1. Infrastructure & Operation 27 th May 2015 Infrastructure & Operation 27 th May 2015 Update on optimisation of tunnel footprint and location Charlie Cook (GS), John Osborne (GS)

2. Outline Optimisation of tunnel footprint & location Overview of GeoMol Meeting, Geneva, 20/05/2015 First look at benefits to CE of a kink in the FCC tunnel Overview of CE contribution to FCC MDI meetings

3. Feasibility study questions 1.What is currently the best position for the tunnel circumferences under study? 2.How do the 80km, 87km, 93km & 100km options compare? 3.Do the advantages of decreased shaft depths outweigh the disadvantages of tunnelling through the Moraines under Lake Geneva?

4. Optioneering Development 80km 87km 93km (option 1a) 100km (option 2a) General Positioning 80km, 87km & 93km share the same location for point A in Meyrin

5. Optioneering Development 80km 87km 93km (option 1a) 100km (option 2a) General Positioning 80km, 87km & 93km share the same location for point A in Meyrin Point A for 100km in Prevessin

6. Optioneering Development 80km 87km 93km (option 1a) 100km (option 2a) General Positioning 80km, 87km & 93km share the same location for point A in Meyrin Point A for 100km in Prevessin All options rotated clockwise as far as possible to minimise depth under lake

7. Optioneering Development 80km 87km 93km (option 1a) 100km (option 2a) General Positioning 80km, 87km & 93km share the same location for point A in Meyrin Point A for 100km in Prevessin All options rotated clockwise as far as possible to minimise depth under lake Rotation limited by Jura (80km, 87km & 93km) or Vuache (100km)

8. Optioneering Development 80km 87km 93km (option 1a) 100km (option 2a) General Positioning 80km, 87km & 93km share the same location for point A in Meyrin Point A for 100km is in Prevessin All options rotated clockwise as far as possible to minimise depth under lake Rotation limited by Jura (80km, 87km & 93km) or Vuache (100km) Small alignment and shaft movements Positioned so that: All surface sites are in potentially feasible locations i.e. avoid environmentally protected areas and the built- environment Shaft depths are minimised (F,G,H in particular)

9. Applying Amberg Metrics 1.Data giving the geology intersected by each shaft and section of tunnel for any given alignment is downloaded from TOT

10. Applying Amberg Metrics 2. Each element of construction (1 meter of shaft, 1 meter of tunnel, 1 cavern) is multiplied by its respective unit multiplication factor which are dependant on the geological conditions and relative to the cost/risk of tunnelling 1m in molasse Shaft unit multiplication factors Cavern unit multiplication factors Tunnel unit multiplication factors

11. Applying Amberg Metrics 1.This gives a total cost risk for the tunnelling, each shaft and each cavern and a grand total for the alignment

12. Applying Amberg Metrics Amberg metrics include the cost/risk of: Tunnels Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) excavation in moraines, molasse, calcaire & urgonian with or without water pressure Installation of a typical TBM or ‘dual mode’ TBM Shafts Construction of 12 shafts (conventional and mechanical) in moraines, molasse, calcaire & urgonian with or without water pressure TBM Caverns Construction of 24 70mx200m 2 shaft bottom caverns for TBM assembly Not yet included: Connection to the LHC Feasibility of over ground site locations Environmental considerations (other than shafts avoiding protected areas) Risk of severe tunnel squeezing at depths up to 650m in molasse Experimental and service caverns Cost/risk for cavern construction at large depths Etc.

13. Latest results - Comparison between options of different circumference Component of cost/risk dependant on circumference Component of cost/risk independent of circumference

14. Latest results - Comparison between options of different circumference

17. Latest results – Tunnelling through moraines vs molasse under Lake Geneva Do the advantages of decreased shaft depths outweigh the disadvantages of tunnelling through the Moraines under Lake Geneva? *cost/risk of tunnels, shafts & TBM caverns only

18. Conclusions 1.What is currently the best position for the tunnel circumferences under study? The best solutions found so far rely on a tunnel position as southerly as possible whilst: Maintaining feasible sites for surface infrastructure around shafts, particularly at points A, B, D and H. Avoiding the (highly fractured) Vuache limestone Avoiding high overburden in the south east sections Enabling a feasible connection to the LHC (or SPS) Keeping shaft depths to a minimum, particularly shafts E, F, G and H 2. How do the 80km, 87km, 93km & 100km options compare? All four options fit into the Geneva basin without any (currently obvious) ‘show stoppers’ Overburden at depths >650m in molasse poses the highest risk to the feasibility of the tunnel construction if a site investigation reveals poor geological conditions in these areas The 80km, 87km & 93km are able to lie further south and pass under a shallower part of the lake than the 100km and therefore have lower total shaft depths The 100km has further disadvantage in that it must pass through the Jura limestone The study so far indicates that the 93km option offers the greatest ‘cost-value benefit’ 3. Do the advantages of decreased shaft depths outweigh the disadvantages of tunnelling through the Moraines under Lake Geneva? The analysis so far suggests the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. However, important factors including tunnel overburden and cavern construction at depth have not yet been included.

19. GeoMol Meeting, Geneva – 20/05/15 Organisations present: BRGM, CERN, GESDEC, GEOMOL, GEOTHERMIE2020 & SIG (Canton de Genève), UNIGE Presentations: 2. Projet FCC Future Circular Collidars (CERN) 3. Etat des connaissances du sous-sol de la région au CERN, travaux en cours et données intéressantes (CERN) 4. Projet GeoMol – Zone pilote Genève – Savoie: modèle géologique 3D: état des connaissances (BRGM Orléans) 5. Projets en cours dans la région Rhône - Alpes (BRGM Lyon) 6. Projet GeoEnergy (UNIGE Sciences de la Terre) 7. Programme GEothermie 2020 – programme prospection détaillée (SIG) 8. Projet Base de données du sous-sol (Etat de Genève) 9. Modèles de température BRGM vs UNIGE 10. Projet GeoQuat (Swisstopo) Comments relevant to CERN/FCC: GEothermie2020 will continue to develop understanding of geology inc. faults, water circulation and natural seismicity over the next 2-3 years A model of the molasse & limestone rockheads covering the FCC study area (and more) has been created by GeoMol Y. Robert has sent The coordinates of the FCC options have been sent to GeoMol to compare results from their model with those from TOT The TOT geology model could be over simplistic. Molasse & limestone is very variable. Molasse could even contain aquifers. Deep Jura limestone may contain useful drinking water resources that perhaps should not be put at risk by the FCC C. Laughton’s paper on LEP construction issues in the Jura would be useful for Geothermie2020 Geneva dispose of over 1 million m 3 of excavated material per year A geothermal gradient of about 2.4 o C over a depth of 5km, starting with a 22 o C shallow rock temperature is predicted. Does this represent shallower depths of 0-650m accurately? A plot of depth vs. temperature is available (next slide) Evidence of hydrocarbon deposits in FCC study area Collaboration of CERN & Geothermie2020 possible to share costs of further geological investigations in FCC vicinity

20. Rock Temperature Graph (Geothermie2020) Collaboration between CERN & UNIGE possible to study the FCC’s potential for ground heat recovery Geothermal gradient = 2.54 0 C

21. First look at a kink(s) in the FCC First look at the benefits to CE of a kink(s) in the FCC tunnel Charlie Cook, John Osborne

22. Presentation Content Single kink (100km example) Double kink (100km example) Triple kink (100km example) Conclusions

23. Single Kink – 100km Option Point A Point B Point C Point D Point E Point F Point G Point L Point K Point J Point I Point H Kink

24. Single Kink – 100km Option 100km Example Option 2a [100km] – no kink [slope = 0.5%] Option 2a [100km] – single kink [slope = 2.4%] Option 2a [100km] – single kink [slope = 1.4%] Kink 1 Chainage = 34892m Dist. To E = 600m Kink 2 Chainage = 64487m Dist. To I = 600m

25. Single Kink – 100km Option 100km Example Shaft Depths Slope after kink [%] Change in slope [%] EFGHI Total depth (of all 12 shafts) Shaft depths % Reduction 0.650.013239235426817032110% 0.90.2513137833925416931661% 1.40.7512835030722616630724% 2.41.75110290241166157285911% Maximum kink for CE (in this example) 2.4% slope after kink [change in slope at kinks = 1.75%] 100km Example

26. Double Kink - 100km Option Point A Point B Point C Point D Point E Point F Point G Point L Point K Point J Point I Point H Kinks

27. Double Kink - 100km Option Option 2a [100km] – no kink [slope = 0.65%] Option 2a [100km] – double kink [E-I = 1.4% E-C = 0.41/1.4%] Option 2a [100km] – double kink [E-I = 2.4% E-C = 0.41/1.4%]

28. Double Kink – 100km Option Shaft Depths Slope E-I [%] Slope E-C [%] ABCDEFGHIJKL Total depth (of all 12 shafts) Shaft depths % Reduction 0.65 30426625727213239235426817031522126032110% 1.40.41/1.430426621621812835030722616631522126029777% 2.40.41/1.4304266216218110290241166157315221260276414%

29. Triple Kink - 100km Option Point A Point B Point C Point D Point E Point F Point G Point L Point K Point J Point I Point H Kinks

30. Triple Kink - 100km Option Option 2a [100km] – triple kink [E-I = 2.4% E-C = 0.41/1.4 % B-K = 0.75/0.5% ] Option 2a [100km] – triple kink [E-I = 1.4% E-C = 0.41/1.4 B-K = 0.75/0.5% ]

31. Triple Kink – 100km Option Shaft Depths Slope E-I [%] Slope E-C [%] Slope B-K [%] ABCDEFGHIJKL Total depth (of all 12 shafts) Shaft depths % Reduction 0.65 30426625727213239235426817031522126032110% 1.40.41/1.4-0.75/-0.5 246242216218128350307226166315179187278013% 2.40.41/1.4-0.75/-0.5 246242216218110290241166157315179187256720% Note: the gradients between E-C & B-K are a function of a rotation around the x-x & y-y axis of the tunnel.

32. Conclusion Single kink possible total shaft depth reductions (kink between points E-I): 4% with a maximum slope limit of 1.4% 11% with a maximum slope of 2.4% Double kink possible total shaft depth reductions (kink between points E-I & C-E): 7% with a maximum slope limit of 1.4% 14% with a maximum slope of 2.4% Triple kink possible total shaft depth reductions (kink between points E-I, C-E & B-K): 13% with a maximum slope limit of 1.4% 20% with a maximum slope of 2.4% Overall There is a clear opportunity for a kink in the FCC tunnel to reduce the depth of some of the most problematic shafts. The benefit to CE could be a reduction of around 5-20% in total shaft depths. However, the greatest advantage to CE may be to use a kink as a method to mitigate issues with cavern construction at large depths, rock squeezing in the tunnel and the removal of excavated material.

33. Overview of MDI Meeting – Experimental Caverns Cavern Access Options CATIA Cavern Example Models

34. Cavern Access Shaft (vertical) vs. Inclined tunnel? 2800m 395m 3o3o Shaft ~400m

35. Cavern Access Shaft (vertical) vs. Inclined tunnel? 2800m 395m 3o3o Inclined tunnel ~3000m 6%

36. Cavern Access Option 2 - Twin Solenoid Access options Ø28m shaft Ø26m circular modules + 0.8m clearance for safety ~1.5x diameter of CMS shaft (Ø20m) Moderate CE challenge at depths ~200m Very high CE challenge at depths 300m-400m Roadheader 28mx7.5m inclined tunnel Ø28m Extremely large diameter tunnel Too large for Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Possible construction method could be roadheader excavation to create a rectangular cross-section (28m x 7.5m) Height of tunnel = 7.5m; assumes flatbed truck (2m) + ventilation ducts on tunnel ceiling (1m) + for safety (0.5m)

37. Cavern Access Option 3 - ToroidAccess options Ø22m shaft Moderate CE challenge at depths ~200m Very high CE challenge at depths 300m-400m Roadheader 5mx14m inclined tunnel Coil height (10.1m) + flatbed truck (2m) + ventilation duct (1m) + safety (0.9m) = 14m Width of coil/diameter of tube? Space to rotate final coil must be considered in any access option 14m 5m 1m 2m 10.1m 0.9m

38. CERN SITG VUE BA5 Twin Solenoid cavern with shaft Alcoves will be removed in the updated CATIA model

39. CATIA Model: ST0664602_01 36 m 38 m 65 m Ø28 m Twin Solenoid cavern with shaft Detector Option Detector design Shaft/tunnel diameter [m] Required dimensions for installation [m] Width of metallic structures [m] Cavern dimensions (LxWxH) [m] Span [m] Option 1Solenoid Option 2Twin Solenoid2865x30x36865x38x3638 Option 3Toroid1486x36x42886x44x4244

40. Twin Solenoid cavern with shaft

41. CERN SITG VUE BA5 Toroid cavern with inclined tunnel Alcoves will be removed in the updated CATIA model

42. CATIA Model: ST0664667_01 42 m 44 m 86 m Ø14 m Toroid cavern with inclined tunnel Detector Option Detector design Shaft/tunnel diameter [m] Required dimensions for installation [m] Width of metallic structures [m] Cavern dimensions (LxWxH) [m] Span [m] Option 1Solenoid Option 2Twin Solenoid2865x30x36865x38x3638 Option 3Toroid1486x36x42886x44x4244

43. MDI meeting Friday 29 th May 2015 CE update will be given on :  Typical underground service caverns from the CLIC study  First results from putting a ‘kink’ in the tunnel, and its impact on Experimental Cavern depths  Experimental Cavern design : next steps

44. Update on optimisation of tunnel footprint and location Infrastructure & Operation 27 th May 2015