IPAC2022 - List of Authors (Khalvati, M.R.)

Paper	Title	Page
THPOMS049	Energy Comparison of Room Temperature and Superconducting Synchrotrons for Hadron Therapy	3080
	G. Bisoffi INFN/LNL, Legnaro (PD), Italy E. Benedetto, M. Karppinen, M.R. Khalvati, M. Vretenar, R. van Weelderen CERN, Meyrin, Switzerland M.G. Pullia, G. Venchi CNAO Foundation, Pavia, Italy L. Rossi INFN/LASA, Segrate (MI), Italy M. Sapinski PSI, Villigen PSI, Switzerland M. Sorbi Universita’ degli Studi di Milano & INFN, Segrate, Italy R.U. Valente La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
	The yearly energy requirements of normal conducting (NC) and superconducting (SC) magnet options of a new hadron therapy (HT) facility are compared. Special reference is made to the layouts considered for the proposed SEEIIST facility. Benchmarking with the NC CNAO HT centre in Pavia (Italy) was carried out. The energy comparison is centred on the different synchrotron solutions, assuming the same injector and lines in the designs. The beam current is more than a factor 10 higher with respect to present generation facilities. This allows efficient ’multi-energy extraction’ (MEE), which shortens the therapy treatment and is needed especially in the SC option, because of the slow magnet ramping time. Hence, power values of the facility in the traditional mode were converted into MEE ones, for the sake of a fair stepwise comparison between NC and SC magnets. The use of cryocoolers and a liquefier are also compared, for synchrotron refrigeration. This study shows that a NC facility operated in MEE mode requires the least average energy, followed by the SC synchrotron solution with a liquefier, while the most energy intensive solution is the SC one with cryocoolers.
DOI •	reference for this paper ※ https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2022-THPOMS049
About •	Received ※ 20 May 2022 — Revised ※ 17 June 2022 — Accepted ※ 28 June 2022 — Issue date ※ 10 July 2022
Cite •	reference for this paper using ※ BibTeX, ※ LaTeX, ※ Text/Word, ※ RIS, ※ EndNote (xml)

Paper

Title

Page

Energy Comparison of Room Temperature and Superconducting Synchrotrons for Hadron Therapy

3080

G. Bisoffi
INFN/LNL, Legnaro (PD), Italy
E. Benedetto, M. Karppinen, M.R. Khalvati, M. Vretenar, R. van Weelderen
CERN, Meyrin, Switzerland
M.G. Pullia, G. Venchi
CNAO Foundation, Pavia, Italy
L. Rossi
INFN/LASA, Segrate (MI), Italy
M. Sapinski
PSI, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
M. Sorbi
Universita’ degli Studi di Milano & INFN, Segrate, Italy
R.U. Valente
La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

The yearly energy requirements of normal conducting (NC) and superconducting (SC) magnet options of a new hadron therapy (HT) facility are compared. Special reference is made to the layouts considered for the proposed SEEIIST facility. Benchmarking with the NC CNAO HT centre in Pavia (Italy) was carried out. The energy comparison is centred on the different synchrotron solutions, assuming the same injector and lines in the designs. The beam current is more than a factor 10 higher with respect to present generation facilities. This allows efficient ’multi-energy extraction’ (MEE), which shortens the therapy treatment and is needed especially in the SC option, because of the slow magnet ramping time. Hence, power values of the facility in the traditional mode were converted into MEE ones, for the sake of a fair stepwise comparison between NC and SC magnets. The use of cryocoolers and a liquefier are also compared, for synchrotron refrigeration. This study shows that a NC facility operated in MEE mode requires the least average energy, followed by the SC synchrotron solution with a liquefier, while the most energy intensive solution is the SC one with cryocoolers.

DOI •

reference for this paper ※ https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2022-THPOMS049

About •

Received ※ 20 May 2022 — Revised ※ 17 June 2022 — Accepted ※ 28 June 2022 — Issue date ※ 10 July 2022

Cite •

reference for this paper using ※ BibTeX, ※ LaTeX, ※ Text/Word, ※ RIS, ※ EndNote (xml)