glasgow, 4 october 2008 - peter tindemans1 the european spallation source, 15 years in the making dr...

Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 1

The European Spallation Source, 15 years in the making

Dr Peter Tindemanschair ESS Preparatory Phase BoardNuPECC, Glasgow, 4 October 2008

Glasgow, 4 October- Peter Tindemans 2

Overview

1. High-end neutron sources in Europe; top tier sources world-wide 10 years after OECD Megascience Forum’s Global Neutron Strategy

2. The current choice for Europe’s future top tier facility and its expected performance Science Technology

3. Current situation: three bids to host ESS; ESFRI Site Review Panel

Poznan, 9 May 2008 - Peter Tindemans 3

OECD: A three-pronged global strategy1) refurbish some national ones; 2) maximise potential of ILL and ISIS; 3) three MW class in E, US, J (Asia-Pacific)


High-end and top tier sources

ILL reactor and ISIS spallation source were for a long time world’s best facilities; FRM-II reactor in Munich of ILL class

ESS Starting seriously early 90-ties: FZ Jülich, RAL

USA: ANS (Advanced Neutron Source) high power, high density reactor, abandoned ’96/’97 for Spallation Source SNS, utilising ESS design

J-PARC: proton accelerator research complex, incorporating JSNS with similar target design as ESS: liquid Hg

A brief history of ESS

Cooperating labs 1992, 1993 FZJülich and RAL start technical work

ESS (R&D) Council in charge (~1995 – 2003) 1997 First science case and first technical design: further R&D areas identified 1997 – 2002 More R&D, more detailed technical design 2000 – 2001 Investigation of multipurpose linac project CONCERT: 25 MW linac for neutrons,

transmutation, nuclear physics, … CEA discontinued May 2002, Official presentation of ESS project to governments and the science community in Bonn, 5

interested sites 2003 Governments: Europe needs ESS, but at a later stage Technical team and ESS Council discontinued

ESS Initiative: ENSA, sites and major labs; hosted at ILL (2004 – 2007) 2005 choice for ESS with one, 5 MW Long Pulse target station 2006 ESS on ESFRI Road Map 2004 – 2007: three countries officially committed to be site candidate

ESS Preparatory Phase Board (2007 onwards)

Glasgow. 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 5

Glasgow,. 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 6

The ESS to be built

Arguments SNS + 10 (+) years ESS “5x SNS” in many areas Maintain network of sources Cost-effectiveness dictates: eventually as many instruments as possible Start in as complementary a mode as possible

Choice start with 5 MW LP with:

20, and eventually maybe 35 - 40 instruments As many ancillary and science facilities as affordable Ready to operate in ‘industry-mode’ too: access mode (financial, time), IP

arrangements, demonstration experiments, standardised procedures, etc.)

and as much as possible upgradeable to: More power More target stations (SP, LP, low power dedicated TSs

Costs ~1.3 B€2008 investment; 110 M€2008 /y operating.


Pulse length requirements by scientific needs:

Irradiation work:

Single (Q,) experiments (D3, TAS?): SANS, NSE: 2 – 4 ms

Reflectometry: 0.5 – 2 ms

Single Xtal diffraction: 100 – 500 s

Powder diffraction: 5 – 500 s

Cold neutron spectroscopy: 50 – 2000 s

Thermal neutron spectroscopy: 20 – 600 s

Hot neutron spectroscopy: 10 – 300 s

Electronvolt spectroscopy: 1 – 10 s

Backscattering spectroscopy: 10 – 100 s, …

Long pulse sources don’t loose intensity when there is no need for excessive resolution, so peak flux characterizes source performance for sufficiently long pulses.

Shaping of ms long pulses feasible for > 95 % of cases

Hence: high power LP source with optimised instruments is way forward

The science: which ESS? Pulse length requirements

Courtesy Feri Mezei


0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

ISIS TS 1 SNS ESS ILL

Insta

nta

ne

ou

s n

eu

tro

n flu

x [a

.u.]

Time [ms]

Ratio of areas defines relative power: 1:13:110:3;(only pulse duration is shown)

Pulses for High-Intensity TOF Reflectometer; various sources


ESS LPTS advantages:

Higher cold peak fluxMore often „sufficient“ pulse lengthAdjustable resolutionCleaner line shape

Figures of merit


Important Contribution to European Priority Research Mission

Flagship Field of Research

Scenario 1ESS 5 + 5

Scenario 25 MW

Long Pulse

Scenario 3 a1 MW Short Pulse 10 Hz

Scenario 3 b1 MW Short Pulse 50 Hz

Functional Materials, Microsystems and IT, Nanotechnology.

Solid State Physics WL SL C C

Microsystems and IT, Functional Materials, Nanotechnologies, Traffic and Transport,

Sustainable Development.

Material Science &Engineering

WL SL C C

Functional Materials, Nanotechnologies, Traffic and Transport, Sustainable Development

Liquids &Glasses WL SL C C

Functional Materials, Nanotechnologies, Traffic and Transport, Sustainable Development

Soft Condensed Matter

WL WL SL C

Functional Material, Health, Sustainable Development

Chemical StructureKinetics & Dynamics

WL SL C C

Health and Biotechnology Biology & Biotechnology

WL WL C C

Traffic and Transport,Cultural Heritage, Sustainable Development

Mineral Science, Earth Science,

Environment and Cultural Heritage

WL SL C C

Cosmology, Origin of the Universe, Education, Public Understanding

Fundamental Physics WL WL SL C

Comparing 3 European scenarios to SNS


H – Ion Sources : 65 mA each

ß=0.8 6cells/cavity

Funnel

2 x 57 mA

20 MeV

RFQ

308 m 262 m

CCL, ß=0.912

1334 MeV

CCL CCDTL

100 MeV

2.5 MeV 75 keV

400 MeV

DTL DTL

228 mA equivalent current

114 mA DTL DTLRFQ

1120 MHz SC linac 280 MHz

Energy Ramping / Bunch Rotation

SP, LP

SP , LP

2.2 m

Achromat and rings

LP Target

Chopper

560 MHz

78 m

SP Target

DTL DTL

560 MHz

•5 MW SP and a 5 MW LP target station•H- Ion sources•Compressor ring to produce very short (~ 1μs) pulses

2003 Design of 10 MW ESS


262 m

CCL ß = 0.875

Bunch rotation

CCL CCDTL

Funnel

LP

LP 2.2 m

28 cyromodule

2.5 MeV 75 keV

20 MeV

liquid Hg or Pb

SCL ß = 0.8

H+ sources: 85 mA each 280 MHz 560 MHz 1120 MHz SC linac:

6 cells/cavity 4 cavities/

cyromodule

1.0 GeV, 5 MW,

300 kJ/pulse

1 GeV 1 GeV

560 MHz

633 m 202 m 7 m 72 m 90 m

2 x 75 mA 150 mA RFQ DTL

100 MeV 400 MeV

Ion source for 5 MW LP: exists Linac: SNS commissioned 08-05: beyond specs; others as well

No compression ring

Technology: a mature accelerator

Accelerator Design Review and Optimisation

Design of ESS accelerator was completed in 2002-03, and at that moment considered the best mix between NC technology and SC technology.

Many relevant developments; several linac projects ongoing; SNS completed.

Completion of baseline engineering, including modifications to optimise cost-performance ratio, were always assumed to take up to 2 years and cost ~ 30M€.

Obvious areas for consideration in design review: SC cavities below 400 MeV? How low? Higher gradients per cavity, but high beam current poses limitations Is one H+ ion source possible? Is it desirable to avoid funnel (front end intensity

limited)? One source and 2 GeV? Frequencies: CERN or DESY frequencies? Yet components will differ due to

high beam current, long pulses and low rep rate, necessary for optimal neutron production

Be careful about beam quality, impact on upgradeability, costs, etc.


Poznan, 9 May 2008 - Peter Tindemans 15

protons

Hg – Mercury 1 m3

NeutronBeam

Neutron BeamNeutron beam

Moderator

Moderator

Target

5 MW LP target perfectly feasible

Target challenges: engineering, radiation, pitting (from shock waves)

SNS shows: engineering of liquid Hg target is feasible Radiation damage to container is limited (LAMPF beam dump,

PSI’s liquid PbBi target accumulated as much irradiation as months operation of ESS target; SNS target does extremely well)

What about pitting? SP targets above 2 MW or so seriously affected. There may be solutions (e.g. injecting He bubbles) but 5 MW SP target was too optimistic, at least poses serious risks

Appreciate radical difference between SP and LP target SP: 23 kJ proton pulse deposited in 1 μs ~ 20 GW instantaneous power (20 x

Niagara Falls!) LP: 300 kJ proton pulse deposited in 2 ms ~ 150 MW (same as HFIR)


For LP target station pitting no big problem

Nature of pitting problem Almost all proton pulse energy deposited as heat in target Temperature

jump of irradiated volume Pressure jump, as heat has to be absorbed in constant volume (inertia of Hg doesn’t allow fast thermal expansion) Pressure jump travels as shock wave at velocity of sound and bounces between walls Cavitation damage (pitting).

However, propagation of sound waves allows expansion of liquid Hg and release pressure: in ~ 30 μs expansion will reach adjacent volume (outside the 2 liter irradiated volume). Does this reduce problem?

Compare now SP and LP SP: total pulse energy 23 kJ in 1 μs (<< 30 μs). No reduction LP: only ~ 4 kJ in 30 μs (as 300 kJ pulse has 2 ms duration) so full energy

distributed over much larger (2 orders magnitude) volume; moreover shock wave only due to the 4 kJ; it travels on top of continuously spreading pressure


Instrument optimalisation

Source and instrument characteristics need to be tailored to each other for optimal performance Rencurel workshop *): Monte Carlo simulations on wide range of instruments, using pulse shaping and frame multiplication by

using multiple choppers Additional gains through modern neutron optics

Cold TOF: up to 100x IN5 at ILL under favourable conditions Back scattering (among least favourable at LP source): still competitive with back scattering at SNS SANS: considerably higher than any competitor (SP or CW) of equal time averaged flux; and for whole variety of SANS instruments now in

use (focusing, magnetic, SESANS, ..) Single crystal spectrometer: at least competitive Protein Crystallography Station: shown to be feasible on LP source; will revolutionise applications of neutrons in protein crystallography Reflectometers: outperforms ILL; competes very favourably with SNS

*) H. Schober et al, Nucl. Instr and Methods in Phys. Res., A 589 (2008) 34-46


Cost-effective, innovative, feasible

ConclusionInitial configuration is by far the best you can get for the

priceTotally mature design: innovative combination of

available technologiesUpgradeability warrants ESS will be with further

relatively small investments best facility for next 40 years or so.



Changes in European political landscape brought us to where we are

1. ESFRI Road Map (modeled after DoE 20-year facilities outlook) + strong desire of countries and European Commission to implement this ESS and ILL 20/20 are the (only) neutron projects on this Road Map of

European projects. ESS is exactly as proposed by ESS Initiative: 5 MW LP upgradeable,

same timeschedule (first neutrons 2017/2018). No need for new science review

2. UK Neutron Review Science case unequivocal Reviewing 1 MW upgrade of ISIS and new multi-MW European source :

‘next generation European Source’ is first priority. No feasibility study into ISIS upgrade yet.

3. Three very serious site candidatures formally proposed by their governments and backed up with money


ESFRI Road Map 2006

35 ‘infrastructures’: 6 in Social Sciences & Humanities; 7 Environmental Sciences; 3 Energy; 6 Biomedical & Life Sciences; and then:


Serious site candidates

Scandinavia/Sweden: Lund Spain/Basque Country: Bilbao Hungary: Debrecen

Governments pledged each between 300 and 400 M€ for construction (including site premium); innovative schemes (either EIB’s Risk Sharing Financing Facility or - in Spain’s case - National Innovation Fund) to bridge mismatches between financing requirements and flow of contributions.

Larger (initial) share in operational costs than corresponding to current size of neutron communities

All set up project organisations and committed funds in the order of millions of Euros for the next few years.

All meet basic site requirements. Site contenders have started to inform and negotiate with other governments.

Round Table meetings held. Supplying decentrally constructed components? Yes, but strict central project

leadership (ideally full power of the purse): cf. SNS-model


Towards a decision

ESFRI instigated official Site Review December 2007

Sites responded (end April 2008) to Questionnaire

Site visits and review (July 2008): Catherine Cesarsky (former DG ESO), Thom Mason (director ORNL), Norbert Holtkamp (dep DG ITER), Peter Tindemans. Reported on Science and design issues Legal structure and applicable tax regime (esp. VAT) Cost estimates: any site-dependent aspects? Financial offers Physical site characteristics Licensing issues Local team, envisioned building up of international team Living and working conditions Scientific and industrial environment

ESFRI transmits Review second half October to ministers Some hope that Council of Ministers and Infrastructure Conference at

Versailles in December 2008 will mark next step


FP7: ESS Preparatory Phase Project

Site decision and basic financial agreement parallel to 2-year Preparatory Phase project, (5 M€ EU support) starting April 2008)

Issues:

•Site reviews to get better more comparable site proposals•Addressing more in-depth safety issues, socio-economic aspects, regulatory requirements•Environmental compliance issues different target materials•Radio-active inventory, emission, handling, storage•Decommissioning•Upgradeability•Novel ideas for user operations ,and for governance•Enhancing support for ES: industry, funding agencies, public at large, politics

The Dark Horse’s finish

Editorial Science magazine (October 2006, after ESFRI ROAD Map): “Dark Horse ESS re-enters the race”

A coalition of core countries seems to be in the making

How much time needed? Site Review Group’s view: 2 years for design review, design optimisation and completion of baseline

engineering 5-6 years for construction until first neutrons

Let us hope Europe lives up to the challenge after 15 years!


glasgow, 4 october 2008 - peter tindemans1 the european spallation source, 15 years in the making dr...

Documents

years ess

europe needs ess

munich of ill class

peter tindemans7 slide

peter tindemans5 slide

technical work ess rd

utilising ess design

peter tindemans1