1 / 36

EPIPHANY Conference at Cracow “Physics in Underground Laboratories and its connection with LHC”

EPIPHANY Conference at Cracow “Physics in Underground Laboratories and its connection with LHC” - 6 to 8 January 2010 - Fréjus site for LAGUNA Luigi Mosca CEA-Saclay and LSM-Fréjus ). Present LSM (Laboratoire Souterrain de Modane) : depth ≈ 4800 mwe, volume ≈ 3500 m 3

wilma
Télécharger la présentation

EPIPHANY Conference at Cracow “Physics in Underground Laboratories and its connection with LHC”

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. EPIPHANY Conference at Cracow “Physics in Underground Laboratories and its connection with LHC” - 6 to 8 January 2010 - Fréjus site for LAGUNA Luigi Mosca CEA-Saclay and LSM-Fréjus ) EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  2. Present LSM (Laboratoire Souterrain de Modane) : depth ≈ 4800 mwe, volume ≈ 3500 m3 • Main Experiments : - EDELWEISS II (Dark Matter direct detection) - NEMO 3 (Double b Decay) -- - Weak radioactivity measurements for different purposes (15 Germanium test-benches) EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  3. Project of a first extension of the present LSM (volume ≈ 60 000 m3) mainly for the next generation of Dark Matter and Double b Decay experiments EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  4. First a brief reminder of LAGUNA as a European cooperation and as an FP7 Design Study Network EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  5. European Cooperation Project LAGUNA (30 Institutions in 10 countries) Grand Unification Proton Decayup to ≈ 1035 years lifetime mainly to study Supernovae (burst + “relics”) the Sun (solar ’s ) Neutrinos from Cosmic rays (atmospheric ’s) the Earth (geo ’s ) Neutrino propertiesaccelerators(super-beam and beta-beam) and Astrophysics EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  6. In the LAGUNA Cooperation the main Physics goals are common, while 3 different detection techniques are proposed 3 detector types : GLACIER, LENA, and MEMPHYS, and 7 candidate sites : Boulby (UK), Fréjus (France/Italy), Umbria (Italy), LSC (Spain), Pyhäsalmi (Finland), Sunlab (Poland), Slanic (Romenia) There is a strong complementarity among the 3 detector approaches, to be better investigated inside LAGUNA EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  7. The 3 detectors : R&D and physics • GLACIER (Liquid Argon TPC) --> Dorota Stefan talk • LENA (Liquid Scintillator) --> Michael Wurm talk • MEMPHYS (Water Cherenkov) -> Michela Marafini talk EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  8. 80 m EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  9. An example of complementarity : L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 9

  10. = CERN Pyhhäsalmi 2300 Km Bulby mine: 1050 Km SUNLAB 950 Km 130 Km Unirea Salt Mine 630 Km EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 CASO 659 Km

  11. LAGUNA as an FP7 Design Study Network Four Working Packages : WP1 : Management and coordination WP2 : Underground Infrastructures and engineering (including tanks and liquids handling) WP3 : Safety and environmental and socio-economic issues WP4 : Science Impact and Outreach Main deliverable : a “conceptual design report” on the feasibility of a megaton-scale underground infrastructure to allow policy makers to define the European strategy in this field of research EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  12. Main topics to be addressed in the feasibility study for each site and each type of experiment on the basis of their requirements : 1) determination of the best shape for very large cavities and of their possible dimensions (using simulations constrained by the knowledge of the type, structure and stress of the rock) 2) optimisation of the access to these cavities (tunnels, shafts, local bypasses, …) 3) study of the basic equipment and facilities : ventilation and air-filtering and conditioning, liquid production (if any) and transportation and continuous purification “factories” (in connection with WP3), electrical power supply, clean rooms, computing facilities, etc. 4) incorporation of the relevant safety conditions and equipments (for long term stability of the cavities, for fire, liquid leaks and evaporation risks, etc), in connection with WP3. 5) evaluation of the cost and time of realisation of the different parts of each site’s infrastructure (and also maintenance cost) EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  13. Now let us consider the study(*) (well advanced) of the Fréjus site as a candidate for the LAGUNA Project (*)by the Lombardi Company EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  14. EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 14

  15. EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  16. 130 Km EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 16

  17. Example of possible location of LAGUNA detectors near the existing infrastructure FRANCE LSM (1982) Safety tunnel (2009 – under construction) LAGUNA detector (example with MEMPHYS) ITALY Road tunnel (1974 – 1978) EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  18. Caverns shape and dimensions for the 3 detectors candidates • Volumes of excavations : • GLACIER: 160'000 m3 • LENA: 111'000 m3 • MEMPHYS: 838'000 m3 (3 caverns) L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 18

  19. GLACIER EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  20. LENA EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  21. MEMPHYS EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  22. GLACIER – Final lining • Thickness: 1.5 m (roof and vertical wall) EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  23. LENA – Final lining • Thickness: 0.7 m (roof and vertical wall) • In vertical walls to be installed proceeding bottom-up • Thickness of the lower part (20 m) increased to 1.2 m EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  24. MEMPHYS – Final lining • Thickness: 1.5 m (roof and vertical wall), 2.3 m in the lower part (15 m) EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  25. Roof excavation sequence (GLACIER) EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  26. Geomechanical feasibility • GLACIER, LENA and MEMPHYS option are all feasible at Fréjus site. • The geomechanical feasibility remains valid also by a small change of the size of the excavation, both in the diameter and height of the cavern. • The geomechanical conditions at Frejus are well known and further investigations are basically not required. The safety tunnel under construction will provide further information. • The support system proposed guarantees the long term stability and the absence of significant time dependent displacement of the cavity. • The support system proposed has sufficient reserve to ensure the stability of the cavern in case of earthquake. EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  27. Mechanical interaction with rock (MEMPHYS) EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  28. Thermal interaction with rock (MEMPHYS) ROCK: T = 30°C WATER: T = 13°C HEAT ENERGY TRANSFER (Q) Solution with the insulation Solution without the insulation EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  29. Tank feasibility and tank construction • The solution with tank placed in contact with the rock mass is feasible at Fréjus site for LENA and MEMPHYS option. For GLACIER option an independent tank is preferable. • The solution with tank placed in contact with the rock mass can save the amount of steel needed (7‘200 kg for MEMPHYS option, 3‘600 kg for LENA option). • Both the solution with the insulation and without insulation are feasible at Fréjus site. • In case of absence of water circulation in the rock mass, the solution without the insulation is preferable, from an economic point of view. EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  30. Concerning the distance of a given site from CERN two different strategies can be considered : (see Mauro Mezzetto talk) a) “short” long-baseline (with “low” n energy) : - low background (absence of inelastic events) - negligible matter effect (good for a clean CP-V measurement) - “mass hierarchy” determined by atmospheric n events - feasible with the present CERN accelerators (PS and SPS) • “long” long-baseline (with “high” n energy) : - higher background due to inelastic events - “mass hierarchy” determination possible without atmospheric n, • but need to disentangle it from CP-Violation effects - need more important upgrade of the CERN accelerators EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  31. Year 2008 2012 2016 2020 Safety tunnel Excavation Lab cavity PS Study Excavation detector PM R&D PMT production Outside lab. Installation Det.preparation P-decay, SN Non-acc.physics Construction Superbeam Superbeam betabeam Construction Beta beam A possible schedule for a European Lab. at Fréjus decision for cavity digging decision for SPL construction decision for EURISOL site EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  32. Conclusions and outlook - The main physics goals are common inside the LAGUNA Cooperation - The LAGUNA programme aims at otherwise inaccessible fundamental phenomena - The 3 detector approaches are complementary - LAGUNA is a European cooperation, but it is also open to the world community ! - The FRÉJUS site(at the French/Italian border) : - is the deepest in Europe (4800 mwe) - GLACIER, LENA and MEMPHYS options are all possible from the geo-mechanical point of view (optimal type of rock) at this depth - independent horizontal access via the safety tunnel (f = 8m) - the long-distance access is optimal by highways, TGVs and airports - the distance from CERN (130 Km) is OK (even if not fully optimized) for a Q13 and CP-Violation strategy with a “short” long-baseline - strong support from the local authorities EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  33. and finally at EPIPHANY the “Magi” indicate to us the direction that we have to follow … EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  34. DZIEKUJE ! EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  35. Back-up EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

  36. + 77 After 2012 Neutrino Background from Power Plants based on 2008 data W.H.Trzaska on behalf of the Finnish LAGUNA Team(calculations by Kai Loo) Measured spectra of reactor neutrinos for U-235,Pu-239 andPu-241 were used. For U-238 calculated spectra were used.Event rates were calculated for a KamLand-type scintillator det. EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

More Related