Login

R2E calculations for HI-ECN3 (SHiP CCC in TCC8)

→ Europe/Zurich
zoom (CERN)

zoom

CERN
Dominika Oliwia Wasik, Francesco Maria Velotti (CERN), Gunn Khatri (CERN), James Storey (CERN), Laurie Nevay (CERN), Luigi Esposito (CERN), Mark Mclean (CERN)
R2E calculations for HI-ECN3 (SHiP CCC in TCC8)
Zoom Meeting ID
62594065271
Host
Gunn Khatri
Useful links
Join via phone
Zoom URL
Hide

Participants:
BI: Gunn, Mark, James, David Gancarcik
R2E: Dominika, Luigi
WP2: Lawrence, Francesco (Matthew excused)

1. Purpose

  1. Define location and integration constraints for the CCC in the SHiP beamline (WP2).

  2. Review radiation conditions and mitigation options for CCC electronics (R2E).

2. WP2 Discussion — CCC Location & Integration

Location

  • Proposed installation: between two quadrupoles, ~20–25 m apart.

  • Longitudinal position: 130–140 m upstream of SHiP target, upstream of dilution system.

  • Area has ample space and stable magnetic environment.

Beam Pipe & Geometry

  • Acceptable aperture: 80–159 mm → all GSI CCC designs (DN100, DN150) compatible.

  • No beam impedance concerns (straight transfer line).

Height & Access

  • Future SHiP beamline will be placed higher than current line → WP2 to provide:

    • Beam pipe height

    • Ceiling clearance for cryostat + fill port

Cryogenic Services

  • Location is underground, access only via lift → issue for 500 L LHe dewars.

  • Must check with HSE if LHe transport is allowed.

  • Additional service needs: electrical power, cooling water, compressor location, routing of lines.

Action Items (WP2 / BI)

  • WP2: provide beam height + hall clearance (Bea). - ONGOING

  • BI: obtain STEP file of GSI prototype CCC and send to Beatrice for integration study. - DONE

  • BI: request visit to bldg. 912 (contact: Bastian Rae).- ONGOING (check with RP (@Yann Pierre Pira) for the best time)

  • BI: consult HSE about LHe dewar transport. - ONGOING

3. R2E Discussion — Radiation Environment

Existing Data

  • No simulation at 130–140 m.

  • At 30 m upstream: ~100 Gy/year, mainly from the backscatter radiation from target

Expected at CCC Location

  • Backscatter expected to decrease strongly (1/r²).

  • Main contribution will be gas–beam interaction cone.

Vacuum Issue

  • Beamline vacuum: 10⁻³ mbar → relatively high radiation from residual gas.

  • WP2: cannot improve significantly due to cost and long beamline.

  • Differential pumping only partially feasible.

Possible Mitigations

  • Iron shielding upstream of CCC → WP2 confirms feasible.

  • Explore local vacuum improvement, but adds cost.

  • Evaluate routing sensitive electronics away from beam axis when possible.

4. Electronics Radiation Testing

  • MAGNICON SQUID electronics are not radiation-hard.

  • AD-CCC has low radiation but one recent failure (unknown cause).

  • BI will perform dosimetry in AD in 2026 (Mark).

  • R2E will run new FLUKA simulations at actual CCC location.

  • CHARM radiation testing is possible (higher dose than SHiP).

Action Items

  • BI: send AD-CCC location to R2E. (element name is DR.CCC1501 in AD ring, vacuum sector 2A) - DONE

  • R2E: perform new FLUKA simulation + search for past radiation data in AD. - ONGOING

  • BI: install dosimeters in AD in 2026. (Mark) - ONGOING

5. Key Open Points

  1. Helium access: Can 500 L dewars be transported underground via lift? (HSE check)

  2. Height limits: Need beam pipe and hall clearance to confirm cryostat design.

  3. Radiation environment: Dependent on updated simulations and shielding strategy.

  4. Vacuum constraints: Residual gas interactions are likely the main source of radiation.

6. Conclusion

  • The location between the quadrupoles is suitable and beam-pipe compatible.

  • Major concerns remain: cryogenic accessibility, radiation dose, and height limitations.

  • BI, WP2, and R2E will continue with integration, simulation, and safety studies.

Update: 11 Dec 2025 (questions from Matt Frazer):

CCC Location & Integration
 
Location & Integration 
 
  • Where is this location? TCC8 or TDC85?
  • stable magnetic environment -> magnetic environment to be quantified
  • I will add a statement on “Magnetic Environment" in the FS including the pulse shape of the beamline magnets (most will be static during the spill and ramping at ~ 1% level) but the dilution magnets will be oscillating and swinging the polarity of the B-field (something to keep in mind)
 
Height and Access:
 
  • The access conditions between TCC8 and TDC85 are very different, with the later requiring also a beam stop of EHN2 for access.
 
Action: your HSE link person for HI-ECN3 is @James John Scott Currie - ONGOING
 
Action: For the CCC’s ancillaries to be placed above ground I suggest you also investigate also B911 and B754 for racks, etc. Please contact Jean-Lous Grenard to make a space reservation in his spreadsheet of requirements. - ONGOING
 
R2E Discussion
 
  • Suggest we do the studies first before jumping into mitigation options: the dose has to be low for SHiP in any case.
  • We can check the radiation dose today on the beam line from the MCWG summary and Daniel Soderstrom’s talk (passive DOFRS and BLMs) to give us a feeling (even though we expect to bring down the beam loss levels in the future)
There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.