UITF Conduct of Operations Review

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Y. R. Roblin, G2P review, 1/17/ HALLA G2P readiness review Yves Roblin, CASA.
Advertisements

11/27/2007ILC Power and Cooling VM Workshop Mike Neubauer 1 RF Power and Cooling Requirements Overview from “Main Linac Power and Cooling Information”
INJECTOR TEST FACILITY UPGRADE PHASE I: 5-10 MEV INJECTOR Feb. 7, 2014.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Presentation to ASAC R. Casey Radiation Shielding: Assumption and Design April 24, 2007.
PROBLEM: Radiation Dose Rate in IR2 When IR1 is Operating (and Vice Versa) Muon Dose Rate > 1 mRem/hr for 0.1% Collimated Halo.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Review of May 29 Excursion Bob Casey.
Injector Accelerator Readiness Review, 10/31/06 Henrik Loos 1 Beam Losses During LCLS Injector Phase-1 Operation Scope of phase 1 operation Operating modes.
Upgrade Injector Test Facility: UITF Why Build It? HDIce commissioning Bubble chamber physics with Bremsstrahlung x-rays: photo-disintegration of oxygen.
The Status of ESS Accelerator Shielding and Accident Scenarios Lali Tchelidze May 26, 2014.
NLCTA Safety Audit Radiation Safety Review W. R. Nelson 9 November 2001.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Page 1 UITF Progress meeting Re-scoping UITF Matt Poelker November 14, 2015.
Overview of HINS Operations and Radiation Shielding Considerations in the Meson Detector Building Bob Webber August 16, 2006.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Summary of Shielding Calculations for NSLS2 Accelerators P.K. Job Radiation Physicist Peer Review 2007 March
Comparison of Fermilab Proton Driver to Suggested Energy Amplifier Linac Bob Webber April 13, 2007.
BooNE / NuMI Rad. Protection NBI 2002 S. Childress (FNAL) Radiation Protection for Mini-BooNE & NuMI 18 March, 2002 Mini-BooNE inputs from Peter Kasper.
Jan Low Energy 10 Hz Operation in DRFS (Fukuda) (Fukuda) 1 Low Energy 10Hz Operation in DRFS S. Fukuda KEK.
Summary of radiation shielding studies for MTA Muon production at the MiniBooNE target Igor Rakhno August 24, 2006.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES NSLS-II Shielding Workshop R. Casey Activation Issues for NSLS-II March 28, 2007.
CEBAF Source and Injector Status PREx-II Collaboration Mtg Feb. 26, 2016 Matt Poelker and Joe Grames Center for Injectors and Sources.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Page 1 UITF Progress meeting What we started with… UITF as imagined Upgraded Injector Test Facility - UITF.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Page 1 UITF Progress meeting What we started with… UITF as imagined Upgraded Injector Test Facility - UITF.
MI Shielding Machine Protection Credit D. Capista March 7,2010.
UITF Laser and Gun High Voltage John Hansknecht UITF Operational Review March 18, 2016.
CHANGE OF ACCESS CONTROLS TO SERVICE BUILDINGS DURING BEAM PERMIT Vashek Vylet StayTreat, July 17, 2015.
Radiation Protection Standards for Prompt Radiation Don Cossairt, Radiation Protection Manager, ESH&Q Section October 1, 2013.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Page 1 UITF Progress meeting UITF Project Status Meeting Matt Poelker July 12, 2016.
Dark Current and Radiation Shielding Studies for the ILC Main Linac
Report Technical Director Storage-Ring-Installation Completed
Cost Optimization Models for SRF Linacs
The LEP Superconducting RF system has reached its maximum configuration of 288 four-cell cavities powered by 36 klystrons in In 2000, this system,
ILC Power and Cooling VM Workshop
WANG chuanzhen PENG wei XIAO min LI Chunsong (SQHL)
Shielding Design for LCLS Injector Operation – Phase one
Process Simulation for the LCLS-II Cryogenic Systems
Degradation and Recovery of Cavity Performance
Status and prospects of VEPP-5 Injection Complex
UITF – Upgrade Injector Test Facility
CEBAF Injector Update PREX/CREX March 3-4, 2017
Desirable BCM Performance
Radiation protection of Linac4 M. Silari Radiation Protection Group
Physics design on Injector-1 RFQ
Hot Checkout System for LERF Resuscitation
C100 Activation Status and Projections JLab Ops Staytreat 2016
UITF Operational Review
Resident Physics Lectures
Vashek Vylet RadCon Manager UITF Internal Safety Review May 10, 2016
Upgraded Injector Test Facility
Upgraded Injector Test Facility - UITF
UITF MPS system requirements
Performance Degradation cERL Injector Cryomodule
Electron Source Configuration
Resident Physics Lectures
Production of Magnetized Electron Beam from a DC High Voltage Photogun
Andreas Jansson, Lali Tchelidze
Center for Injectors and Sources
Fassò, N. Nakao, H. Vincke Aug. 2, 2005
Upgraded Injector Test Facility
R. Suleiman and M. Poelker October 12, 2018
A. Freyberg Aug 2016 ECT’16 =>
Uses of UITF 10 MeV spin-polarized electron accelerator, beam current up to 100 uA M. Poelker December 12, 2018.
Test of Booster at UITF Reza Kazimi (12/12/18)
Operations Section Leader
Upgraded Injector Test Facility
Maximum Credible Beam Event Paul Emma et al
(Beam) Commissioning Plan
UITF Conduct of Operations Review
Radiation fields During 1st stage beam commissioning
Radiation Safety Considerations
Vashek Vylet, RadCon UITF Conduct of Operations Review April 24, 2019
Andrew Hutton Concept suggested independently by Haipeng Wang
Presentation transcript:

UITF Conduct of Operations Review UITF Review #3 Extras Matt Poelker Wednesday, April 24, 2019

The QCM Predictions from Haipeng Wang There are no plans to operate the 7 cell in field emission regime 16 MV/m x 0.7 m = 11 MeV max beam energy We plan to operate QCM at 5 MeV for CEBAF and ~ 8 MeV for HDIce UITF Conduct of Operations Review - Status

Maximum Current through the QCM? We installed a 4.4 kW klystron to drive the 7-cell cavity Based on measured Qo, Haipeng calculates we can accelerate maximum current 249 uA at 10 MeV UITF Conduct of Operations Review - Extras

What about for lower beam energies? If one tries to accelerate more current, beam energy will “sag” P = I * V I = P / V Haipeng Predictions, with 4.4 kW klystron UITF Conduct of Operations Review - Extras

Gun HV power supply UITF dc HV photogun Glassman HV, 450kV and 3mA capable Operating restrictions: HV and current limit setpoints – defense in depth Similarly, we will assign software limits to the rf drive of the 7-cell cavity UITF Conduct of Operations Review - Extras

CARM locations CARM probes are shown by green squares on the maps. CARM RM801 3 probes, all gamma, located at Cave-1 roof ("mezzanine") penetrations near the gun and QCM. CARM RM802 3 probes, all gamma, located at (1) cave 2 entrance gate, (2) cave 2 west wall adjacent to physics workshop, (3) top of stairway at northeast corner of cave 2 CARM RM803 1 gamma probe, located in the control room RAPID ACCESS RM803 This is a non-PSS interlocked unit, currently has 1 gamma probe and 1 neutron probe, both inside cave 1. UITF Conduct of Operations Review - Extras

Ambitious Schedule: what lies ahead in the next 12 months New Gun operation at 200kV Repair HDIce Functional MeV beamline (engineering support) Reviews (COO and ARR) Commission Accelerator: write the plan Validate functionality of QCM (to be installed at CEBAF May 2020) HDIce ERR Four HDIce run periods! UITF Conduct of Operations Review - Extras

BLM locations UITF Conduct of Operations Review - Extras

(Songsheets = UED) MeV beamline UITF Conduct of Operations Review - Status

Shielding Assessment Table (old table) See updated version UITF Conduct of Operations Review - Extras

Normal Operations Beam Loss/ Termination Point Beam Loss Condition (Watt) Duration Frequency Duty Cycle* Exposure Location Dose rate (mrem/h) Dose/Event (mrem) Annual Dose** Notes High Current Mode Lower beam line opposite maze 1 8 hr Continuous 0.09 Cave 2 entry gate 0.006 0.008 1.1 Represents 0.1% of the beam power (100 nA) for high current operation (100 μA); assumes robustly shielded dump(s) and 100% occupancy. Cave 2 roof is HRA - not routinely occupied. Cave 1 roof is RCA, assumed 100% occupancy. 2nd floor office 0.010 0.016 1.8 Source lab <0.001 <0.008 <0.2 Cave 2 roof 3 24 N/A Cv 1 roof boundary 0.8 6.4 144 Low Current Mode HDICE Line 0.05 0.36 All - Conditions all bounded by 100 nA 60 min 2/day West wall <0.005 <0.9 Full loss (100 nA) in low current mode (beam loss, or delivery of tune beam to F-cup)   Roof is posted radiological area and not routinely occupied 0.003 0.54 0.001 0.18 He Vent/C2 roof 4 Gun Test Mode – Not Accelerator Operations keV Mode 3000 4 hr  Few/year <0.4 <1.6 <6.4 Drifting 225 keV @ 13.4 mA through QCM (off) to FC (without shield)*** 1350 Few/year 0.5 2 8 Drifting 450 keV @ 3 mA through QCM (off) to FC (without shield)*** * Assumes 900 hours operation/y; 20% high-current, 80% lo-current mode (25% of low current running at 100 nA) ** Non-RCA design goal is 10 mrem/y, RCA design goal is 250 mrem/y *** Routine condition is beam delivery to a shielded Faraday cup. Dose rate shown is for off-normal event upstream of FC. CARM probe at entry gate protects.

Beam loss/ termination point Accident Conditions Beam loss/ termination point Beam Loss Condition (Watt) Duration Exposure Location Dose rate (mrem/h) Dose/Event (mrem) Notes Lower beam line opposite maze 3000 15 min West wall 12 3 Worst plausible overcurrent condition at full energy (10 MeV @ 300 uA). Includes assumption of simultaneous, complete beam spill in lower beam line (may not be credible). 2nd floor office 30 7.5 North wall 2.4 0.6 C2 Roof (over loss point) 9000 2250 C2 Roof (He vent) 750 C1 Roof boundary 2400 600 Carve 2 access gate 18 4.5 HDICE Line 1000 <2 <0.5 Overcurrent condition (100 uA) in low current mode; loss point in HDICE line, vicinity of target 0.75 1 0.4 He Vent/roof 4000 <1000 <250 Cave 2 access gate 0.1 4200 2 0.5 Worst plausible overcurrent condition – beam loading degrades gradient to 5 MeV, current is 840 μA. Beam is lost in lower beam line. C2 roof (over loss point) 10,000 2500 9 2.25 All cases result in integrated dose < 15 rem.

Accident Conditions (cont’d) Beam loss/ termination point Beam Loss Condition (Watt) Duration Exposure Location Dose rate (mrem/h) Dose/Event (mrem) Notes QCM Exit 3000 15 min West wall (cont. room) < 0.9 < 0.23 Worst plausible overcurrent condition at full energy (10 MeV @ 300 uA). Includes assumption of simultaneous, complete beam spill at CM exit (may not be credible). Above cont. room < 30 < 7.5 Roof < 90 < 23 Roof penetration* 40,621 10,155 Cable trench (cont. room)** 120 30 Vent duct exit < 15 < 3.75 4200 < 1 <0.25 Worst plausible overcurrent condition – beam loading degrades gradient to 5 MeV, current is 840 μA. Beam is lost at CM exit. Values conservatively scaled from same accident in cave 2. < 33 < 8.5 < 100 < 25 45,090 11,272 133 34 < 17 < 4.5 * Based on analytical methods, modeling expected to reduce value significantly. ** Results without shielding All cases result in integrated dose < 15 rem.