Kitakami IR Access Discussions T. Markiewicz/SLAC 14 April 2014 SiD Teleconference

History & Context ILC RDR assumes HT=“Horizontal Tunnel” access to underground hall for “Japanese Mountain Site” (either Kitakami or Sefuri candidate sites) with detectors assembled below ground By November 2013 Tokyo LCWS meeting, Kitakami site chosen and ILD colleagues note that site is not as mountainous as Sefuri and may accommodate a vertical shaft Site specific access study requested Series of CFS (Conv. Fac.) & MDI CTG (Common Task Group, chaired by K. Buesser) February-April culminate in CFS/ADI (Accel. Design & Integration) meeting with ILC Management at U. Tokyo (& site visit) 7-10 April 2014. Charge is to make a decision on this issue now Order bore samples, impact on global ILC design, land acquisition … AD&I 10 April decision is to go forward with scheme that has 18m shaft over the IP, minimal hall & crane size, 10m elevator/utility shaft, 8m diameter 10% grade tunnel, assembly hall and tunnel entrance over the shaft

CFS Meetings: Feb. 25, March 4, 25, April 1 Source Material CFS Meetings: Feb. 25, March 4, 25, April 1 slides emailed, no postings, to my knowledge MDI Meetings: Feb. 5, March 13, April 4 https://agenda.linearcollider.org/categoryDisplay.py?categId=86 ADI/CFS Mtg.: April 7-10 https://agenda.linearcollider.org/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=6342

Timeline Feb 5: Kuchler email: Based on our discussions at LCWS13 in Tokyo last November, Atsushi has asked his consultant company (JPower) to formalize their study of the possibility of using vertical shafts for the Kita-Kami site. This study is to provide the necessary information for the resolution of the issue for vertical vs Horizontal access for the Asian Detector Hall. Feb 25: JPower presentation of VS (Vertical Shaft) vs. HT vs Hybrid solutions Executive decision to focus on HT and Hybrid as VS “expensive” March 13: Sugimoto-san presents 7 Hybrid variants to be studied by J-Power; reduced to 3 variants on April 4 April 4: Karsten’s draft of 9 April “Common Task Group” response April 9: J-Power analysis of HT and Hybrid A, B, C April 10: Decision to go forward with Hybrid A holding HT as backup

Case Outlines HT access (baseline) VS access HT & VS access 1 HT (Large size 7% grad tunnel) Detector assembling is inside of DH 5 VS Detector assembling is on-ground. 1 HT (mid size tunnel) and 2 VSs DH size is larger Vol:175,000m3 L144m H42m W25m with Alcoves DH size is smaller Vol:143,000m3 Z-shape DH size is smaller Vol:128,000m3 L108m H40m W25m with Alcoves Heavy lowering system is unnecessary Heavy lowering system is necessary same as on the left Location of DH and assembly yd. can be selected individually. Location of assembly yd. must be satisfied on ground social condition and underground geological condition. Vehicles are used for personnel and machines entering and leaving. All of personnel and machines use lifting equipment. Both of vehicles and lifting equipment are available.  Detector assembled after completion of DH civil work. Detector assembled in parallel with DH civil work. Environmental impact will be smaller during construction. Noise reduction of explosion excavation. . Evacuation ways are DH HT, and DR HT. Isolated shelters and shafts with elevators Tunnels and shafts are available for evacuation HT D11m Grad7% Assembly Yd DH Straight 5 SFTs 1 Main SFT 1 ILD SFT 1 SiD SFT 2 EV SFT Upper A/T Z-shape Upper HT D8m Grad10% 2 SFTs 1 UT/EV SFT 1/12/2019

HT Site Details 11m/7% grade tunnel with hairpin turn Large hall volume for assembly “Natural” hall position 200m below surface

VS Site Details 90m Move IR so vault is 90m below surface Cost/schedule analysis for 5 shaft design optimized for Fermilab/CERN topography

Hybrid Site (as of 2/25/14) Details 90m 8m/10% grade tunnel with 3 90° turns and an even tighter hairpin turn Assembly area of IR Hall removed Depth of hall under surface & hall position as for VS case Assumed (for SiD) that barrel & coil structure and doors use shaft

Schedule and Cost Summary Estimated Cost is basis for dropping VS from further consideration Schedule and Cost Summary HT access (baseline) VS access HT & VS access Construction periods 45.7 months after land development 46.4 months 42.3 months Construction Costs 100 122 99 HT D11m Grad7% Assembly Yd DH Straight 5 SFTs 1 Main SFT 1 ILD SFT 1 SiD SFT 2 EV SFT Upper A/T Z-shape Upper HT D8m Grad10% 2 SFTs 1 UT/EV SFT 1/12/2019

Hybrid option case study: April 9 Baseline Hybrid-A Hybrid-B Hybrid-C 1 HT (11x11m 7%grad) Detector assembling is inside of DH 1 HT (8.0x7.5m 10%gradl) 2 VS (D18m, D10m) Detectors assembling is on-ground. 1 HT (9.5x9.0m 7%gradl) 1 VS (D18m) ILD assembling on-ground SiD inside D/H 1 VS (D10m) UT lines in DR/AT UT lines in UT shaft UT lines in Main shaft DH 175,000m3 L144m H42m W25m DH 128,000m3 L108m H42m W25m DH 165,000m3 L134m H42m W25m Heavy lowering system non Heavy lowering system necessary Location of DH and assembly yd. can be selected individually. Assembly hall is above D/H same as on the left Human pass way :car Machine and materials tunnel by vehicles Human pass way :elevator Machine and materials ILD:VS HT , SiD:HT Environmental impact will be smaller during construction. Noise reduction Evacuation ways Main AT and DR HT.   Main AT W11m Grad7% Assembly Yd D/H Upper A/T   D/H Assembly Yd Main AT W8m Grad10%   D/H Assembly Yd Main AT W9.5m Grad7%   D/H Assembly Yd Main AT W11m Grad7% 8-10 April 2014 CFS-ADI Joint Meeting

Summary of changes HT Baseline: Slight change to tunnel path Diameter & grade unchanged Hall unchanged Hybrid A: As before, a shared 18m shaft over the IP (changing in shape from circle to ellipse with depth); minimal IR cavern New 10m elevator/utility shaft Re-optimized tunnel path: same 8m diameter& 10% grade

Summary of changes Hybrid B: Hybrid C: Vertical 18m Shaft over ILD garage with elevator & utilities embedded Tunnel diameter sized for SiD coil and SiD hall as for HT, same path as before (do not understand quoted grade of 7%) Assumes common location for ILD & SiD above ground assembly halls Hybrid C: Basically HT with a 10m elevator/utility shaft off to the side Utility shaft apparently decided location of assembly hall on top of elevator Again, do not understand quoted grade of tunnel as path is same as “A”

Summary of Cost and Schedule Baseline Hybrid-A Hybrid-B Hybrid-C Construction periods after land development 61.7 months 49.1 months 58.1 months 62.6 months Construction Costs 100% 109% 115% 101%   Main AT W11m Grad7% Assembly Yd D/H Upper A/T   D/H Assembly Yd Main AT W8m Grad10%   D/H Assembly Yd Main AT W9.5m Grad7%   D/H Assembly Yd Main AT W11m Grad7% 45.7? 8-10 April 2014 CFS-ADI Joint Meeting

Current ILD Position (from Karsten’s slides) ILD group supports to study the possible realisation of a hybrid VS+HT access in the Kitakami area • Cons: Surface infrastructure potentially more complex: platform in assembly hall Assembly halls are geographically fixed directly above the experimental hall HT part might be compromised by not optimal paths • Pros: ILD assembly much easier with VS Transportation system in HT is not defined and could be a major technical and safety headache; gantry crane for VS successfully done at CMS More space available for machine and detector service lines Less underground volume necessary Smaller crane (2x40t) instead of 250t in underground hall Time lines of both detector and machine installations are largely decoupled

Current SiD Position HT Pros: Enforces SiD desire for UG assembly 1x only No 4000T gantry / No 20m x 20m moveable platform on surface No transport up the hill only to lower again with gantry or crane No duplication of cryo infrastructure on surface for coil testing Minimizes surface assembly infrastructure HT Cons 210T crane underground w/larger ($) cavern Risk associated with not 4K testing coil before assembly ILD needs to re-evaluate assembly procedure Possibly later “beneficial occupancy” of IR Hall General Comments No input from SiD at design stage Many unanswered questions affect detailed design Not clear that any scheme in this down-select has been optimized SiD perspective filtered down in decision process

Partial List of Open Questions Regardless of HT, VS, Hybrid A, B, C road transportation (and port) boundary conditions (loads, legal issues) geological issues (tunnel, shaft) environmental impact (land use, noise, etc.) transportation system in tunnel (truck or other) and shaft (gantry crane) optimisation of access paths (tunnel slope and curves) material flow through access paths realistic models and timelines for detector and machine assemblies using shared infrastructures services on and below surface: electrical, cooling, cryo, counting rooms, office space, etc. service paths to underground area beam commissioning models with or w/o detectors role of ILC laboratory possible changes in detector models

Harrison’s April 10 Conclusion