Dose Measurements S Roesler DGSRP Collimation WG IR

  • Slides: 21
Download presentation
Dose Measurements S. Roesler (DGS-RP) Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 4 June

Dose Measurements S. Roesler (DGS-RP) Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 4 June 2012

Outline - Measurements 1) Ambient dose equivalent • manual radiation survey (AD 6 survey

Outline - Measurements 1) Ambient dose equivalent • manual radiation survey (AD 6 survey instrument), TS 1 25/04/12 • PMI readings 2) Absorbed dose • high level dosimetry (RPL dosimeters), 2011 (preliminary) - Comparison IR 3 vs IR 7 - Scaling to nominal operational parameters and comparison to simulations for IR 7 Thanks to: F. Jaquenod, C. Tromel, J. Tummer, H. Vincke 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 2

IR 3 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) Survey: 25/04/12 4 June 2012 Collimation

IR 3 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) Survey: 25/04/12 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers Survey: 25/04/12 3

IR 3 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) 4 June 2012 Survey: 25/04/12 Collimation

IR 3 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) 4 June 2012 Survey: 25/04/12 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers Survey: 25/04/12 4

IR 3 – Ambient dose equivalent (PMI readings 31/01/12) 12 µSv/h 4 June 2012

IR 3 – Ambient dose equivalent (PMI readings 31/01/12) 12 µSv/h 4 June 2012 6. 3 µSv/h 5. 1 µSv/h Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 6. 5 µSv/h 5

IR 3 – Absorbed dose (2011) 4. 2 k. Gy (LSXL 3 -19) 4

IR 3 – Absorbed dose (2011) 4. 2 k. Gy (LSXL 3 -19) 4 June 2012 5. 2 k. Gy (LSXR 3 -19) Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 6

IR 3 – Absorbed dose (2011) 1. 8 k. Gy (LSXL 3 -18) 4

IR 3 – Absorbed dose (2011) 1. 8 k. Gy (LSXL 3 -18) 4 June 2012 1. 8 k. Gy (LSXR 3 -18) Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 7

IR 3 – Absorbed dose (2011) 300 Gy (LSXL 3 -16) 4 June 2012

IR 3 – Absorbed dose (2011) 300 Gy (LSXL 3 -16) 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 8

IR 3 – Absorbed dose (2011) 1. 9 k. Gy (LSXR 3 -14) 5.

IR 3 – Absorbed dose (2011) 1. 9 k. Gy (LSXR 3 -14) 5. 2 k. Gy (LSXL 3 -13) 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 9

IR 7 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) Survey: 25/04/12 4 June 2012 Collimation

IR 7 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) Survey: 25/04/12 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers Survey: 25/04/12 10

IR 7 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) Survey: 25/04/12 4 June 2012 Collimation

IR 7 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) Survey: 25/04/12 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers Survey: 25/04/12 11

IR 7 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) Survey: 25/04/12 4 June 2012 Collimation

IR 7 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) Survey: 25/04/12 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers Survey: 25/04/12 12

IR 7 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) Survey: 25/04/12 4 June 2012 Collimation

IR 7 – Ambient dose equivalent (survey 25/04/12) Survey: 25/04/12 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers Survey: 25/04/12 13

IR 7 – Absorbed dose (2011) 10. 0 k. Gy (LSXL 7 -24) 4

IR 7 – Absorbed dose (2011) 10. 0 k. Gy (LSXL 7 -24) 4 June 2012 9. 2 k. Gy (LSXR 7 -22) Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 14

IR 7 – Absorbed dose (2011) 6. 6 k. Gy (LSXL 7 -18) 4

IR 7 – Absorbed dose (2011) 6. 6 k. Gy (LSXL 7 -18) 4 June 2012 5. 6 k. Gy (LSXR 7 -18) Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 15

IR 3 vs. IR 7 – Absorbed dose D 3 (2011) 5. 2 k.

IR 3 vs. IR 7 – Absorbed dose D 3 (2011) 5. 2 k. Gy (LSXR 3 -19) 4. 2 k. Gy (LSXL 3 -19) IR 3 9. 2 k. Gy (LSXR 7 -22) 10. 0 k. Gy (LSXL 7 -24) IR 7 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 16

IR 3 vs. IR 7 – Absorbed dose Q 5 (2011) 5. 2 k.

IR 3 vs. IR 7 – Absorbed dose Q 5 (2011) 5. 2 k. Gy (LSXL 3 -13) 1. 9 k. Gy (LSXR 3 -14) IR 3 5. 6 k. Gy (LSXR 7 -18) 6. 6 k. Gy (LSXL 7 -18) IR 7 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 17

IR 7 – Scaling to nominal parameters Dose equivalent rates (μSv/h) IR 7 -Right

IR 7 – Scaling to nominal parameters Dose equivalent rates (μSv/h) IR 7 -Right January 2011 January 2012 January 2017 (Jan. 2011 x fac. 54) Element Contact Aisle Contact B 1/B 2 Aisle (1 m) Contact Aisle TCP. D 6 10. 0 1. 2 31/76 6 150. 0 18. 0 540. 0 65. 0 TCP. C 6 18. 0 2. 5 275/345 16 270. 0 38. 0 970. 0 135. 0 TCP. B 6 31. 0 3. 1 300/560 40 465. 0 47. 0 1670. 0 170. 0 TCAPA 70. 0 3. 0 1100/860 35 1050. 0 45. 0 3780. 0 160. 0 TCAPB 13. 0 1. 2 145/203 13 195. 0 18. 0 700. 0 65. 0 TCSG. A 6 8. 0 1. 5 450/450 28 120. 0 23. 0 430. 0 80. 0 TCAPC 65. 0 2. 5 870/840 16 975. 0 38. 0 3510. 0 135. 0 Measurements 4 June 2012 January 2013 (Jan. 2011 x fac. 15) Extrapolations Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 18

IR 7 – Scaling to nominal parameters S. Roesler et al. , EDMS 863919

IR 7 – Scaling to nominal parameters S. Roesler et al. , EDMS 863919 Dose equivalent rates (μSv/h) (about two months cooling) IR 7 -Right January 2013 Nominal (Jan. 2013 x factor 3. 6) Element Contact Aisle TCP. D 6 150. 0 18. 0 540. 0 65. 0 TCP. C 6 270. 0 38. 0 970. 0 135. 0 TCP. B 6 465. 0 47. 0 1670. 0 170. 0 TCAPA 1050. 0 45. 0 3780. 0 160. 0 TCAPB 195. 0 18. 0 700. 0 65. 0 TCSG. A 6 120. 0 23. 0 430. 0 80. 0 TCAPC 975. 0 38. 0 3510. 0 135. 0 • reasonable agreement for passive absorber • dose rate somewhat lower than predicted for first secondary collimator (due to initial settings? ) 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 19

IR 3 – Scaling to nominal parameters Dose equivalent rates (μSv/h) IR 3 -Right

IR 3 – Scaling to nominal parameters Dose equivalent rates (μSv/h) IR 3 -Right January 2011 January 2013 (Jan. 2011 x fac. 15) January 2012 January 2017 (Jan. 2011 x fac. 54) Element Contact Aisle Contact B 1/B 2 Aisle (1 m) Contact Aisle TCP 13. 0 0. 3 180/88 6 195. 0 4. 5 702. 0 16. 0 TCAPA 24. 0 0. 7 440/360 8 360. 0 11. 0 1300. 0 38. 0 TCSG. 5 7. 5 0. 2 195/172 12 113. 0 405. 0 11. 0 MQWA. C 9. 0 270/176 5 135. 0 Measurements 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 490. 0 Extrapolations 20

Summary • measurement results exist from 1) PMI ionization chambers (ambient dose equivalent) 2)

Summary • measurement results exist from 1) PMI ionization chambers (ambient dose equivalent) 2) dedicated radiation surveys (ambient dose equivalent) 3) HLD (absorbed dose in air) • direct comparison with simulation results for the operational conditions of 2011 not (yet) available, scaling of measured residual dose rates to nominal operational parameters indicated rough agreement (within factor 2 -5) with simulations for IR 7 • measurements show asymmetry between beam 1 and 2 for both IR 3 and 7, doses higher by about a factor of two for beam 1 • residual dose rates higher in IR 7 as compared to IR 3 (factor of 10 for passive absorber in in front of D 3), ratio between both probably different for number of lost protons due to different layouts (e. g. , number and location of collimators and absorbers) • absorbed doses upstream of D 3 and Q 5 yokes (at the locations of the dosimeters!) higher for IR 7 (factor of 2 -5), conclusions on peak dose requires simulations 4 June 2012 Collimation WG – IR 3 passive absorbers 21

The environmental dose measurements of high dose Iodine131The environmental dose measurements of high dose Iodine131
LHC External Collimation Review Steve Myers Collimation reviewLHC External Collimation Review Steve Myers Collimation review
Choices for the Collimation System Collimation Impedance IssuesChoices for the Collimation System Collimation Impedance Issues
Collimation Counting Rates 1 Collimation basic definitions 2Collimation Counting Rates 1 Collimation basic definitions 2
Thomas Otto TE Safety Officer Cristina Adorisio DGSRPThomas Otto TE Safety Officer Cristina Adorisio DGSRP
ALARA Experience and Lessons Learnt Heinz Vincke DGSRPALARA Experience and Lessons Learnt Heinz Vincke DGSRP
BUFFER ZONE EHN 1 Claude Pesce DGSRP WhyBUFFER ZONE EHN 1 Claude Pesce DGSRP Why
Radiation Protection Constraints S Roesler M Brugger andRadiation Protection Constraints S Roesler M Brugger and
S Roesler C Theis C Urscheler Heinz VinckeS Roesler C Theis C Urscheler Heinz Vincke
Radiation Aspects D ForkelWirth S Roesler H VinckeRadiation Aspects D ForkelWirth S Roesler H Vincke
Who is Ms Roesler Where was I bornWho is Ms Roesler Where was I born
DOSE SPACING IN EARLY DOSE RESPONSE CLINICAL TRIALDOSE SPACING IN EARLY DOSE RESPONSE CLINICAL TRIAL
Topic Physics 2 a Dose and Dose equivelentTopic Physics 2 a Dose and Dose equivelent
Oncology Dose Finding A Case Study Intrapatient DoseOncology Dose Finding A Case Study Intrapatient Dose
indication Target symptoms Initial dose starting dose Targetindication Target symptoms Initial dose starting dose Target
Exercise 6 Dose linearity and dose proportionality ObjectivesExercise 6 Dose linearity and dose proportionality Objectives
Dose Distribution and Scatter Analysis Phantoms Depth DoseDose Distribution and Scatter Analysis Phantoms Depth Dose
Dose Response curve Dose Response curve Relationship betweenDose Response curve Dose Response curve Relationship between
Dose and Dose rate instruments Lesson topic 5Dose and Dose rate instruments Lesson topic 5
Low dose Carcinogenesis Low dose Anticarcinogenesis Hormesis canLow dose Carcinogenesis Low dose Anticarcinogenesis Hormesis can