Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Decommissioning and Post-Irradiation Examination of the LHC Beam Dumps

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After nine years of operation, the two decommissioned LHC beam dumps yielded carbon cores that remained structurally intact up to 1.5 kJ/g, with cracking confined to the extruded graphite retaining plates and their displaced rings.

desk verdict First full-scale autopsy of LHC beam dumps gives a genuinely useful, well-evidenced result, but the 'no degradation' claim for expanded graphite is slightly stronger than the measurement set can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04235 v2 pith:IIKCU7UX submitted 2025-05-07 physics.acc-ph

N. Solieri , A. Lund , A.-P. Bernardes , L. R. Buonocore , A. Cherif , S. De Man , M. Di Castro , S. Di Giovannantonio
show 16 more authors
G. Dumont S. El-Idrissi E. Farina D. Grenier E. Grenier-Boley M. Himmerlich A. Infantino A. Lechner R. Mouret D. Pazem A. T. Perez-Fontenla E. Romagnoli S. Sgobba C. Tromel C. Veiga Almagro M. Calviani
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords LHCbeamdumpspost-irradiationexaminationcarbon-basedmaterialsexpandedgraphiteisostaticextrudedcrackingimpactdynamicsradioactivewastedecommissioning
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

The paper reports the first dismantling and post-irradiation examination of the two Large Hadron Collider beam dumps after nine years of operation. It establishes that the carbon-based materials at the heart of the dumps withstood deposited energy densities up to 1.5 kJ/g without substantial material degradation: the expanded graphite sheets were intact apart from minor surface oxidation, and the isostatic graphite blocks showed no degradation. The mechanical damage that was found, namely consistent cracking of the extruded graphite retaining plates and displaced retaining rings, is attributed to the dynamic response of the dump block on beam impact rather than to radiation damage. These findings resolved a safety concern raised by earlier high-intensity irradiations of unconstrained graphite samples and directly guided the decision to keep the core material configuration for the Run 3 spares while replacing the cracked plates with carbon-fiber-reinforced carbon. The paper also demonstrates a full remote cutting and sampling process for a highly radioactive 6.4-tonne component, establishing a template for future decommissioning of large accelerator hardware.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three linked elements. The first is the reconstructed deposited-energy-density field, computed with Monte Carlo simulation over the full Run 1 and Run 2 beam history including the three partial-dilution-failure events, which identifies the peak of 1.5 kJ/g near 270 cm from the upstream window and prescribes where samples were taken. The second is the mechanical explanation for the observed damage: beam impact excites vibrational modes in the vessel with accelerations up to 2000 times the acceleration of gravity, the retaining rings load the outer rim of each extruded graphite plate, and the outgassing holes act as stress concentrators from which cracks nucleate and propagate. The third is the comparison with the earlier irradiation experiment on free-to-deform expanded graphite sheets, which provides the control that isolates mechanical constraint as the factor protecting the sheets in the real dumps.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment using the same 2-mm-thick compressed expanded-graphite sheets in a nitrogen-filled stack, subjected to thousands of proton pulses with local energy density 1.5 kJ/g, and then examined by X-ray computed tomography, would settle the matter: visible interlaminar voids or local density loss in the beam-sweep region would disprove the claim that mechanical constraint prevents delamination. A future autopsy of a Run 3 dump showing such voids would do the same.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The post-irradiation examination of both decommissioned LHC beam dumps shows no evidence of substantial material degradation in the carbon-based core materials, even where the Monte Carlo reconstructed energy density reached 1.5 kJ/g in the low-density sector. The extruded graphite plates, by contrast, showed a consistent cracking pattern with fractures originating at outgassing holes, and their retaining rings were displaced; the authors trace these failures to the dynamic response of the vessel upon beam impact, when longitudinal vibrations load the outer edges of the plates, and identify the resulting loss of compression on the expanded-graphite stack as the source of the graphite powder seen earlier. The expanded graphite sheets showed only a darkened beam-sweep pattern and minor surface oxidation with no structural or density consequences, and the isostatic graphite blocks showed no material degradation; both findings were consistent across the two dumps. The paper takes this as evidence that the delamination seen in prior irradiation of unconstrained samples was an artifact of missing surface constraints, not an inherent limit of the materials.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Monte Carlo reconstruction of the beam history and energy-density distribution, including the three partial-dilution-failure events, accurately represents the real irradiation field; if that model is biased, the quantitative link between material condition and the stated 1.5 kJ/g peak would shift, though the qualitative findings of intactness and cracking would remain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same expanded-graphite and isostatic-graphite core materials can be retained for Run 3 operation even though stored beam energy rises from 320 to 539 MJ, because a decade of service produced no beam-induced degradation in those materials.
  • Graphite powder previously found inside the vessel is explained by the cracked extruded plates and their displaced rings, not by a loss of density in the beam-absorbing expanded graphite, so the absorption performance of the core was not compromised.
  • Replacing the extruded graphite plates with carbon-fiber-reinforced carbon and enlarging the outgassing holes should keep the expanded-graphite stack under compression, preventing the conditions that caused the observed cracking.
  • The remote wall-saw cutting and robotic coring sequence demonstrates that large, highly radioactive accelerator components can be dismantled and sampled within planned exposure limits, providing a reusable procedure for future decommissioning projects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If compression is what protected the expanded graphite, then any future loss of stack compression, whether from plate cracking, ring displacement, or slow relaxation, could push the material toward the delamination regime seen in unconstrained tests; monitoring ring and plate integrity may therefore be more safety-critical than the graphite grade itself.
  • The 1.5 kJ/g survival threshold is established for one specific geometry, namely 2-mm-thick sheets in a nitrogen-filled compressed stack, and extrapolating it to other thicknesses, densities, or atmospheres would require testing those combinations rather than assuming a universal damage limit.
  • A finite-element model of the dump's vibration during beam impact could predict which hole sizes and placements minimize stress concentration in graphite plates; this would give a quantitative design rule for future beam-intercepting devices, and the observed crack locations provide a ready validation case.
  • The autopsy samples, taken along a known energy-density gradient, effectively turn the decommissioned dumps into a benchmark for energy-deposition simulations; future analyses could use the intact-versus-cracked boundary to bound the uncertainty of those simulations near 1.5 kJ/g.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the decommissioning and post-irradiation examination of the two LHC beam dumps used during Run 1 and Run 2. It covers the radiological characterization and ALARA planning, the development and selection of a remotely controlled wall-saw cutting method, the cutting sequence used to isolate the low-density and high-density sectors, and the specimen extraction and PIE of the three carbon-based core materials. The main empirical findings are that the extruded graphite retaining plates all cracked from outgassing holes and their retaining rings were displaced, while the expanded graphite sheets and isostatic graphite blocks showed no visible delamination or material degradation aside from minor surface oxidation; the paper attributes the plate cracking to the dynamic response of the device and concludes that the core survived deposited energy densities up to 1.5 kJ/g.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a uniquely valuable autopsy of a high-energy, high-intensity beam-intercepting device: it is the first post-operation examination of LHC-scale beam dumps, it provides direct evidence on the condition of SIGRAFLEX expanded graphite under realistic constraints, and it has immediate engineering consequences (CFRC replacement plates, redesigned retaining rings, retention of the core-material configuration for Run 3 spares). The paper's strengths include the detailed operational record, the explicit comparison with the HiRadMat-43 experiment and Table II listing of non-comparable configurations, the use of optical CMM to quantify cracking, and the extensive radiation-protection framework with FLUKA predictions benchmarked against surveys. The central qualitative observations of intact sheets, cracked plates, and displaced rings are directly supported by photographs and measurements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VII A and Sec. IX] The statement in Section VII A that 'no signs of material delamination or deterioration were found' and the conclusion in Section IX that the core 'revealed no evidence of substantial material degradation' are stronger than the described measurements warrant. The failure mode that motivated the autopsy, interlaminar void formation, was originally detected in HiRadMat-43 by micro-computed tomography (Section III), but the PIE of the dump sheets used visual inspection, SEM, EDS, and FIB cross-sections only; no micro-CT, bulk-density, or porosity measurements on the 2-mm sheets are reported. Because the sheets are stacked under axial compression, a delamination void could remain closed and be invisible to surface SEM, and FIB probes only a microscopic local volume. I recommend either adding tomographic or bulk-density data for the extracted sheets, or explicitly limiting the conclusion to 'no evidence at the resolution of the applied surface and local cross-sectional techniques.'
  2. [Sec. VII B and Sec. IX] The 'no evidence of material degradation' claim for isostatic graphite likewise rests on SEM/EDS and Shore D hardness measurements, without density, elastic-modulus, or strength measurements; hardness alone may not detect internal cracking or porosity changes. If the central claim 'no substantial material degradation' is intended to cover all three carbon materials, this needs a qualification or supplementary bulk-property data, or the conclusion should be restricted to what the reported measurements actually probe.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VII A] The sentence 'three sheets were selected and catalogued every tenth of the length of the LD sector' is ambiguous; please specify the actual longitudinal positions (e.g., at 10%, 50%, and 90% of the LD sector length) and how the three selected sheets relate to the threefold peak-energy-density variation shown in Fig. 4(a).
  2. [Sec. IV D] The statement that 'the three blocks of HDG were placed inside a lost mold' is difficult to reconcile with the six HD blocks described in Sec. I B and the five-block downstream sector in Sec. VI C; please clarify which blocks were packaged in this container and whether the waste-packaging description refers only to a subset of the HD sectors.
  3. [Sec. IV B and Fig. 9] The main text says the FLUKA-SESAME results agree with RP surveys to better than 20%, but the Fig. 9 caption notes that the measurements were not originally intended for benchmark validation; please state this caveat in the main text as well, since it bears on the trustworthiness of the residual-dose predictions.
  4. [Sec. VII B] The Shore D hardness values (72-85) are reported without a comparison to unirradiated bulk material or to the control samples taken outside the sweep; reporting those comparisons would strengthen the claim that hardness shows no energy-density dependence.
  5. [Sec. VII A] The FIB cross-section thickness '65-125 nm' and the XPS information depth '¡10 nm' contain a typographical artifact ('¡' instead of '<'); fix the encoding and state whether the XPS depth is '<10 nm'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PIE findings are direct observations, and the FLUKA energy-density assignment is an independently benchmarked model rather than a fit to the autopsy outcome.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that post-irradiation examination of the carbon-based core materials revealed no substantial material degradation at energy densities up to 1.5 kJ/g rests on direct empirical observations: visual inspection, optical and SEM imaging, FIB cross-sections, EDS, XPS, Shore D hardness testing, and optical CMM scans reported in Sec. VII. The 1.5 kJ/g value is an input from FLUKA beam-energy-deposition simulations (Sec. II, Fig. 4), not a parameter fitted to the PIE outcome. The same FLUKA model was separately compared with radiation-protection surveys to better than 20% agreement (Sec. IV B), and the HiRadMat-43 and HiRadMat-56 experiments provide external comparative data. The extruded-graphite cracking and retaining-ring displacement are observed in the autopsy and attributed to the documented dynamic response; the attribution invokes CERN's own Ref. [3], but the observation itself is not derived from that reference. The comparison with HiRadMat-43 is used to explain the absence of delamination through differing surface constraints and material grade (Table II), not to derive the absence. The skeptic's concern that visual/SEM/FIB inspection may not resolve interlaminar voids, or that Shore D hardness alone does not prove absence of bulk degradation, is an evidentiary-resolution critique rather than a demonstration that a prediction reduces to its inputs. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same authors. Accordingly, no circular step meets the quoted-evidence standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities or fitted parameters for its main empirical claim. The PIE observations are direct; the only load-bearing external inputs are the FLUKA energy-deposition model and the documented beam-history reconstruction, both benchmarked to measurements. The Co-content tuning mentioned in Sec. IV B affects only the radiological characterization, not the material-integrity findings.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption FLUKA Monte Carlo model accurately computes energy deposition in the dump core for the Run 1 and Run 2 beam history.
    The stated peak exposure of 1.5 kJ/g (Sec. II, Fig. 4) and the selection of PIE sampling locations (Sec. VII) depend on this simulation, which is benchmarked to RP surveys with better than 20% agreement (Sec. IV B).
  • domain assumption The reconstructed beam parameters and dilution sweep patterns, including three dilution failures, reflect the true irradiation history of the dumps.
    The energy-density map used to interpret the PIE findings is driven by this history, as described in Sec. II and Table I; errors here would shift the quantitative exposure values.
  • domain assumption The material grades and dimensions of the carbon core are as documented by manufacturer datasheets and assembly drawings.
    The identification of SIGRAFINE R7300, SIGRAFLEX L20012C, and SIGRAFINE HLM underlies the material-specific conclusions; the paper relies on material certificates as best available information (Sec. I B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decommissioning and Post-Irradiation Examination of the LHC Beam Dumps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIKCU7UX

@misc{pith2026250504235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decommissioning and Post-Irradiation Examination of the LHC Beam Dumps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIKCU7UX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04235}
}
read the original abstract

The LHC beam dumps are responsible for the safe absorption of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) particle beams. In 2018, the two 6.4-tonne beam dumps that had been in operation since the LHC's startup in 2008 were removed and replaced with upgraded versions. Endoscopic inspections of these beam dumps and experimental high-intensity proton-beam irradiation of material samples raised concerns about the structural integrity of the carbon-based materials in their cores. It was therefore decided to undertake an accelerated project of dismantling and post-irradiation examination of the removed dumps as part of a wider program of work to ensure the safe operation of the LHC beam dumps in the coming years. This paper describes the decommissioning process for the two beam dumps carried out at CERN between 2021 and 2023, covering the preparatory studies, practical challenges encountered, and solutions implemented. It details the establishment of an operational framework, including the preparation of the working environment, the development of a method for cutting the irradiated 12-mm-thick duplex stainless-steel vessel, and the cut sequencing. Additionally, the paper presents the findings derived from the post-irradiation examination of the different carbon-based core materials subjected to deposited energy densities up to 1.5 kJ/g. The extruded graphite plates within the vessel exhibited a cracking pattern, which was likely due to the dynamic response of the device upon beam impact, and their retaining rings were found to be displaced. Despite minor signs of surface deterioration, the expanded graphite sheets were intact, and the isostatic graphite blocks showed no evidence of material degradation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04235 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of a beam dump core in the configuration used for Run 1 and Run 2. In the direction of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Beam dump installation before LS2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Transporting one of the beam dump cores that was [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Overview of energy deposition as a function of longitudinal distance and transverse coordinates. (a) Peak energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Overview of the endoscopic assessment performed from the upstream end of the beam dump through outgassing holes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. FLUKA model of the UD cavern hosting the beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. FLUKA model of the LHC beam dump. The different regions represent the high- and low-density graphite (HDG and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison between the results of FLUKA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Schematic of the beam dump autopsy worksite showing the different working areas established along with their sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Personal protective equipment (PPE) used during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. KUKA KR 120 R2700 HA robotic arm performing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Cross-sectional schematic illustration of the cutting sequence of the beam dumps, indicating the locations of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Husqvarna WS 220 saw [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Longitudinal cutting setup with tailstocks and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_22.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. (a) Cross-sectional view of beam dump with an in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_20.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Photographs showing the process of transferring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_24.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. Photographs showing the SIGRAFLEX extraction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. Transverse view of an expanded graphite sheet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28. Representative SEM images of the surface of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_28.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30. View of the downstream face of the upstream HD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: FIG. 31. View of the CERNbot performing the coring opera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_31.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: FIG. 32. Extraction process of specimens from the HD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_32.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: FIG. 33. EDS spectrum obtained from a core extracted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_33.png]
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: FIG. 35. Detailed view of the extruded graphite after extrac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_35.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bracco, W

    C. Bracco, W. Bartmann, J. Borburgh, L. S. Ducimetiere, E. Car- lier, B. Goddard, N. Magnin, T. D. Mottram, V . Senaj, and C. Wiesner, LBDS performance in Run 2 (2019),CERN, Geneva (2019), https://cds.cern.ch/record/2750287

    work page arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Aberle et al

    O. Aberle et al. , High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC) Technical Design Report (2020), CERN, Geneva (2020), Report No. CERN-2020-010, https://cds.cern.ch/record/ 2749422

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Maestre et al., Design and behaviour of the Large Hadron Col- lider external beam dumps capable of receiving 539 MJ/dump, J

    J. Maestre et al., Design and behaviour of the Large Hadron Col- lider external beam dumps capable of receiving 539 MJ/dump, J. Instrum. 16, P11019

    work page

  4. [4]

    Karastathis et al

    N. Karastathis et al. , LHC Run 3 Configuration Working Group Report (2020), CERN, Geneva (2019), https://cds.cern. ch/record/2750302

    work page arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Solfiti, W

    E. Solfiti, W. Di, A. Celotto, N. Solieri, P. A. Munoz, R. F. Ximenes, A. P. Marcone, F. X. Nuiry, A. Alvaro, F. Berto, and M. Calviani, FIB-SEM investigation and uniaxial compression of flexible graphite, Mater. Design 233, 112187 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Maestre, P

    J. Maestre, P. Andreu-Mu˜noz, C. Torregrosa, F.-x. Nuiry, K. Ker- shaw, A. Perillo-Marcone, D. Grenier, R. Franqueira, V . Riz- zoglio, A. Lechner, M. Calviani, S. E. Solfiti, F. Berto, and A. Alvaro, Sigraflex ® Studies for LHC CERN Beam Dump: Summary and Perspective, JACoW IPAC2021, 3571 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Andreu Mu˜noz, M

    P. Andreu Mu˜noz, M. Calviani, N. Charitonidis, A. Cherif, E. Fa- rina, A. Krainer, A. Lechner, J. Maestre, F.-X. Nuiry, R. Sei- denbinder, P. Simon, and C. Torregrosa, Irradiation of Low-Z Carbon-Based Materials with 440 GeV/c Proton Beam for High Energy & Intensity Beam Absorbers: The CERN HiRadMat-56- HED Experiment, JACoW IPAC2022, 2883 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    International Atomic Energy Agency, Decommissioning of Par- ticle Accelerators, Tech. Rep. (IAEA, 2020) IAEA Nuclear En- ergy Series No. NW-T-2.9

    work page 2020

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    J. M. Zazula and S. P´eraire, LHC Beam Dump Design Study; 1, Simulation of Energy Deposition by Particle Cascades; Impli- cations for the Dump Core and Beam Sweeping System (1996), CERN, Geneva (1996), Report No. CERN-LHC-Project-Report- 80, https://cds.cern.ch/record/315077

    1996

  2. [10]

    P´eraire and J

    S. P´eraire and J. M. Zazula, LHC Beam Dump Design Study; Part 2, Thermal Analysis; Implications for Abort Repetition and Cooling System (1996), CERN, Geneva (1996), Report No. CERN-LHC-Project-Report-87, https://cds.cern.ch/record/ 318328

    1996

  3. [11]

    SGL Carbon, SIGRAFINE ® R7300 - Fine-Grain Graphite Datasheet (2023), accessed: 14 March 2025

    2023

  4. [12]

    SGL Carbon, SIGRAFLEX® APX2, APX-E, C, Z Foil - Flexi- ble Graphite Datasheet (2023), accessed: 14 March 2025

    2023

  5. [13]

    SGL Carbon, SIGRAFINE® HLM US - Fine-Grain Graphite Datasheet (2023), accessed: 14 March 2025

    2023

  6. [14]

    Goddard, M

    B. Goddard, M. Gyr, J. Uythoven, R. Veness, and W. Weterings, LHC Beam Dumping System: Extraction Channel Layout and Acceptance (2003), CERN, Geneva (2003), Report No. CERN- LHC-Project-Report-654, https://cds.cern.ch/record/620648

    2003

  7. [15]

    J. M. M. Ruiz, K. Kershaw, M. Calviani, D. Grenier, J. Maestre Heredia, C. L. Torregrosa Martin, L. R. Buonocore, P. Serrano Galvez, E. Matheson, J. Sola Merino, M. Guinchard, M. Ferrari, D. Senajova, C. Bertone, M. Perez Ornedo, A. In- fantino, and C. Tromel, Practical Challe...

    2021

  8. [16]

    CERN, The official CERN FLUKA website, https://fluka.cern/ (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Ahdida et al., New capabilities of the FLUKA multi-purpose code, Front

    C. Ahdida et al., New capabilities of the FLUKA multi-purpose code, Front. Phys. 9, 788253 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Battistoni, T

    G. Battistoni, T. Boehlen, F. Cerutti, P. W. Chin, L. S. Espos- ito, A. Fass `o, A. Ferrari, A. Lechner, A. Empl, A. Mairani, A. Mereghetti, P. Garcia Ortega, J. Ranft, S. Roesler, P. R. Sala, V . Vlachoudis, and G. Smirnov, Overview of the FLUKA code, Ann. Nucl. Energy 82, 10 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    I. R. Filippini, Dependability Analysis of a Safety Critical Sys- tem: The LHC Beam Dumping System at CERN , Ph.D. thesis, Pisa U. (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Carlier, A

    E. Carlier, A. Antoine, P. Bobbio, G. Gr ¨awer, A. Marchand, J. Uythoven, and H. Verhagen, Design Aspects Related to the Reliability of the Control Architecture of the LHC Beam Dump Kicker Systems (2003), CERN, Geneva (2003), Report No. CERN-LHC-Project-Report-679, https://cds...

    2003

  13. [21]

    Lechner, C

    A. Lechner, C. Bracco, M. Calviani, Y . Dutheil, E. Farina, and C. Wiesner, Beam-Induced Energy Deposition on Dump Block Assembly (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Bailey and P

    R. Bailey and P. Collier, Standard Filling Schemes for Vari- ous LHC Operation Modes (2003), CERN, Geneva (2003), Re- port No. LHC-PROJECT-NOTE-323, https://cds.cern.ch/record/ 691782

    2003

  15. [23]

    Bracco, M

    C. Bracco, M. J. Barnes, W. Bartmann, E. Carlier, L. Ducimetiere, M. Fraser, B. Goddard, A. Lechner, N. Magnin, M. Meddahi, A. P. Marcone, V . Senaj, J. Uythoven, and F. M. Velotti, LBDS and Injection System, in LHC Performance Work- shop (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    SGL Carbon, SIGRAFLEX® TH, NH, THP, S, HP, UHP Foil - Flexible Graphite Datasheet (2023), accessed: 14 March 2025. 21

    2023

  17. [25]

    Radiation Protection - Radiation Protection Manual Radioprotection - Manuel de radioprotection, https:// edms.cern.ch/document/335729 (2006)

    CERN, Code F Rev. Radiation Protection - Radiation Protection Manual Radioprotection - Manuel de radioprotection, https:// edms.cern.ch/document/335729 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Bozzato, P

    D. Bozzato, P. Dyrcz, R. Froeschl, A. Infantino, T. Lorenzon, M. Tisi, and H. Vincke, Advanced simulation techniques for radiation protection studies at the Large Hadron Collider, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 218, 111573 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Vincke and C

    H. Vincke and C. Theis, ActiWiz 3 – An overview of the latest developments and their application, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1046, 012007 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Infantino, A.-P

    A. Infantino, A.-P. Bernardes, M. Calviani, G. Dumont, S. El- Idrissi, R. Mouret, C. Tromel, and H. Vincke, Radiation protec- tion challenges in the upgrade, autopsy and disposal of the LHC beam dump, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 199, 891 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Infantino, R

    A. Infantino, R. W. Harbron, R. Mouret, P. Bertreix, A.-P. Bernardes, L. Bruno, M. Calviani, G. Dumont, S. El-Idrissi, M. Magistris, N. Menaa, C. Theis, C. Tromel, and H. Vincke, Radiological characterization for the disposal of a decommis- sioned LHC external beam dump at CER...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Di Castro, L

    M. Di Castro, L. R. Buonocore, M. Ferre, S. Gilardoni, R. Losito, G. Lunghi, and A. Masi, A dual arms robotic platform control for navigation, inspection and telemanipulation, in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Accelerator and Large Ex- perimental Control S...

  23. [31]

    CERN, REMUS: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    1521 (In- ternational Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2006)

    International Atomic Energy Agency, Characterization, Treat- ment and Conditioning of Radioactive Graphite from Decom- missioning of Nuclear Reactors, TECDOC Series No. 1521 (In- ternational Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    1647 (Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2010)

    International Atomic Energy Agency, Progress in Radioactive Graphite Waste Management, TECDOC Series No. 1647 (Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    1790 (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2016)

    International Atomic Energy Agency, Processing of Irradiated Graphite to Meet Acceptance Criteria for Waste Disposal, TEC- DOC Series No. 1790 (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Froeschl, A method for radiological characterization based on fluence conversion coefficients, J

    R. Froeschl, A method for radiological characterization based on fluence conversion coefficients, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1046, 012006 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    KUKA Robotics, KR 120 R2700 extra HA - Industrial Robot Datasheet (2025), accessed: 14 March 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Keyence Corporation, GT2-P12 Contact Distance Sensor - Tech- nical Datasheet (2025), accessed: 14 March 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Hoffmann Group, Technical Datasheet - Product 22709 (2025), accessed: 14 March 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Husqvarna, IPL, Husqvarna, WS 220, 2013-10, W ALL SAWS, https://www.husqvarnaconstruction.com/int/prime-equipment/ ws220/ (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Creaform, MetraSCAN - Optical 3D Scanner (2025), accessed: 14 March 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Stefan and P

    P. Stefan and P. Ana Teresa,Post-mortem Microscopic Examina- tion of Sigraflex Samples From TDE Dump, Tech. Rep. (CERN, 2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Moreno Fern´andez, M

    H. Moreno Fern´andez, M. Himmerlich, P. Costa Pinto, J. Coroa, D. Sousa, A. Baris, and M. Taborelli, The impact of h2 and n2 on the material properties and secondary electron yield of sput- tered amorphous carbon films for anti-multipacting applications, Applied Surface Scienc...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Himmerlich, X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), Tech

    M. Himmerlich, X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), Tech. Rep. (CERN, 2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Dakshinamurthy, Comparative Analysis of Isostatic Graphite Samples from TDE Dump, Tech

    M. Dakshinamurthy, Comparative Analysis of Isostatic Graphite Samples from TDE Dump, Tech. Rep. EDMS 3283813 (CERN,

  37. [45]

    Brice, LHC External Beam Dump (TDE) autopsy (2022), CERN, Geneva (2022), Report No

    M. Brice, LHC External Beam Dump (TDE) autopsy (2022), CERN, Geneva (2022), Report No. CERN-PHOTO-202201-026, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2801209

    2022

  38. [46]

    Berto, P

    F. Berto, P. Lazzarin, and M. Ayatollahi, Brittle fracture of sharp and blunt v-notches in isostatic graphite under pure compression loading, Carbon 63, 101 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Gruber, O

    U. Gruber, O. ¨Ottinger, W. Baur, and L. Fischer, 12.2 carbon fiber reinforced carbon, in Industrial Carbon and Graphite Materials, Volume I (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2021) Chap. 12.2, pp. 740– 824

    2021

  40. [2025]

    version 1.0, Approved

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.