1. Project X: 8 GeV Transfer and Injection Collimation and Injection Absorber R&D Kick-off meeting Dave Johnson APC/HINS June 20, 2008 Beams-doc 3125

2. June 20, 20082 Project X Requirements Baseline Linac running @ 5Hz and 9mA avg. current 1ms pulse length –delivers 5.6E13/pulse at 51 kW/pulse -> 2.8E14/sec for 360 kW For neutrino program: MI cycle of 1.4 sec -> 3 linac pulses ->1.7E14 for 154 kW at 8 GeV and 2.3MW at 120 GeV (4 linac pulses left over i.e. 200 kW @ 8 GeV Upgrade paths –increase linac pulse length 1ms -> 3 ms –linac average current 9 mA -> 27 mA –linac rep rate 5 Hz, 10Hz, 15 Hz ??? –Example: 10Hz at 25 mA still 1ms -> 1.56E14/pulse yields 2 MW (1.56E15) at 8 GeV –Scenarios: Inject/Extract each linac cycle (1 pulse to Recycler, 9 pulses elsewhere?) From Project X RD&D Plan presentation, May 28, 2008 – Dave McGinnis ->1.5E15 protons/sec ->2.8E14 protons/sec

3. June 20, 20083 Project X RD&D Program Goals The goal of the Project X RD&D program is to provide support for a Critical Decision 1 (CD-1) in 2010, leading to a CD-2/3a in 2011. –Design and technical component development; –Development of all project documentation mandated by DOE 413.3; –Formation of a multi-institutional collaboration capable of executing both the R&D plan and the provisional construction project. The primary technical goal is completion of a Conceptual Design Report, followed by a fully developed baseline cost estimate and schedule, and supported by a technology development program. –Capability of delivering in at least 2 MW of beam power over the range 60 – 120 GeV, simultaneous with at least 200 kW of beam power at 8 GeV. 3 From Project X RD&D Plan presentation, May 28, 2008 – Dave McGinnis

4. June 20, 20084 Project X RD&D Plan for FY08 The main goal for the Project X RD&D Plan for FY08 is –to get an initial cost estimate for Project X for CD0. –Begin on long-term R&D items To prepare an initial cost estimate for CD0, the design of Project X must be further developed. To organize the labor resources in FY08, each level 2 manager reviewed the FY08 goals formulated in the RD&D plan. See http://projectx.fnal.gov/RnDplan/index.html From Project X RD&D Plan presentation, May 28, 2008 – Dave McGinnis 4 The basic scheme of Project X is: –An 8 GeV Linac operating at ILC-like parameters –H- stripping and proton accumulation in the Recycler –Beam distributed to the Main Injector for acceleration to 120 GeV –Beam distributed to an 8 GeV slow spill program The major components that comprise Project X are: –A front end linac operating at 325 MHz (max energy 600MeV). –An ILC-like linac operating at 1300MHz. –An 8 GeV transfer line and H- Injection system. See next slide –The Recycler operating as a stripping ring and a proton accumulator. –The Main Injector acting as a rapid cycling accelerator. –A slow extraction system from the Recycler. –120 GeV Neutrino beamline. –Civil Construction and Utilities –Controls –Cryogenics Refine conceptual design where an initial cost estimate could be started this fall working toward a CD0 next spring

5. June 20, 20085 Project X FY08 Goals for 8 GeV Injection Create a viable Recycler injection straight section and transport line interface to the injection straight section and injection absorber. Integrate solutions with the new Recycler ring lattice. Revise Proton Driver Injection absorber design for Project X beam parameters. Initialize simulations for transverse phase space painting. Evaluate the stripping efficiency, losses, impact on circulating beam, and technological feasibility of carbon foil stripping and laser stripping techniques for 98% to 99% stripping efficiency utilizing Project X beam parameters. Begin Conceptual Design of transverse collimation absorbers 5 From Project X RD&D Plan presentation, May 28, 2008 – Dave McGinnis Expand to transverse and momentum collimation absorbers The 2 MW Linac Beam Dump was not included in the initial 2008 Goals We should re-visit the conceptual design which was done for PD !

6. June 20, 20086 Proton Driver, Project X, Main Injector, Recycler Proton Driver Web page http://protondriver.fnal.gov Beams Doc 2597 CDR for Proton Driver Transport and injection Differences between Proton Driver and Project X –PD linac 10Hz 9mA 3ms pulse {ultimate10 Hz 27mA 1 ms pulse} –PX linac 5 Hz 9mA 1ms pulse {with upgrade capability} –PD injected into Main Injector (1 pulse /1.5 sec for 1.5E14) –PX injects into Recycler (accumulate 3 pulses for 1.5E14 for MI) Recycler 56 inches above MI Recycler and MI have same basic FODO lattice Recycler injection lattice similar to proposed MI injection straight section modifications (i.e. symmetric straight) Recycler constructed with permanent magnets Recycler beam pipe smaller than MI 3.5”H x 1.625”V

7. June 20, 20087 Injection Absorber

8. June 20, 20088 Project Layout Existing 8 GeV line enclosure Existing 8 GeV line New Proton Driver transport line Existing Main Injector MI-10 New Proton Driver /8GeV line Enclosure INJECTION ABSORBER TRANSVERSE COLLIMATION MOMENTUM COLLIMATION LINAC DUMP LINAC

9. June 20, 20089 Proton Driver Injection Beam size at absorber defined by beam line optics Nominal spot size (6  ) ~ 6mm For Proton Driver we assumed –1.5E14 (132 kW) injected/MI cycle –Pulse length 1 to 3 ms –Rep rate 1.5 sec 5% (6.6 kW) going to injection dump New Proton Driver transport line Esixting 8 GeV line MI-10 Injection Absorber New MI quadsMI centerline Injection point (foil) InjectionFoil Dump face Secondary Foil Next slide

10. June 20, 200810 Proton Driver Injection Absorber Recycler 56” above MI For Project X do we need to bend waist beam vertically down? Do we need to move the absorber father downstream? Recycler C.L

11. June 20, 200811 Where is the absorber ? Does it need to move a little or a lot ? Does it need a separate enclosure? Is civil construction needed? How much?

12. June 20, 200812 Mars Design for PD Absorber Fermi year 5500 hrs deposit 1E20 protons into absorber Residual dose rate well below 100 mrem/hr Tritium and Sodium production near sump drain within limits Unlimited occupancy on exterior of berm/MI10 cross over Negligible transport of activation to ground water 900 mrem/hr 40 mrem/hr ~500 mrem/hr 30 mrem/hr <100 mR/hr Added 6” Marble

13. June 20, 200813 Thermal Calculations for PD Injection Absorber Thermal calculations (steady-state temperature) –Ambient temperature 25 deg C –nominal 6.6 kW with water cooling -> 43 deg C –Nominal 6.6 kW cooling water failure -> <300 deg C –132 kW with water cooling -> 622 deg C Can this survive Project X {and upgrade} intensities ? What’s prudent and what’s required? Initial thermal calculations done by Alex Chen using energy deposition data from MARS provided by Igor Rakhno.

14. June 20, 200814 Requirements for Project X Radiological requirements- same as for Proton Driver given in Beams Doc 2187 Nominal Beam Power 360 kW (8 GeV) -> 2.8E14/sec Assume Fermi year 5500 hr Assume 10% to injection absorber (x2 larger than PD) –5.6E20/year to absorber (x5.5 over PD) 6.6 kW -> 36 kW Peak beam Power 2 MW (8 GeV) -> 1.5E15/sec –3E21/year to absorber Must withstand 2 full intensity beam pulses with out harm Design for nominal but understand what modifications would be required for peak beam power of 10% of 2 MW -> 200 kW + margin Does this still fit inside the enclosure? Do we need air handling? ConstraintValue Drinking waterC f < 20 piC/ml-yr 3 HC f < 0.2 piC/ml-yr 22 Na Surface waterC i < 2000 piC/ml-yr 3 HC i < 10 piC/ml-yr 22 Na Residual activation on exterior surface<100 mRem/hr Prompt dose at exterior of berm.05 mRem/hr “unlimited occupancy”

15. June 20, 200815 FY08 Injection Absorber Goals Goals: –Produce a viable conceptual design for a injection absorber which Can handle baseline beam parameters (and fault conditions) Can be used as a basis for a detailed mechanical design Meets all radiological requirements Is thermally and mechanically robust May be upgraded to ultimate intensities May be used for an initial cost estimate. –Understand requirements for civil construction, if any, which would lead to a cost benefit analysis for an internal vs external absorber. Identify issues which would lead to an internal vs external absorber Bring FESS Civil Engineer on board –Assemble a team which could eventually proceed with a detailed mechanical design suitable for construction.

16. June 20, 200816 TASK: Revise Proton Driver Injection absorber design for Project X beam parameters Deliverables: (by Oct 1, 2008) –Documentation for the operational requirements for the injection absorber –Report on the shielding calculations which meet operational and fault conditions –Report on the results of mechanical and thermal analysis and specifications/requirements for RAW system David Johnson –Classification: Eng. Physicist –Percent Effort: 10% –Duration: 2 months –Task: Determine revised realistic beam parameters under normal operational conditions. Determine realistic fault conditions and expected beam parameters and duration. Coordinate shielding and mechanical calculations. Coordinate the generation of deliverables. Igor Rakhno –Classification: Scientist –Percent Effort: 30% –Duration 3 months –Task: perform shielding calculations based upon revised beam parameters and geometry, including accident conditions Bob Wands / his designee –Classification: Scientist /Engineer –Percent Effort: 30% –Duration 3 months –Task: Perform temperature and stress analysis for the proposed injection absorber configurations and beam parameters, including fault conditions. Generate initial specifications for RAW cooling system. Tony Parker / his designee –Classification: Engineer/drafter –Percent Effort: 20% –Duration 2 months –Task: create 3D model of injection absorber for inclusion in the Recycler injection model

17. June 20, 200817 Beam Line Collimation

18. June 20, 200818 PD Transport Line Transfer Line Design for Proton Driver Transfer Line for Project X will be very similar A B C D E F G foil debuncher Momentum collimation foil 21.8388 m BPM TrimQuad Foil (momentum collimation) Dipole 6.0706 0.1524 0.2023 0.1524 0.183 0.1524 2. 0 0. 15 24 0.0508 0.1524 0.4572 0.1524 0.5716 half quad Foil (betatron collimation) Betatron Coll. absorber

19. June 20, 200819 Option for Project X Transport Line The upstream end of the transport line remains unchanged. The new vertical bend section moves transport line further under MI-65 (needs to be verified) collimation New section

20. June 20, 200820 Transport line Collimation The function of the transfer line collimation is to safely remove large amplitude halo generated in the linac to reduce loss in the transport line and ring, shape the transverse beam size of the beam on the injection foil to minimize H- foil misses and minimize foil dimensions, and protect the beam line and Main Injector from errant beam pulses of the wrong energy with a momentum collimator, located at the maximum dispersion of the first arc. Betatron collimation 2 step process-> foil in front of quad strips large amplitude particles and quad de-focuses then drift to absorber Momentum collimation 2 step process -> foil in front of quad strips off- momentum particle and downstream dipoles sweep protons out of the beam line to an external absorber. Design each foil/absorber for a 1% loss as shown below Collimator360kW2MW Linac power Betatron3.6 kW20 kW Momentum (routine)3.6 kW20 kW Momentum (single pulse)72 kJoules200 kJoules

21. June 20, 200821 Tracking Simulation using TRACK which tracks H-,H+,H0 for only vertical collimation Will eventually add in all collimation points Just after foil Just after quad Just before absorber foils

22. June 20, 200822 Fixed or Movable Aperture Absorber? SNS utilizes a movable foils and fixed aperture absorber. Used for machine protection. –Problem when foils need to move closer beam misses absorber. We would like to utilize movable foils AND movable absorber aperture. –This complicates absorber design

23. June 20, 200823 FY08 Collimation Goals Produce a conceptual design for –Movable transverse collimation absorber –Fixed external momentum collimation absorber –which Meet mechanical, thermal, civil, radiological requirements Can be utilized as a basis for a cost estimate this fall Can be further developed into an engineering design

24. June 20, 200824 TASK: Conceptual Design of transverse collimation absorbers Deliverables –Document performance specifications –Produce a conceptual design of a movable jaw collimation system –Document initial results of radiation and shielding calculations –Document mechanical design and results of mechanical and thermal analysis David Johnson –Classification: Eng. Physicist –Percent Effort: 10% –Duration 4 months –Task: Generate operational specifications and beam handling parameters. Provide lattice geometry and tunnel specifications. Coordinate shielding and mechanical calculations, coordinate generation of deliverables Igor Rakhno –Classification: Scientist –Percent Effort: 30% –Duration 3 months –Task: Perform shielding calculations on transverse collimation system, suggest modifications/optimization of mechanical concept. Bob Wands and/ his designee –Classification: Scientist/Engineer –Percent Effort: 35% –Duration 3 months –Task: Create a conceptual mechanical design for movable transverse collimators and perform initial mechanical and thermal analysis

25. June 20, 200825 Action Items What do we need to do to get started? Are the currently defined deliverables and tasks appropriate? Any modifications? What level of drafting support do we need? Do we need to bring anyone else on board immediately? Regular meetings ? Frequency? AD ME support? FESS support? How do we address Linac Absorber? Should we combine the two (or three) tasks into a single working group?