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

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 Presentation 1 - Kitakami Mountains Geological Survey Report 2 - Progress Report on IR Vertical Shaft Study 3 Identification of how requirements may help to differentiate between different layout options (i.e. HT / VS / HT&VS) 1. CFS weekly meeting presentation (Aspects to be clarified by Asian Region team - Japanese language report) 2. Oyo Corporation Report CFS weekly meeting presentation

6 LC IR Design Requirements Requirement Engineering Specification Affected by Geotechnical Conditions? Considered in Asian Region CFS Study? Affected by cavern layout? i.e. HT/VS/HT&VS option 1 Maximum Detector Weight tons  2 Movement duration 5 hours  ?  3Speed> 1 mm/s  ?  4 Number of movements 10/year  ?  5 Limit of acceleration 0.05m/s 2  ?  6 Maintenance allowances 2m (On Beam)  ?? 7 Maintenance allowances 6m (Off Beam)  ?? 8 Positioning relative to beam ± 1mm  (but driven by criteria 10)?? 9Slab Vibration20Hz  ??  : Not Affected  : Affected / Considered in Asian Region Studies ?: Check with Asian Region Studies if has been considered

7 LC IR Design Requirements Requirement Engineering Specification Affected by Geotechnical Conditions? Considered in Asian Region CFS Study? Affected by cavern layout? i.e. HT/VS/HT&VS option 10 Static deformation of platform limited to ±2mm   (only HT option)  11 Layout configuration “Z” – CLIC.CE G   (only HT option)  12 Ground Conditions CERN - Molasse Basin   (Kitakami)N/A 13 Machine platform footprint 20 x 20m  14 Min. Distance between Detectors 15m  ?? (HT&VS option) 15 Magnetic field at top of platform <1,000 gauss  ?  16 Operating Temperature Range 20°C ±2°C  ?  17 Platform Movement System Rollers or Air Pad  ?   : Not Affected  : Affected / Considered in Asian Region Studies ?: Check with Asian Region Studies if has been considered

8 Requirements affected by Geotechnical Conditions Aspects 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 | SiD slab - 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 c ombined slab + invert deformation (elastic FE Analysis) - Consideration of further deformation effects: - Geomechanical/kinematic deformation? - Seismic effects?

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

11 Requirements affected by Geotechnical Conditions Aspects 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 issues Aspects 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 issues Aspects 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.