140 likes | 211 Views
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.
E N D
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. • 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.
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.
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
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
: Not Affected : Affected / Considered in Asian Region Studies ?: Check with Asian Region Studies if has been considered LC IR Design Requirements
: Not Affected : Affected / Considered in Asian Region Studies ?: Check with Asian Region Studies if has been considered LC IR Design Requirements
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?
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
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
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?
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?
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)
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.