1. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 1 Anna Ferrari An overview of the shielding problems around high energy laser-accelerated beams Anna Ferrari Institute of Safety Research and Institute of Radiation Physics Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany

2. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 2 Anna Ferrari  Key aspects in the shielding strategy  The example of the ELI facility in Czech Republic: Outline A look at the facility Characterization of the source terms for the electron and the proton case FLUKA Monte Carlo simulation to optimize the longitudinal shielding

3. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 3 Anna Ferrari We have to deal with a rapidly evolving field, where many parameters that are important for the radiation protection cannot be completely frozen at this stage: - Conservative and rigorous approach (realistic, not pessimistic) - Flexible solutions where possible Key aspects in the shielding strategy  evaluated spectra of the secondary particles can evolve (  source terms characterization can evolve !)  the workload (shots/day) can increase with the increased experience and technological improvements

4. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 4 Anna Ferrari A look at the design of the ELI facility in Czech Republic

5. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 5 Anna Ferrari Target areas e - acceleration area Proton acceleration area

6. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 6 Anna Ferrari  0.1 Hz proton beamlines Laser parameters: 1.5 kJ, 30 fs, 50 PW, =0.8  m, 5x10 23 W/cm2 Target parameters: 1  m, solid H Proton beam parameters: Ecut-off = 4 GeV, h = 20% (Davis et al., 40 fs, 5x10 23 W/cm 2,1 mm - H) Ecut-off = 3.7 GeV (OSIRIS sim., 15 fs, 5x10 23 W/cm2) Assumptions for simulations: 3 GeV (rectangular distribution), 6x10 11 p/pulse,  E = 300 MeV, Div.=40° Definition of the source terms: the most critical cases in energy  0.1 Hz electron beamlines Laser parameters: 300 J, 280 fs,  1 PW, =0.8  m, f=130 mm, f/# >100, a 0 =2 Acceleration Regime: Blowout regime, external injection, L acc =530 cm Electron beam parameters: 41 GeV, 1.3 nC Assumptions for simulations: 50 GeV (Gaussian distribution), 1.5 nC,  E/E=10%, Div.=1°

7. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 7 Anna Ferrari  10 Hz proton beamlines Laser parameters: 50 J, 20 fs, 2.5 PW, =0.8  m, 10 22 W/cm 2 Target parameters: 1  m, solid H Proton beam parameters: Ecut-off = 500 MeV, h = 35% (Davis et al., 40 fs, 10 22 W/cm 2,1  m - H) Assumptions for simulations: 200 MeV (rectangular distribution), 10 12 p/pulse,  E = 10 MeV, Div.=4° Definition of the source terms: the most critical cases in intensity  10 Hz electron beamlines Laser parameters: 50 J, 80 fs,  0.6 PW, =0.8  m, f=130 mm, f/#  40, a 0 =5 Acceleration Regime: Blowout regime, self injection Electron beam parameters: 3.7 GeV, 1 nC Assumptions for simulations: 5 GeV (Gaussian distribution), 1 nC,  E/E=10%, Div.=1°

8. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 8 Anna Ferrari Reasonable actual assumptions for the beamline working time: 0.1 Hz: 100 shots/day (  15 min/day) 10 Hz: 6000 shots/day (10 min/day) Project goals: Public: 0.1 mSv/year (1/10 of the legal limit) Workers: 1 mSv/year A factor 10 has been “implicitly” taken into account, in view of future development Operational time and dose limits

9. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 9 Anna Ferrari Steps of the radiation protection Monte Carlo calculations 1. Characterization of the source terms for the Monte Carlo, realistic description of the chamber around (Astra GEMINI model has been assumed) 2. Characterization of a beam dump model, to be optimized for the material choice and dimensions (it must guarantee the appropriate longitudinal and lateral radiation containment) 3. Evaluation of the fluences of the secondary fields and of the total doses (in terms of Ambient Dose Equivalent)

10. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 10 Anna Ferrari Fluence - H*(10) conversion coefficients in FLUKA Conversion coefficients from fluence to ambient dose equivalent are based on ICRP74 values and values calculated by M.Pelliccioni. They are implemented for protons, neutrons, charged pions, muons, photons, electrons (conversion coefficients for other particles are approximated by these). In the card: AMB74 is the default choice for dose equivalent calculation

11. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 11 Anna Ferrari Main contributors and problems of a monomaterial dump 50 GeV case dN/dlogE d  (part GeV -1 sr -1 per primary Muons exiting from the dump E(GeV) Processes included: - muon production from pion decay - direct photomuon production Muons Muon fluence rate (muon cm -2 s -1 ) Monomaterial dump in AISI-316L, 4 m long

12. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 12 Anna Ferrari Main contributors and problems of a monomaterial dump Neutron fluence rate (neutrons cm -2 s -1 ) 50 GeV case Huge amount of backscattered radiation Neutrons

13. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 13 Anna Ferrari 10 nSv/day  if 1 y = 300 days (10 months), we have only 3  Sv/y ! Even if this solution is satisfactory under the point of view of the dose rate beyond the shielding wall, it is not good under the point of view of the backscattered radiation and of the induced radioactivity

14. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 14 Anna Ferrari Any solution good for the 50 GeV, 0.1 Hz case is automatically fully satisfactory for the 5 GeV, 10 Hz case 5 GeV case

15. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 15 Anna Ferrari The idea of a multimaterial dump II. use borated polyethylene in the external part to absorb the moderated neutrons coming from the center of the dump I. use not only one material at high Z but a suitable soft material (high density graphite) as dump core (surrounded by a high-Z shielding). Advantages: - smaller neutron yield - much less activation problems - energy deposition over a wider range the build-up region of the secondary radiation produced in the interaction with beam dump moves toward the central part of the dump, with a more effective shielding (the hardest part of the secondary radiation is confined inside the dump  autoshielding effect)

16. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 16 Anna Ferrari Results I : 50 GeV electrons, 0.1 Hz 60 cm borated polyetilene E(GeV)

17. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 17 Anna Ferrari 10 nSv/day in the 100 shots/day hypothesis in the 1000 shots/day hypothesis, only 100 nSv/day 3-mat dump: - borated polyethylene - core in carbon fiber surrounded by AISI-316L Source Pipe end Dump Poly-Bor + C St. steel Wall 0.01  Sv/d H*(10) longitudinal profile

18. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 18 Anna Ferrari Results II : 3 GeV protons, 0.1 Hz Neutron fluence Proton fluence 3-mat dump: - borated polyethylene - carbon fiber - AISI-316L

19. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 19 Anna Ferrari H*(10) rate in the 1000 shots/day hyp. Ambient dose equivalent rate

20. ELI-NP: the way ahead, 10-12 March 2011 20 Anna Ferrari Conclusions Main aspects of the shielding assessment in target areas of the ELI-Czech Republic facility have been fixed: the source terms for electron and proton beams have been set the shielding study in the electron and in the proton hall is almost complete in the worst cases (in energy and in beam intensity): the choice of of a 3-mat structure (borated polyethylene + a core in carbon fiber surrounded by a cylinder in stainless steel/iron ) is optimal for the dump design both in the electron and in the proton case we hope that this experience can be useful for the shielding assessment of the ELI-NP laser areas