Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

HEP High Power Targetry Roadmap -- Workshop Report

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A workshop roadmap concludes that target reliability, not beam power, is the bottleneck for the next generation of particle-physics facilities.

desk verdict A clear, useful planning document for high-power targetry R&D; its main risk is the unvalidated ion-screening gate, and it reads as a community roadmap rather than a research result. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03305 v1 pith:H42DUQFN submitted 2025-02-05 physics.acc-ph physics.ins-det

F. Pellemoine , K. Ammigan , C. Barbier , S. Bidhar , A. Casella , M. Calviani , C. Densham , P. Hurh
show 9 more authors
D. Kim D. Liu K. Lynch S. Makimura D. Senor V. Shiltsev D. Stratakis J. Terry K. Yonehara
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-phphysics.ins-det
keywords high-powertargetsbeam-interceptingdevicesradiationdamagethermalshockmaterialsqualificationpost-irradiationexaminationacceleratorR&Dmulti-megawattbeams
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 report from a community workshop tries to establish that high-power target systems, not accelerators, are the binding constraint on the next generation of particle-physics facilities. It argues that several megawatt-class facilities already operate below design power because their targets cannot safely take the full beam, and that planned multi-megawatt upgrades for neutrino, muon, and collider programs will not reach their physics goals unless a coordinated R&D program qualifies target materials in time. The roadmap proposes a staged qualification pipeline—fast low-energy ion screening, high-energy proton irradiation, thermal-shock and fatigue testing, and post-irradiation examination—supported by parallel advances in modeling, instrumentation, and dedicated test facilities. A sympathetic reader would take the report's core claim as: if the R&D is not started now, the target will be the reason the next big machines cannot run at their design power.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the staged material-qualification pipeline. Its enabling step is low-energy dual/triple ion irradiation: a heavy-ion beam creates displacement damage (measured in displacements per atom, dpa) while a second or third beam implants helium and/or hydrogen to mimic transmutation-gas production, all without activating the specimen. Because the damaged layer is only a few micrometers deep, screening relies on microscale probes such as nanoindentation hardness, and the report explicitly notes that microscale changes do not necessarily equal macroscopic property changes. The down-selected candidates then proceed to high-energy proton irradiation, in-beam thermal-shock tests with intense single pulses, and high-cycle fatigue tests, including a hot-cell fatigue machine for miniature irradiated specimens, with post-irradiation examination closing each step. This pipeline is what connects fast, cheap screening to the expensive, definitive proton-beam validation.

What would settle it

Irradiate identical samples of a reference material such as graphite or tungsten, one set with high-energy protons and one set with dual/triple low-energy ions to the same dpa and helium/hydrogen content, then measure macroscopic yield strength, thermal conductivity, and fatigue life in both; if the ion-beam results depart from the proton results by more than the scatter of the tests, the screening step cannot anchor the down-selection pipeline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The report's central claim is that designing a reliable beam-intercepting device is already a bottleneck at megawatt-class facilities, with several major accelerators running below design power because of target concerns, and that the planned multi-megawatt upgrades will not yield their physics unless a comprehensive R&D program is implemented in time. The proposed program is a staged material-qualification cycle: develop and characterize candidate materials; screen them with low-energy dual/triple ion irradiation that co-implant helium and hydrogen; down-select using microscale post-irradiation examination; irradiate the survivors with high-energy protons; test them under single-pulse thermal shock and high-cycle fatigue; and then select the material for a specific application. The report argues that this cycle must run in parallel with modeling development to predict radiation-induced property changes, radiation-hardened instrumentation for in-situ target health monitoring, and new or upgraded irradiation and post-irradiation examination facilities, all timed to the construction schedules of the priority projects.

Load-bearing premise

The whole program rests on the belief that a quick ion-beam test on a micrometer-thin surface layer reliably predicts how a full-size target will hold up under years of real proton irradiation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the staged pipeline works, target concepts for the planned neutrino, muon, and collider upgrades can be selected and prototyped in time to avoid delaying the physics programs.
  • Low-energy ion screening would allow the community to compare many novel materials—high-entropy alloys, toughened fine-grained tungsten, silicon-carbide composites, and nanofiber materials—quickly and without activation, concentrating expensive high-energy proton beam time on a short list.
  • Radiation-hardened beam monitors and in-situ health sensors, developed in parallel, would let facilities run closer to design power by detecting target degradation before it becomes a failure.
  • A validated model connecting microstructure evolution to macroscopic mechanical properties would replace today's sparse empirical data and make radiation-lifetime predictions possible for new materials.
  • Dedicated test stations, including a compact electron-beam thermal-shock station and hot-cell fatigue machines for miniature specimens, would shorten the R&D cycle and reduce reliance on scarce beam time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the low-energy ion screening method is validated as a surrogate for proton damage, the same qualification pipeline could serve neighboring communities—spallation neutron sources, isotope production, and fusion materials research—where the radiation-damage and thermal-shock physics are shared.
  • The roadmap's implicit bet is that one generic qualification cycle fits very different target concepts. If liquid or granular targets win out, the critical component may shift from the bulk target to the window or cladding, pushing R&D toward corrosion, cavitation, and joining technologies.
  • A concrete testable extension would be to build a public benchmark dataset pairing nanoindentation hardness changes with macroscopic tensile and fatigue data on the same proton-irradiated materials; that dataset would quantify how much the low-energy screening step can be trusted.
  • Because the report makes the schedule the load-bearing constraint, a near-term milestone to watch is whether the equivalence of low-energy ion and high-energy proton damage is established before any major down-selection decision; if that validation slips, the later facility timelines would have to absorb the delay.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a workshop report, prepared after a DOE-OHEP-sponsored workshop at Fermilab in April 2023, that lays out a roadmap for high-power targetry research and development for HEP over the next two decades. It identifies the future facilities that will need multi-MW-class targets and beam-intercepting devices (LBNF, FCC-ee, Mu2e-II, a 10-TeV muon collider, AMF, and PAR), surveys candidate target concepts (rotating, liquid, flowing, granular, conveyor) and novel materials (high-entropy alloys, electrospun nanofibers, refractory high-Z materials, composites), and proposes a staged materials qualification pipeline: low-energy ion irradiation screening, down-selection, high-energy proton irradiation, in-beam thermal shock testing, fatigue testing, and post-irradiation examination. It also discusses modeling needs, radiation-hardened instrumentation, alternative irradiation and fatigue-test methods, facility requirements, safety constraints, and synergies with other communities. The motivating claim is that reliable target design is already a challenge at MW-class facilities and that a coordinated, timely R&D program is needed to realize the physics benefits of planned multi-MW upgrades.

Significance. If taken as a planning document rather than as a report of new experimental results, the roadmap is a useful and internally consistent synthesis of the field's current priorities. Its strengths are the explicit facility-by-facility timeline, the identification of concrete R&D gaps, the reliance on existing collaborations such as RaDIATE and facilities such as HiRadMat, and the candid acknowledgment in Section 5.4 that low-energy ion irradiation has known limitations. The paper also gives a clear, staged qualification cycle that connects materials screening to final target selection. The main significance risk is not the absence of new data but the absence of a validation step for the central screening premise: if low-energy ion irradiation does not reproduce the material ranking produced by high-energy proton irradiation, the proposed timeline loses its foundation. Because the roadmap is intended to support DOE planning decisions, this gap should be addressed in the text before the roadmap is adopted as a programmatic guide.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3–5.5, Fig. 5] The down-selection pipeline assumes that low-energy ion irradiation with co-implanted helium and hydrogen reproduces the ranking of materials under high-energy proton irradiation. This assumption is load-bearing because Section 5.5 uses the low-energy-ion results to choose 'a small number of the best candidate materials' before the expensive high-energy proton irradiations of Section 5.6. The manuscript itself acknowledges in Section 5.4 that microscale characterization 'doesn't necessarily correspond to the physical properties of the material on a macroscopic scale,' but it does not include a calibration or benchmark step against existing high-energy proton data (e.g., legacy RaDIATE/BLIP specimens or published proton-irradiation results) before the down-select. The text also does not discuss how the order-of-magnitude dose-rate difference between ion beams and proton spallation irradiation, the free-surface sink effect in the shallow damaged layer, and the non-uniform depth profile of implanted gas may alter the ranking. I recommend adding a validation/benchmark task to the roadmap, or explicitly downgrading the low-energy-ion screen to a non-gating triage step with a fallback path, so that a wrong ranking cannot discard the best candidate before Section 5.6 irradiation occurs.
  2. [Abstract and §1] The statement that 'several major accelerator facilities operate at lower-than-design power due to target concerns' is presented without a citation or quantitative evidence. This claim is the primary motivation for the entire roadmap, and it is repeated in the abstract and in Section 1. Please either cite specific facilities with references documenting their achieved versus design beam power, or soften the claim to something like 'some major facilities have reported operating below design power because of target-related limitations.' As written, the claim is too strong for a document intended to inform DOE planning decisions.
  3. [§5.5] The down-selection decision is described as if a change in hardness from nanoindentation is a 'clear indicator' of radiation damage and a sufficient basis for selecting the best candidate materials. In target applications, thermal conductivity degradation, swelling, embrittlement, and fracture-toughness changes can be more life-limiting than hardness, and the roadmap does not specify how those quantities will be measured or estimated from the microscale specimens before the down-select. I recommend adding an explicit statement of which macroscale properties the microscale tests are intended to represent, and what supplementary characterization or modeling will fill the gaps, so that the down-select criterion is not implicitly reduced to hardness alone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.2] There is a typo in the subsection heading: 'liquid-j et target' should read 'liquid-jet target.'
  2. [References] Several references contain obvious typographical errors: reference [22] has 'Radiaton Damage' instead of 'Radiation Damage,' reference [30] has 'Scriptia Materialia' instead of 'Scripta Materialia,' and reference [6] is titled 'FCC-ee: The Hadron Collider' although it appears to describe the hadron-collider phase and should likely be 'FCC-hh.'
  3. [Figures] The manuscript text refers to many figures (Figures 1–10), but the figures themselves are not embedded in the provided version. Please ensure the final submission includes all figures, since the timelines and facility lists are central to the roadmap's readability.
  4. [Glossary and §11] The glossary entry 'PSI: Paul Scherer Institute' should be 'Paul Scherrer Institute.' In Section 11, the sentence 'the fissile or alpha-emitting products from the second source of activated samples will not be produced' is too absolute for future irradiations at other facilities; it should be qualified to apply only to the stated irradiation conditions and isotope inventories, and reassessed for each new irradiation site.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the roadmap's scientific assumptions are testable risks, not results derived from their own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a workshop roadmap, not a derivation or prediction paper. Its central recommendations—the staged materials qualification pipeline, low-energy ion screening for down-selection, and later high-energy proton irradiation—are program plans justified by facility requirements and prior materials experience; no parameter is fitted to data and then reported as a prediction. The weakest scientific assumption is in Section 5.3–5.5, where low-energy dual/triple ion irradiation is proposed to screen candidate materials, with Section 5.4 explicitly conceding that microscale characterization 'doesn't necessarily correspond to the physical properties of the material on a macroscopic scale'. That is a validity and risk concern, not circularity: the roadmap does not define the selection outcome in terms of the screening result, and it includes a later high-energy proton irradiation step (Section 5.6) and final selection from combined studies (Section 5.9). The document does cite Snowmass white papers by overlapping authors for context and coordination, but no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation or an imported uniqueness theorem. There is no equation-level identity, no fitted input relabeled as prediction, and no known result merely renamed. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The roadmap makes no empirical predictions; it asserts programmatic feasibility. The main unproven premises are that low-energy ion irradiation can stand in for high-energy proton damage, that microscale tests predict bulk behavior, and that the P5 facility timeline holds.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Future HEP facilities will require multi-MW beams on the timeline shown in Figure 2.
    The priority list and schedule derive from the 2023 P5 report and Snowmass'21 (Section 2); the roadmap's value depends on these projections.
  • domain assumption Low-energy dual/triple ion-beam irradiation can reproduce the synergistic damage of high-energy protons, including helium/hydrogen transmutation effects.
    Section 5.3 proposes using LE ion irradiation with co-implanted H/He to screen candidate materials; this is a hypothesis, not a validated equivalence.
  • domain assumption Microscale PIE measurements on shallow ion-damaged layers can predict bulk material performance.
    Section 5.4 acknowledges the limitation explicitly: microscale characterization techniques do not necessarily correspond to physical properties on a macroscopic scale.
  • domain assumption Existing beam test facilities (HiRadMat, BLIP, A2D2, AP0) will be available with the assumed parameters, and the 40 R/hr at 1 ft dose-rate limit applies to future irradiations.
    The programmatic feasibility described in Sections 10 and 11 depends on facility access and regulatory assumptions.
  • domain assumption The listed candidate materials (HEAs, nanofibers, TFGR tungsten, SiC composites) can be developed and qualified within the 5 to 10 year timeline.
    Sections 4 and 5 set a schedule for development, irradiation, and qualification that assumes no major discovery or cost overrun.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HEP High Power Targetry Roadmap -- Workshop Report." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H42DUQFN

@misc{pith2026250203305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HEP High Power Targetry Roadmap -- Workshop Report},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H42DUQFN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03305}
}
read the original abstract

Designing a reliable target is already a challenge for MW-class facilities today and has led several major accelerator facilities to operate at lower than design power due to target concerns. With present plans to increase beam power for next generation accelerator facilities in the next decade, timely R and D in support of robust high power targets is critical to secure the full physics benefits of ambitious accelerator power upgrades. A comprehensive R and D program must be implemented to address the many complex challenges faced by multi MW beam intercepting devices. This roadmap is envisioned to be helpful to the DOE-OHEP office when planning and prioritizing future R and D activities as well as leveraging synergies across the Office of Science. The roadmap will be extremely beneficial to the broader (external to DOE HEP) HPT community by communicating OHEP s high level strategy and objectives for HPT R and D and highlighting possible opportunities for collaboration.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Modeling Needs for High Power Target

    Barbier C. et al., Modeling Needs for High Power Target, Snowmass 2022 white paper. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.04714

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.04714 2022

  2. [1]

    Accelerator and Beam Physics RoadMap , https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ah UKEwiZ8Nji1ZuBAxXdNzQIHVaBAWcQFnoECBsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscience.osti.gov%2Fhep% 2F- %2Fmedia%2Fhep%2Fpdf%2F2022%2FABP_Roadmap_2023_final.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1OyzXjkqGbt0y HhoByIlfq&opi=89978449

    work page

  3. [2]

    DUNE at LBNF (fnal.gov)

    LBNF – Long Baseline Neutrino Facility. DUNE at LBNF (fnal.gov)

    work page

  4. [3]

    Deep underground neutrino experiment: DUNE

    Falcone A., DUNE Collaboration, “Deep underground neutrino experiment: DUNE”, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 1041, 167217, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Fermilab Proton Accelerator Complex Evolution (ACE) plan

    Valishev A., “Fermilab Proton Accelerator Complex Evolution (ACE) plan”, Presentation at P5 Town Hall at Fermilab abd Argonne, March 21-24 2023. https://indico.fnal.gov/event/58272/

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2

    Abada A., FCC Collaboration, “FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2”, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 228, 261-623 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4

    doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4 2019

  7. [6]

    FCC-ee: The Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 3

    Abada A., FCC Collaboration, “FCC-ee: The Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 3”, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 228, 755-1107 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2019-900087-0

    doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-900087-0 2019

  8. [7]

    Mu2e-II: Muon to electron conversion with PIP-II

    Byrum K. et al., “Mu2e-II: Muon to electron conversion with PIP-II”, Snowmass 2022 white paper. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.07569

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.07569 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    A Muon Collider Facility for Physics Discovery

    Stratakis D., Mokhov N., Palmer M., Pastrone N., Raubenheimer T., Rogers C., Schulte D., Shiltsev V., Tang J., Yamamoto A., et al., “A Muon Collider Facility for Physics Discovery”, 2022, https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.08033

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A New Charged Lepton Flavor Violation Program at Fermilab

    Aoki M. et al., “A New Charged Lepton Flavor Violation Program at Fermilab”, Snowmass 2022 white paper. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.08278

    2022 doi arXiv

  3. [10]

    FNAL PIP-II Accumulator Ring

    W. Pellico et al., “FNAL PIP-II Accumulator Ring”, Accelerator Physics, 2022, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.07339

    2022 doi arXiv

  4. [11]

    Novel Materials and Concepts for Next-Generation Targetry Applications

    K. Ammigan et al., “Novel Materials and Concepts for Next-Generation Targetry Applications”, Snowmass 2022 white paper. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.08357

    2022 doi arXiv

  5. [12]

    Target Studies with BNL E951 at the AGS

    Kirk H.G. et al., “Target Studies with BNL E951 at the AGS”, paper TPAH137 contributed to PAC2001 (June 18,2001)

    2001

  6. [13]

    The MERIT (nTOF-11) High Intensity Liquid Mercury Target Experiment at the CERN PS

    Ethymiopoulos I.; Fabich A.; Palm M.; Lettry J.; Haug F.; Pernegger H. et al., “The MERIT (nTOF-11) High Intensity Liquid Mercury Target Experiment at the CERN PS”, article, June 23, 2008; United States. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc893165/ : accessed Sept...

    2008

  7. [14]

    Pion-Production Target for Mu2e-II: Simulation Design and Prototype

    Neuffer D. et al., “Pion-Production Target for Mu2e-II: Simulation Design and Prototype”, Presented at the 23rd International Workshop on Neutrinos from Accelerators, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 30–31 July 2022. Phys. Sci. Forum 2023, 8(1), 59; https://doi.org/10.3390/psf2023008059

    2022 doi

  8. [15]

    The ISIS Spallation Neutron and Muon Source—The First Thirty-Three Years

    Thomason, J.W.G., “The ISIS Spallation Neutron and Muon Source—The First Thirty-Three Years”, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 917, pp. 61-67, 2018

    2018

  9. [16]

    et al., ”The Experimental Facility for the Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS,” Journal of Instrumentation, vol

    Ahdida C. et al., ”The Experimental Facility for the Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS,” Journal of Instrumentation, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. P03025-P03025, 2019

    2019

  10. [17]

    et al., Fabrication of a Tantalum-Clad Tungsten Target for LANSCE, Journal of Nuclear Materials, vol

    Nelson A.T. et al., Fabrication of a Tantalum-Clad Tungsten Target for LANSCE, Journal of Nuclear Materials, vol. 431, no. 1, pp. 172-184, 2012

    2012

  11. [18]

    et al., SPS Beam Dump Facility - Comprehensive Design Study, arXiv:1912.06356, CERN- PBC-REPORT-2019-005, CERN-2020-002: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2703984?ln=en

    Ahdida C. et al., SPS Beam Dump Facility - Comprehensive Design Study, arXiv:1912.06356, CERN- PBC-REPORT-2019-005, CERN-2020-002: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2703984?ln=en

    1912 arXiv

  12. [19]

    [20]. For high-power facilities, decay heat on Ta and Ta-alloys may pose safety and other concerns, and therefore other cladding materials such as Zircalloy or other Nb-alloys are being studied. Efforts to study and improve cladding technologies (e.g. Hot Isostatic Pressing an...

  13. [20]

    Lopez Sola E., et al., ”Design of a High Power Production Target for the Beam Dump Facility at CERN,” Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams, vol. 22, p. 113001, 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    et al., ”Application of Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) Technology to Diffusion Bond Refractory Metals for Proton Beam Targets and Absorbers at CERN,” Mater

    Busom J. et al., ”Application of Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) Technology to Diffusion Bond Refractory Metals for Proton Beam Targets and Absorbers at CERN,” Mater. Des. Process. Commun., vol. 2, p. e101, 2019

    2019

  15. [22]

    Generic Study on the Design and Operation of High-Power Targets,

    A. Ahmad, C. Booth, D. Jenkins and T. Edgecock, “Generic Study on the Design and Operation of High-Power Targets,” Physical Review Special Topics – Accelerator and Beams, vol. 17, 2014

    2014

  16. [23]

    RaDIATE Collaboration (Radiaton Damage In Accelerator Target Environments), https://radiate.fnal.gov/

  17. [24]

    Cantor et al., Microstructural Development in Equiatomic Multicomponent Alloys, Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol

    B. Cantor et al., Microstructural Development in Equiatomic Multicomponent Alloys, Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 375-377, pp.213-218, 2004

    2004

  18. [25]

    et al., Nanostructured High-Entropy Alloys with Multiple Principal Elements: Novel Alloy Design Concepts and Outcomes, Advanced Engineering Materials, vol

    Yeh J.W. et al., Nanostructured High-Entropy Alloys with Multiple Principal Elements: Novel Alloy Design Concepts and Outcomes, Advanced Engineering Materials, vol. 6, pp. 299-303, 2004

    2004

  19. [26]

    et al., Damage Accumulation in Ion-Irradiated Ni-based Concentrated Solid-Solution Alloys, Acta Materialia, vol

    Ullah M. et al., Damage Accumulation in Ion-Irradiated Ni-based Concentrated Solid-Solution Alloys, Acta Materialia, vol. 109, pp. 17-22, 2016

    2016

  20. [27]

    et al., High He-ion Irradiation Resistance of CrMnFeCoNi High-Entropy Alloy Revealed by Comparison Study with Ni and 304SS, Journal of Materials Science and Technology, vol

    Yang L. et al., High He-ion Irradiation Resistance of CrMnFeCoNi High-Entropy Alloy Revealed by Comparison Study with Ni and 304SS, Journal of Materials Science and Technology, vol. 35, pp. 300- 305, 2019

    2019

  21. [28]

    et al., Evolution of Local Lattice Distortion under Irradiation in Medium-and High-Entropy Alloys, Materialia, vol

    Tong Y. et al., Evolution of Local Lattice Distortion under Irradiation in Medium-and High-Entropy Alloys, Materialia, vol. 2, pp. 78-81, 2018

    2018

  22. [29]

    El-Atwani, O et al., Outstanding Radiation Resistance of Tungsten-Based High-Entropy Alloys, Science Advances, vol. 5, no. 3, 2019

    2019

  23. [30]

    et al, Enhancing Radiation Tolerance by Controlling Defect Mobility and Migration Pathways in Multicomponent Single-Phase Alloys, Nature Communications, vol

    Lu C. et al, Enhancing Radiation Tolerance by Controlling Defect Mobility and Migration Pathways in Multicomponent Single-Phase Alloys, Nature Communications, vol. 7, 2016

    2016

  24. [31]

    et al., Effects of Compositional Complexity on the Ion-Irradiation Induced Swelling and Hardening in Ni-containing Equiatomic alloys, Scriptia Materialia, vol

    Jin K. et al., Effects of Compositional Complexity on the Ion-Irradiation Induced Swelling and Hardening in Ni-containing Equiatomic alloys, Scriptia Materialia, vol. 119, pp. 65-70, 2016

    2016

  25. [32]

    et al., Production and qualification of an electrospun ceramic nanofiber material as a candidate future high power target, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams, vol

    Bidhar S. et al., Production and qualification of an electrospun ceramic nanofiber material as a candidate future high power target, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams, vol. 24, 123001, 2021

    2021

  26. [33]

    et al., Tungsten Alloy Development as Advanced Target Material for High-Power Proton Accelerator, JPS Conf

    Makimura S. et al., Tungsten Alloy Development as Advanced Target Material for High-Power Proton Accelerator, JPS Conf. Proc., vol. 18, 031002, 2020

    2020

  27. [34]

    et al., Development of Advanced High Heat Flux and Plasma-Facing Materials, Nucl

    Linsmeier Ch. et al., Development of Advanced High Heat Flux and Plasma-Facing Materials, Nucl. Fusion, vol. 57, 092007, 2017

    2017

  28. [35]

    et al., Development of Nanostructured Tungsten Based Materials Resistant to Recrystallization and/or Radiation Induced Embrittlement, Mater

    Kurushita H. et al., Development of Nanostructured Tungsten Based Materials Resistant to Recrystallization and/or Radiation Induced Embrittlement, Mater. Trans., vol 54, no. 4, pp.456-465, 2013

    2013

  29. [36]

    et al., Development of Toughened, Fine Grained, Recrystallized W-1.1%TiC, Materials Science Forum, Spallation Materials Technology, vol

    Makimura S. et al., Development of Toughened, Fine Grained, Recrystallized W-1.1%TiC, Materials Science Forum, Spallation Materials Technology, vol. 1024, pp. 103-109, 2021

    2021

  30. [37]

    Kohyama A., et al., IP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 18, 202002, 2011

    2011

  31. [38]

    Proc., vol.28, 031005, 2020

    Makimura S., et al., Feasibility Study for NITE SiC/SiC as the Target Material for Pions/Muons Production at High-Power Proton Accelerator Facilities, JPS Conf. Proc., vol.28, 031005, 2020

    2020

  32. [39]

    44, 2018

    Park J.S., et al., Ceramics International, vol. 44, 2018

    2018

  33. [40]

    et al, Journal of Instrumentation, vol 17, P01019, 2022

    Maestre J. et al, Journal of Instrumentation, vol 17, P01019, 2022

    2022

  34. [41]

    et al., 3D Carbon/Carbon Composite for Beam Intercepting Devices at CERN, Material Design & Processing Communications, 1, e33, 2019

    Nuiry F.X. et al., 3D Carbon/Carbon Composite for Beam Intercepting Devices at CERN, Material Design & Processing Communications, 1, e33, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.06024

    Yonehara K., Radiation hardened beam instrumentations for multi-Mega-Watt beam facilities, Snowmass 2022 white paper. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.06024

    2022 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    et al., Radiation robust rf gas beam detector R&D for intensity frontier experiments, FERMILAB-CONF-19-796-AD

    Yonehara K. et al., Radiation robust rf gas beam detector R&D for intensity frontier experiments, FERMILAB-CONF-19-796-AD

  37. [45]

    et al., A new electron-multiplier-tube-based beam monitor for muon monitoring at the T2K experiment, Prog

    Ashida Y. et al., A new electron-multiplier-tube-based beam monitor for muon monitoring at the T2K experiment, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2018, 103H01

    2018

  38. [46]

    et al., Recent advances in radiation-hardened fiber-based technologies for space applications, J

    Girard S. et al., Recent advances in radiation-hardened fiber-based technologies for space applications, J. Opt. 20 (2018) 093001

    2018

  39. [47]

    Barbeau P., Merkel P., and Zhang J., Report of the Instrumentation Frontier Working Group for Snowmass 2022 white paper, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.14111.pdf

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Baev, V.G., Vdovin, V.A., Vikharev, A.A. et al. Applied research using a 30 GHz free-electron maser: Experimental study of interacton of high-power pulsed radiation with metals. Radiophys Quantum El 54, 648–654 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11141-012-9310-3

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    et al., Irradiation Facilities and Irradiation Methods for High Power Target, SnowMass 2022 white paper, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.08239

    Pellemoine F. et al., Irradiation Facilities and Irradiation Methods for High Power Target, SnowMass 2022 white paper, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.08239

    2022 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Transient grating spectroscopy: An ultrarapid, nondestructive materials evaluation technique

    Hofmann F., Short M.P., Dennett C. A., “Transient grating spectroscopy: An ultrarapid, nondestructive materials evaluation technique”, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1908/1908.02051.pdf

    1908 arXiv

  43. [51]

    https://hiradmat.web.cern.ch/

    The HiRadMat Facility- High Radiation to Materials. https://hiradmat.web.cern.ch/

  44. [52]

    https://emira.in2p3.fr/

    Emir&a, French network of accelerators for irradiation and analysis of molecules and materials. https://emira.in2p3.fr/

  45. [53]

    https://nsuf.inl.gov/Page/rte

    Rapid Turnaround Experiment at Nuclear Science User Facilities. https://nsuf.inl.gov/Page/rte

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.