View source for Meeting 19 December 2017

'''PRESENTATIONS'''

[https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/c/cf/Jixie_CPS_12152017_summary.pdf CPS Radiation Study using FLUKA (Jixie)]

[ CPS Radiation Study (Parker)]

[https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/6/62/CPS_update_12-19-2017.pdf CPS Studies Update (Bogdan)]

[https://wiki.jlab.org/cuawiki/images/7/77/TargetRast.pdf Rotating Target Raster (Dustin)]


'''NOTES'''

''Homework for next year: make a list of what needs to be done for removing conditional approval (Thia/Tanja?) and circulate for discussion''


Discussion of Jixie's update on CPS radiation studies using FLUKA

* Two configurations were investigated: 1) pure electron beam, 2) pure photon beam created with 2.7uA electron beam incident on 10% radiator and a) with UVa target and NO CPS and b) with NPS and NO target
::* the target in the simulation now has real thickness of the chamber and the real geometry of the coils (based on Hall B design) 

* Total accumulated heat load is ~0.3 W for both cases - a little larger for pure photon case

* Activation at the target chamber boundary 1 hour after beam off after 1000 hours of beam is for: (1) < 1mrem/hr and (2) ~4 mrem/hr - both are acceptable

* Analysis of neutron flux at various boundaries shows that 10cm thick 30% borated plastic reduces the neutron flux significantly

* Heat power in CPS (Cu core) is 584 W/cm^3 - important for cooling design considerations

* Accumulated damage (1 MeV neutron equivalent damage) is less than 10^13 (dose where electronics get damaged) at: i) 20cm away from the beam line in the pivot area, ii) outside at dipole - all looks good

* Activation profile after 1000 hours of beam comparison:
::* Pure electron beam with target: all safe
::* Pure photon beam with target and no CPS: high background radiation, need more shielding backward from CPS
::* Pure photon beam with CPS and no target:contribution from CPS in target area is small and comparable to that from electron beam (1) scenario
::* CONCLUSION: CPS doesn't create much activation in target area - what comes out is from the target itself

* Prompt dose rate comparison for pure photon beam with 1) Target and no CPS and 2) CPS and no target shows that CPS contributes very little in target area

* Overall Conclusions and next steps:
::* Shielding design looks good overall - radiation contribution from CPS is at most the same as from the target
::* Next: put target in with CPS and repeat all studies
::* Longer term: investigate backward region shielding
::::* How much is needed? - depends to some extent on experiments.
::::* NPS requirements - related to crystal radiation hardness. Requirement specifies that ideally want to run experiment without annealing (~1000 hrs). Could check that with simulation creating conditions for DVCS (no target/radiator)


Discussion about Parker's model

* Easy to use interface

* Good way to cross check and to run quick tests for Hall D


Discussion about CPS update (Bogdan)

* Top of CPS seems most important for soft neutron shielding - might impact design

* Discussion about additional physics with a CPS and different target configurations 


Discussion about rotating target raster (Dustin)

* A few comments/suggestions are made to optimize slides for NPS/CPS meeting in January:
::* NMR - explain how to practically do that
::* more on rotate vs. non-rotate field scenarios, include a slide with target and rotation to remind people what trying to do
::* Add field gradient profile - this question came up earlier
::* Radiation considerations - this is good
::* Connection to additional physics - this is good


NEXT MEETING: tentative 9 January 2018, as needed.