# Presentation: 258087

## Simulations of Pressure Waves induced by Proton PulsesIn search of the answer to the fundamental question:                                                               are materials indeed stronger than what we give them credit ?  

**Nicholas Simos, PhD, PE**
**Brookhaven National Laboratory**
**INPUT also from**
**H. Kirk, K. McDonald, S. Kahn, H. Ludewig**

##  OVERVIEW

Target Concepts
Simulation Studies
Benchmark Studies

**Target Concepts**
**Simulation Studies**
**Benchmark Studies**

##  Background 

All studies suggest that, to push frontier in proton drivers to an order higher than the existing ones, one must maximize the yield at the source

Proton drivers with beam power up to 4 MW could become reality

Challenge in finding suitable target material/configurations that will withstand intense heating, shock waves and radiation damage

Experience suggests that without R&D surprises have a way of coming back

**All studies suggest that, to push frontier in proton drivers to an order higher than the existing ones, one must maximize the yield at the source**
**Proton drivers with beam power up to 4 MW could become reality**
**Challenge in finding suitable target material/configurations that will withstand intense heating, shock waves and radiation damage**
**Experience suggests that without R&D surprises have a way of coming back**

##  WHY SIMULATION ?

Because of complex geometries the ONLY way to identify trouble spots is through simulation
Given that we DO NOT have the high power yet (we just talk about it) it is hard to know how target materials/target systems will REALY respond
By benchmarking simulations at the available lower beam power we can REASONABLY extrapolate the processes (as much as the state of knowledge allows)

ONE thing that we cannot really do is identify FAILURE (failure means different things to different people)

**Because of complex geometries the ONLY way to identify trouble spots is through simulation**
**Given that we DO NOT have the high power yet (we just talk about it) it is hard to know how target materials/target systems will REALY respond**
**By benchmarking simulations at the available lower beam power we can REASONABLY extrapolate the processes (as much as the state of knowledge allows)**
**ONE thing that we cannot really do is identify FAILURE (failure means different things to different people)**

## Goals

**Find best possible materials that can be used as targets/beam windows under extreme conditions**
**Experiment with selected materials, measure responses **
**Validate ****prediction models**** against measurements to gain confidence in predicting material response and/or failure at anticipated extreme conditions**
**USE**** experimental results to benchmark energy depositions predicted by the various Monte Carlo codes**

## TARGET CONCEPTS

- Solid Targets for Muon Collider/Neutrino Factory
- Graphite, carbon-carbon, rotating band
- Beam windows
- Solid Targets for the Neutrino Superbeam (CC composite)
- Targets for Pulsed Neutron Sources

## Graphite Targets - E951

## ATJ Graphite Energy Depositions

## ATJ Graphite Strain Data Verification of fundamental modes of target response

**Record of strains in the middle of the graphite rod (left) shows a bending frequency between 380-390 Hz **
**The prediction of the detailed model that implements the supporting/holding fixtures of the target as close to the real setting as possible, predicts a bending frequency of 395 Hz**
**Also from the record, the axial “ringing” of the target has a period of 260 to 265 microseconds. The fundamental axial period T=2L/c (where L is target rod length and c is speed of sound) is approximately 261 microseconds**
**The radial “ringing” on the other hand, which from theory is calculated at 150 KHz (or 6.625 microsecond period), is visible only in the strain record filtered by the 500 KHz acquisition**

## Slide 10

## ATJ Graphite Strain Data 

## ATJ Graphite Strain ComparisonPrediction model has not implemented damping from supports or material

## ATJ Graphite Strain Data - Predictions 

##  Strain Comparison: Graphite vs. Carbon-Carbon

** ****Strain Comparison: Graphite vs. Carbon-Carbon**

## Carbon-Carbon Strain Data

## Slide 16

## Slide 17

## E951 WINDOW TEST Station Set-UpFiber-optic Strain Gauges & Double window vacuum monitoring 

## What Triggered the Window Experimental Effort

**Figure above depicts the tight beam spot requirement (0.5 x 0.5 mm rms) for target experiment at AGS**
**Induced shock stress in a window structure by 16 TP intensity beam and the spot above will likely fail most materials in a single short pulse ( ~ 2 ns)**
**Figure (right) depicts prediction of vonMises stress in a stainless steel window for the above conditions. Initial shock stress is ~ 3 x yield strength of material !!**

## Mechanism of induced shock stress in windows

**No matter how thin the window is, the reverberation of stress between surfaces is the key issue**
** ****vonMises stress amplitude depends on the spot size (initial compressive load amplitude), thickness of window, speed of sound and pulse shape**
-  **the measurement of strain on the surface is to be used as benchmark of the ability of the model to predict the stress field in the heated zone**
-  **the radial response (stress/strain) and the ability of the pulse to relax depends on the spot size and the pulse structure**
-  **smaller spot size does not necessarily mean larger response at a distance**
-  **smaller spot size definitely means higher stress field in the vicinity of the heated zone**

## Mechanism of induced shock stress in windows

## Slide 22

## Issues and Material Matrix selection

- FAST proton beam interacting with window and depositing energy in small spot inducing shock waves
- Based on a 24 GeV/16 TP/0.5 mm rms beam MOST materials could fail with a single pulse
- Though thin, failure in window governed by through-thickness response
**Sound speed**, **material thickness** and **pulse structure** are critical elements
- Material search combined with analytical predictions led to the following materials for testing
- Inconel 718 (1mm and 6mm thickness to study the effect)
- Havar
- Titanium Alloy (highest expectation of survivability)
- Aluminum
- Aluminum (3000 series) selected as the one that COULD fail under realistic expectations of AGS beam during E951 (~ 8 TP and 1mm rms)

## Finite Element Models to Capture the Dynamic Response of Windows

## Aluminum Window Strain Waves  (beam spot  ~ 0.3 x 1mm)

## Aluminum Window Strain Wave Simulation

## Aluminum Window Strain Data Experimental data vs. prediction using the new beam spot (0.3 x 1mm)

## Recorded Aluminum Window Strain Data in back-to-back pulses 

## Measured and predicted strains in the 1mm thick Inconel-718 

## RECORDED strains in the Havar Window (back-to-back pulses) 

## Lesson: You better have the necessary resolution, or ...

**Lesson**: You better have the necessary resolution, or ...

## Illustration of sampling rate on data prediction

## Slide 33

## Slide 34

## Slide 35

## Slide 36

## Microscopic Evaluation

- Of a Particle Bed Target

## MACROSCOPIC ASSESSMENT OF A PARTICLE BED OPTION

- Utilize poroelastic equations of saturated medium
- Assess pulse attenuation vs. microscopic geometric parameters
- Validate using a controlled experiment

## Slide 39

## Recent BNL Irradiation Studies

## Slide 41

## Slide 42

## Slide 43

## Solid Target Option: Super-Invar Irradiation Study

**WHY STUDY super Invar ?**
**High-Z with low CTE (0-150 ****o****C)**
**How is CTE affected by radiation?**
**What happens to other important properties?**

## Super-Invar Irradiation Study – Temperature Effects