1 / 18

New SPS scraping system: preliminary RP remarks

New SPS scraping system: preliminary RP remarks. Helmut Vincke DGS-RP. Contents . RP considerations for the BA6 scraping operation Considerations for the BA1 scraping operation Scraping BA6 versus BA1 from the RP point of view

gur
Download Presentation

New SPS scraping system: preliminary RP remarks

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. New SPS scraping system: preliminary RP remarks Helmut Vincke DGS-RP

  2. Contents • RP considerations for the BA6 scraping operation • Considerations for the BA1 scraping operation • Scraping BA6 versus BA1 from the RP point of view • RP tools to choose “good” materials for designing the scraping systems • Summary

  3. Prompt dose rate issues in BA6 • No issue for personnel (in contrast to previously planned LSS4 installation) since no adjacent working area is present • Radiation to equipment issues have to be studied.

  4. Residual dose rate

  5. First estimation concerning residual dose rate: Generic studies concerning the SPS beam impact on a 1 m long carbon collimator* Irradiation situation of this study resembles to a certain extent the unshielded scraping situation in BA6. Parameters considered: Beam line elements • Beam operation: 3E16 protons on collimator during 200 days. • 5 cooling times • 1 hour • 12 hours • 1 days • 1 week • 1 month Concrete wall TCDI (carbon) collimator Beam *Estimates are based on the report “CERN-SC-2004-018-RP-TN”:Remnant dose rates in the area of a TCDI collimator after 200 days of normal operation and after an accidental beam loss; Helmut Vincke

  6. Results Dose rate after 3E16 protons in 200 days + 1 month of cooling • The area surrounding the scraper and the following objects in the tunnel will show high radiation levels after scraping operation • Short term irradiations with higher beam loss rate than the average annual beam loss will cause higher short term residual dose rate levels as shown above mSv/h

  7. BA6 radiation survey data comparison: 2012 versus 2004 End of 2004 beam operation to West Area stopped. This resulted in a drop of lost particles in this area  reduction of residual dose rate in BA6 Comparison of the situations in BA6 in the years 2012 and 2004 • Beam extraction in 2012: • Annual intensity of < 2E17 protons were extracted in BA6, • low losses due to fast extraction • Beam extraction in 2004: • Annual intensity: 1.3E18 protons on T1 target, • slow extraction in BA6  beam loss level: several %.  several 1E16 protons lost during the extraction operation •  Losses in 2004 in BA6 are comparable to losses due to future beam scraping

  8. Radiation survey data comparison 2012 versus 2004 ZS MST MSE MKE • Conclusions: • Losses from slow extraction caused high radiation levels in BA6. • 8 years after slow extraction in BA6: maximum radiation levels were strongly reduced. • For unshielded scraping operation in BA6 we have to expect radiation levels similar to those of 2004.  appropriate shielding of scraping system required

  9. Scraping operation in BA1 Impact on residual dose rate environment: Is there any significant effect in terms of dose rate compared to the dose rate environment given by the dump operation? Scraping in BA1 (Section 117) started in 2011. In case there are significant losses compared to the regular losses on the dump system, the residual dose rate in LSS1 would increase when being compared to residual dose rates after “no scraping operation years” (e.g.: 2010) Comparison of residual dose rates seen in 2010, 2011 and 2012 around LSS1

  10. Comparison of dose rates 30 hours after beam operation: “no scraping operation years” (2010) with “scraping operation years” (2011 and 2012). Shift of peaks are explained by inaccurate positioning system No strong difference between dose rates after beam operations in 2010 and 2011 Only a slight increase in section 117 visible.

  11. Comparison of dose rates after “no scraping operation years” (2010) with “scraping operation years” (2011 and 2012). 17.5 mSv/h Shift of peaks are explained by inaccurate positioning system Comparison of 2010, 2011 and 2012 confirms comparison result between 2010 and 2011. Only a slight increase in section 117.

  12. Comparison from the RP point of view: Scraping system in BA1 versus scraping system in BA6 BA1: Advantage: Scraping operation would not significantly change the radiation levels in BA1 since area is already highly radioactive due to the dump operation. Disadvantage: Since scrapers are placed in a highly radioactive zone, heavy maintenance work on the scraping system will result in a significant amount of dose to personnel. BA6: Advantage: Scraping system in BA6 will be a passive system. Hence, not much of maintenance work is required. Disadvantage: In case scrapers are not properly shielded the area will become a highly radioactive area (similar to the situation during West Area operation)

  13. Development of scraping system Choice of material for scraper and its surroundings is very critical for the production of activation.  Materials which are less activation prone shall be used for the construction of scraping system. • For the design of components placed in accelerators RP asks equipment groups to use the following tools: • The RP material catalogue classifying materials in terms of radiological hazard • or • the ActiWiz program, allowing to perform radiological classifications for materials which cannot be found in the catalogue

  14. ActiWiz Program to evaluate radiological hazard for arbitrary materials with a few mouse clicks 1.) Select parameters of the material location in the accelerators 2.) Define material composition 3.) Click “Calculate”

  15. Output of ActiWiz: Material categorization • Radiological hazard assessment of materials allowing to compare their radiological impact Operational Waste Aluminum 5083 Copper CUZnO5 Steel 316Ti

  16. Material catalogue based on the ActiWiz hazard assessment of materials Material catalogue classifying materials in terms of radiological hazard Classification of most common metallic and construction materials used at CERN Catalogue provides guidelines for selection of materials to be used in CERN’s accelerator environment Authors:Robert Froeschl, Stefano Sgobba, Chris Theis, Francesco La Torre, Helmut Vincke and Nick Walter Acknowledgements: J. Gulley, D. Forkel-Wirth, S. Roesler, M. Silari and M. Magistris

  17. Web-based catalogue: ActiWeb Information and a download area about ActiWiz, the RP material catalogue and ActiWeb can be found under: http://rpactiweb.cern.ch Interactive web-based version of catalogue allowing you to compare the radiological impact of predefined materials

  18. Summary • First residual dose rate estimates of scraping operation in BA6 were carried out. • A significant increase of the residual dose rate level has to be expected in case an unshielded scraping system is used • The current system in BA1 did not significantly change the residual dose rate levels in BA1 • For the design of new beam line components, the equipment groups are asked to use ActiWiz or the RP material catalogue to assess the radiological impact of various materials

More Related