Chicane shielding and energy deposition (IPAC’13 follow-up) Pavel Snopok IDS-NF phone meeting June 4, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)
Advertisements

Stefan Roesler SC-RP/CERN on behalf of the CERN-SLAC RP Collaboration
Beam-plug and shielding studies related to HCAL and M2 Robert Paluch, Burkhard Schmidt November 25,
IDS120j WITH/WITHOUT GAPS SH#4 AZIMUTHAL DPD DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS Nicholas Souchlas, PBL (3/14/2012) 1.
FLUKA status and plan Sixth TLEP workshop CERN, October 2013 F. Cerutti #, A. Ferrari #, L. Lari *, A. Mereghetti # # EN Dept. & *BE Dept.
Plot Approval Yat Long Chan (CUHK) Igor Mandic (Ljubljana) Charlie Young (SLAC)
Ian Bailey Cockcroft Institute/ Lancaster University October 30 th, 2009 Baseline Positron Source Target Experiment Update.
24/01/08Energy deposition, LIUWG, Elena Wildner1 Upgrade phase 1: Energy deposition in the triplet Elena Wildner Francesco Cerutti Marco Mauri.
Neutrino Factory Target Cryostat Review Van Graves Cale Caldwell IDS-NF Phone Meeting August 10, 2010.
Particle Production of a Carbon/Mercury Target System for the Intensity Frontier X. Ding, UCLA H.G. Kirk, BNL K.T. McDonald, Princeton Univ MAP Spring.
Pion capture and transport system for PRISM M. Yoshida Osaka Univ. 2005/8/28 NuFACT06 at UCI.
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.
Harold G. Kirk Brookhaven National Laboratory Target System Update IDS-NF Plenary Meeting Arlington, VA October 18, 2011.
GlueX Simulations Status Report on CD3 geometry Richard Jones GlueX Collaboration Meeting, Newport News, January 10-12, 2008.
General Physics 2, Lec 5, By/ T.A. Eleyan 1 Additional Questions (Gauss’s Law)
HFT Geometry Considerations F.Videbæk BNL. Introduction This presentation is meant to be a living document, updated as more and better information becomes.
Front End Technologies Harold Kirk Brookhaven National Laboratory February 19, 2014.
Superconducting Large Bore Sextupole for ILC
HFT & PXL geometry F.Videbæk Brookhaven National Laboratory 13/9/12.
a b c Gauss’ Law … made easy To solve the above equation for E, you have to be able to CHOOSE A CLOSED SURFACE such that the integral is TRIVIAL. (1)
Institutional Logo Here Harold G. Kirk DOE Review of MAP (FNAL August 29-31, 2012)1 The Front End Harold Kirk Brookhaven National Lab August 30, 2012.
Energy deposition for intense muon sources (chicane + the rest of the front end) Pavel Snopok Illinois Institute of Technology and Fermilab December 4,
115 December 2011 Holger Witte Brookhaven National Laboratory Advanced Accelerator Group Elliptical Dipole.
IDS120j WITHOUT GAPS AND WITH MAXIMUM SIZE GAPS ( aka ''NIGHTMARE'' CASE SCENARIO ) SC#4, SC#7 AZIMUTHAL DPD DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS. Nicholas Souchlas,
Front-End Design Overview Diktys Stratakis Brookhaven National Laboratory February 19, 2014 D. Stratakis | DOE Review of MAP (FNAL, February 19-20, 2014)1.
ACFA-7; Taipei, Nov 2004 H.Weerts status Si licon D etector Status H.Weerts Fermilab/Michigan State Univ. (Progress on Si-tracker layout)
DEPOSITED POWER STUDIES FOR THE MC/NF TARGET STATION. Nicholas Souchlas (PBL) (MAP CONFERENCE SLAC 2012) 1 DEPOSITED POWER STUDIES FOR THE MC/NF TARGET.
1 Energy Deposition of 4MW Beam Power in a Mercury Jet Target X. Ding, D. B. Cline UCLA H. Kirk, J. S. Berg BNL The International Design Study for the.
IDS120j WITH GAPS SC#3 AZIMUTHAL DPD DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS WITH MAX GAPS SC#3, SC#4 AZIMUTHAL DPD DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS, DP AND SC TOTAL DP WITH VARYING.
IDS120h GEOMETRY WITH MODIFIED Hg POOL VESSEL. SIMULATIONS FOR 60%W+40%He SHIELDING (P12 'POINT') WITH STST SHIELDING VESSELS. BP#1(STST/W), SH#1, BeWindow,SC#8.
Aerosol Limits for Target Tracking Ronald Petzoldt ARIES IFE Meeting, Madison, WI April 22-23, 2002.
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 22 Gauss’s Law.
Review of Quench Limits FermilabAccelerator Physics Center Nikolai Mokhov Fermilab 1 st HiLumi LHC / LARP Collaboration Meeting CERN November 16-18, 2011.
Bus-Bar Quench Studies Summary of Available Calculations LMC Meeting August 5 th 2009 Bus-Bar Quench Studies Summary of Available Calculations LMC Meeting.
IDS120j WITHOUT RESISTIVE MAGNETS: NEW Hg MODULE mars1510 ( DESKTOP ) vs. mars1512 ( PRINCETON CLUSTER ) Nicholas Souchlas, PBL (3/28/2012) 1.
Chicane simulation update Pavel Snopok Front end phone meeting January 14,
Results from particle beam tests of the ATLAS liquid argon endcap calorimeters Beam test setup Signal reconstruction Response to electrons  Electromagnetic.
Updates on FLUKA simulations of TCDQ halo loads at IR6 FLUKA team & B. Goddard LHC Collimation Working Group March 5 th, 2007.
Particle Production with Carbon Target and IDS120j Configuration at 3 GeV (update) X. Ding, UCLA Target Studies Nov. 14, /14/13.
Kinetic Energy Spectra of pi +, pi -, mu +, mu - and sum of all from the 20to4T5m Configuration X. Ding Front End Meeting June 23,
Carbon Target Design and Optimization for an Intense Muon Source X. Ding, UCLA H.G. Kirk, BNL K.T. McDonald, Princeton Univ MAP Winter Collaboration.
IDS120j WITHOUT RESISTIVE MAGNETS ( 20 cm GAPS AND 15.8 g/cc W BEADS ) AZIMUTHAL DPD DISTRIBUTION STUDIES FOR: BP#1, SH#1, SHVS#1/LFL, SC#1+SC#2, BeWind.
Institutional Logo Here July 11, 2012 Muon Accelerator Program Advisory Committee Review (FNAL July 11-13, 2012)1 The Front End.
RF background, update on analysis Rikard Sandström, Geneva University MICE Analysis phone conference, October 30, 2007.
IDS120j WITHOUT RESISTIVE MAGNETS MODIFYING Hg MODULE Nicholas Souchlas, PBL (11/1/2012) 1.
The Luminosity Calorimeter Iftach Sadeh Tel Aviv University Desy ( On behalf of the FCAL collaboration ) June 11 th 2008.
IDS120j WITH AND WITHOUT RESISTIVE MAGNETS PION AND MUON STUDIES WITHIN TAPER REGION, III ( 20 cm GAPS BETWEEN CRYOSTATS ) Nicholas Souchlas, PBL (9/4/2012)
Reducing the Iron in the Endcap Yoke of CLIC_SiD Benoit Curé, Konrad Elsener, Hubert Gerwig, CERN CERN, June 2014 Linear Collider Detector Magnet Meeting.
Halliday/Resnick/Walker Fundamentals of Physics
Meson Production at Low Proton Beam Energy (Update) X. Ding, UCLA Target Studies May 9, /9/113.
Shielding the 140 mm option F. Cerutti, L.S. Esposito on behalf of CERN FLUKA team.
IDS120i GEOMETRY. SIMULATIONS FOR 60%W+40%He SHIELDING WITH STST SHIELDING VESSELS. Hg vs. Ga DEPOSITED POWER DISTRIBUTION. (using Ding's optimized parameters)
BNL neutrino beam. Optimization and simulations Milind Diwan June 10.
IDS120j WITHOUT RESISTIVE MAGNETS SEMGENTATION STUDIES FOR BEAM PIPE BEYOND FIRST CRYOSTAT ( 20 cm GAPS AND 15.8 g/cc W BEADS ) Nicholas Souchlas, PBL.
IDS120j WITHOUT RESISTIVE MAGNETS SEMGENTATION STUDIES FOR BP#2 WITHIN FIRST CRYOSTAT AND RIGHT FLANGE OF Hg POOL INNER VESSEL ( 20 cm GAPS AND 15.8 g/cc.
DRAFT Simulation of Errant Beams in the BDS How many bunches will damage beamline components or quench SC coils? Analysis Steps 1.Use TRANSPORT with BDS.
1 Alternative options for beam cooling for a muon accelerator front-end Diktys Stratakis Physics Department Brookhaven National Laboratory Front-End Phone.
Neutrino Factory Target Cryostat Review (Update Aug 12) Van Graves Cale Caldwell IDS-NF Phone Meeting August 10, 2010.
Target Proposal Feb. 15, 2000 S. Childress Target Proposal Considerations: –For low z target, much less power is deposited in the target for the same pion.
Photon & e+e- Hits in Muon Higgs Factory T. Markiewicz T. Maruyama SLAC MAP Collaboration Meeting. Fermilab 29 May 2014.
Shielding the turbomolecular pump and the vacuum gauge 11 June 2013 Kiril Marinov ASTeC, MaRS, DL 1.
ENERGY FLOW AND DEPOSITION IN A 4-MW MUON-COLLIDER TARGET SYSTEM
Integrating Chicane in G4BeamLine
X. Ding, UCLA MAP Spring 2014 Meeting May 2014 Fermilab
IDS120j WITHOUT RESISTIVE MAGNETS: NEW Hg MODULE
PROGRESS REPORT OF A NLNS-FFAG ADS MAGNET
1 Nicholas Souchlas (PBL) (MAP CONFERENCE SLAC 2012)
Upgrade phase 1: Energy deposition in the triplet
Review of Quench Limits
Presentation transcript:

Chicane shielding and energy deposition (IPAC’13 follow-up) Pavel Snopok IDS-NF phone meeting June 4, 2013

Updates to the chicane Yellow: coils, subdivided into smaller segments (3 longitudinal, 2 radial, 12 azimuthal) for more precise energy deposition study. Radius = cm, length of 18 cm, on-axis field 1.5 T throughout the channel. Cyan: W shielding (pure W, need to change the density to 60%), 4 cm cm radii. Gray around cyan: inner and outer SS pipe, 2 cm thick & cm radii to enclose W, yet stay 5 cm clear of the coils. Magenta: proton absorber, 10 cm of Be, outer radius = 30 cm. Z=0 corresponds to 30 m downstream of the target.

ROOT-based geometry For irradiation study the chicane is simulated in MARS15. Field maps for MARS simulations are generated by G4beamline. Complicated geometry of the chicane, => adding shielding is not possible using only MARS extended geometry. ROOT-based geometry framework for MARS is used with a wide variety of basic volumes provided by the ROOT TGeo module. The volume of each shielding or coil segment can be calculated precisely in ROOT; removes the uncertainty intrinsic to MARS Monte-Carlo based volume calculation. Easy to visualize your geometry for debugging (3D visual above is produced by ROOT). Geometry is straightforward to read/comprehend/modify as needed Most important for seamless shielding is the TGeoCtub elementary volume (cut tubes with arbitrary entrance/exit angles).

(Vertical) beam size considerations No shielding, coil inner R = 43 cm, muon flux (main) is not affected With shielding starting at R = 30 cm, muon flux is clearly affected No coils, smaller statistics, test that R = 43 cm is indeed a “safe” radius Beam pipe + shielding shape + coil radii toward the center of the chicane need further modifications.

Reference case: no shielding Average deposited power density (DPD) per coil is shown The limit of 0.15 mW/g is exceeded in a number of coils; however, it could be reduced to within the limits by providing extra shielding in about half of the coils. DPD peaks at 15.8 mW/g, that translates into 42.6 kW/m for Cu coils or 33.3 kW/m for SC coils.

First shielding, 4 cm of W Average deposited power density in the coils is at maximum 1.7 mW/g. On average: the limit of 0.15 mW/g is exceeded in a smaller number of coils, only those between 32 and 36 m downstream of the target. Need to change W density to 60%. At the same time, certain coil segments can get up to 9.1 mW/g (3 longitudinal, 2 radial, 12 azimuthal segments per coil) due to the non-uniformity of energy deposition. Max average DPD = 1.7 mW/gMax DPD per segment = 9.1 mW/g

Summary ROOT-based geometry allows to simulate the complex shape of the chicane + shielding. Current simulations are based on pure W, should be redone with 60% density (which increases the amount of material considerably, hence, the radius of the coils as well). Coil and shielding shape need modifications compatible with the beam width at the center of the chicane. Average DPD with 4 cm of W drops almost an order in magnitude: 15.8 => 1.7 mW/g, although still an order of magnitude larger than the required 0.15 mW/g (even worse if a conservative limit of 0.1 mW/g is used as suggested by Kirk McDonald). As expected, segmentation of the coils reveals that energy deposition is not uniform, max = 9.1 mW/g. I would like to continue energy deposition studies, but I will need some help from the Targetry group with their expertise.