Transcript
Page 1: Simulation Results for SNAP

Simulation Results for SNAP• Galactic Protons

– Flux vs Energy and Particle Species– Dose vs. Shield Composition– Dose vs. Shield Thickness

• Solar Flares (worst day)– Dose vs. Shield Thickness– Flux vs Energy and Particle Species

• ¾ cm Aluminum shield results

Tom Diehl05/20/2004

Page 2: Simulation Results for SNAP

The Rakhno Model• In “V1.0” the total mass included is 276 kg in the

region directly around the focal plane.– Shield is 2 cm thick, 35 to 41 kg aluminum

– Cold Plate was 99 kg molybdenum -> 49 kg.

– Silicon substrate is 5 kg mixture.

– Silicon itself is 200 thick amounting to 107 g.

– Radiator was 69 kg aluminum.

– The rest is deck, optical bench, supports, etc … amounting to 61 kg.

• New version “V1.1” has mass 226 kg.– I use this as “the standard” as it is closer to the present

design in Solidworks.

Page 3: Simulation Results for SNAP

MARS 14 Monte Carlo• http://www-ap.fnal.gov/MARS/ provides a link to

documentation. • MARS 14 is a Monte Carlo code for inclusive and

exclusive simulation of three-dimensional hadronic and electromagnetic cascades, muon and low-energy neutron transport in shielding and in accelerator and detector components in the energy range from a fraction of an electronvolt up to 100 TeV. (straight off the web page).

Page 4: Simulation Results for SNAP

The “Rakhno” Model

• See FNAL Technical Memo 2221 by Mokhov, Rakhno, Striganov, Peterson “Radiation Load to the SNAP CCD” 09/15/03 for more detail about the original version (V1.0).

Page 5: Simulation Results for SNAP

Shielding and Detector Model (Rakhno)

Page 6: Simulation Results for SNAP

Galactic Cosmic Rays @ L2• Creme96

provides the flux of nucleons from H to Fe

• Protons are the most abundant. Helium is second most.

• Flux of protons is 4.7/cm2/s.

No geomagnetic shielding.

No trapped particles.

Solar cycle minimum.

Page 7: Simulation Results for SNAP

Galactic Protons @ L2• 2 cm aluminum shield

– Dose is 6.90.4 Rad/Yr

• Table of # cm/s vs. KE (in Si) converted to flux (divide by volume)*

• Integrals (#/cm2/s):

– p: 3.410.06

– n: 4.780.08

12.80.9

– e: 0.780.08 /k: 0.350.02

*See next slide

Page 8: Simulation Results for SNAP

Not exactly a flux• MARS gives me a table of particles #*cm vs energy

– Number times Path length– Energy is that which it has when it starts in the silicon.

• For instance:

Page 9: Simulation Results for SNAP

Effect of Changing the Material• Change the material that

makes up the shield (maintain thickness = 2 cm).

• Lower Z is a little better than higher Z & more weak evidence for “more shield is worse”.

• Carbon fiber mix was a little better than everything but not very different from Aluminum.

Page 10: Simulation Results for SNAP

Changing the Material II

• Changed the material but kept the shield mass at 25 kg.

• No strong evidence for an effect

• Little difference in secondary fluences.

Aluminum is good choice from

Shielding POV.

Page 11: Simulation Results for SNAP

Dose vs. Shield Thickness (AL)• The shield in the nominal geometry is 2 cm thick

aluminum cone. Is there an optimal thickness?

• Tested the dose in the silicon as change thickness (AL density) of the shield.

• No apparent reason to make the shield 35 kg to reduce the radiation in the silicon (so long as we have thick cold plate and other material around.

Page 12: Simulation Results for SNAP

Material vs. No Material• What is the effect of ALL of the material?

• Set all the material to vacuum, except the silicon. Run the simulation using galactic protons & galactic electrons.– Dose (silicon) = 5.30.4 R/y, less than with the

material around the detector.

– Galactic Protons: Ratio Doses (satellite vs. no satellite) Rprotons = (6.9+0.4/5.3+0.4) = 1.3 + 0.1.

– Galactic (Jovian?) Electrons: Relec. = 2.0+ 0.2. But the electrons have ~100x lower flux than the protons and are therefore rather unimportant.

Page 13: Simulation Results for SNAP

Galactic Cosmic Rays @ L2• Table of # cm/s vs. KE

(in Si) converted to flux (divide by volume)*

• Integrals (#/cm2/s): – p: 3.450.02– n: ~0

0.260.26– e: ~0 /k: ~0

• Ratio of total charged particle flux compared to 2 cm AL is 1.320.03 • Recall, ratio of Dose

compared to 2 cm AL is 1.30.1

Turn off all material except CCD’s

Page 14: Simulation Results for SNAP

Material vs. No Material• What is the effect of ALL of the material?

– A fast cosmic ray simulation using 4.7 charged particles/cm2/s should be scaled up by 1.3.

– Therefore, 6.1 charged particles/cm2/s seems more realistic for the a fast simulation of protons at solar minimum.

Page 15: Simulation Results for SNAP

Galactic Cosmic Rays: Solar Max. vs. Solar Min.

• The solar wind impedes the GCR– GCR Flux solar min: 4.7

pr/cm2/s– GCR Flux solar max: 1.7

pr/cm2/s– The benchmark for GCR

calculations is the flux at solar cycle minimum. (shown just prior).

– Didn’t take this any further.Tylka et al.

IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.

V44 #6, 2150 (1997).

Page 16: Simulation Results for SNAP

Worst Day Solar Flares @ L2• Creme96

provides the flux of nucleons from H to Fe.

• It has other options: solar min./max., worst week, worst day, worst 5 minutes.

• I chose the worst day to start.

No geomagnetic shielding.

No trapped particles.

Solar Flare of Oct 20, 1989 averaged over 18 hours.

Page 17: Simulation Results for SNAP

Worst Day Solar Flares @ L2

• 2 cm Aluminum shield resulted in dose of 23242 Rads/day

Integrals (#/cm2/s):

– p: 2900180

– n: 90070

2900450

– e: 6.53.3 /k: 0.320.03

Page 18: Simulation Results for SNAP

Worst Day Solar Flares @ L2

• Shield finally does some good.• Dose decreases until as we can’t shield the higher energy protons.• ¾ cm AL is as good as 2 cm AL.

Dose vs. AL Thickness

Page 19: Simulation Results for SNAP

¾ CM Aluminum Shield• Dose from Galactic Protons

is 6.78+-0.45 Rads/Yr.

• Dose from Worst Day Protons is 179+-34 Rads/day.

Integrals (#/cm2/s):

– p: 3.420.06

– n: 4.620.09

11.31.0

– e: 0.710.06 /k: 0.350.03

Page 20: Simulation Results for SNAP

¾ CM Aluminum Shield• “Ratio” is particle flux

for ¾ cm AL over particle flux for 2 cm AL.

• Ratio of integrals is – p: 1.01+0.02– n: 0.970.02.10– e: 0.910.12 /k: 0.990.08

- Total charged flux is 0.988+-0.029 “ths” of 2 cm case.

Page 21: Simulation Results for SNAP

Summary• Galactic Proton Studies

– The shield doesn’t stop most cosmic ray protons.– Aluminum seems like a pretty good choice of material from

shielding considerations. – Dose from galactic protons is ~ 6.9+0.4 R/yr with a 2 cm

aluminum shield.– There is a scaling for simple simulations that accounts for the

secondaries.

• Solar Flare “worst day” study is done.– An aluminum shield has an important effect.– Dose is 232+42 Rads/day on worst day w/ a 2 cm shield.

• ¾ cm vs 2 cm of aluminum– The thinner shield is as effective as the thicker.

Page 22: Simulation Results for SNAP

Plan• Along the lines of this talk

– Continue Solar Flare studies. I can find information about the distribution of intensity of solar flares.

– There is some correspondence between #*cm and SEU & dose calculations and I’d like to learn how that works.

– Heavy ions. – Tests for electronics in different places (I don’t expect the

results to be very different elsewhere in the vicinity of the cold plate).

– Write-up these results.

• Use “Nibble” file to improve geometry of the MARS model. I expect that will be suitable as a starting point for the Geant simulation, too.

Page 23: Simulation Results for SNAP

Buffer slide

• Stuff here on isn’t part of this talk.

Page 24: Simulation Results for SNAP

Shielding and Detector Model (1)

• The trick with MARS is to select the appropriate level of detail.– Include the most important shielding

components. Consideration is given to proximity to detector and components mass.

– Put a lot of effort into detailing the detector.

Page 25: Simulation Results for SNAP

Literature Search (partial list)• Some satellites planned-for L2 include NGST,

Herschel/Planck, GAIA …• References: http://astro.estec.esa.nl/GAIA/Assets/Papers/IN_CCD_operations.pdf.Herchel/Planck Project Document, JPL D-19155 (2003).http://www.ngst.nasa.gov/public/unconfigured/doc_0819/rev_02/Transient_Document_Section_1_and_2_V5.

pdf.

• These give me some confidence that I’m on the right track.

• The NGST suggests an additional concern:– that we may activate the shield/cold-plate. This would

produce additional particles on the focal plane.

• I talked to Nikolai Mokhov yesterday. He is not surprised the shielding is making Si dose worse.

Page 26: Simulation Results for SNAP

Unshielded / 2 cm aluminum

• unshielded ccd plane over 2 cm AL (only proton spectrum in ccd’s).

Page 27: Simulation Results for SNAP

Range vs. Energy in Aluminum• From a talk by

Mike L. in April 2001.

• The 2 cm of AL shield itself is 5.4 g/cm^2.

• log(5.4)=0.73


Top Related