1 / 14

ILC Interaction Region Design Requirements

CFS-ADI Joint Meeting - University of Tokyo - April 8-10, 2014. ILC Interaction Region Design Requirements. ARUP Studies Update. John Osborne CERN , Yung Loo & Matt Sykes (ARUP). ARUP - Study Mandate. Review key requirements and specifications from the European Region LC IR & MDI studies.

Télécharger la présentation

ILC Interaction Region Design Requirements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CFS-ADI Joint Meeting - University of Tokyo - April 8-10, 2014 ILC Interaction Region Design Requirements ARUP Studies Update John Osborne CERN, Yung Loo & Matt Sykes (ARUP)

  2. ARUP - Study Mandate • Review key requirements and specifications from the European Region LC IR & MDI studies. • Review against the Asian Region design concept requirements. • Compare and identify implications of any changes. • Any potential changes to be registered. Recommendations / implications / adherence issues to be identified between the ILD/SID design criteria and the LC design for the Asian Region. • Current on-going CFS meetings have focussed on Asian Region detector hall access optioneering (i.e. HT,VS,HT/VS). • Therefore review has been modified to aid current progress. • Potential for requirements review to aid decision process for optioneering outcomes.

  3. Summary of ARUP – European Region Review of IR Cavern Layout Studies 1. Geotechnical & Tunnelling Studies • Design Concept for IR Cavern Layout. • Invert Deformation Performance Requirements Identification. • Geological Review & Geotechnical Modelling.

  4. Summary of ARUP – European Region Review of IR Cavern Layout Studies 2. Mechanical Engineering Studies • Design Concept for Detector Platform Movement System. Mechanical systems modelling. • Slab Performance Requirements Identification. 3. Combined Geotechnical, Mechanical modelling  Slab + Cavern design concept & requirements

  5. LC IR Design Requirements • CFS design considerations: • Requirements from European Region for LC IR detector hall layout and MDI • Preliminary identification of if/how requirements have been considered and impacted in: • Asian Region CFS – Experimental Hall 3D Deformation Analysis Presentation1 • Kitakami Mountains Geological Survey Report2 • Progress Report on IR Vertical Shaft Study3 • Identification of how requirements may help to differentiate between different layout options (i.e. HT / VS / HT&VS) (Aspects to be clarified by Asian Region team - Japanese language report) 1. CFS weekly meeting presentation - 14.01.14 2. Oyo Corporation Report - 31.08.13 3. CFS weekly meeting presentation - 25.02.13

  6. : Not Affected : Affected / Considered in Asian Region Studies ?: Check with Asian Region Studies if has been considered LC IR Design Requirements

  7. : Not Affected : Affected / Considered in Asian Region Studies ?: Check with Asian Region Studies if has been considered LC IR Design Requirements

  8. Requirements affected by Geotechnical ConditionsAspects to consider 9. Slab Vibration • Asian Region Study considers a 3m thick slab. European Region Slab frequency limits are based on: ILD slab - 2.2m thick | SiDslab - 3.8m thick. Effect of this on slab freq. req.? • Potential seismic effects on vibration? • Granite much stiffer than molasse, may lead to different dampening effects of detector hall structure- potential dynamic effects may need to be considered in further analyses. 10. Static deformation of platform • Asian Region Study considers combined slab + invert deformation (elastic FE Analysis) • Consideration of further deformation effects: • Geomechanical/kinematic deformation? • Seismic effects?

  9. Requirements affected by Geotechnical ConditionsAspects to consider 11. Layout configuration • Z-configuration has an advantageous geometry in terms of stress shielding effects on IR compared with HT/’HT&VS’ options. • Conceptually: Shafts and compact symmetric shape of Z-config may have a generally stiffer structure, and non-cantilevered shape compared with HT option with access tunnel. • HT option at greater comparative depth: • Potentially greater overburden stresses • Potentially increased engineered access tunnel excavation requirements

  10. Requirements affected by Geotechnical ConditionsAspects to consider 11. Layout configuration HT access (baseline) VS access HT & VS access 5 SFTs 1 Main SFT 1 ILD SFT 1 SiD SFT 2 EV SFT Assembly Yd Assembly Yd Assembly Yd HT D8m Grad10% Upper A/T Upper HT 2 SFTs 1 Main SFT 1 UT/EV SFT HT D11m Grad7% DH Straight DH Z-shape DH 200m 90m 90m

  11. Requirements affected by Geotechnical ConditionsAspects to consider 15. Magnetic field at top of platform • Geological Survey [Oyo Corp]: ‘granite of the Kitakami Mountains is I-type granite of the magnetite series.’ • Magnetite is highly magnetically susceptible. Further studies needed? 16. Operating Temperature Range • Mountainous regions may have localised densening of geothermal heat fluxes, especially in valleys. Effect on heat exchange with caverns/tunnels and operating temperature? Opportunity for heat exchanger for tunnel cooling / heat extraction?

  12. Potential non-geotechnical/tunnelling issuesAspects to consider 6. Maintenance allowances • Are HT/’HT&VS’ layouts space-proofed for maintenance allowances? • e.g. Is there additional allowances for platform support spacing during slicing 14. Minimum distance between detectors • Can 15m distance be maintained on ‘HT&VS’ layout. Can this distance be maintained when either machine is on beamline?

  13. Potential non-geotechnical/tunnelling issuesAspects to consider Are there benefits to any of the access layouts in terms of shafts vs horizontal/inclined tunnel access for: • Interventions points and emergency access • Heat release, forced ventilation and potential Helium release • Routes for maintenance and installation/removal access. • CMS type assembly helps to mitigate the impact of any delays in the underground civil works (this implies VS Solution)

  14. Further Steps • Confirmation of the identified ‘?’ requirements with Asian Region study teams. • Identify their effects and which requirements need further assessment/discussion. • Following continued development of the MDI design, to identify if these impact on geotechnical/tunnelling requirements • Requirements gathering can be used as a decision aid to differentiate between the 3 access layout options. • To decide if requirements review should form part of this decision process, or be a compliance tool which proceeds a developed choice on access layout.

More Related