status report on hiradmat i. e fthymiopoulos, en/mef slides taken from hiradmat presentation to...

STATUS REPORT ON HIRADMAT I. EFTHYMIOPOULOS, EN/MEF

Slides taken from HIRADMAT presentation to A&T management R. Assmann, C. Hessler, I. Efthymiopoulos, H. Vincke

with input from many other colleagues….

IRADD –WG MeetingCERN, February 11, 2009

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

http://lhc-collimation-project.web.cern.ch/lhc-collimation-project/HiRadMat.htm

http://lhc-collimation-project.web.cern.ch/lhc-collimation-project/HiRadMat.htm

The project

High Radiation to Materials

I.Efthymiopoulos, CERN

2

R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

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).

Why?

R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

CFC collimators tested in 2004 and 2007 in TT40! Why not repeat it there or in LHC?

1. TI2 and TI8 lines are now in beam operation (LHC ring will be):

1. Avoid interferences: vacuum interventions, access restrictions due to irradi-ation (higher levels with high Z materials), damage to BI from showers, …

2. Exclude risks: contamination internal and external to vacuum, water leak into vacuum, high Z materials can “explode”, …

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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…

Where?

R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

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 atested and mature design, requiring prior beam tests at CERN!

When?

Update on beam design


7

Christoph Hessler, TE/ABT/BTP 8

Required Beam ParametersParameter Unit Value (proton beam) Value (lead ion beam)

Beam energy GeV 450 36.9×103 (177.4 GeV/n)

Bunch intensity particles 5×109 to 1.15×1011 5×109 to 4.1×1010

Bunch length cm 11.2 11.2

Number of bunches - 1 – 288 1 – 592

Bunch spacing ns 25 ≥ 25

Pulse energy MJ 2.4 28×10-3

Pulse length ms 7.2 7.2

Peak power GW 340 2.3

Normalized emittance (1s) mm 3.5 1.4

sx × sy at exp. (baseline) mm2 1.0 1.0

sx × sy at exp. (request) mm2 0.25 – 4.0 0.25 – 4.0


Studied Locations for HiRadMat

Beam


Studied Locations for HiRadMat

SPS

TI 2 T1 target area (option B)

T9 target area / WANF (option A)

TT61 tunnel (option C)

TT60Beam

Beam

End of common partwith TI 2 transfer line

50 m


Beam Line Layouts

TT60: Common part with TI 2 New transfer line

QTLMBB

MBS switching magnets

T9 target

MBE

T1 target

B190T9 (option A):

T1 (option B):

TT61 (option C): QTR

50 m


Cost EstimateT9 (option A) T1 (option B) TT61 (option C)

Magnet refurbishment 250 185 185

Cabling 360 360 450

Transport/installation 110 110 110

Survey 45 35 40

Power convertors 600 595 560

Vacuum system 245 215 225

Beam instrumentation 240 240 240

Water cooling 125 120 115

Controls 55 55 55

Interlock 55 55 55

Draftsman office 15 15 15

Total 2,100 1,985 2,050

all prices in kCHF

Update on experimental area


13

HIRADMAT: WANF the preferred solution


14 TCC1, around T1 target area

A

BC

Option-B Downstrea

m the T1 target

Option-C Upstream

part of TT61 tunnel

Option-A Old WANF tunnel

(half)

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 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

The TCC6/WANF complex


15 Layout – today’s status

TI2 line to LHC

TT61 tunnel – old extraction to West Area

WANF tunnel : T9 target & Secondary beam

Old proton beam (dismounted)

T1 target

HornHe tank

HornFe-shielding He-tank

IntensityMonitor

DecayTube

T9 collimator

BA7Access shaft (material & personnel)



16 WANF Tunnel during installation - 1992



17 WANF tunnel – September’08

T9 target

He-tank

High-Power Radiation Facility (HIRADMAT)

Parameter Value

Experiments per year 10

Maximum intensity per experiment 1×1015 protons<30 full intensity pulses

Waiting time after experiment for de-installation

≥ 2 weeks

Access during experiment (except urgent interventions)

no

Control of experiment and data taking

remote

Maximum intensity per year 1×1016 protons

Parameter Value

Installed experiments 1Material exposed to beam C, CFC, Cu, W, hBN, Al, Be, …,

advanced composite materialsVolume of exposed material ≤ 16,800 cm3

Equipment size Length (flange-to-flange) Width Height below beam line Height above beam line

≤ 7.0 m ≤ 1.0 m 1.1 m ≤ 0.8 m

Weight ≤ 4,000 kgHandling zone (L × W × H) 15 2.0 2.2 m3

Equipment support comes with experiment – quick installation interface required

Cool-down space see equipment sizeCrane support mobile cranes sufficientHandling no full remote handling, prepare

fast handling (e.g. rails)


18 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

HIRADMAT in the WANF tunnel


19 Layout proposal

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

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

20



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

Pros/cons of the proposal

HIRADMAT Facility


21

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 …

Operation/maintenance


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.I.Efthymiopoulos, CERN

22 Materials budget envelop

Backup slides

Radiation Protection Issues


23

Radiation survey (24/9/08) around the T9 Target – WANF area

6.5

Old TAX blocks storage

100 65

300

900400 at 40 cmDose Rate in µSv/h 300

260

5 to 10

• 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)

Position of target station

Radiation in this area might be considerably higher since beam line equipments in this area were not taken into account in this first estimate

26

110 m

Profile taken over Dy = 60, Dx = 180, along the beam line

x

yz

Dose rate (uSv/h) seen by a person (1.8 m) walking through the empty tunnel

Location of Target station

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

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

Effect of bypass tunnel

28

10 full SPS beam cycles (3.3E13 protons per cycle)

1E16 protons equally distributed over 200 days

Cooling time

Dose rate between wall and beam line

Dose rate maximum

value

Dose rate between wall and beam line

Dose rate maximum

value

1 hour 26 mSv/h 1.3 Sv/h 800 mSv/h 32 mSv/h

12 hours 2 mSv/h 66 mSv/h 600 mSv/h 24 mSv/h

1 day 660 mSv/h 15 mSv/h 480 mSv/h 20 mSv/h

1 week 66 mSv/h 3.3 mSv/h 280 mSv/h 12 mSv/h

1 month 26 mSv/h 0.7 mSv/h 200 mSv/h 6 mSv/h

Summary for full loss and operational scenario

• 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

Dose rate after1E16 protons in 200 days + 1 month of cooling

4.0E+041.8E+048.8E+034.0E+031.8E+038.8E+024.0E+021.8E+028.8E+014.0E+011.8E+018.8E+004.0E+001.8E+008.8E-014.0E-011.8E-018.8E-024.0E-021.8E-028.8E-034.0E-03

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

R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

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.

Wrap Up for Discussion

R. Assmann, 26.1.2009

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 procurement procedures (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

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)

HIRADMAT IN THE WANF TUNNELI. EFTHYMIOPOULOS, EN/MEF

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

HIRADMAT MeetingCERN, January 26, 2009

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 ?

EDMS No : 984446

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

max

1.11.16,

cop

pDyx phys

y (m

)

s (m)

x (m

)

s (m)


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



40

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

Schedule



41

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!

Summary

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:

1. 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.

2. 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

Marble shielding

Be-target

Beam

45

Generic studies concerning residual dose rate levels caused by the future HIRADMAT collimator

irradiation

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

2 irradiation scenarios

1. Short term scenario: impact of 10 subsequent full SPS beam cycles (3.3E13 protons per cycle)

2. Long term scenario: 1E16 protons equally distributed over 200 days

5 cooling times1. 1 hour2. 12 hours3. 1 days4. 1 week5. 1 month

Beam

Concrete wall

TCDI (carbon) collimator

Beam line elements

46

1E13 protonsIrradiation time: 2d , cooling time: 1d

Hot spot: ~ 13000 uSv/h

Tungsten collimator

Carbon collimator


47

1E13 protonsIrradiation time: 2d , cooling time: 1w


Tungsten collimator

Carbon collimator


48

1E13 protonsIrradiation time: 2d , cooling time: 1m


Tungsten collimator

Carbon collimator


49

status report on hiradmat i. e fthymiopoulos, en/mef slides taken from hiradmat presentation to...

Documents

lhc beam

beam damage

test facility hiradmat

beam operation lhc ring

beam tests of near

beam components

gev lhctype beam

tt40 space