Update for muon studies Helmut Vincke. Additional dump calculations Two options were studied: Option 1: beam is bend by 2 degree towards soil and beam.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hall C SHMS Fringe Field Analysis Michael Moore Hall C Winter Meeting
Advertisements

Stefan Roesler SC-RP/CERN on behalf of the CERN-SLAC RP Collaboration
Preliminary studies for T2 primary target for the NA61 fragmentation beam run 11 th October 2010 – NA61 Collaboration Meeting M. Calviani on behalf of.
Beam-plug and shielding studies related to HCAL and M2 Robert Paluch, Burkhard Schmidt November 25,
Biophysics of somersault and arm sets in trampolining John Mitchell Thanks to Lisa Withey + Jack Mitchell for performance.
Quartz Plate Calorimeter Prototype Ugur Akgun The University of Iowa APS April 2006 Meeting Dallas, Texas.
W. Clarida, HCAL Meeting, Fermilab Oct. 06 Quartz Plate Calorimeter Prototype Geant4 Simulation Progress W. Clarida The University of Iowa.
K. Oishi, K. Kosako and T. Nakamura Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corporation, Japan id=17 SATIF-10.
Seismic waves and the shadow zone.  Sudden release of energy in the Earth’s crust and creates seismic waves. Occurs naturally or human induced.
ISS, 23 September 2005E. Gschwendtner, CERN1 Beam Instrumentation at CNGS 1. Introduction 2. Layout 3. Beam Instrumentation 4. Summary.
K.T. McDonald March 18, 2010 LArTPC BNL 1 Magnetizing a Large Liquid Argon Detector Kirk T. McDonald Princeton University (March 18, 2010)
MERIT Beam Collimator Design Nicholas Olesen 9 August 2006.
1 Downstream scraping and detector sizes Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE collaboration meeting CERN.
1 G4MICE studies of PID transverse acceptance MICE video conference Rikard Sandström.
Gravitational waves LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory ) in Louisiana. A laser beam is.
Downstream e-  identification 1. Questions raised by the Committee 2. Particle tracking in stray magnetic field 3. Cerenkov and calorimeter sizes 4. Preliminary.
MARS flux simulations - update Sergei Striganov Fermilab August 12, 2009.
8/07/ J.M. Rey1 J.M. Rey CEA/DSM/DAPNIA/SACM Saclay The different (magnetic) ways to run the MICE experiment.
Photon Source and Tagger Richard Jones, University of Connecticut GlueX Detector ReviewOctober 20-22, 2004, Newport News presented by GlueX Tagged Beam.
Solid Target Options NuFACT’00 S. Childress Solid Target Options The choice of a primary beam target for the neutrino factory, with beam power of
At the position d max of maximum energy loss of radiation, the number of secondary ionizations products peaks which in turn maximizes the dose at that.
Air activation inside and around the SPS beam dump M. Baudin H. Vincke DGS-RP-AS.
Sayfa 1 EP228 Particle Physics Department of Engineering Physics University of Gaziantep Dec 2014 Topic 5 Cosmic Connection Course web page
Fiber Optic Transmission
 A GEANT4-based simulation was performed of the production target, solenoid, selection channel, and spectrometer.  The acceptance was found to be 8.3x10.
ELI-NP: the way ahead, March Anna Ferrari An overview of the shielding problems around high energy laser-accelerated beams Anna Ferrari Institute.
SHMS Optics and Background Studies Tanja Horn Hall C Summer Meeting 5 August 2008.
Volume of a Cylinder, Cone, and Sphere
Undulator Orientation & Electron Beam Spacing Should the undulator frames be toward the central aisle or the tunnel walls? What is the optimum spacing.
GAMOS tutorial X-ray Exercises
Display of Motion & Doppler Ultrasound
Radiation Protection considerations concerning a future SPS dump design Helmut Vincke DGS-RP.
Inter-comparison of Medium-Energy Neutron Attenuation in Iron and Concrete (8) H. Hirayama and Attenuation Length Sub-Working Group in Japan.
First AWAKE dump calculations Helmut Vincke. Beam on dump Muon axis inside and outside CERN Distances: Beam impact point to end of West hall: ~300 m Beam.
Secondary Particle Production and Capture for Muon Accelerator Applications S.J. Brooks, RAL, Oxfordshire, UK Abstract Intense pulsed.
18/11/04DELPHI visits, PhC1 Visits to DELPHI/LHCb Ph.Charpentier.
GG 450 Feb 27, 2008 Resistivity 2. Resistivity: Quantitative Interpretation - Flat interface Recall the angles that the current will take as it hits an.
CLIC/CLEX controls Radiation issue August 29 th, 2012 F.Locci - BE/CO-FE.
Beam loads & dump concepts T. Kramer, B. Goddard, M. Benedikt, Hel. Vincke.
First radiological estimates for the HIRADMAT project H. Vincke and N. Conan 1.
Radiation Protection aspects for SHIP Doris Forkel-Wirth, Stefan Roesler, Helmut Vincke, Heinz Vincke CERN Radiation Protection Group 1 st SHIP workshop,
TPG digitization update Phone conference 18/2 -04 Rikard Sandström Geneva University.
Activation around dump shielding, and design of beam line mask Mathieu Baudin, RP Genevieve Steele, EN-STI Helmut Vincke, RP.
Particle Production of Carbon Target with 20Tto2T5m Configuration at 6.75 GeV (Updated) X. Ding, UCLA Target Studies April 3, /3/14.
EAR2 Beam Line Report on the Status C. Weiss EAR2 Beam Line - Report on the Status1.
Photon Source and Tagger Richard Jones, University of Connecticut GlueX Detector ReviewOctober 20-22, 2004, Newport News presented by GlueX Tagged Beam.
June 6, 2006 CALOR 2006 E. Hays University of Chicago / Argonne National Lab VERITAS Imaging Calorimetry at Very High Energies.
MAMUD Magnetized hadronic calorimeter and muon veto for the K +   +  experiment L. DiLella, March 29, 2005 Purpose:  Provide pion – muon separation.
Beam Dump for Carbon Target with IDS120h Configuration at 6.75 GeV (Updated) X. Ding, UCLA Target Studies Jan. 24, /24/14.
Particle Production with Carbon Target and IDS120j Configuration at 3 GeV (update) X. Ding, UCLA Target Studies Nov. 14, /14/13.
Recent Studies on ILC BDS and MERIT S. Striganov APD meeting, January 24.
Characteristics of Quadratics Projectiles/ Applications
Mitglied der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Jörg Wolters, Michael Butzek Focused Cross Flow LBE Target for ESS 4th HPTW, Malmö, 3 May 2011.
GRAN SASSO’S HADRON STOP Temperature’s behaviour under specified beam conditions Barbara Calcagno.
New SPS scraping system: preliminary RP remarks Helmut Vincke DGS-RP.
Radiation Protection Considerations for the CDR Helmut Vincke DGS-RP.
Meson Production at Low Proton Beam Energy (Update) X. Ding, UCLA Target Studies May 9, /9/113.
AWAKE: D2E for Alexey beam properties Silvia Cipiccia, Eduard Feldbaumer, Helmut Vincke DGS/RP.
Simulation of heat load at JHF decay pipe and beam dump KEK Yoshinari Hayato.
Present status of production target and Room design Takashi Hashimoto, IBS/RISP 2015, February.
Chapter 11 - Gravity. Example 3 The International Space Station Travels in a roughly circular orbit around the earth. If it’s altitude is 385 km above.
RF separated beam and other beam issues Lau Gatignon, COMPASS workshop, 22 March 2016.
Heating and radiological
Some Design Considerations and R &D of CEPCB Dipole Magnet
Methods of Experimental Particle Physics
TI8/WIC Incident & UJ87/UA87 Radiation Levels & Analysis
M. Calviani, A. Ferrari (EN/STI), P. Sala (INFN)
A summary of world-wide test beam facilities
Radiation Backgrounds in the ATLAS New Small Wheel
Beam Loss Simulations LHC
Presentation transcript:

Update for muon studies Helmut Vincke

Additional dump calculations Two options were studied: Option 1: beam is bend by 2 degree towards soil and beam impacts dump 2 m below surface DUMP Option 2: beam is NOT bend and beam impacts dump 4 m below surface

Dump design In contrast to first set of calculations the dump is slightly modified to reduce backscattering of particles. Iron or carbon core (radius 20 cm length 2 m) was set to vacuum Iron dump (radius: 1.5 m, length: 7 m) Concrete part (radius: 5 m, length 9 m)

Beam on dump Muon axis inside and outside CERN Distances: Beam impact point to end of West hall: ~300 m Beam impact point to CERN fence: ~600 m

Option 1 Bending beam by 2 degree, beam impact point in a depth of 2 m below surface In order to get result in reasonable time transformation of situation into cylinder symmetric description is required. FLOOR Dump

Muon dose rate expected for Option 1 CERN FENCE Except for some statistical fluctuations (caused by heavy biasing) both dose rate outside the West Hall and outside the CERN territory fulfill the optimization criteria (10 uSv/year for public and 100 uSv/year for CERN).

In order to get result in reasonable time transformation of situation into cylinder symmetric description is required. Option 2 Beam is NOT bend and beam impacts dump 4 m below surface FLOOR Dump

Muon dose rate expected for Option 2 CERN Fence Conclusion to option 2: Also here statistical fluctuation due to strong biasing  leading to some spikes inside and outside CERN showing a dose rate above optimization limit. No surface morphology considered yet. => beam might reappear in case the height profile downstream the West Area is dropping by 4 m. Range of muons of the maximum energy can travel more than a km in earth.

Conclusion Both options seem to be feasible for continuous operation with an intensity of 3E13 protons per shot at a frequency of 1/30 Hz. Final depth of the beam impact point are expected to be in the range of 2 m for option 1 (bending beam by 2 degree) and at 4 m for option 2. This information should be sufficient for our CDR

Muon dose rate expected for Option 1 (better statistics) CERN FENCE More accurate results for option 1 Dose rate along beam axis (important for option2): at 600 m the dose rate is about 10 uSv/year.  If option 2: height profile of area downstream West hall required!!

Additional comments for option 1 Considering only particles on dump: situation is controllable. However, losses in the beam line on the surface must be kept at a bare minimum otherwise the muon problem reappears. Two reasons: Lost particles do not see our dump!!!!  additional hadron dose Produced pions have much longer flight path for decaying into muons than considered in the beam-on-dump case  much higher muon dose In order to cope with losses (hadrons and muons) we need to shield heavily the beam line at the surface to the forward direction and lateral. From a certain beam loss level (~1E13 per year) the loss situation becomes “unshieldable”!!!!! See slide 19, muons in direction of beam axis (beam impinging on 7m of iron). For a more realistic (but still very heavy) shielding the loss level should be rather in the range of 1E12 protons per year. Question: What is the beam loss level we have to expect? Do we have a chance to have such low levels?