1. Beam loads & dump concepts T. Kramer, B. Goddard, M. Benedikt, Hel. Vincke

2. 29/05/2008 T. Kramer AB-BT-TL 2 Processes & Methods We started with worst case assumptions to keep the full flexibility for operations If process shows a non-feasibility or a progressive scale of prices, “settings” have to be re-evaluated  Identification of functionalities  Beam loads for functionalities  Dump concept

3. 29/05/2008 T. Kramer AB-BT-TL 3 Main PS2 design parameters and key assumptions for the dump load calculations Assumed 200 days of operation Maximum of 1.08 x 10 21 protons /y All calculations are done in a rather conservative way Injection energy (T)GeV4 Extraction energy (T)GeV50 Maximum beam intensity p+p+ 1.5  10 14 Minimum cycle period to 50 GeVs2.4 Maximum norm.emittance (H-V) .mm.mrad 15.0-8.0 Cycles per year7,200,000 Protons accelerated per year p+p+ 1.08  10 21

4. 29/05/2008 T. Kramer AB-BT-TL 4 O perational Aspects (1/2) - Dump Functionalities Injection line setting up Fast injection setting up H- Injection Emergency abort Machine development Machine setting up Extraction line setting up Slow extraction ‘remaining beam’

5. 29/05/2008 T. Kramer AB-BT-TL 5 H- Injection (unstripped beam and setting-up) 6.4x10 19 p.a. (5.92%) @ 4 GeV Emergency beam abort assumed 0.5% of cycles dumped 5.4x10 18 (0.5%) particles p.a. (50% @ 4- 20 GeV) Machine setting up 6 days (2 per beam); 20% of full intensity 6.5x10 18 p.a. (0.6%) (50% @ 4-20GeV) Machine development 100h p.a. 20% of full intensity 4.3x10 18 p.a. (0.4%) (50% @ 4-20 GeV) Estimated beam loads Particles remaining after slow extraction Max. 1 % remaining particles; 50 GeV; operational 50% p.a.; 3.6s cycle 3.6x10 18 p.a. (0.33%) Fast injection setting up and failures 1 day p.a.; 20% dumped; 100 failures p.a. 1.08x10 18 p.a. (0.1%) @ 4 GeV Setting up of injection transfer line 4 days p.a.; 10% intensity; 20 foil exchange interventions; 3.06x10 18 p.a. (0.28%) @ 4 GeV Setting up of extraction transfer line 2 days p.a.; 30% intensity; 3.25x10 18 p.a. (0.3%) @ 50 GeV

6. 29/05/2008 T. Kramer AB-BT-TL 6 Unstripped beam 2 kW unstripped H -,H 0 (95% efficiency) 5.4x10 19 p.a. (5%) Yearly startup 8x10 18 p.a. (0.75%) Setting up Injection systems / foil exchange 1.8x10 18 p.a. (0.16%) Main Issue: Beam Loads from H - Injection

7. 29/05/2008 T. Kramer AB-BT-TL 7 Operational aspects (2/2): Internal emergency dump Possible solution: Internal dump only takes the beam which really has to go there  (8x10 18 4-20 GeV + 2.7x10 18 p@50 GeV p.a.) Whenever there is time to extract the beam safely, a beam line dump is used (slow extraction, machine development, setting-up,....  (5.5x10 18 @ 20-50 GeV + 6.9x10 18 @ 50GeV p.a. ) External dump at end of a beamline to a well-shielded area? Advantages System is easier to build, cheaper, desirable from point of operations, “some internal dump” to set up the extraction is anyway needed Disadvantage If operated like the SPS dump a very high beam load is expected - Radiation source within the machine

8. 29/05/2008 T. Kramer AB-BT-TL 8 Summary of beam loads FunctionE [GeV]Load [p + ] % of total Possible beam destinations Injection transfer line dump Internal fast injection dump Internal or external H - dump Internal or external emergency dump Injection line setting up43.1x10 18 0.28X Fast injection setting up41.1x10 18 0.10X H - injection losses46.4x10 19 5.92X Emergency abort4-202.7x10 18 0.25X Machine development4-202.2x10 18 0.20X Machine setting up4-203.3x10 18 0.30X FunctionE [GeV]Load [p + ]% of total Possible beam destinations Internal or external emergency dump External beamline or transfer line dump Emergency abort20-502.7x10 18 0.25X Machine development20-502.2x10 18 0.20XX Machine setting up20-503.3x10 18 0.30XX Extraction line setting up503.3x10 18 0.30 X Slow extraction beam503.6x10 18 0.33XX Table 1: Beam loads @ “high Energy” Table 2: Beam loads @ “low Energy”

9. 29/05/2008 T. Kramer AB-BT-TL 9 External beam line dump PS2 extraction line dump TED External H- injection dump PS2 injection transfer line dump TED(s) Internal fast injection dump Internal emergency dump SPS TT12 EAs PS2 TT10 from SPL Schematic overview

10. 29/05/2008 T. Kramer AB-BT-TL 10 Conclusion & Summary PS2 dump Beam loads [p + /y] 4 GeV4-20 GeV20-50 GeV50 GeV 1. PS2 injection transfer line dump3.1x10 18 --- 2. Internal fast injection dump1.1x10 18 --- 3. External H - injection dump6.4x10 19 --- 4. Internal emergency dump-8.2x10 18 2.7x10 18 - 5. External beamline dump--5.5x10 18 6.9x10 18 Main Issue: H - dump Different dumps to be used in main operations (internal/external) No “showstoppers”

12. Residual dose rate to be expected around the various beam dumps Study is based on activation calculations of a TED beam stopper The TED beam stopper is used in the SPS beam extraction lines to the CNGS/LHC A similar beam absorber is used as dump in the SPS Although this type dump is often used, it is not the ideal choise to minimize the production of residual dose rate Carbon Tungsten Copper Aluminum Iron Dimensions: Length: 430 cm Diameter: 96 cm Beam TED in TT40 tunnel (SPS extraction line) Area used for calculations

13. Irradiation and cool down parameters used for the calculations TED Irradiation: 10 years of operation consisting each of 200 days of beam operation and 165 days shutdown Residual dose rates were calculated for 5 different cool down periods after the last 200 days of irradiation 1 hour1 day 1 week1 month1 year

14. Detailed results will be presented for the external beam line dump (scenario showing highest radiation levels) The residual dose rate results for the other four dumps will be presented in a summarized way. Results

15. Residual dose rate seen around the external beam dump after 10 years of operation and a cool down period of 1 hour

16. Residual dose rate seen around the external beam dump after 10 years of operation and a cool down period of 1 day

17. Residual dose rate seen around the external beam dump after 10 years of operation and a cool down period of 1 week

18. Residual dose rate seen around the external beam dump after 10 years of operation and a cool down period of 1 month

19. Residual dose rate seen around the external beam dump after 10 years of operation and a cool down period of 1 year

20. Summurized results for all beam dumps

21. Residual dose rate seen at the side of the TED Dose rate at 1 m distance is approximately a factor three below the shown values Dose rate is higher than the one seen at SPS high energy dump Dose rate is lower than the one seen at SPS high energy dump

22. Residual dose rate seen at the hot spot of the TED (beam entry point) Dose rate is higher than the one seen at SPS high energy dump Dose rate is lower than the one seen at SPS high energy dump

23. Summary Significant effort has to be put into the design of the dumps and its surroundings External dumps must be designed with a bigger graphite core surrounded by heavy shielding. TED like beam dump is not sufficient. Design considerations for internal dumps: Design of internal beam dumps needs to be optimized in terms of residual radiation reduction (e.g.: marble layer). Bypass tunnel, or larger tunnel section around dump allowing to place shielding between dump and passage. Residual dose rate calculations showed that radiation levels in the surroundings of the external beam dumps and the internal emergency dumps are higher than those seen around the SPS beam dump. Operation of the two other internal dumps cause lower dose rates than seen around the SPS beam dumps Conclusion

24. General radiation protection issues to be considered for the PS2 project Taking into account the given annual intensity and energy of the PS2 beam, the potential to activate material, air or water will be three times higher than in the case of the CNGS facility. For the realization of the PS2 project significant effort is required to comply with the given Radiation Protection constraints. E.g.: Remote control possibilities in high radioactive areas Radioactive air and water management Radioactive material handling and waste management Shielding...