Test facilities: Present and Future

1. Test facilities: Present and Future J. Mekkion behalf of the R2E project

2. Outline • Introduction • What to test for and where ? • How do we do radiation tests ? • Overview of the different facilities • Pros and cons • A New “in-house” facility – CHARM • Operation and representativeness • Conclusion

3. What to test for and where ? See Giovanni’s presentation Single Event Effects Stochastic effect (chip level, system impact etc …) Facilities: Mixed field, Proton, Neutron and Heavy Ion Effects in the Device

4. What to test for and where ? See Giovanni’s presentation Effects in the Device TID Cumulative effect Lifetime → non shielded area Facilities: Mixed field, Proton, Co-60 gamma source

5. What to test for and where ? See Giovanni’s presentation Effects in the Device Displacement Damage Cumulative effect Tunnel locations Mainly optical devices, and very accurate components (e.g. Voltage reference) Facilities: Mixed field, Proton, Neutron, Nuclear Reactor

6. What to test for and where ? See Giovanni’s presentation Single Event Effects Stochastic effect (chip level, system impact etc …) Facilities: Mixed field, Proton, Neutron and Heavy Ion → High-Energy tail of Spectrum (e.g. important for SEL) Effects in the Device Displacement Damage Cumulative effect Some important locations as … Mainly optical devices, and very accurate components (e.g. Voltage reference) Facilities: Mixed field, Proton, Neutron, Nuclear Reactor TID Cumulative effect Lifetime → non shielded area Facilities: Mixed field, Proton, Co-60 gamma source → Accelerated radiation test → ELDRS not tested

7. Test Facilities • CERN • CNRAD (stopped after LS1) • H4IRRAD (could be used but limited) • Towards CHARM → July 2014 • PSI • CEA reactor • Fraunhofer • Heavy Ions facilities (Done through external companies → e.g. TRAD) • Thermal neutron facilities (Prague, Oslo, Rome)

8. Size Matters? TEST COMPONENTS/CARDS: 5 cm beam diameter OR EVEN TEST THIS: (W)HOW ??? HERE

9. CNRAD Radiation test area • Mixed radiation field similar to the one expected in LHC • Measured quantities: • Dose (SiO2) • Hadron>20MeV fluence • 1MeV neutron eq. fluence • Test of entire equipment • Extensive Monitoring: • RadMons • Compared to BLMs • Gold Foils, TLDs,… • Detailed FLUKA Simulations for: • TID (air), Hadron>20MeV fluence • 1MeV neutron-equivalent fluence • Particle-Energy Spectra, Thermals,… • Hottest test location (Target area) • HEH fluence ≈ 3×1012 cm-2/week • Dose ≈ 500Gy/week • Low Flux locations (TSG46) • HEH fluence ≈ 2×1010 cm-2/week • Dose ≈ 3 Gy/week

10. H4IRRAD Radiation test area • Mixed radiation field similar to the one expected in LHC • Internal/External zone: • RadMons • Compared to BLMs • Gold Foils, TLDs,… • Detailed FLUKA Simulations for: • TID (air), Hadron>20MeV fluence • 1MeV neutron-equivalent fluence • Particle-Energy Spectra, Thermals,… • For small to bulky equipment • Measured quantities: • Dose (SiO2) • Hadron>20MeV fluence • 1MeV neutron eq. fluence • Hottest test location (downstream target – 2012) • HEH fluence : 6×1010 cm-2/week • Dose: 40 Gy/week • External Zone – 2012 • HEH fluence : 8×109 cm-2/week • Dose: 3 Gy/week • Test of entire equipment

11. Mixed field facilities • Good reproducibility of shielded area and tunnel environment K. Roeed (2011)

12. PSI – PIF facility • Monoenergetic proton beam from 30 – 230 MeV • Beam time available via special agreement (since 2011) • Beam spot < 9 cm • → (5 cm uniformity ≈ 90 %) • Maximum Flux at 230 MeV • → 1.5×108 p/cm2/s • TID and Displacement Damage (DD) tested at the same time • Accelerated radiation test • (ELDRS not tested) • Limited availability in 2014/2015 • Measured quantities: • Dose (SiO2) • Proton fluence • Displacement Damage

13. Others • Neutron facilities: • NRI (Czech Republic), PTB (Germany), IFE (Norway), ILL (France) • Neutron/gamma facility: • CEA Valduc (France) • Gamma – Co-60 facilities: • ESTEC (Netherlands), Fraunhofer institute (Germany), IRA (Switzerland)

14. Pros and cons of “in-house” facilities

15. Pros and cons of “external” facilities

16. Pros and cons of “external” facilities • For both: • Availaibility: Very uncertain and more and more complicated • Shipping and recovering the samples: very difficult

17. To summarize … • CERN experimental test areas: • CNRAD and H4IRRAD: • During the last years, increasing up to 56 groups/projects • Outside CERN: • PSI: • Since 2010: 37 test campaigns. Framework contract • Other (CEA, ESTEC, Fraunhofer, PTB …) : • Since 4 years: ≈ 15 test campaigns • Total → more than 100 test campaigns Huge amount of radiation tests

18. To summarize … • CERN experimental test areas: • CNRAD and H4IRRAD: • During the last years, increasing up to 56 groups/projects • Outside CERN: • PSI: • Since 2010: 37 test campaigns. Framework contract • Other (CEA, ESTEC, Fraunhofer, PTB …) : • Since 4 years: ≈ 15 test campaigns • Total → more than 100 test campaigns • Beyond LS1, according to the huge amount of test in the coming years: • Power converter, QPS, NanoFIP, BLM, RF, BPM, Cryogenics, Collimation, SPS/PS Interlock, PS Ventilation access, LIU/SPS, CLIC, ISOLDE, LHC Upgrade, Cables, fibers, magnets, collimators, IT equipments, RadMON sensors/new version, etc… • The stop of the CNRAD activity • The limitation of H4IRRAD • PSI availability (stop “mid 2014 → 2015”) Huge amount of radiation tests • Needs to have a new in-house facility

19. New Facility Required CHARM CernHigh Energy AcceleRatorMixed Field/Facility • We’d also Other Good Options, … But • CHER (French = expensive)(CernHigh Energy Radiation Facility)

20. List of groups/projects for the future • Beam Instrumentation • SPS trajectory and orbit system (front-end electronics) • PSB orbit system (front-end) • SEM loss monitor (front-end amplifier) • Wire scanner • Cameras • TE/EPC (e.g Power converters) -> Development up to 2018 • EN/EL (e.g UPS) -> Development up to 2016 • QPS • LHC experiments • Cryogenics • Beam Position Monitor • EN/STI (e.g. component tests, RadMON V6) • Beam Loss Monitors • EN/ICE • From Outside (Universities, laboratories, industrials: e. g. radiation tests with particle spectra representative of atmospheric/ground environments) • And others ….

21. The High-E Accelerator Environment • Radiation fields originated by very high energy particles interacting with different elements (collimators, gas, targets, etc.) • Wide range of intensities! HEH/cm2/yr Dose (Gy/y)

22. East Area Facilities 24 GeV/c proton beam

23. East Area Facilities 24 GeV/c proton beam IRRAD proton facility PH/DT 24 GeV/c proton beam LHC experiments

24. East Area Facilities 24 GeV/c proton beam CHARM R2E Project

25. East Area Facilities 24 GeV/c proton beam Technical local Connection to the radiation area

26. East Area Facilities 24 GeV/c proton beam Control room Dry run test

27. Main Elements 24 GeV/c proton beam

28. Patch Panel – Cable list

29. Approach: Test Positions 24 GeV/c protons 4x40 cm movable shielding

30. Varying Radiation Field Radiation levels during one week test campaign Beam Positiontarget in:HEH: >1.7×1014cm-2TID: >17 kGy target out:HEH: >1.7×1015cm-2TID: >1 MGy D+H Longitudin. Lateral Positions HEH: 1.7×1011cm-2 – 1.7×1014cm-2TID: 17Gy – 17kGy (gradients to be considered) Full racks, crates, set of cards, componentsHEH: 1.7×1010cm-2 – 1.7×1013cm-2, TID: 1.7Gy – 1.7kGy

31. Varying Radiation Field 1 year of injectors operation → Max. 1 week at CHARM Beam Positiontarget in:HEH: >1.7×1014cm-2TID: >17 kGy target out:HEH: >1.7×1015cm-2TID: >1 MGy D+H Longitudin. Lateral Positions HEH: 1.7×1011cm-2 – 1.7×1014cm-2TID: 17Gy – 17kGy (gradients to be considered) Full racks, crates, set of cards, componentsHEH: 1.7×1010cm-2 – 1.7×1013cm-2, TID: 1.7Gy – 1.7kGy

32. Comparison with previous test areas • Intensity reachable for 1 year (220 days) of beam operation in comparison to previous experimental test areas • Before LS1: CNRAD and H4IRRAD • Beyond LS1: CHARM • 2013/2014: Design commissioning • > Mid-2014: Large amount of test requirements, needs of an efficient coordination/operation

33. Test positions: -> Spectra Impact on intermediateenergies Different thermal behavior Different high energy (HE) contributions

34. Shielding Configuration: -> Spectra Scoring in Rack 4 Iron/Iron/Concrete/Concrete Concrete/Concrete/Iron/Iron

35. Representative Test Locations Accelerator Tunnels 90% of the particles

36. Representative Test Locations Accelerator Shielded Areas 1 99% of the particles

37. Representative Test Locations Accelerator Shielded Areas 2 90% of the particles

38. Facility Design Targets • Contrary to other facilities: • Setup needs to be radtol • Large distance: ≈ 30 m of cables. Designer needs to integrate in their design the possibility to measure short signal (e.g. short transient “few ns”) and also to work at high speed. • But … • Numerous representative radiation fields • Mixed-Particle-Energy • Direct beam exposure • Large range of fluxes and dose ranges(covering accelerator, but also other applications)

39. Facility Design Targets • Possibility for large volumes/high number of components or full systems • Easy usage • Dedicated preparation area • Cables pre-installed + patch panel • Conveyer systems • Detailed, on-line andhigh-accuracy monitoring (CERN RadMon system)

40. Conclusions • Contract with Fraunhofer (TID/DD) optimized • PSI contract (to be adjusted after 2015) • Critical collaborations with other institutes (help and support) • External companies → To be taken with care (standards components → OK complex systems → To be checked) • Costs are mainly covered by R2E project (whenever operation impact) • Campaigns are coordinated (optimized) through RadWG • Strong collaboration with all the users/groups

41. Conclusions • Testing complex systems or many components can be important/useful • BI request → First planning ? • Because: • Huge amount of tests in the coming years • CNRAD activity stopped • H4IRRAD activity limited • PSI not available mid-2014/2015 (at least for 4 months) • A new test facility will soon be available at CERN (mid-2014) • In view of the amount of test requirements at CHARM →Need of an efficient coordination/operation