88E-01 8.02E+10 1.027E+01 2.053E+02

800 MeV PIP-II Injection loss budget

beam power to absorber

Now, Let’s move on to the Injection Absorber Requirements

17

Injection Absorber Requirements

Power Handling 200 W @ 800 MeV & 20 Hz 170 W H- missing the foil initial design assumption 30 W H0 generated from foil due to stripping conservative value

One of the Largest constraints IS space. Taking into account the ORBUMPS required to bring the beam into meet the foil AND the diagnostics,

foil changer, and the Booster corrector (full field multipole) we are left with 0.8 meters MAX.

Must meet strict Radiological constraints determined by EPA/DOE/FNAL

Should require no active water cooling

Should be able to withstand limited pulse accident condition (to be defined) This scenario should be protected vie loss monitors / chipmunks and connected to safety permit system


18

Absorber Design Philosophy Recall, Total Space available is 80 cm MAX (if we can do it in less space even better) The absorber must stop primary protons want a high density material, like Tungsten But, Tungsten is a very good spallation target … Booo! Excessive generation of

spallation neutrons ! Fall back to standard stainless steel

unless there is some other magic material Or some hybrid or sandwich techniques

Need to contain showers Minimize residual activation So, general philosophy (at this point) is to utilize stainless steel surrounded by marble


19

Initial Geometry for Mars Modeling (local model)


20

Absorber Design Plans

• Absorber & shielding design to meet design Residual Activation requirements using local model (part of radiological requirements)– Risk: if requirements cannot be met, investigate potential mitigations

• Increasing ORBUMP field (to make more room for absorber) • Removing harmonic corrector (or replace it with smaller H&V dipole only)• Reducing halo or removing the amount of H- missing foil collimation in beam line• Limit intensity • Lower injection energy

• Insert model into Booster tunnel and soil geometry – Model Prompt dose– Model activation of tunnel walls and air– Model the production of 3H and 22Na (for ground and surface water)

• Once we are satisfied with the Radiological Requirements are met , move on to mechanical model… Not anticipating any major issues


• All activities in compliance with– PIP-II IESH Management Plan– Fermilab FESHM and FRCM– Division Safety processes and procedures

• The main Radiological Safety Concern in the current design is the reduction of accelerator component activation and minimization of personnel exposure during access periods (ALARA).– Dedicated waste beam absorber

• Typically, the hottest regions in circular accelerators are the injection, collimation, and extraction regions.– New Injection Insert - we will incorporate design features to minimize exposure during

maintenance periods through judicious use of • Shielding (permanent as well as moveable personnel shielding if required)• Quick disconnects

• Fermilab “Prevention through Design” top priority in all aspects of design, manufacturing, installation, commissioning, and maintenance.

• Interlock absorber losses to Radiation safety system through LM’s and external chipmunk

ESH



Identifier

Potential Hazzard Description

Life Cycle Stage

Who is at risk? What is at risk?

Pre-Mitigation

Severity

Pre-MitigationProbability

Pre-MitigationRisk Score

Mitigations Post-Mitigation

Severity

Post-MitigationProbability

Post-MitigationRisk Score

Status of Mitigation

Implementation

Overexposure to radiation from machine operations

Operations Personnel on access in beamline enclosure

Critical A - Almost Certain

1 - Very High Global requirement to supply a radiation safety interlock system. Technical specification for system to be compliant with FRCM Chapter 10.

Critical E - Rare 3 - Moderate

Integrated into Design

Exposure to radiation from the front face of the Beam Absorber during instrumentation inspection.

Operations Personnel on access in beamline enclosure

Medium C - Possible 3 - Moderate Install marble shielding to reduce the radiation exposure.

Low D - Unlikely 4 - Low Integrated into Design

Exposure to radiation in the case we will have to replace the Booster Injection absorber.

Operations Personnel on Access

High D - Unlikely 3 - Moderate Monolithic absorber shielding design. Integrate shielding into absorber's block.

Low E - Rare 5 - Negligible


Exposure to radiation trying to replace the Booster corrector downsream of the absorber.

Multiple Contractors and Maintenance

personnel

High C - Possible 2 - High Minimize the radiation exposure by utilizing marble shielding around the absorber. Utilize quick disconnects for fast replacements of the correctors.

Low C - Possible 3 - Moderate


Environmental impact in Raw Water.

Operations Enviroment Cooling ponds and waters of

the state

High B - Likely 1 - Very High Use appropriate shielding around the Beam Absorber.

Minimal C - Possible 4 - Low Integrated into Design

Exposure to radiation from replacing the downstream ORBUMP magnet

Operations Contractors and Maintenance

personnel

High C - Possible 2 - High Utilize quick disconnect with crane handling.

Low C - Possible 3 - Moderate


• All major components used in the upgrade will be Fermilab designed and fabricated either in APS-TD or AD.– Both divisions are committed to Quality Control and have standard

operating procedures (SOP) of • Incoming inspections (QC)• Acceptance testing (where appropriate) • Travelers • Final testing to verify performance

– Prior to commencement of fabrication• Final Design review• Production Readiness Review

– The proposed absorber design is not too different from what Fermilab has produced in the past. With each new design lessons learned are incorporated in all phases of design and manufacturing.

• Application of Lesson Learned in all phases of design, fabrication, and installation

Quality


• The final design review for the Injection Absorber is scheduled Sept 2022• Fabricate Injection absorber in time frame March 2024 thru August 2025

Schedule


25

Summary

• Very ambitious effort to convert the 50 year old Booster RCS to 800 MeV multi-turn injection during a 0.5 ms injection period and 17 kW injected power.

• Must take into account uncontrolled losses and controlled losses losses to Absorber

• We have defined the capacity and radiological requirements for the absorber

• Mechanical design will follow modeling

• Vitaly Pronskikh will describe our MARS modeling to date and discuss future plans

• Jesse Batko will discuss results of the ANSYS thermal model


26 11/20/2019D. Johnson PIP-II Booster njection Absorber Preliminary Design Review

Thank you for your Attention

Questions?

27

Phase Space Painting• Initial Phase Space painting simulations utilizing Mathcad (V. Lebedev)


𝛽𝐿

𝛽𝐵≥ ¿

Assume ¼ wave single pass Sin/cos painting

Linac beam centroid ~2.57s from foil edge gives 1% beam missing foil 170 W

Go to injection dump

Distribution of parasitic and primary hits on foil

Want to minimize parasitic hits on foil and minimize H- missing foil Implies that we need to do a good job in beamline collimation

At 2.57s dx = 1.95mm dy = 3.5 mm Nhits =6 LACS = 2.8W 1% miss 170 WAt 3.0s dx = 2.27mm dy = 4.1 mm Nhits =8.1 LACS = 3.6W 0.25% miss 43 W

28

Beamline Collimation

• Based upon the results with MARS look at how to eliminate H- missing foil.

• Beamline collimation with foil/absorber (SNS) technique

• Looking at both movable foil and absorber

• First order collimation w Tracewin

• Followed by more detailed simulation with TRACK– Follow multiple charge states– Get distribution of protons on Absorber

• Evaluate Absorber with MARS for – Radiological results– And out scattering (impact parameter)


𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 = 𝑥𝑓𝑜𝑖𝑙 +(𝑥𝑓𝑜𝑖𝑙' +𝜃𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑑 +𝜃𝑓𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑟𝑚𝑠)𝐿𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑡

29

Add in collimators to straight section


Phase advance ~ 90 deg/cell

30

Initial Collimation (with Tracewin) 2H & 2V with “foils at 3s


project design review plan · web viewgeneral, factual observations about material presented which...

Documents