canadian neutron beam centre status report to cins annual general meeting john root, director...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
214 views
TRANSCRIPT
Canadian Neutron Beam CentreStatus Report to CINS Annual General Meeting
John Root , Director
Canadian Neutron Beam Centre
Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario
University of Western Ontario October 13, 2006
Quantum MaterialsDr. Bill Buyers Principal RO (post-ret.)Dr. Zahra Yamani Assistant RO
Materials Science and EngineeringDr. Ron Rogge Senior RODr. Michael Gharghouri Associate RORon Donaberger RCO
Condensed Matter StructuresDr. Ian Swainson Senior ROLachlan Cranswick RCO
Thin Films and SurfacesDr. Zin Tun Senior RODr. Helmut Fritzsche Senior RO
Soft MaterialsDr. John Katsaras Senior RODr. Mu-Ping Nieh Assistant RO
Research StaffResearch Staff
Ian Swainson gives a demonstration at the 2006
Chalk River summer school
Group Leader - Technology GroupDr. Dimitry Sediako Senior RCO
Design and FabricationJohn Fox TO4Mike Watson TO4Larry McEwan TO4
Data Acquisition and ControlMel Potter TO5 (post-ret.)Tim Whan TO4Shahrukh Alavi TO3
Front-line experiment supportRaymond Sammon TO3Travis Dodd LSA
Management, Administration, Strategy and CommunicationNiki Schrie AS2Alastair McIvor Senior RCODr. John Root Director
Raymond Sammon filling the M5 cryomagnet, which has been operating since 2003, but is currently being repaired.
Supporting TeamSupporting Team
Neutron SourceNeutron Source
~ 73.7% availability in 2005/2006~ 1350 neutron beam days
AECL succeeded to extend the operating license beyond 2005 and is preparing a request to operate to an approximate horizon ~2012.
NRC Senior Executive are engaged in coordinating a discussion in government to formulate a recommendation for a longer term replacement – the Canadian Neutron Centre.
5 thermal-neutron spectrometers operating 24h/day, 7 days/week.
Beam LinesBeam Lines
N5 Upgrade in progress
2 beam lines under development
N5 UpgradesN5 Upgrades
Goals: Reduce radiological hazard from beam stop and beam channel Improve beam hazard indication Reduce background for measurements (factor of 10 improvement)– Increase signal for measurements (triple-axis)– Control system upgrade – first “production” roll-out / D3 prototype– Make N5 an attractive alternative triple-axis to C5, reducing clash
with reflectometry applications in the short term
Activities in 2005-2006:– Replaced the articulated detector / 2A shield with an integral
shielding package, similar to the low-background design on C5;– Installed a tall diffracted-beam channel, purchased PG for analyzer
and monochromator (quality unacceptable – returned to vendor);– Made progress on motor control system to C5 standard;– Discussed concept of shielding around the incident-beam channel to
reduce gamma-ray fields near the specimen table.
T3 beam line prototype
Rear servicing
hatch
Mar345 detector
Replaceable plate for feed
through connectors (not shown)
Rails for variable sample distance
Detector canister 24” rupture disk
Ø 2” window with rupture disk
Vessel (vacuum option)
Design-in option for evacuated flight path
Current StatusFabrication
Detector on xy translation
Detector canister & rear door
cover
Front view after test assembly
Current StatusCommissioning
Heavy door twists vessel
NRU Operations approval required before installation
Delays
• Financially driven: – Change in AECL-NRC agreement led to underestimated costs (50%),
prematurely exhausting budget– Reduced budget/revenue year
• Human Resource driven: – AECL priorities compete for design and fabrication resources– CNBC priorities: User-experiments, D3 Reflectometer, other
• Commissioning discoveries:– Heavy door, requiring re-design and fabrication
Further Work
• Phase 1: Functioning instrument suitable for many experiments and establishing final requirements– Adjustable beam stop
– Rapid operation beam shutter
– Remaining commissioning
– Detector calibration
– Software & hardware integration
– Electronics repair and upgrade
• Phase 2: Final T3 instrument – Multiple incident beam configurations
– Outer water shield if required
– Vacuum features added if required
Outreach 2006
• 9th biennial neutron scattering summer school at Chalk River
• Symposium for Bill Buyers• Neutron reflectometry workshop• Powder Diffraction workshop
Capacity / Occupancy(All classes of user)
Capacity / Occupancy(All classes of user)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
FY Ending
An
nu
al C
ap
ac
ity
Spectrometer Time Beam Time
Reflectometry~ ½ year
Facility AccessFrom a total of 1610 spectrometer days
Facility AccessFrom a total of 1610 spectrometer days
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Sp
ectr
om
eter
Tim
e (d
ays)
CondensedMatter
Structures
MaterialsScience &
Engineering
QuantumMaterials
SoftMaterials
Thin Films& Surfaces
Canadian University Industry Other
CNBC Proposals
Proposal Review Procedure … something to note
1. Upon receipt of a Proposal, the Director will ensure that a Local Contact has been assigned, and will forward the proposal to the Review Administrator.
2. The Review Administrator will register receipt of the Proposal, assign a number (e.g. CNBC-123), and deliver it to the Local Contact.
3. The Local Contact will review the Proposal, in consultation with the Technology Group Leader and the primary Proponent to:
a) ensure that the proposal is correct and completeb) evaluate the effort and cost required to mitigate any identified hazardsc) ensure that the experiment is feasible with CNBC equipment
4. Within one week from receipt, the Local Contact will either send a message of rejection (with reason) to the Review Administrator and primary Proponent, or return the correct and complete Proposal to the Review Administrator, for scientific review (cc primary Proponent).
5. The Local Contact may recommend which … etc…. Scientific Review NEXT
CNBC Proposals
Proponents are responsible to indicate on their proposals any hazards associated with their requests.
Discussion at an early stage enables us to figure out if and how to mitigate risks.
Categories include:– Explosive– Radioactive– Biologically active– Corrosive / reactive / flammable / toxic …
Please talk to us!
Access vs Funding 2005-2006 Access vs Funding 2005-2006
Experiments with Canadian academics occupied 51% of spectrometer time.
MFA covered 24% of CNBC expenditures.
CNBC in-house exp’ts and method development occupied 16% of spectrometer time.
Total Spectrometer Days 1610Total Expenses $4.05M
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
CanadianUniversity
Industry Other
Spectrometer TimeContributed Funds
NR
C F
un
din
g
MF
A g
ran
t
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Fiscal Year
MFA Funding Share Access by Canadian academics
Record of Access vs FundingCanadian Academics
Record of Access vs FundingCanadian Academics
Other User StatisticsOther User Statistics
2004-2005 2005-2006
Proponents (individuals) 292 (106) 240 (167)
Peer-approved projects (runs) 71 (128) 72 (111)
Student visitors 44 35
Publications / Reports 42 / 5 46 / 11
Indicator NIST CNBC 05/06
Total staff per scattering instrument 5.5 4.5
Facility budget per scattering instrument
$1.0 M $0.80 M
Publications with facility co-authors per instrument per year
9 - 12 9 - 12
Cost per publ. with facility co-authors < $110K < $75K
Sources: NIST Annual Report, Jan. 2003Meeting of North American Neutron Facility Directors, Feb. 2006
BenchmarksBenchmarks
CNBC ~ 20% shortCNBC ~ 20% short
