1. Investigation of FCC position Impacts on Hadron Injectors John Osborne, Charlie Cook, Yung Loo (ARUP) 16/09/2014

2. 2 Contents Preliminary findings: Investigation of FCC Hadron Injector (FHI) & geo/tunnelling impacts for 83km/100km ring siting Geology/CE Studies Progress Flow 100km - Circle and Racetrack – optimised alignment options within study area limits 83km - Circle and Racetrack – optimised alignment options within study area limits Alternatives and FHI constraints

3. Geology - Definition of key variables and investigation boundaries -Terrain, overburden -Broad Ground Conditions which have engineering impact (Moraine, Molasse, Cretaceous, Faults) -Hydrology (Lake, Rivers) Preliminary Machine Requirements -Tunnel Length -Tunnel Shape -Tunnel Depth -Tunnel Slope -Location of Experimental Halls/Access Shafts Updated aims and requirements e.g. laser straight, corrections for ellipsoid Updates on data constraints Key decision output choices GIS Useability / Accessability / Transfer of Knowledge BIM TOOL DECISION AID BRGM Cretaceous Seismics Bathymetry data Tool functionality CE constructability Tunnelling, Geotechnics, Programme Interfaces Requirements FHI requirements Experimental groups Iterations of constraints/requirements  assessment of a most feasible solution Performance Design Requirements / Design Basis (offline data manipulation) Excel GIS INITIAL PROJECT VARIABLES & ASSUMPTIONS ITERATIONS BIM tool export Model Updates Assessments & Studies FCC - Geology/CE Studies Progress Flow

4. 4 100km Circle: Study Boundary Limits - North To minimise connection distance of injection tunnel between LHC and FCC, beneficial to locate ring further east but constrained by Chablais Potential alignment optimisation with tilt, but unlike with LHC slope (solely to reduce Jura impact). FCC - A beneficial tilt in one direction would be a negative tilt in another: - i.e. three main mtns, Jura, Saleve, Pre Alps Chablais (+Le Vuache) - Any tilt is also constrained by The Rhone FHI ImpactsGeo/Tunnelling Impacts Positives Possibility of good near parallel injection tunnel length into LHC P3, P4, P5. Negatives 10km spacing of detector caverns/shafts not possible due to alignment spacing between Pre Alpes du Chablais crossing (1km deep shaft) and lake Lake bed deeper Top of molasse deeper NE of ring moves out of Valee de L’Arve corridor into Chablais

5. 5 100km Circle: Study Boundary Limits - North - General Scenario of Crossing near P3-P5 Riverbed Molasse Rockhead 370 mASL 280 150* AzimuthSlope mASL at Lake Av. mASLRationale mASL near crossover P3-5, mASL P3-5/FCC distance Scenario 1a00150 top of molasse under lake150 Scenario 1b00280 Bottom of riverbed280 Scenario 200.5150273 top of molasse under lake, bottom of the Rhone 145 - 180 Scenario 3950.4150193 top of molasse under lake, bottom of the Rhone, tunnel depth low under Jura 145 - 180

6. 6 Scenario 1

7. 7 Scenario 2

8. 8 Scenario 3

9. 9 100km Racetrack: Study Boundary Limits - North Same issues as 100km Circle. In addition: - Northern Limit is constrained by southern extent of racetrack crossing into Grand Saleve (no benefit of crossing further north into Saleve) - At NW extent of investigation area, Jura outcrops back towards Lake. Need to move ring further east into Pre Alpes du Chablais to avoid this. - Western edge continuously skirts Jura – high interface risk. Likewise, pushing ring further east enters Chablais. However potential advantageous straight parallel alignment into P3,P4

10. 10 100km Circle: Study Boundary Limits - South Savings in tilt but constrained by the Rhone and Les Usses FHI ImpactsGeo/Tunnelling Positives Ring will pass under LHC, with potential good connection for injection tunnel (FCC passes near perpendicular to Point 1(and P7)). Lake bed shallower Top of molasse shallower Completely avoids Jura* Avoids Pre-Alpes du Chablais + Negatives *(enters Le Vuache) + (lies in the foothills not Valee de L’Arve corridor between Saleve and Pre Alpes) Starts to skirt Bornes-Aravais mtns to SE (current uncertainty in geological data) Molasse tapers out as situated towards extreme southern tip of basin – Ground becomes more heterogeneous and faulted, more uncertainty and risk for tunnelling and shaft sinking.

11. 11 100km Circle: Study Boundary Limits - South - General Scenario of Crossing near P1 Riverbed Molasse Rockhead 370 mASL 320 210 AzimuthSlope mASL at Lake Av. mASLRationale mASL near crossover P1, mASL P1/FCC distance Scenario 1a00210 top of molasse under lake210359149m Scenario 1b00320 Bottom of riverbed32035939m Scenario 200.23210290 top of molasse under lake, bottom of the Rhone, les usses Tilted into southern mountains (Vuache, Bornes, Saleve) 215359144m

12. 12 Scenario 1

13. 13 Scenario 2

14. 14 100km Racetrack: Study Boundary Limits - South A B A B Limited capacity for movement. Bound strictly by Jura, Vuache, Bornes Poor connection at Point 1, esp. option B

15. 15 83km Circular - General Scenario of Crossing at P1 Riverbed Molasse Rockhead 370 mASL 340 210 AzimuthSlope mASL at Lake Av. mASLRationale mASL near crossover P1, mASL P1/FCC distance Scenario 1a00270 top of molasse under lake27035989m Scenario 1b00330 Non-inclined, Bottom of riverbed, bottom of the Rhone 33035929m Scenario 2-0350.5210342 Sloping high point in Borne/Saleve. Limited by Les Usses. Goes through moraine @Valee de l’Arve (connectivity of flow not as influential as under lake) 230359129m

16. 16 83km Circular - General Scenario of Crossing at P1 Circular – Current default plan position near optimum Well positioned directly beneath and inline with P1 Positioned well at shallower southern end of lake Well positioned east away from Jura

17. 17

18. 18

19. 19 83km Racetrack - General Scenario of Crossing at P1 Riverbed Molasse Rockhead 370 mASL 350 210 AzimuthSlope mASL at Lake Av. mASLRationale mASL near crossover P1, mASL P1/FCC distance Scenario 1a (83km-R2) 220.2 | 0.3295340Top of molasse under lake260359101m Scenario 1b (83km-R2) 220.2 | 0.3335380 Bottom of riverbed, bottom of the Rhone 30535954m

20. 20 Scenario 1

21. 21 Scenario 2

22. 22 FCC-LHC Hadron Injection Constraints (1) - “Required injection straight length is a function of the vertical height difference between LHC and FCC at P1 and the magnet technology” - “For 20 – 200 m height difference and reasonable magnet technologies get about 0.5 to 1.5 km injection straight length per beam” To achieve these tolerances: Possible with 100km option but higher engineering risk More feasible to achieve shallow (50-100m) height differences and shorter injection straight lengths with 83km option. Both racetrack and circular options can be preferentially tilted and orientated to achieve much more satisfactory crossover relationships. Need to consider non-molasse boring options Can be better constrained through understanding dipole designs/injection approach limits

23. 23 FCC-LHC Hadron Injection Constraints (2) - First Version of the Geology Tool should be imported onto CERN database this week - Working meeting with CE and Hadron experts to be arranged for coming weeks to study options in more detail. Who should be invited ?