MSSB vacuum failure strategy

Europe/Zurich
30/7-010 (CERN)

30/7-010

CERN

30
Show room on map

Present: M. Fraser, A. Harrison, J. Samoza, D. Schoerling, P. Schwarz, T. Zickler

Background reading:

Old feasibility study: https://edms.cern.ch/document/3199897/1

Vacuum sectors: https://edms.cern.ch/document/2603395/1

In the event of an MSSB vacuum failure, the present strategy to install windows to isolate the leaking MSSB will impact beam loss in P42 and possibly limit operation of BDF/SHiP operation from 2031.

We have time to prepare a new strategy before 2031.

Discussion:

  • Strategy in case of MSSB vacuum leak agreed during LS2:
    • Fix window gaskets to form a vacuum sector and isolate MSSB leak, combined with primary pumping
    • Will permit adjacent ion pumps to operate in the beam line.
    • Since BDF/SHiP approval we need to review this approach as additional material on the beam line (windows) could increase beam loss in shallow transfer tunnels housing P42 beam line.
  • Equipment responsible for MSSB is TE-MSC including its vacuum system, with support from TE-VSC
  • Splitter 2 (downstream) sprung a leak immediately before LS1 and went to atmospheric pressure:
    • Probably caused by PVC mixing with water in radiation environment, dripping acid on chamber  
    • Location of leak not identified: sealed itself
    • Magnets removed in LS1 and re-installed
    • Painting of the splitter chamber done after reinstallation, even after the movements the leak didn't open again.
    • Leak still holding until today!
  • PVC largely removed from tunnel in LS1, less water ingress these days
  • 4 MSSB spares are in storage (3 radioactive, 1 spare): not tested or qualified yet for installation:
    • Geometry of splitter blades for spare MSSBs is not certain as they were used for the West Area and likely have rotated apertures
  • Exchange of a leaking MSSB vacuum chamber is not an option: it's part of the magnet assembly and will need significant cooldown beforehand
  • Replacement of MSSB with a spare in case of vacuum leak will not be quick due to time needed for dose levels to cooldown
  • Present support structures not optimised for remote handling.
  • BDF/SHiP does not need very low vacuum levels (primary pumping at 1e-3 mbar would be OK) however windows should be avoided
  • Ultra-thin window solutions could be envisaged as a solution because we would have vacuum on both sides (beam line and MSSB)
  • NA-CONS and HI-ECN3 are supporting resources for the design of improved supporting structures in TDC2/TCC2 with BE-EA

 

Actions:

  • Check status of MSSB spares including the geometry type of splitter aperture and review required refurbishment needed: Action Philip
  • NA-CONS to be informed and extra activities planned in TDC2/TCC2: Action Thomas
  • Prepare list of proposed LS3 activities: Action Tony
    • Visual inspection of MSSBs during LS3:
      • Assess which one might be the riskiest
      • Vacuum tests in before/after removal from beam line?
  • Optimise MSSB support structures for remote handling: Action Thomas to link Philip and Miguel to define requirements for improved supports to be installed during TCC2 renovation
  • Study impact of window gasket thickness and shape on beam losses in P42: Action Laurie WP2 (see Pablo's study referenced above)
  • Study ultra-thin window option Action Tony/Jose
  • Baseline strategy during BDF/SHiP operation: install window gaskets and try and survive to YETS, before exchanging magnet, if not acceptable, operation stopped for cooldown before leaking MSSB swapped our for spare 
  • Future strategy: optimise windows for acceptable beam loss in event of MSSB vacuum leak with BDF operation.

 

There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.
The agenda of this meeting is empty