global design effort - cfs 13 december 2012 pac review - kek 1 pac review conventional facilities...

34
Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Upload: kieran-sirmans

Post on 30-Mar-2015

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 1PAC Review - KEK

PAC Review

CONVENTIONAL FACILITIESAND SITING

A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Page 2: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 2PAC Review - KEK

Outline• CFS Introduction• Geotechnical Conditions and

Construction Methods• Description of CFS Cost Drivers• Americas and European Design• CFS Schedule• Summary• Asian Design – A Enomoto

Page 3: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 3PAC Review - KEK

CFS Introduction and Regional Overview• Overall Siting Approach was to Initially Identify a “Sample

Site” in Each of the Three Global Regions• Americas and European Sites Still Considered “Sample

Sites”• Asian Region has Identified Two “Candidate Sites”• All Regions Used the Same Beamline Lattice Design• Underground Enclosures were Tailored to Meet Local Site

Geologic and Topographical Conditions• Local Conditions Also Affected the Type of HLRF System

Used Americas and Europe Used the Klystron Cluster System (KCS) Asia Used the Distributed Klystron System (DKS)

Page 4: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 4PAC Review - KEK

Regional Geotechnical Conditions and Underground Construction Methods (1)• Americas Region

Sample Site Centered on Fermilab Uniform Surface Elevation Supports Surface Buildings Uniform Galena-Plattville Dolomite Limestone Strata Tunnel Depth ~130 m Main Underground Access by Vertical Shaft TBM Excavation Method Used for Main Tunnel Drives Drill and Blast Excavation Method Used for Shafts, Widened

Enclosures and Caverns Widened Enclosures and Caverns do not Require Arched

Ceilings Klystron Cluster System (KCS) HLRF

Most RF Equipment is Located in Surface Buildings at Shaft Access Electrical Equipment, Cooling Towers and Cryo Plants Located on

the Surface at Shaft Access

Page 5: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 5PAC Review - KEK

Regional Geotechnical Conditions and Underground Construction Methods (2)• European Region

Sample Site Adjacent to Existing CERN Laboratory Relatively Uniform Surface Elevation Supports Surface Buildings Uniform Molasse Rock Strata Tunnel Depth 100 - 150 m Main Underground Access by Vertical Shaft TBM Excavation Method Used for Main Tunnel Drives Roadheaders or Rock-Breakers Used for Widened Enclosures and

Caverns Traditional Excavation Equipment and Special Ground Support

Measures Used for Shaft Construction Widened Enclosures and Caverns will Require Arched Ceilings Klystron Cluster System (KCS) HLRF

Most RF Equipment is Located in Surface Buildings at Shaft Access Electrical Equipment, Cooling Towers and Cryo Plants Located on

the Surface at Shaft Access

Page 6: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 6PAC Review - KEK

CFS Regional Design Composition

Page 7: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 7PAC Review - KEK

Main CFS Cost Drivers

Page 8: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 8PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (1)

Page 9: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 9PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (2)

Americas Region Sample Site at FNAL

European Region Sample Site at CERN

European Region Sample Site at Dubna

Page 10: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 10PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (3)

• Regional Differences Between the Main Linac Tunnel Cross Sections – Americas Region

Tunnel Diameter Americas Cross Section is Smaller (5.0m vs. 5.2m)

Ventilation Systems Longitudinal System for the

Americas Tunnel Air Supply Ducts in Floor Slab Tunnel Used as Return Duct

Services & Cables in the ConcreteInvert

Electronic Racks and Shielding Space for Waveguides

Page 11: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 11PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (4)

• Regional Differences Between the Main Linac Tunnel Cross Sections

Tunnel Diameter European Cross Section is Larger (5.2m and 8.0m vs. 5.0m)

Ventilation Systems Transversal Ventilation System with

Longitudinal Ducts at Tunnel Crown Services & Cables in the Concrete

Invert Avoided in European Region

Electronic Racks and Shielding Space for Waveguides

Less Space for EuropeanLayout, but, as needed,Space can be made Available

Page 12: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 12PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (5)

Americas RegionTunnel Cross Section

(Looking Downstream e- Linac)

European RegionTunnel Cross Section

(Looking Upstream e- Linac)

Page 13: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 13PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (6)

Americas RegionInteraction Region

European RegionInteraction Region

Page 14: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 14PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (7)

Damping RingCross Section

Page 15: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 15PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (8)

• Tunnel Lengths for Both Regions are the Same Based on the Same Machine Lattice

• The Americas Region Used the Same Diameter TBM for Main Tunnel Drives and Drill and Blast Methods to Enlarge Enclosure Areas as Needed

• The European Region Uses a Larger Diameter TBM where Technical Equipment Requires a Larger Dimensional Space

• All Service Tunnels for Both Regions Use a Uniform Diameter TBM

Page 16: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 16PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (9)

Americas Region European Region

Page 17: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 17PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (10)

Americas Region Areas of Refuge are Provided All Non-TBM Construction is

Considered a Cavern Fire-Protected Connections are

Required for Shaft Access Volumes for Sources are Mostly

Considered BDS Americas Interaction Region

has a Larger Footprint Shaft Construction Extends to

Tunnel Floor Level Shaft Base Caverns do not

Include Shaft Volumes

European Region Areas of Refuge are Not Needed Some Minor Tunnel Widening is

not Considered a Cavern Protected Shaft Access is not

Required Volumes for Sources are

Considered as a % of Total European Interaction Region is

More Compact Shaft Construction Extends to

Top of Base Cavern Shaft Base Caverns does Include

Shaft continuation Volumes

Page 18: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 18PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (11)

Americas Region European Region

Page 19: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 19PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (12)

Americas Region European Region

Page 20: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 20PAC Review - KEK

1.7.1 Civil Engineering – Americas and European Regions (13)

Americas RegionSurface Structure

Summary andTypical Plan at

Main Linac Shaft

Page 21: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 21PAC Review - KEK

1.7.2 Electrical – Americas Region (1)

Americas Region KCS Power Load Table in MW

Page 22: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 22PAC Review - KEK

1.7.2 Electrical – Americas Region (2)

Americas Region Electrical Single Line Diagram

Page 23: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 23PAC Review - KEK

1.7.2 Electrical – Americas Region (3)

Americas Region Electrical Single Line Diagram at Central Region

Page 24: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 24PAC Review - KEK

1.7.3 Air Treatment – Americas Region (1) • Two Separate Ducted Air Supply Systems Provide Conditioned

Air to the Tunnel Enclosures General Supply Air with 20% Fresh Air Emergency Supply Air to Areas of Refuge (AOR) When Needed

• The Tunnel Enclosure Serves as the Air Return to Ducted Returns at Each Shaft

• Conditioned Supply Air will Maintain Tunnel Air Temperatures at 86oF (30oC) – Temperature Stability +/- 1oC

• Damping Ring and BDS have Additional Fan Coil Units to Maintain Tunnel Temperature Due to Addition Heat Loading and Stricter Temperature Tolerances +/- 0.1oC

Page 25: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 25PAC Review - KEK

1.7.3 Air Treatment – Americas Region (2)

Americas Region Typical Air Treatment Schematic

Page 26: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 26PAC Review - KEK

1.7.4 Piped Utilities – Americas Region (1) • Tunnel and Enclosure Groundwater Inflow and Condensate

Drainage Estimated as 21 m3/h/km• Duplex Sumps Discharged Through Shafts

132 in Main Linac 121 in Central Region and IR 32 in Damping Ring

• Surface Holding Tanks will Provide Monitoring Capability Prior to Discharge

• Sprinkler Systems Throughout Underground Enclosures and Surface Buildings

• Domestic Water and Sanitary Facilities Typically at the Base of Shafts and in Surface Buildings

Page 27: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 27PAC Review - KEK

1.7.5 Process Cooling Water – Americas Region (1)

Americas Region KCS Heat Load Table by Area System in MW

Page 28: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 28PAC Review - KEK

1.7.5 Process Cooling Water – Americas Region (2)

Americas Region Typical Process Cooling Water Schematic

Page 29: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 29PAC Review - KEK

1.7.5 Process Cooling Water – Americas Region (3)

Americas Region Chilled Water Schematic at Central Region

Page 30: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 30PAC Review - KEK

1.7.7 Safety Equipment – Americas Region (1) • Based on Requirements in National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) Standard for Subterranean Spaces, 2005 Edition• Verified Single Main Linac Tunnel Solution• Supported by Two Studies Conducted by Hughes Associates, Inc.

Code Analysis and Recommendations Single Tunnel Analysis Using Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) which is a

Computational Fluid Dynamics Program Developed by the USA National Institute of Standards

• Personnel Egress Hazardous Equipment and Shaft Elevators Protected by 2 hr. Fire Rated

Walls and Doors Main Linac Tunnel Serves as Escape Route Emergency Lighting, Illuminated Exit Signage and Directional Signs

• Automatic Sprinkler Protection• Addressable Fire Detection System

Page 31: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 31PAC Review - KEK

1.7.7 Safety Equipment – Americas Region (2)

Plan Views at Shaft Base Caverns and Areas of Refuge

Page 32: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 32PAC Review - KEK

1.7.7 Safety Equipment – European Region (3) • Based on European, French and Swiss Safety Requirements• Single Main Linac Tunnel Solution

Avoiding Refuge Areas (Alcoves) Offering No Protected Exitway Transversal Ventilation System

Tunnel Divided in Compartments Separated by Fire Doors and Fire Walls Every ~ 500m

Negative Pressure Created in Compartment Affected by Fire, Positive Pressure in Adjacent Compartments

Prevention of Smoke Propagation from One Compartment to the Next Emergency Lighting, Illuminated Exit Signage and Directional Signs

• Extensive Fire Safety Study Conducted for CLIC, Applicable for ILC

Page 33: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 33PAC Review - KEK

Construction Schedule – Americas and European Regions

e- BDS(3.33km)

e+ BDS(2.25km)

Courtesy M Gastal

Page 34: Global Design Effort - CFS 13 December 2012 PAC Review - KEK 1 PAC Review CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne

Global Design Effort - CFS

13 December 2012 34PAC Review - KEK

Summary• Regional Conditions have had a Large Impact on the

ILC Conventional Facilities Design• In Both the Americas and European Regions Civil

Design was Primarily Completed by In-House CFSPersonnel Supported by Outside A/E Consultants

• In the Americas Region a Complete Mechanical and Electrical Design was Completed by Outside

A/E Consultants Supported by CFS In-House Personnel

• Compared to the RDR the Overall Design Maturity has Greatly Improved in All Regions