Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 25 references

Thermal Design and Experimental Validation of a Water-Cooled Bimetallic Minichannel Beam Dump for High-Power Heavy-Ion Accelerators

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An effective beam-size parameter, validated at 30 kW, sets the safe power limit for a minichannel beam dump.

desk verdict Solid incremental engineering validation; the S_eff extrapolation needs a sensitivity analysis before the FRIB power-limit map can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09671 v1 pith:DOB7AF2C submitted 2026-08-10 physics.acc-ph

J. Song , N. Bultmann , M. Reaume , M. Patil , R. Quispe-Abad , W. Franklin , S. I. Eom , E. Wakai
show 1 more author
M. Vargas Vallejo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords minichannelbeamdumpheavy-ionacceleratorthermalvalidationconjugateheattransfereffectivebeam-sizeparameterCuCrZr/Al2219bimetallicinfraredthermographyFRIB
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the thermal design and experimental validation of a water-cooled minichannel beam dump for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), built to absorb the intense, tightly focused heavy-ion beams that limit accelerator power. The authors show that a $6^\circ$-tilted copper-alloy/aluminum absorber with 2-mm water channels can hold surface temperatures near the $350\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$ design limit while absorbing tens of kilowatts. The central result is an experimentally confirmed power-scaling rule: the maximum allowable deposited power grows approximately linearly with a single 'effective beam-size' parameter that folds together the two Gaussian beam widths. Because the rule matches the CFD prediction within about 10 percent at the design limit, it gives operators a quick way to set safe beam-power limits for any beam optics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective beam-size parameter $S_\mathrm{eff}$, a single dimensionless number that collapses the two-dimensional Gaussian beam footprint into one variable controlling allowable deposited power. It is built from the exponents $B$, $C$, and $D$ fitted to the CFD beam-size matrix, using a 1-mm reference beam size $\sigma_0$. $S_\mathrm{eff}$ does the work of letting a quick linear relation, $P_{\max}=A\,S_\mathrm{eff}$, replace full 3D conjugate heat-transfer simulations when setting operating limits. The other load-bearing piece is the bimetallic absorber geometry itself: a 15-mm CuCrZr layer bonded through Nb and Al1100 interlayers to a 5-mm Al2219 section, with 42 parallel 2-mm-wide water channels, which spreads heat laterally and removes it at an effective heat-transfer coefficient around $29\,000\ \mathrm{W\,m^{-2}\,K^{-1}}$.

What would settle it

Irradiate the same MCBD prototype with a heavy-ion beam whose range in CuCrZr is about 0.3 mm and whose Gaussian $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ lie within the fitted 2–10 mm range, at 30 kW deposited power; if the measured peak surface temperature exceeds $350\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$, or the fitted coefficient $A$ differs from 1.918 by more than 10 percent, the validated scaling law is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a compact bimetallic minichannel beam dump can safely absorb intermediate-power heavy-ion beams, and that the power it can absorb obeys a predictable scaling law. The authors derive an empirical correlation from CFD, $P_{\max} = A\,\sigma_x^{B}\,\sigma_y^{C}\,\exp(D \ln\sigma_x \ln\sigma_y)$ with fitted coefficients $A=1.918$, $B=0.431$, $C=0.965$, and $D=-0.0469$, then collapse it into an effective beam-size parameter $S_\mathrm{eff} = (\sigma_x/\sigma_0)^{B}\,(\sigma_y/\sigma_0)^{C}\,\exp[D \ln(\sigma_x/\sigma_0)\ln(\sigma_y/\sigma_0)]$ with $\sigma_0=1$ mm. Electron-beam tests at deposited powers up to 30 kW showed that maximum surface temperature stays nearly constant when deposited power is raised in proportion to $S_\mathrm{eff}$, and the implied scaling coefficient at $350\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$ ($A = 2.09\pm0.16$ and $2.15\pm0.16$) agrees with the simulation value within about 10 percent. The validated correlation is then used to map the magnetic-rigidity-dependent beam footprints onto allowable primary-beam power, showing that 30-kW operation is thermally allowable in specific rigidity ranges and that the end/wing regions, not the central minichannel section, set the ultimate power limit.

Load-bearing premise

The validation uses a 17-keV electron beam with rastered footprints much larger than the real FRIB heavy-ion beam, and assumes that the power-scaling law fitted to CFD over 2–10 mm beam sizes still holds for those larger electron footprints and for the ion beam's near-surface volumetric deposition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FRIB can operate at intermediate power (around 30 kW primary beam) with this compact beam dump, with safe operating envelopes set by beam rigidity offset.
  • Operators can estimate allowable deposited power for new beam optics directly from the two Gaussian beam widths via $P_{\max}=A\,S_\mathrm{eff}$, without re-running full 3D simulations.
  • The end/wing regions, not the central minichannel section, become the limiting factor at high power, so improving those regions is the next design lever.
  • The bimetallic minichannel cooling concept transfers to other high-heat-flux beam-intercepting devices, such as targets and collimators, in heavy-ion or proton facilities.
  • Extrapolation of the experimentally determined coefficient to the $350\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$ design limit gives a quantitative uncertainty estimate (about 10 percent) for the simulation-based power-limit prediction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the linear $S_\mathrm{eff}$ scaling holds beyond the tested range, the same dimensionless parameter could serve as a general 'absorbed-power capacity' figure for any water-cooled dump, allowing cross-machine comparisons based on just two beam sigmas.
  • A natural next experiment is to test the same prototype with a beam whose energy is high enough to deposit heat through the full ~0.3 mm stopping depth, isolating whether volumetric deposition changes the fitted coefficient.
  • Because the primary-beam-power limits in Fig. 15 assume a fixed 75 percent deposition fraction, real operating margins will vary with beam species and target thickness, a variability the current linear mapping does not capture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the thermal design and experimental validation of a water-cooled CuCrZr/Al2219 minichannel beam dump for FRIB. The authors describe a conjugate CFD model, an empirical correlation for maximum allowable deposited power as a function of beam size (Eq. 4), and a series of 17-keV electron-beam tests using IR thermography and embedded thermocouples. Surface temperature agreement is reported within 4%, internal temperatures within 15%, and power-scaling tests at up to 30 kW deposited power show an approximately linear relation between the effective beam-size parameter S_eff and allowable power. Extrapolation to the 350°C design limit yields scaling coefficients A=2.09±0.16 and 2.15±0.16, claimed to agree with the simulation-derived A=1.918 within about 10%. The conclusion is that the validated model confirms the MCBD can maintain absorber temperatures within design limits under intermediate-power FRIB operating conditions.

Significance. This is a useful engineering contribution: it provides a complete design rationale, a systematic layer-thickness optimization, a detailed CFD model, and a multi-case experimental campaign with explicit uncertainty discussion. The idea of reducing the two-dimensional Gaussian footprint to a single effective beam-size parameter is practical, and the tests span deposited powers up to 30 kW. However, the central quantitative claim—agreement between experimental and simulated A within 10%—is not currently reproducible because of an internal inconsistency in the definition and reported values of S_eff (Major Comment 1), and the experimental demonstration does not independently validate the extrapolation of Eq. (4) to the large beam sizes used in the tests (Major Comment 2). The electron-beam proxy and the 75% deposition assumption further weaken the mapping to FRIB primary-beam power. With those points addressed, the paper would be a solid validation study.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.5, Eq. (5)] Direct evaluation of Eq. (5) with the stated constants (B=0.431, C=0.965, D=-0.0469, σ0=1 mm) for the first 300°C test point, σ_x=7.94 mm and σ_y=47.8 mm, gives S_eff≈70, not the reported S_eff=9.5. The same discrepancy propagates to the other points, e.g., σ_x=8.08 mm and σ_y=91 mm gives S_eff≈127, not 16.7. Since the experimental values A1=1.71±0.10 and A2=1.39±0.08, and hence the extrapolated A=2.09±0.16 and 2.15±0.16, are obtained from linear fits of deposited power versus S_eff, the claimed agreement with A=1.918 within 10% is not reproducible from the information given. Please correct Eq. (5), the reported S_eff values, or the constants, and recompute the fits.
  2. [§2.5 and §4.5] Eq. (4) is an empirical fit to CFD results over σ_x, σ_y = 2–10 mm with A=1.918, B=0.431, C=0.965, and D=-0.0469. The electron-beam tests in Section 4.5 use σ_y from 47.8 to 121 mm, a factor of 5–12 beyond the fitted range, and then compute S_eff using those same exponents. A linear P-versus-S_eff fit therefore tests only whether the assumed functional form collapses the data; it does not validate the exponents in the extrapolated regime, and any error in the exponents would bias the fitted A. The manuscript does not show that Eq. (4) reproduces CFD-computed allowable powers at the large beam sizes used in the experiment. Please add CFD verification points at the experimental beam sizes, fit the exponents using the experimental data, or otherwise justify the extrapolation.
  3. [§3.1 and §4.5] The validation relies on a 17-keV electron beam rastered to footprints with σ_y up to 121 mm, whereas the FRIB reference beam sizes used in the thermal design are σ_x=2–10 mm and σ_y=7–26 mm before projection. The electron-beam deposition depth and lateral scattering also differ from the heavy-ion case, which is modeled with a volumetric source over 0.28 mm. Because the final claim is that the model confirms safe operation under intermediate-power FRIB operating conditions, the proxy must reproduce the local heat-flux distribution and edge effects at the relevant scales; the manuscript does not quantify this. In particular, the edge-degradation behavior in Fig. 12 is not fully captured by the simulation, and the largest experimental footprints extend well beyond the range where Eq. (4) was fitted.
  4. [§5, Fig. 15] The conversion from deposited power to primary beam power is made with a single 75% deposition fraction. The introduction states that 60–80% of the primary beam power is transported downstream and deposited in the beam dump. Since Fig. 15 gives the operational power limits and identifies the hatched 30-kW regions, the sensitivity of these limits to the deposition fraction (for example, 60% or 80%) should be reported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Table 3] The uncertainty in surface temperature is described as '4% in absolute temperature' in the abstract and '4% in K' in Table 3; please clarify whether this means 4% of the reading in kelvin or an absolute 4 K.
  2. [§4.1] The internal thermocouple agreement of 15% is attributed to junction-depth and beam-position uncertainties; please quantify the expected uncertainty from these sources so that the attribution can be assessed.
  3. [§4.3] There is a typo: 'comapraed' should be 'compared'.
  4. [Table 2] There is a typo: 'prooperties' should be 'properties'.
  5. [Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) uses logarithms of dimensional quantities (σ_x and σ_y in mm). Using σ/σ0 with an explicit reference size, as in Eq. (5), would avoid the formal dimensional issue and make the units of the fit coefficients unambiguous.
  6. [Fig. 10(d)] The residual axis is labeled '%' but the sign convention and the reference (measured or simulated) are not defined; please specify which quantity the residual is relative to.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the S_eff-based 'confirmation' builds the measured abscissa from the same CFD-fitted exponents that Eq. 4 predicts, so the extrapolated power-limit map is not independently validated; the direct temperature measurements remain a separate, valid check.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.5 (Eq. 4) and Section 4.5 (Eqs. 5-6)]
    "A direct fit to the calculated beam-size matrix yielded A = 1.918, B = 0.431, C = 0.965, and D = -0.0469. ... Based on Eq. 4, the combined effects of σx and σy are represented by a dimensionless effective beam-size parameter, Seff, defined as ... Accordingly, Eq. 4 can be rewritten as Pmax = A Seff (6)."

    Equation 5 defines Seff using exactly the B, C, D coefficients that were fitted to CFD results in Eq. 4 over only 2-10 mm beam sizes; with sigma_0 = 1 mm, Seff is algebraically identical to the sigma-dependence of Eq. 4, so Eq. 6 is Eq. 4 rewritten rather than an independent relation. Section 4.5 then evaluates the correlation at sigma_y up to 121 mm, about 12 times beyond the fitted range, and interprets the linear P-versus-Seff fit plus the agreement of the fitted A with 1.918 as confirming the correlation. But because the abscissa is constructed from the assumed exponents, the fit cannot validate the extrapolated exponent law; any mismatch in the true large-beam scaling would be absorbed into the fitted multiplicative coefficient A.

full rationale

The central experimental validation is genuinely independent: the CFD conjugate model is compared with IR surface temperatures within 4% and internal thermocouples within 15% up to 27.2 kW, and direct demonstrations reach 30 kW deposited power at 292 C, below the 350 C design limit. These results alone substantiate the abstract's operational claim that the beam dump can maintain absorber temperatures within the design limit under intermediate-power conditions. The circularity is confined to the S_eff-based correlation. Equation 5 defines S_eff using the same exponents B, C, and D fitted to Eq. 4's CFD matrix over 2-10 mm, so Eq. 6 is exactly Eq. 4 rewritten by construction. Section 4.5 then applies this S_eff at beam sizes up to sigma_y = 121 mm, an extrapolation of 5-12 times beyond the fitted range, and treats the linear P-versus-S_eff fit plus the closeness of A to 1.918 as experimental validation of the correlation. Because the abscissa was built from the very exponents being assumed, the test cannot verify the extrapolated scaling behavior; it only checks the multiplicative normalization under that assumption. The paper explicitly acknowledges the electron-beam cannot reproduce the needed sigma_x-sigma_y combinations, and it does not check Eq. 4 against CFD at the experimental large-beam conditions. The final power-limit map in Fig. 15 inherits that extrapolated correlation, so this portion of the predictive chain is not independently grounded. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is present, and the direct thermal validation is strong, which keeps the overall circularity score moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The power-limit analysis rests on a small number of empirically fitted coefficients and several standard engineering assumptions. The fitted coefficients A, B, C, D come from the CFD matrix, and the experimental A values are fitted from electron-beam data. The main axioms are empirical heat-transfer correlations, the turbulence model, perfect-bond assumptions at interfaces, the Gaussian beam profile, the 75 percent deposition fraction, and linear temperature extrapolation.

free parameters (2)
  • Eq. 4 scaling coefficients A, B, C, D = A = 1.918, B = 0.431, C = 0.965, D = -0.0469
    Direct fit to the CFD beam-size matrix (Section 2.5); used to define S_eff and the maximum allowable deposited power.
  • Experimental S_eff prefactors A1 and A2 = A1 = 1.71 +/- 0.10 kW, A2 = 1.39 +/- 0.08 kW
    Linear fits of deposited power versus S_eff with zero intercept (Section 4.5); used to extrapolate to the 350 C design limit, giving A = 2.09 +/- 0.16 and 2.15 +/- 0.16.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Dittus-Boelter correlation for turbulent flow in rectangular ducts accurately predicts minichannel heat transfer here.
    Used to select channel width (Eq. 2, Section 2.2); this standard empirical correlation is not separately validated for the 2 mm channel geometry in this paper.
  • domain assumption The k-omega SST turbulence model with nominal wall treatments correctly predicts conjugate heat transfer in the minichannel array.
    Adopted for the 3D CFD model (Section 2.3, Table 2); no turbulence-model sensitivity study is reported.
  • domain assumption Explosion-bonded and welded interfaces are perfect thermal contacts with zero resistance.
    Section 2.3 treats interfaces as thermally bonded; any real contact resistance would change internal temperature predictions and the CuCrZr/Al2219 interface temperature.
  • domain assumption The beam energy deposition is a 2D Gaussian profile with a fixed volumetric depth of 0.28 mm.
    Used for both design and validation simulations (Section 2.3, Table 2); real beam tails and detailed PHITS depth-dose profiles are simplified.
  • domain assumption 75 percent of the FRIB primary beam power is deposited in the beam dump.
    Used to convert deposited power to primary beam power in Section 2.2 and Fig. 15; based on operational estimates, not measured in the electron-beam test.
  • domain assumption Maximum absorber temperature rises linearly with deposited power for a fixed beam size, allowing extrapolation to 350 C.
    Assumed in Section 2.5 and Section 4.5; the highest measured temperatures are about 292 C, below the design limit, and nonlinear material or boiling effects are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The power-law-with-interaction form of Eq. 4 adequately describes the CFD-computed power limits across all beam sizes.
    Eq. 4 is an empirical fit to CFD results (Section 2.5); no first-principles derivation of this functional form is provided.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective beam-size parameter S_eff
    purpose: Collapses the horizontal and vertical beam sizes into a single variable so that maximum allowable deposited power can be written as P_max = A times S_eff.
    S_eff (Eq. 5) is built from exponents fitted in Eq. 4 and is validated internally in the same experimental campaign; it is not an independently falsifiable physical entity outside this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal Design and Experimental Validation of a Water-Cooled Bimetallic Minichannel Beam Dump for High-Power Heavy-Ion Accelerators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DOB7AF2C

@misc{pith2026260809671,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal Design and Experimental Validation of a Water-Cooled Bimetallic Minichannel Beam Dump for High-Power Heavy-Ion Accelerators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DOB7AF2C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09671}
}
abstract

Efficient thermal management of beam-intercepting devices is essential for high-power heavy-ion accelerators,where intense and localized energy deposition can limit primary beam power and operational reliability. This work presents the thermal design and experimental validation of a water-cooled bimetallic minichannel beam dump developed for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), a leading experimental nuclear physics facility. The design integrates three key thermal features: a tilted absorber geometry to reduce local heat flux, a CuCrZr/Al2219 bimetallic structure to enhance heat spreading while maintaining water-side compatibility, and 2-mm-wide minichannels to achieve high convective heat removal. A conjugate thermal model was developed to predict surface temperature, internal temperature gradients, bimetallic-interface temperature, coolant temperature rise, and thermal margin under representative beam-loading conditions. The prototype was validated in vacuum ($\approx$5$\times 10^{-4}$ torr) using a 17-keV electron beam. Surface temperatures were measured by infrared thermography, and internal temperatures were measured using embedded thermocouples. The calculated surface temperature distributions were generally consistent with the measurements within the experimental uncertainty of 4$\%$ in absolute temperature for central beam irradiation, while internal temperature measurements showed reasonable agreement within 15$\%$, mainly due to uncertainties in thermocouple placement and beam-position calibration. The validated model confirms that the minichannel beam dump can maintain absorber temperatures within the design limit under intermediate-power FRIB operating conditions. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of bimetallic minichannel cooling for compact, high-heat-flux beam dump systems in heavy-ion accelerator facilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09671 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Location of the MCBD in FRIB. a) Target and beam dump region in the separator and b) MCBD installation in the FRIB beam line. The red arrows indicate the primary beam direction. dump design for high-power heavy-ion facilities is governed primarily by species- and energy-dependent heat flux rather than total beam power alone, making cooling efficiency J. Song et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 1 of 14 arXiv:… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the minichannel beam dump. The 15 mm-thick CuCrZr absorber is bonded to a 5 mm-thick Al section consisting of a 0.25 mm Nb interlayer, a 1.27 mm Al1100 interlayer, and an Al2219 layer. The water channels have a width of 2 mm and a height of 7 mm. performance, a CuCrZr absorber was introduced, offering ≈ 2.5 times the thermal conductivity of Al2219, which was used in the previous system. CuCrZr is also a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. summarizes the beam sizes on the beam dump surface as a function of the relative magnetic rigidity devi￾ation, Δ()∕. The lines and open markers represent the beam-size calculations for the conservative reference case of a 238U beam incident on a 1.2-mm graphite target. This reference case was used as the baseline condition for the thermal evaluation. The red circles and squares represent beam-size simulations perfor… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Calculated heat-transfer coefficient and frictional pressure drop as functions of channel width. The minimum required heat-transfer coefficient was set to 26,000 W/m2K, and the maximum allowable pressure drop was approximately 3 bar. The hatched region indicates the ch…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three-dimensional CFD model of the MCBD: a) as￾sembled solid and fluid computational domains, b) coordinate system and representative absorber-temperature distribution, c) cooling-water velocity pathlines, and d) static pressure distribution. The cooling water velocity…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Maximum-temperature distributions as functions of the CuCrZr and Al2219 layer thickness for a) CuCrZr, b) Al2219, and c) cooling water. The dashed lines indicate the approximate boundaries of the favorable design regions, and the arrows point toward thickness combinati…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MCBD e-beam test setup at ARL. a) Schematic of the experimental setup, showing the electron-beam direction, IR-camera viewing path, thermocouple wiring, and water￾cooling connections. b) Photograph of the MCBD installed in￾side the vacuum chamber. c) CuCrZr absorber wi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Beam-size measurement using the thermal image and transient thermocouple response during the e-beam test. a) Optical image of the e-beam spot on the MCBD surface. b) Corresponding IR thermal image used for temperature-profile extraction. c,d) Surface-temperature profil…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of measured and simulated MCBD temperatures. a) Simulated and b) IR-measured surface￾temperature distributions. c) Maximum surface temperature as a function of deposited e-beam power. d) Internal tem￾perature profiles along the depth direction, together wit…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: IR thermal images at nine different locations on the beam-dump surface (1–9). Surface-temperature measure￾ments are compared with simulation results at three selected locations: (a, b) location 6, (c, d) location 4, and (e, f) location 2. Panels a), c), and e) show th…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of measured and simulated surface￾temperature distributions across the beam-dump surface in the vertical direction along the beam path. a) IR thermal images acquired at five adjacent measurement positions. b) Surface￾temperature profile along the X-axis obt…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: a) Effective beam-size parameter as a function of beam rigidity offset, with shaded regions indicating the evaluated ranges. b) Measured surface temperatures and constant-fit results. c) Deposited power as a function of the effective beam-size parameter, with linear-f…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Maximum allowable primary beam power as a function of the relative magnetic rigidity, Δ()∕. The optics envelope represents the maximum allowable primary beam power obtained from Optics A and B at each rigidity offset, while the red curve shows the power limit for the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    PIP2-BD: GeV Proton Beam Dump at Fermilab's PIP-II Linac

    M. Toups, R. G. V . de Water, B. Batell, S. J. Brice, P. deNiv erville, B. Dutta, J. Eldred, T. Hapitas, R. Harnik, A. Karthikeyan, K. J. Kelly, D. Kim, T. Kobilarcik, G. Krnjaic, B. R. Littlejo hn, B. Louis, P. A. N. Machado, N. Mishra, V . Pandey, Z. Pavlovic, W. Pellico, M. Shaevitz, P. Snopok, R. Tayloe, A. Thompson, R. T. Thornton, D. Tucker, J. Yu, ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Maestre, C

    J. Maestre, C. Torregrosa, K. Kershaw, C. Bracco, T. Coiff et, M. Ferrari, R. Franqueira Ximenes, S. Gilardoni, D. Grenier , A. Lechner, V . Maire, J. Martin Ruiz, E. Matheson, N. Solieri, A. Perillo-Marcone, T. Polzin, V . Rizzoglio, D. Senajova, C. Sharp, M. Timmins, M. Calviani, Design and behaviour of the large hadron collider external b eam dumps capa...

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/11/p11019 2021

  3. [3]

    Yoshida, N

    K. Yoshida, N. Fukuda, Y. Yanagisawa, N. Inabe, Y. Mizoi, T. Kubo, High-power beam dump system for the bigrips fragment separa tor at riken ri beam factory , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 317 (2013) 373–380, xVIth International Conference on ElectroMagnetic Isotope Separators and ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2013.08.054 2013

  4. [4]

    J. Song, N. Bultman, M. Reaume, R. Quispe-Abad, M. Patil, G. Lee, S. Miller, T. Kanemura, J. Wei, Design and experimental thermal validation of the mini-cha nnel beam dump for frib , in: Proc. HIAT2025, no. 16 in HIAT, JACoW Publishing, Geneva , Switzerland, 2025, pp. 132–135. doi:10.18429/JACoW-HIAT2025-TUP04 . URL https://indico.jacow.org/event/82/contr...

    doi:10.18429/jacow-hiat2025-tup04 2025

  5. [5]

    J. Wei, C. Alleman, H. Ao, B. Arend, D. Barofsky, S. Beher, G. Bollen, N. Bultman, F. Casagrande, W. Chang, Y. Choi, S. Cogan, P. Cole, C. Compton, M. Cortesi, J. Curtin, K. David son, S. Di Carlo, X. Du, K. Elliott, B. Ewert, A. Facco, A. Fila, K. Fukushima, V . Ganni, A. Ganshyn, T. Ginter, T. Glasmacher , A. Gonzalez, Y. Hao, W. Hartung, N. Hasan, M. H...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    P. N. Ostroumov, O. B. Tarasov, N. Bultman, F. Casagrande , Y. Choi, S. Cogan, M. Cortesi, K. Fukushima, A. Gonzalez, J. Guo, K. Ha ak, M. Hausmann, K. Hwang, M. Ikegami, D. Kaloyanov, T. Kanemura , S.-H. Kim, E. Kwan, M. Larmann, S. Lidia, G. Machicoane, T. Maruta, S. Miller, Y. Momozaki, D. Morris, A. Plastun, M. Portillo, X. Rao, I. Richardson, B. M. S...

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    J. Wei, H. Ao, B. Arend, S. Beher, G. Bollen, N. Bultman, F. Casagrande, W. Chang, Y. Choi, S. Cogan, C. Compton, M. Cortesi, J. Curtin, K. Davidson, X. Du, K. Elliott, B. Ewert, A. Facco, A. Fila, K. Fukushima, V . Ganni, A. Ganshyn, J. Gao, T. Glasmacher, J. Guo, Y. Hao, W. Hartung, N. Hasan, M. Hausmann, K. Holland, H. C. Hseuh, M. Ikegami, D. Jager, S...

    2022

  8. [8]

    Portillo, B

    M. Portillo, B. Sherrill, Y. Choi, M. Cortesi, K. Fukushi ma, M. Hausmann, E. Kwan, S. Lidia, P. Ostroumov, R. Ringle, M. Smith, M. Steiner, O. Tarasov, A. Villari, T. Zhang, Commissioning of the advanced rare isotope separator aris a t frib, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sectio n B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 540 (20...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2023.04.025 2023

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Quispe-Abad, M

    R. Quispe-Abad, M. Patil, M. Reaume, J. Song, M. Larmann, M. LaVere, N. Bultman, Thermal-fluid analysis and operation of a low power water-co oled tilted beam dump at f in: Proc. IPAC’24, no. 15 in IPAC’24 - 15th International Par ticle Accelerator Conference, JACoW Publishing,...

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Quispe-Abad, R., N

    R. Quispe-Abad, R., N. Bultman, T. Kanemura, S. Miller, M. Patil, M. Reaume, J. Song, Thermal-hydraulic analysis of a 20 kW bea m power water-cooled mini-channel beam dump at Facility for R are Isotope Beam, in: Proc. HIAT’25, no. 16 in International Con ference on Heavy Ion A...

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    J. Song, G. Savard, J. Greene, J. A. Nolen, Design and validation of a fission-product source for radioa ctive beams, Phys. Rev. C 109 (2024) 024605. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.024605. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.109.024605

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    J. Song, M. Reaume, N. Bultman, M. Patil, R. Quispe-Abad , J. Wei, Status and r&d of the target and beam dump at frib, Presented a t the 8th High Power Targetry Workshop, nov. 6–10, 2023 (Nov. 2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Tuckerman, R

    D. Tuckerman, R. Pease, High-performance heat sinking for vlsi, IEEE Electron Device Letters 2 (5) (1981) 126–129. doi:10.1109/EDL.1981.25367

    1981

  6. [14]

    X. Xie, Z. Liu, Y. He, W. Tao, Numerical study of laminar heat transfer and pressure drop c haracteristics in a water-cooled minichannel heat sink , Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (1) (2009) 64–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.02.002. URL https://www.scien...

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    Reyes, J

    M. Reyes, J. Arias, A. Velazquez, J. Vega, Experimental study of heat transfer and pressure drop in mic ro-channel based heat sinks with tip clearance , Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (5) (2011) 887–893, mNF 2009 Special Issue. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010...

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Yang, S.-C

    X.-H. Yang, S.-C. Tan, Y.-J. Ding, J. Liu, Flow and thermal modeling and optimization of micro/mini-c hannel heat sink , Applied Thermal Engineering 117 (2017) 289–296. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.12.089. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Tychanicz-Kwiecień, P

    M. Tychanicz-Kwiecień, P. Gil, Experimental investigation of thermal and flow characteris tics of a prototype minichannel heat exchanger , International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 231 (2024) 1 25825. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2024.125825. URL https...

    2024

  10. [18]

    W. Qu, I. Mudawar, Analysis of three-dimensional heat transfer in micro-chan nel heat sinks , International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 45 (19) (200 2) 3973–3985. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0017-9310(02)00101-1 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0...

    doi

  11. [19]

    A. J. Cackett, H. Vo, J. Lim, A. Bushby, P. Hosemann, C. Ha rdie, Effects of radiation damage and precipitate distribution on micro-pillar compression testing of irradiated cucrzr , Journal of Nuclear Materials 553 (2021) 153028. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.15302...

    2021

  12. [20]

    IW ASE, K

    H. IW ASE, K. NIITA, T. NAKAMURA, Development of general-purpose particle and heavy ion tran sport monte carlo code , Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 39 (11) (2002) 114 2–

    2002

  13. [21]

    Patil, D

    M. Patil, D. Winder, J. Song, M. Reaume, N. Bultman, R. Qu ispe- Abad, S. Miller, T. Kanemura, Application of ASME BPVC section VIII, division-2, design by analysis requirement t o FRIB static beam dump, JACoW HIAT2025 (2025) TUP05. doi:10.18429/JACoW-HIAT2025-TUP05

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    Winterton, Where did the dittus and boelter equation come from? , International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 41 (4) (1998 ) 809–810

    R. Winterton, Where did the dittus and boelter equation come from? , International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 41 (4) (1998 ) 809–810. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0017-9310(97)00177-4 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0017931097001774

    1998 doi

  15. [23]

    T. K. Gray, D. L. Youchison, R. E. Ellis, M. A. Jaworski, A. Khodak, T. Looby, M. L. Reinke, G. Smalley, D. E. Wolfe, High heat flux testing of castellated graphite plasma- facin g components, Fusion Science and Technology 77 (1) (2021) 9–18. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/15361...

    2021

  16. [24]

    J. Song, N. Bultman, M. Reaume, S. Eom, W. Franklin, M. Patil, R. Quispe-Abad, E. Wakai, M. Vargas Vallejo, Emissivity measurements of cucrzr alloy , Journal of Instrumentation 21 (07) (2026) T07004. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/21/07/T07004. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/21/...

    2026 doi

  17. [1151]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2002.9715305

    arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2002.9715305, doi:10.1080/18811248.2002.9715305. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2002.9715305

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.