GUI Meeting 2 JP Ramos ISOLDE Upgrade to 20 GeV 40 higher energy 2microA to 6microA factor of 3 Verify if all targets can cope with power Need upgrade of BTY line to ISOLDE Need upgrade of ISOLDE beam dumps ID: 790788
Download The PPT/PDF document "2.0 vs 1.4 GeV for ISOLDE" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Slide22.0 vs 1.4 GeV for ISOLDEGUI Meeting
2
J.P. Ramos
Slide3ISOLDE Upgrade to 2.0 GeV
~40% higher energy2microA to 6microA – factor of 3Verify if all targets can cope with power
Need upgrade of BTY line to ISOLDE
Need upgrade of ISOLDE beam dumps
~10MCHF?
03-May-18
J.P. Ramos – GUI 2018
3
Slide4Simulation campaign
Yield prediction for usersSimulation campaign started 2 years ago in ABRABLASimulations will be used for new database – to build a robust yield analysis / prediction tool
Document reference
4
03-May-18
Slide5Simulation details
ABRABLA
1
Gevents
8 cores (CERN Personal PCs)
max 1 week per simulation
Well benchmarked for spallation at ISOLDE
FLUKA
300
Mevents
40 cores (cluster)
max 4 days per simulation
Normally underestimates spallation products, good for other reactions
J.P. Ramos – GUI 2018
5
03-May-18
Slide6FLUKA Benchmark
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
Problem in the
clueet
(CERN FLUKA Cluster):
Cluster had to be reverted from the development version to the public
Simulation launched to benchmark
Dev v: FLUKA2017 v1.0
Public v: FLUKA2011 v2x.1
spallation (exotic) underestimated by old version
The rest varies within ±50%
Slide7LaC2
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
Different FLUKA versions
Slight decrease of spallation products for high target Z
Increase for mass below 2/3 of target A (n-
def
)
Slide8SiC
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
Different FLUKA versions
No real change
Slide9Zr(Y)O2
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
Different FLUKA versions
Slight decrease of spallation products for high target Z
Increase for mass below 2/3 of target A (n-
def
)
Slide10Y2O3
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
?
Different FLUKA versions
Slight decrease of spallation products for high target Z
Increase for mass below 2/3 of target A (n-
def
)
Slide11CaO
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
Different FLUKA versions
No real change
Slide12UCx
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
Both FLUKA 2017 v1.0
s
Slight decrease of spallation
Close to x2 on fragmentation
Slight increase on fission for FLUKA, decrease for ABRABLA
Slide13UCx (Z>20)
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
Both FLUKA 2017 v1.0
Disagreement between FLUKA and ABRABLA
Slide14UCx (60<Z<75)
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
Both FLUKA 2017 v1.0
n-
def
Eu,
Gd
,
Tb
,
Dy
, Ho, Er,
Tm
,
Yb
, Lu
Slide15UCx (79<Z<89)
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
Both FLUKA 2017 v1.0
Predicted only in FLUKA
n-
rich
Hg,Au
,
Tl
, Pb,
Bi
, etc.
Slide16TODOLiquid target simulations are on going (
Pb, Sn)Other materials
03-May-18
J.P. Ramos – GUI 2018
16
Slide17ThCx vs UCx 1.4GeV
J.P. Ramos – GUI May 2018
Both FLUKA 2011
v2x.1
~2x n-rich
Ni,Co
, Cu
~2x exotic n-
def
lanthanides Z>66 (Sm)
~1.5x n-
def
lanthanides and above
~large gains on n-rich Fr, Bi, At, etc.
Assuming same mass as
UCx
(also ThC2 + 2C)
Slide18Conclusions
There are significant gains from the the 2GeV upgrade on heavy targetsGuaranteed and safe factors
Light targets do not benefit much
Need to discuss with ABRABLA and FLUKA groups to understand the differences (fundamentally different codes)
Intensity upgrade will be most welcome (factor 3
)ThCx targets may be produced again but need input from physics
03-May-18
J.P. Ramos – GUI 2018
18