MYRRHADesignReview_Perrot - IPN

Report
MYRRHA / CDT
The MYRRHA HEBT
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
WP1 - GLOBAL ACCELERATOR DESIGN
High-energy beam lines
Starting point :
- the Central Design Team (CDT) for a fast spectrum transmutation experimental facility (FASTEF), EURATOM,
FP7, Grant Agreement N°: FP7-232527 [1]
- Deliverable D2.4 of the WP2, task 4. Accelerator design related issues
Authors : J.L. Biarrotte, L. Perrot, H. Saugnac (CNRS), A. Ferrari (HZDR), D. Vanderplassche (SCK-CEN)
Outlook :
1. Reference layout
2. Beam dynamic
3. Magnets
4. Beam Instrumentation
5. Mechanical design
6. Shielding and radioprotection
7. Additional issues
L. Perrot : perrot@ipno.in2p3.fr , CNRS-IN2P3-IPNO
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 1
MYRRHA / CDT
Introduction
The R&D program for the accelerator to MYRRHA ?
 The Central Design Team (CDT) for a fast spectrum transmutation experimental facility (FASTEF). It
is the next step next after FP6 IP-EUROTRANS. European program : 2009-2012.
“FASTEF is proposed to be designed to an advanced level for decision to embark for its construction at the horizon of 2012 with
the following objectives: to demonstrate the ADS technology and the efficient transmutation of high level waste; to operate as a
flexible irradiation facility; to contribute to the demonstration of the Lead Fast Reactor technology without jeopardising the above
objectives”
 The Myrrha Accelerator eXperiment (MAX) : http://ipnweb.in2p3.fr/MAX/
“To feed its sub‐critical core with an external neutron source, the MYRRHA facility requires a powerful proton accelerator (600
MeV, 4 mA) operating in continuous mode, and above all featuring a very limited number of unforeseen beam interruptions. The
MAX team, made up of accelerator and reliability experts from industries, universities and research organizations, has been set up
to respond to these very specific twofold specifications.”
CDT = R&D reactor+HEBT
MAX = R&D accelerator
We will be focus on the design of the final beam line which aims to transport the
600MeV, 4mA proton beam from the LINAC exit
- up to the spallation target located inside the reactor core,
- up to the 2.4MW beam dump
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 2
MYRRHA / CDT
1. Reference layout
HEBT :
 Transfer line from accelerator to the spallation target
 Prepare the beam spot requirements (shape, position, intensity and energy)
 Transfer line from accelerator with the beam-dump
 Provide a safe operation and maintenance
Proton Beam specifications :
  = 600; stability to ±1%
  = 4 ; stability to ±2%
  = 2.4
 Vertical injection
 «donut-shape» beam footprint on the spallation window with 85mm diameter and stability
to ±10%
 Reliability : interruptions < 10 longer than 3sec. during a 3 months operation. The constraint
is almost given by yhe accelerator
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 3
MYRRHA / CDT
1. Reference layout
From EUROTRANS [2] project, it was choosen the second conceptual
design (less components and lowest high of the reactor building [3].
 General layout compatible with reactor building produced by Empresarios
Agrupados, CDT WP3 (“Plant requirements”) [4]
90° bending magnet
Pole-face rot.=26.565°
 Beam line to reactor: layout FROZEN
Scanning device
24m
 Beam line to dump: not fully finish
45° rectangular
bending magnet
Quad triplet
26.5m
30m
Reactor
-45° rectangular
bending magnet
Dump
Object point
40m
Matching
38m downstream
the LINAC tunnel
Z=-2.5m ground
L. Perrot,
15m
Quad triplet
20° bending magnet
+2 quadrupoles
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 4
MYRRHA / CDT
1. Reference layout
 14 quadrupoles (L=0.5m, ⌀100mm, 3T/m max)
 2 dipoles 45° (ρ=3.2m, gap 100mm, 22.5° edges)
 1 dipole 90° (idem, 26.56° edges, radiation-hard)
90° bending magnet
Pole-face rot.=26.565°
 18 DC steerers (L=0.3m, 150G max), beam orbit correction
 2 AC steerers (L=0.3m, 150G max)
Scanning device
24m
 Pipe aperture = 100mm, in dipole=95mm
 Diagnostics boxes (in green), see later
 Beam losses have to be < 1nA/m like SNS [5] for
components activation and safe maintenance
45° rectangular
bending magnet
Quad triplet
 Vacuum < 10-7mbar
26.5m
 At the target window
mbar must be achieve
(beam losses ~0.05nA/m)
10-4
30m
 In case of incident with the beam in the HEBT :
Tswitch-off<50ms.
Reactor
-45° rectangular
bending magnet
Dump
Object point
40m
Matching
38m downstream
the LINAC tunnel
Z=-2.5m ground
L. Perrot,
15m
Quad triplet
Diagnostics
20° bending magnet
+2 quadrupoles
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 5
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
By construction, the line:
 is achromatic at 1st order (position & divergence on target independent of beam energy) : T16=T26=0
from LINAC to target
 has telescopic properties at 1st order (image size on target = 9 x object size at point 0) : T11=T33=9
between object point and target. Target beam size is control by the beam size at the matching object
point 0.
 Donut-shape beam footprint achieved with the AC scanning magnets. Circular movement with few
tens of Hz
 No focusing during the last 25m (reactor hall)
O
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 6
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
600MeV Protons beam envelopes at 3RMS, using TraceWin Code [6]
Normalized emittances: ex=0.242, ey=0.234, ez=0.291 p.mm.mard
Horizontal plane in blue, vertical plane in red
O
Without scanning
Beam phase space at the LINAC exit
L. Perrot,
T46 vertical dispersion
Beam phase space on the spallation window
Without scanning : RMSX,Y=9mm
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 7
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Target aspects: Why do you need the beam scanning ?
Reactor
The scanning devices not yet design
-- Horizontal
Scanning
25m
 Beam scanning must be done in order to protect the Pb-Bi target window
But :
 No space is involved inside the reactor hall (no quad, no instrumentation)
 Safety do not permit to install the scanning device after the last 90° dipole
 Donut shape is impose by the Pb-Bi liquid target cooling
 Maximum beam scanning amplitude is fixed by target windows + last 2 meters beam
pipe penetration inside the reactor core
 Scanning speed depend almost to target windows and Pb-Bi speed cooling
Need to 2 scanning dipoles located before the last 90° vertical dipole the maximum
amplitude have to be less than 150G with frequency close to 100Hz (not yet frozen)
-- Vertical
13kW/2.4MW
Beam phase space on target with scanning
Target window zone
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 8
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Impact of a energy jitter
 The beam target foot-print have to be not
sensitive to primary beam energy variation, which
is ensure by the first order achromatic line
 But between dipole, beam shift centroide is
dependant to T16. Therefore, dedicated
instrumentation have to be install like collimators,
ring losses or segmented collimators.
X Plane
Collimators / rings
Y Plane
Collimators / rings
Effect of a 0.5% beam shift energy
(3MeV / 600MeV)
“donut-shape” footprint
 Use to a raster magnets on X and Y, using a
(possibly redundant) set of fast steering
magnets operated at frequencies of several
tens of Hz
 Central trajectory is continuously deviate.
The ±9 mm RMS beam spot on target is
moved around the window centre in a circular
pattern of radius 20 mm.
 Octupole expander solution is not feasible
(see next slide)
L. Perrot,
Target window zone
Beam spot movement
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 9
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Multipole beam expander ?
Homogeneous beam density distribution can also be performed using a set of octupole
magnets in front of the target:
The first set of octupoles (1 or 2) produces a square homogeneous footprint
-
An additional turned octupole transforms the square in circle
60mm
120mm
-
This is a beautiful solution, but several drawbacks:
- Produces a lot of beam halo => has to be located near the final target
1. Impossible in our case
2. Tested location: upstream. Unmanageable (unless a possible 2nd order O-I system ...?)
- Extremely sensitive to any beam misalignment or beam size variation
=> For MYRRHA, it seems extremely complicated (if not impossible) to implement
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 10
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
O
Tuning method :
1.
Set the magnets to their theoretical value, & send a very low duty cycle beam (10 -4)
2.
Adjust DC steerers for orbit correction (alignment)
3.
Adjust QP1-3 => tune beam waist on 0 w/ desired size (1mm rms), using 3 transverse beam profil
detectors
4.
Adjust QP7-13 => achromaticity optimization using beam position monitor, target optical diagnostic.
5.
Adjust QP 4-6 => re-adjust desired beam size on target (9mm rms), check telescopic properties
6.
Recheck alignment & switch on + tune scanning device for obtain the “donut-shape” on target
7.
Increase step by step the beam duty cycle (chopper in the LEBT)
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 11
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Statistical error study
• Static errors are randomly applied to:
- Magnets (displacement, field error)
- Input beam (position, divergence, energy, emittance, intensity, mismatch)
• The beam tuning procedure is simulated step by step:
- static errors are corrected when possible
- errors on beam diagnostics measurements are taken into account
• Dynamic errors (mechanical vibrations, stability... ) are then randomly applied:
- These transient errors are not corrected
- Applied to magnets (displacement, field error) & input beam (position, divergence, energy,
emittance, intensity, mismatch)
• Iteration is performed to get good statistics:
- 100 different line configurations
- each one with a tracking involving 105 macro-particles
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 12
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Error calculations
1. Nominal 99% envelopes without errors, without scanning
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 13
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Error calculations
2. 99% envelopes with UNCORRECTED static errors (random distribution) , without
scanning
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 14
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Error calculations
3. 99% envelopes with CORRECTED static errors (same random distribution) , without
scanning
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 15
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Error calculations
4. 99% envelopes with CORRECTED static errors + uncorrected dynamic errors, without
scanning
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 16
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Error calculations: beam losses
Possible losses on collimator:
Losses on final tube:
- Min = 0, Max = 29kW
- Min = 0.5kW, Max = 110kW
- Mean = 0.3 kW, RMS = 3kW
- Mean = 15 kW, RMS = 14kW
=> Losses in 1% cases
from 107 particles
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 17
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Error calculations: trajectories
Mean orbit (X)
Mean orbit (Y)
RMS orbit (X)
RMS orbit (Y)
This error study is quite insufficient to get to definitive conclusions, but gives already good orders of magnitude for the
required tolerances and a good feeling of the general situation. We need a end-to-end accelerator errors calculation
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 18
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Error calculations: target footprint : fluctuations are considered acceptable
X rms size
Footprint (log scale)
L. Perrot,
Y rms size
Footprint (linear scale)
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 19
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Error calculations: sensitivity
•
•
Errors impacting the orbit excursion through the line (i.e. beam losses)
1.
Beam energy jitter: ±1MeV => 5 mm rms deviation (DYNAMIC)
2.
BPM precision: ±0.5mm => 2 mm rms deviation (STATIC)
3.
Magnets alignement: ±0.3mm => 1 mm rms deviation (STATIC)
4.
Dipole field stability: ±2.10-5 => 0.5mm rms deviation (DYNAMIC)
Errors impacting the position on target
1. Input beam divergence jitter: ±0.01mrad => 0.7mm rms (DYNAMIC)
2. Input beam position jitter: ±0.1mm => 0.6mm rms (DYNAMIC)
3. Dipole field stability: ±2.10-5 => 0.5mm rms (DYNAMIC)
4. Quadrupoles mechanical vibrations: ±10mm => 0.4mm rms (DYNAMIC)
5. Beam energy jitter: ±1MeV => 0.3mm rms deviation (DYNAMIC)
6. Dipole mechanical vibration (Y): ±10mm => 0.2mm rms (DYNAMIC)
• Errors impacting the spot size on target
1. Quadrupoles gradient stability: ±10-3 => 0.15mm rms (DYNAMIC)
2. Beam energy jitter: ±1MeV => 0.1mm rms (DYNAMIC)
3. Beam profiler precision measurement: ±0.5mm => 0.1mm rms (STATIC)
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 20
MYRRHA / CDT
2. Beam dynamic studies
Beam line to dump
Tuning the beam line from p-source up to HEBT (commissioning, tuning & check)
•
Present layout of the line:
3s beam envelops
 20° dipole to avoid neutron back
streaming & ease the maintenance
 2 quadrupoles to defocus beam on dump
with 210mm diameter
•
 240mm larger beam vacuum pipe along
the final 6m
Beam dump design
 Preliminary design from the
1 MW PSI proton dump (larger)
 Required shielding, preliminary study
performed
 Detailed mechanical & thermal
assessments to be done
15m
 Power losses = 2-3kW/cm²
 600MeV protons range in Copper = 25cm
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 21
MYRRHA / CDT
3. Magnets
Quadrupoles
2 series of quadrupoles : 14 for the beam main HEBT line (Q-50), 2 for the beam-dump line (Q-100)
 Quadrupole design & size choose for minimize fringe fields & others higher orders contribution
 Current density from 2 up to 10 A/mm²
 Water cooling < 10 bars
 Radiation-hard materials (low carbon steel)
Design can be closed to the SNS quadrupoles
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 22
MYRRHA / CDT
3. Magnets
Dipoles
600MeV protons => Br=4 Tm => Dipole radius = 3.2m
 4 magnets
 3 angles of deviation : 20° (beam-dump line), 45° (x2) and 90° (up to reactor)
 C-type magnets (except for 20° magnet)
 Reliability have to be taking into account (coils design)
 Radiation-hard materials especially for 90° and 20° magnet
POISSON calculation of a basic 90° dipole magnet
for MYRRHA/FASTEF. 2. 10-4 Field homogeneity
is achievable in the “good field region”.
Design can be closed to the CNAO cancer therapy
facility in Italy [7]
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 23
MYRRHA / CDT
3. Magnets
Steering and scanning magnets
Steering magnets are used for the orbit correction
 DC power supply
 Number = 18 (9 for horizontal plane, 9 for vertical plane)
 Magnetic length = 30cm
 Aperture = 110mm
 Working range : -500G<B<500G
 RMS operating value = 85G
Orbit correction DC steerer used at the CNAO
facility (Italy)
Scanning magnet : produce the beam «donut-shape» on the Pb-Bi window
 AC power supply
 Number = 2 (X&Y) or 4 for redundancy
 Magnetic length = 30cm
 Aperture = 110mm
 Working range = -150G<B<150G
 Frequency : to be defined (~few hundreds of Hertz)
Prototype of a 500 Hz 500G scanner magnet
developed at Los Alamos for the APT project [8]
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 24
MYRRHA / CDT
4. Beam Instrumentation
Overview
Beam diagnostics and control systems will be deployed all along the final beam transport line in order to tune the beam, maintain
normal operation according to specifications, and protect the beam line equipments in case of malfunctioning.
 beam intensity measurement current monitors (accuracy <1%),
 beam loss monitors for trigger interlocks for beam switch off (DT<1ms)
 Optical system (VIMOS like system at PSI [9] for beam footprint on target monitor and survey. For MYRRHA, need a
dedicated R&D
 Couple of halo scrappers and wire profilers should also be used if possible (this will probably not be the case) in the last
straight section for redundancy.
 At the exit of the 90° bending magnet, halo monitors for checking the beam center and size are roughly correct.
 Standard beam diagnostics (position and size)
Diagnostics type and usage for beam transfer line
Main beam diagnostic devices along the HEBT
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 25
MYRRHA / CDT
Few details
PSI BPM: capacitive pick-ups or
magnetic loops symmetrically
arranged in the pipe wall
4. Beam Instrumentation
Beam profiler : electron secondary
emission or wire scanner
Energy : ToF technique = 3 pick-up capacitive electrodes
SPIRAL2
SPIRAL2
L=20 needed to obtain
(/)<10-3
PSI
Current : fundamental for the
reactor monitoring
TM01-mode coaxial
resonator (aluminum,
with a 10μm coating
layer of silver to
improve the electrical
conductivity)
DCCT :
average beam
current
ACCT : single
bunch
monitoring
Halo & Losses : tuning phase + safety
(machine protection) : <1nA/m loss level
Loss Ring : particle
interactions induce
currents, size adapted
to the beam size,
material Cu, Ni, Mo or
C, cooling may be
necessary, sub-sections
can be useful
BLM : detectors
implantation
around the beam
tube. 6 along the
HEBT to ensure
the 1nA/m loss
level
Target monitoring : measure the beam size + position close the
target. Crucial & challenging measurement for MYRRHA
Beam have to be monitored continuously (deviation from tight
reference values and peak power density feed-back).
Optical technic like VIMOS (at SINQ - PSI) or TIS (SNS):
Thermal incandescence
Cr/Al2O3 fluorescence
Optical transition radiation (OTR)
He fluorescence (from fill gaz in line)
-
SPIRAL2
PSI
SPIRAL2
L. Perrot,
PSI ionisation
chamber
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 26
MYRRHA / CDT
5. Mechanical design
 First conceptual design of the whole high energy part of the line and its integration inside the reactor
building.
 We take into account the design of the reactor and the definition of the building
 Separated in different parts, due to the various security constraints
 Safety requirements have an important impact on the building design, the accessibility and the
mounting/dismounting procedures
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 27
MYRRHA / CDT
5. Mechanical design
Part 1 :
Part 2 :
-
-
beam axis =+1.5m to the floor
Corridor 5m large
Beam line not centered (3m right) for accessibility
No crane
alignment done with “Laser Tracker”
45° inclined line, length = 30m
Part of the beam dump casemate in this hall
Crane of 50 tons capacity
BD line in a 20° deviation. Reduction of the neutrons
backscattering and better access for the handling
Part 3 :
- Tunnel of 22 metres long, 6.5 metres large and 10
metres height
- Crane of 50 tons capability, common with part 2
10-7 mbar vacuum specification (not yet study) :
 Vacuum components and fittings will be ConFlat® type
 Turbo-molecular pumping group with 200 l/s capacity.
 1 pump placed each 3m.
Each component subjected to alignment adjustments (magnets,
diagnostic boxes, collimators…) has to be installed using bellows
allowing enough longitudinal and lateral displacement.
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 28
MYRRHA / CDT
5. Mechanical design
Part 4 : 90° magnet zone
- Backscattered neutrons from reactor => hot cell probably
- Need to specific material, remote handling and nuclear waste
capabilities
- Pumping system of the vertical line & 90° dipole will be in
this section (200l/s turbo + 16m3/h primary)
- 50 tons crane
- Fast valve before and after concrete wall
- Vertical port for beam foot-print detection system and/or
neutron dump coming from reactor.
Part 5 : Beam line inside the reactor hall
-
High activation zone.
Need complete isolation, full remote and lateral handling.
Less active components must be chosen
Reactor access imposed to dismount the line
No pumping system in this section




3 parts for the line
Alignment is a major concern
Vacuum at the spallation window fixed to 10-4mbar
2 Fast valves (15ms closing time) for protection against
the window breaking and accelerator failure (like
cryogenic accidents)
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 29
MYRRHA / CDT
5. Mechanical design
Part 6 : Beam line casemate: Conceptual design
A 2.4 MW, full power beam dump, based on the 1.2 MW PSI proton beam dump, is foreseen to allow the
commissioning of the MYRRHA accelerator independently from the reactor.
 The conceptual design of the MYRRHA beam-dump is taken from the 1.2MW PSI existing dump [10].
 Dump is handled from the top using the common 50 tons crane (part 2 & 3).
 Due to the 20° deviation. It is not necessary to dismount the line.
 Beam power deposition on 6 blocks (PSI=4 blocks), length=3m
 Material : Copper but need to be optimized considering the high level of activation. High density carbon fiber
surrounded by stainless steel can by a useful alternative
The beam dump casemate=Hot cell
15 m deep, concrete wall to 5m thickness, 20
tons crane
10 m
30
m
9m
L. Perrot,
Structure of the 1.2 MW PSI proton beam dump
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 30
MYRRHA / CDT
6. Shielding and radioprotection
The goal of the shielding design is to guarantee that, under normal operational conditions, the added integrated
dose to anybody working around the FASTEF/MYRRHA accelerator is extremely small, i.e. comparable or
smaller than the natural background. To reach this goal one must rely on:
 the use of conservative beam loss assumptions;
 the use of a conservative shielding model;
 the assumption of an occupancy factor = 1, that means 2000 hours/year occupancy close to the outer
shielding wall (at the maximum dose rates).
First evaluations have been performed during the PDS-XADS project, considering a continuous 1 nA/m proton loss at
600 MeV. This is equivalent to a mean beam loss level of about 0.6 W/m.
Required concrete/earth combined thickness at
600 MeV to reach the 0.5 μSv/h dose rate level.
For 600MeV protons
 Shielding issues in the reactor building impact strongly on the
90° dipole shielding. Concrete walls and roofs up to 5 m thick
would therefore be needed to reach the 0.5 μSv/h dose rate
outside the facility.
 Shielding issues around the beam dump : the BD design must
satisfy the shielding requirements & minimize the
backscattered neutron & minimize the BD activation
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 31
MYRRHA / CDT
6. Shielding and radioprotection
Activation
Main problems :
 Activation of the elements devoted to the beam absorption (beam dump)
 Activation of the material of the line due to beam losses
Calculations preformed using the FLUKA MonteCarlo code [11] which give :
- Particle fluences
- Ambient dose equivalent
- Time evolution of the activation products (build-up and decay of radionuclides)
Calculation on various “targets” (Carbon, Copper, AlSl-316L, Aluminium, Iron)
Residual (in μSv/h) around 100 m beamline, for two representative cooling times
after a short and a long-term irradiation.
Neutron fluence (n/cm2 per beam
proton) in and around the target
Residual dose rate around the carbon target, at different cooling times
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 32
MYRRHA / CDT
6. Shielding and radioprotection
Optimisation of the beam dump zone
Full absorption of the 600MeV protons beam
We have already presented a structure closed to the 1.2MW PSI beam-dump. Advantage of the know how but
secondary neutrons and activation are very high.
We have explore an alternative solution for the safety studies with a soft material as dump core (Carbon) surrounded by
a high-Z shielding structure (stainless steel). Smaller neutron yield and less activation problems.
Dose rate (in mSv/h)
Neutron fluence (n/cm2 per primary proton)
in the dump concrete cage of the dump casemate
Copper core
Copper core
Carbon core +
stainless steel
Carbon core +
stainless steel
The soft Carbon core solution is clearly a good candidate
Beam dynamic and mechanical integration not yet study
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 33
MYRRHA / CDT
7. Additional issues
Adaptation of the final layout
The building detailed definition is still in progress, and will probably keep moving slightly until the start of the
MYRRHA construction. It is therefore important to ensure that the beam line layout will be able to adapt to these
changes as much as possible without major consequences.
Possible beam line adaptations in the case of a reactor height increase
Study of a radiatively cooled cold window
Vacuum protection of the final beam line in case of a target window failure
Third passive protection in addition to the fast valves : use a thin metallic foil able to sustain high temperature gradients without
perturbing too much the beam optics. In existing (low-power) accelerators, titanium foils of a few hundreds of μm are typically used.
Study of a 100mm diameter 400mm thick Titanium using LISE++ code [12]. Eloss=0.33MeV, Ploss=1.3kW => fusion of the window (need
to have a 30cm beam size (including halo) which is not reasonable.
Using a cold window seems to be quite unrealistic
Study of a water cooled cold window
J-PARC
ESS
prototype
SNS/JPARC : Inconel 718 (1.5 to 2 mm thickness) separated by a 1.6 to 3 mm gap in
which water flows (at typically 10 bars)
ESS project : Aluminum tube cooled by Helium at 40 bars
Apply to our case with the SNS/JPARC solution, Ploss=27kW
 Beam emittance increase by a factor 10 (sx’,y’ from 0.4mrad up to 4mrad) => not
compatible with a window location at 25m up to the spallation window
 Activation of this cold window
 Need to be located very near the target itself
SNS feedback can be an extremely important issue for MYRRHA
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 34
MYRRHA / CDT
Conclusion
HEBT for the MYRRHA project
A beam line from the LINAC up to the reactor
The goal of the MYRRHA/FASTEF final high‐energy beam line is to safely inject the proton beam onto the
spallation target located inside the reactor

Consolidated design of the beam line to reactor achieved

AC steering magnets are preferred for the beam scanning

Error study shows very robust behavior (sensitivity in the X-plane may be optimised)

Need start-to-end error studies

Near-target optical device appears to be mandatory to be able to correctly tune and monitor the beam
shape on target.

First detailed mechanical design is described for each part of the line

First shielding and activation calculations have been performed

Beam dump design on-going, need to be study in details (structure…)
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 35
MYRRHA / CDT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
References
J.L. Biarrotte, L. Perrot, H. Saugnac (CNRS), A. Ferrari (HZDR), D Vanderplassche (SCK-CEN), Accelerator design
related issues, February 2012, deliverable D2.4 of the WP2 task 4 to the CDT project, Seventh Framework Program
EURATOM, Grant Agreement N° FP7-232527
J-L. Biarrotte et al. – “Accelerator design, performances, costs & associated road-map”, Deliverable (D1.74) of the
EUROTRANS project, March 2010.
L. Mansini – Minutes of the CDT WP2 3rd technical meeting, Mol, 14-15 November 2010.
Drawings package N° 092-204 by Empresarios Agrupados.
J. Galambos – “Operational experience with high power beams at the SNS superconducting linac”, Proc. of the
LINAC’2008 conference, Victoria, Canada.
TraceWin Code : http://irfu.cea.fr/Sacm/logiciels/index.php
W. Beeckman et al, “Magnetic design improvement and construction of the large 90° bending magnet of the vertical beam
delivery line of CNAO”, Proc. Of the EPAC 2008 conference, Genoa, Italy.
M.E. Schuze et al., “Testing of a Raster Magnet System for Expanding the APT Proton Beam”, Proc. of the PAC’99
conference, New York, USA.
K. Thomsen, “VIMOS beam monitoring for SINQ”, Proc. of the DIPAC’2009 workshop, Basel, Switzerland.
See http://aea.web.psi.ch/Urs_Rohrer/MyWeb/pkanal.htm
A. Ferrari, P. Sala, A. Fassò, J.Ranft, “FLUKA: A multi-particle transport code”, CERN-2005-10 (2005), INFN/TC_05/11,
SLAC-R-773.
O.B. Tarasov, D. Bazin, “LISE++: Radioactive beam production with in-flight separators”, NIM B 266 (2008) 4657–4664.
L. Perrot,
MYRRHA accelerator 1st International Design Review
Page 36

similar documents