1 / 11

Booster Collimator Review March 17, 2003 Peter Kasper

Booster Collimator Review March 17, 2003 Peter Kasper. Goals of the Review. Physics: Will the system be able to do what we want it to? Radiation: Have we properly addressed all the radiation issues? Thermal stresses: Will it melt or pull itself apart?

petercoleman
Download Presentation

Booster Collimator Review March 17, 2003 Peter Kasper

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Booster Collimator ReviewMarch 17, 2003Peter Kasper

  2. Goals of the Review • Physics: Will the system be able to do what we want it to? • Radiation: Have we properly addressed all the radiation issues? • Thermal stresses: Will it melt or pull itself apart? • Mechanical: Is the mechanical design sound? • Electrical and controls: Is the electronic design sound? • Installation and maintenance: Can we build and maintain it? • Project: Are our cost and schedule estimates reasonable? • What have we missed?

  3. Review Agenda • Overview and Background Info. (Peter Kasper ~10 min) • Physics and Radiation (Nikolai Mokhov ~30 min) • Thermal Calculations (Alex Chen ~10 min) • Mechanical Design and Installation (Larry Bartoszek ~30 min) • Electrical Design and Controls (Al Legan ~20 min) • Cost and Schedule (Larry Bartoszek ~20 min) • Note that we have allowed an hour for interactions with the committee so please feel free to ask questions.

  4. What Are We Trying to Achieve? • The Booster is being asked to accelerate protons at much higher rep-rates and with much higher intensities than has ever been contemplated in the past. • In order to control activation of Booster components so as to .. • avoid radiation damage to sensitive components (e.g. cables and connectors) • avoid excessive exposures to personnel, particularly in high maintenance areas (RF stations) • we need to intercept those protons that are doomed to be lost and ensure ... • they are lost at as low an energy as possible • they are lost in a location that is well shielded

  5. Specifications • The collimators should reduce losses at other locations around the ring without significantly impacting the overall efficiency. • They should be able to handle losses from .. • 20% of the beam at 400 MeV • plus 1% of the beam at 8 GeV • assuming 5E12 p/cycle @ 10 Hz • The shielding should such that under these conditions ... • The above ground radiation does not trip the Chipmunk detector • Activation of water in the sumps is within the allowed limits for surface discharge • Activation of the outside surfaces that are accessible to personnel is less than 100 mrem/hr

  6. Mechanical Specifications • The mechanical/electrical design should be such that .. • the apertures do no occlude any beam when in the out position • they can be remotely translated by 1.5 inches both horizontally and vertically • they can be remotely positioned to an accuracy of ~ 1mm • their orientation can be remotely corrected for pitch and yaw misalignments of up to +/- 10 mr. • The time required to move them from fully in to fully out should be no longer than a few minutes. • It should be possible to reliably disable the motion controls • All sensitive components should be serviceable without major disruptions to the program • It should be possible to completely remove them from the tunnel even after many months of beam.

  7. The Solution – Primary Collimators Two primary scattering foils Mounted on horizontal and vertical drives Installed in sector 5 mini-straights Foils scatter protons on the edges of the beam envelope The scattered beam in intercepted by the downstream secondary collimators

  8. The Scheme Appears to Work. • An early study compared losses around the ring with the vertical primary collimator in and out of the beam and constant efficiency. • Losses decreased everywhere except near the secondary collimator locations BLM’s with collimator out – BLM’s with collimator in

  9. Secondary Collimators – Old Design • Original design consisted of “L” shaped copper scrapers brazed to a copper beam pipe. • Stands and motors were designed to allow lots of room to stack steel shielding For testing purposes they were initially installed without shielding. A major design flaw was realized in January when we were ready to add the shielding. To access the collimator itself in the event of a catastrophic failure would require removing the shielding and exposing a VERY hot object. The design was abandoned. The system had been reviewed in October 2002.

  10. The Solution – New Secondary Collimators Three identical collimators Two in Long 6 One in Long 7 Shielding is integrated with the collimator motors, controls, and moving parts are protected from the radiation

  11. Summary • We believe we have a much better design that meets the requirements for serviceability. • The integrated shielding concept has the advantages that • ALL failure prone components are outside the shielding • The shielding is more uniform ( no cracks or gaps ) • It requires less steel because it makes maximal use of the available space • There are no air activation issues since there are no air pockets in regions of high radiation • But ... we do not want to repeat our past mistakes • So ...Please tell us what have we missed!

More Related