project design review plan · web viewansys calculations preliminary 11 collimator controls scheme...

PIP-II Booster Collimators PDR Report

Document number: ED000xxxx

Document Approval

Name: Angelica DreesOrg: BNLContact: [email protected]: Committee Member

Date:12 June 2020

Name: Franz GallmeierOrg: ORNLContact: [email protected]: Committee Member

12 June 2020

Name: William HigginsOrg: FNALContact: [email protected]: Committee Member

12 June 2020

Name: Denton MorrisOrg: FNALContact: [email protected]: Committee Chair

12 June 2020

PIP-II (Review Title) Charge

Revision History

Revision Date Release

Originator:Role:

Description of Change

0 12 June 2020

Denton MorrisReview Chair

Document Origination

Revision control is managed via Fermilab Teamcenter Workflows.

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 2


Table of Contents

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................4

2. Review Agenda..................................................................................................................................4

3. Review Charge Statement.................................................................................................................6

4. Attendance List...................................................................................................................................6

5. Reference Documents.......................................................................................................................6

6. Reviewed Document List...................................................................................................................7

7. Findings..............................................................................................................................................7

8. Comments..........................................................................................................................................7

9. Recommendations.............................................................................................................................7

10. Response to Charge Questions.........................................................................................................8

11. Value Engineering Opportunities.......................................................................................................8



1. Introduction

For Booster operation in PIP II a new collimation system will be required to localize losses. The new two stage collimation system utilizes thick primary collimation blades to produce large angle scattering with two secondary collimators to intercept the scattered particles, all contained within the same monolithic device. The secondary collimators are made up of a fixed H&V aperture and an adjustable H&V aperture. The complete unit is designed to easily fit within a single Long straight section in the Booster. Figure 1 shows the proposed transverse cross section of the collimator. A preliminary Design review for the Booster Collimation will be required.

Figure 1: Cross section of the proposed two stage Booster Collimator



2. Review Agenda

“Booster Collimators PDR Review” Agenda

Location: ZOOM only

Date: May 29 2020

Time:

Indico Site:

https://indico.fnal.gov/event/24085/

08:15AM-03:30PM

Participants:Ioanis Kourbanis ([email protected])

Fermilab L2 Manager

David Johnson ([email protected])

Fermilab Role: L3 Manager/Coordinator

Denton Morris ([email protected])

Fermilab Role: Review Chair

Angelika Drees ([email protected])

BNL Role: Reviewer

Franz Gallmeier ([email protected])

ORNL Role: Reviewer

William Higgins ([email protected])

Fermilab Role: Reviewer

Valery Kapin ([email protected])

Fermilab Role: Presenter

Vladimir Sidorov ([email protected])


Zhijing Tang ([email protected])



https://indico.fnal.gov/event/24085/


Igor Tropin ([email protected])


I. Agenda details: Introduction (10’): Dave Johnson (L3 manager/Review Coordinator)

a. [Primary Review Content Overview. E.g. organization, requirements, cost & schedule, etc.]

II. Motivation and need for the collimator (60’): Valery Kapin

a. [Technical Content.]

III. Mechanical Design (30’): Vladimir Sidorov

a. [Technical Content]

IV. MARS Simulation (60’): Igor Tropin

a. [Technical Content]

V. ANSYS Analysis: Zhijing Tang

a. [Technical Content.]

VI. Closeout – Review Chair

a. [Summary Statement]b. [Preliminary Findings]c. [Preliminary Comments]d. [Preliminary Recommendations]

e.



3. Review Charge Statement

Attendance List The reviewers are asked to perform a Preliminary Design Review of Booster Collimators for PIP II.

Specifically, the panel is asked to answer the following charge questions:

1. Are the requirements documented, clear, complete and appropriate?

2. Is the proposed design for the Booster Collimators likely to meet requirements? Explain any deficiencies or concerns.

3. Are there any features present (or absent) that threaten the intended function and performance of this design?

4. Have safety and environmental aspects been appropriately considered?

5. Have quality aspects been appropriately considered?

6. Does the proposed schedule seem reasonable?

The intended outcome of the review: Collect and document findings, comments and recommendations necessary to proceed to the

Final Design stage.

4. Attendance List

List review attendees here, including committee, speakers, and prominent audience members. Remote attendees should be included and noted as remotely attending.

Name Organization

Denton Morris, committee FNAL

Dr. Angelika Drees, committee BNL

Dr. Franz Gallmeier, committee ORNL

William Higgins, committee FNAL

David Johnson, speaker FNAL

Ioanis Kourbanis FNAL

Vladimir Sidorov, speaker FNAL

Valery Kapin, speaker FNAL

Igor Tropin, speaker FNAL

Cheng-Yang Tan FNAL

Salah Chaurize FNAL



Chandra Bhat FNAL

Nikolai Mokhov FNAL

*All attendees were remote.

5. Reference Documents

The documents listed below establish the framework for all technical reviews held during the PIP-II Project Lifecycle.

1 PIP-II Technical Review Plan – TC ED00081632 PIP-II Quality Assurance Plan DocDB # 142 3 PIP-II Systems Engineering Management Plan – TC ED00081644 PIP-II IESH Management Plan DocDB # 1415 121.02 SRF and Cryo Systems Design Plan DocDB # 2605 6 121.03 Accelerator Systems Design Plan DocDB # 2599 7 121.04 Linac Installation and Commissioning Design Plan DocDB # 2581 8 121.05 Accelerator Complex Upgrades Design Plan DocDB # 2593 9 121.06 Conventional Facilities Design Plan DocDB # 2587 10 PIP-II Value Engineering Plan DocDB # 2830

The review coordinator should populate this following table with the document list for this review from their SDP.

Table 1 - Document Deliverables for this review from the System Design PlanDocument Title Status

(preliminary, final, released)Comments

1 Booster Collimators FRS/TRS Final2 MICD/ISD for Booster Collimators Preliminary3 Failure Mode Analysis Preliminary4 Prevention by Design Table Preliminary5 Risk Assessment Document Preliminary6 Updated Schedule Preliminary


https://pip2-docdb.fnal.gov/cgi-bin/private/ShowDocument?docid=2587









7 Booster Collimation Concept Final8 MARS Calculations Preliminary9 Preliminary Mechanical Design Preliminary10 ANSYS Calculations Preliminary11 Collimator Controls Scheme Preliminary12 Draft Installation Plan Preliminary13 Booster L3 QC Plan Preliminary14 Design Verification Methology Plan Preliminary15 System

Procurement/Manufacturing/Oversight Plan

6. Reviewed Document List

This section indicates which documents the committee reviewed as part of this review. The document list provided should match the documents identified in the relevant WBS L2 System Design Plan referenced above.

Table 2 - Documents presented at this ReviewDocument Title Status

(preliminary, final, released)Comments

1 Booster FRS Final2 Booster Collimators TRS Final3 Booster Collimators PRD Final4 Prevention by Design Table Preliminary5 Risk Assessment Document Preliminary6 Booster Collimators Concept Final7 MARS Calculations Preliminary8 Preliminary Mechanical Design Preliminary9 ANSYS Calculations Preliminary

Committee comments should note any of the following: Documents that were expected but not presented. Documents that were in a state not commensurate with the review in question (e.g. conceptual

design documents at a final design review). Standard documentation that, in the committee’s expert opinion, should have been in the SDP

and presented but was not included.

7. Findings



General, factual observations about material presented which require no response.

From a radiation control point of view the integrated primary and secondary collimation stages setup within common shielding is a very good concept as it contains a large fraction of the deflected beam and secondary particles within the collimator and its shielding compared to a classical setup of using primary thin foils and a long open drift space to the secondary collimators.

The Booster will initially operate with 400 MeV beam injection, which will eventually be changed to 800 MeV beam injection after the completion of the PIP-II project.

The primary beam scrapers are designed to be of variable thickness (from 2 to 4 inches), which will allow the collimation system to respond to the factor of two change in incident beam energy. Having movable scrapers in the vertical and horizontal plane for primary and secondary collimator stages is essential.

Radiation transport analyses were shown for acting thin and thick primary scraper sections and tuned secondary collimators for injected 800 MeV beam. Earlier analyses of beam injected at 400 MeV energy are reported in the SATIF-14 proceedings paper. A factor of 2 increase of radiation fields was reported changing from 400 MeV to 800 MeV energy beam injection. A base assumption is that 50% of the beam loss is captured by the collimator, and the scraping rate is distributed among all the collimators. For MARS-MADX simulations a factor of five higher scraping rate was assumed for the new collimation section as expected in operations for conservatism.

Shielding is an essential part of the collimator system to achieve the in-tunnel dose rate limitation requirements for machine maintenance, and the design goals for uncontrolled access of the East Tower building and the associated parking lot. Using marble as an outside layer of the collimator shielding is a good measure to limit the contact dose on the outside surface of an activated component such that the in-tunnel radiation requirements are shown to be met with the presented design.

Activation limits for surface water are being met with the presented design.

Analyses were not able to determine if the berm thickness was sufficient towards shielding the parking lot and the East Tower building as there is uncertainty about their location with regard to the collimator location. A table of dose rates vs distance was provided as analysis result.

MADX proton optics system was integrated in the well-established radiation transport MARS15 code system, which was essential to simulate the impact, the energy degradation by primary



scrapers and transport of the scraped beam in the Booster beam line. This code system replaces a no longer maintainable older code system. The new analysis package is operational for a while (reported on at SATIF-14 Nov 2018).

Project requirements of the new Booster collimator system are in place. ED0012115_PIP-II_Booster_Collimators summarizes all requirements of a collimator system for the Booster to be located in the long section 08 that will be operated in line with the existing collimators in sections 06 and 07. Besides the technical requirements, safety standards for the work and equipment requirements are stated. The document PIP-II_Booster_Collimators_PRD_dej summarizes the physical parameters linking the global requirements to machine performance in operations.

Six Hazard-Risks with pre-mitigation risk scores of moderate to very-high were identified all of them being of the radiation exposure type. The risk levels were mitigated by providing localized shielding, remote handling tools and the added requirement of supplying a radiation safety interlock system such that the highest risk drops down to moderate after mitigation.

8. Comments

All documents expected where presented. The TRS contains a few typos that should be cleaned up.

Most of the dose rate for tunnel occupants comes from back-shine from the concrete tunnel walls, which could still be reduced by providing measures such as lining part of the walls in the most exposed area with marble. It may be worth investigating the addition of a hydrogenous material layer in the steel shielding to clean out the <1 MeV neutron cloud locally.

It is not clear that this factor of two change by increasing the Booster injection energy from 400 MeV to 800 MeV applies to in-tunnel activation the same way as for on-berm dose rates. Additional analyses may be needed to firm the in-tunnel activation up for 400 MeV incident energy operation.

Beams are not round in the area but the fixed collimator design and downstream mask is square. Not clear if the ratios (approx. x2 in sqrt beta) are the same for the two injection energies.

The represented simulations started with sources in the new collimator system and did not consider the effects from the other upstream collimators. Essentially there is expected higher activation at the new collimator entrance from upstream collimation efforts. Would it be worth to simulate the interplay of the complete collimation system?



We understand that continuing design work will reduce the estimated prompt dose outside the Booster tunnel due to normal operation. Could layered shielding with various materials reduce dose from decay radiation further? Interaction with the interlocked Total Loss Monitor system should also be analyzed; if interlock trips prove to be a problem, there are possible mitigation measures.

The estimated ground water concentration was stated to be negligibly small. We would like this value to be given nevertheless.

With the complexity of the primary linear motion coupled with rotation, calculations should be considered to understand potential trapped volumes within the vacuum system.

Do the new secondaries require skewed positioning abilities? If there is a need we should know why and how large the skew angle could be. If skew functionality is not essential, don't add this complication in the mechanical design. Two independent stepping motors add a risk of binding the secondaries.

It should be verified that the two opposing secondary jaws cannot contact each other in the center, whether in a skewed configuration or parallel.

9. Recommendations

Items that require formal action and closure in writing prior to receiving approval to move into the next phase of the project, or items that require formal action and closure in writing prior the next review.

There was uncertainty expressed about the actual berm thickness and distances of parking place and East Tower building with regard to the collimator. A better understanding of the relative locations of the key structures with regard to the collimator is essential for the shielding design.

10. Response to Charge Questions

If the charge is written in the form of questions, duplicate them and directly respond to them here. These responses should reference the relevant recommendations/comments/findings as appropriate.

1. Are the requirements documented, clear, complete and appropriate?Documents are complete, clear and appropriate.



2. Is the proposed design for the Booster Collimators likely to meet requirements? Explain any deficiencies or concerns. Yes, it will meet the requirements. Prompt dose rate calculations have not been finalized due to lack of civil design drawings of overhead buildings. Need to specify what configuration the original collimation system is in for the simulations and projected efficiencies and incorporate original collimation system in the commissioning plan.

3. Are there any features present (or absent) that threaten the intended function and performance of this design? There is a concern about skewing and internal contact of secondaries.Motor cut-out switch is recommended to stop motor before reaching hardstops.We appreciate the options for “plan B” with fixed thickness primaries and the retention of the original collimation to respond to future needs.

4. Have safety and environmental aspects been appropriately considered? Would like to see a quantitative value for ground water activation.Appreciate that additional shielding overhead and on tunnel walls is being considered.

5. Have quality aspects been appropriately considered? Using known components removes uncertainty. Procurement plan is in place and conforms with QA plan.

6. Does the proposed schedule seem reasonable? Schedule as presented is reasonable with time for test assembly, motion control testing, installation and commissioning. Resource availability may be a concern as it would impact the schedule.

11. Value Engineering Opportunities

Value Engineering (VE) opportunities are often discovered during conceptual and preliminary design reviews. The Review Committee will consider Value Engineering in their assessment of the reviewed materials proposed design and provide a list of suggested opportunities below. The PIP-II Project established a PIP-II Value Engineering Plan to support this effort [10]. VE opportunities are not intended to be recommendations. Recommendations are captured in Section 9 above. If no VE opportunities are identified, please indicate.

No VE opportunities indicated.
