1. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 1 ML Single Tunnel Configurations In Deep Underground Accessed with Long Sloped Tunnels Atsushi Enomoto KEK

2. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 2 Contents of this talk  Talk limited to the Main Linac area  Two alternatives of RF power distribution systems compared with RDR.  Pros and cons.  Cost impacts.  Risk assessment.  Construction schedule, operation, & availability.  Site-specific issues.  Work plan for ALCPG09.

3. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 3 RDR RF power distribution system (1 RF unit) RF Output 10 MW peak ~75 kW average 26 Cavities @ 1 Cryogenic Module

4. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 4 Klystron Cluster power distribution system A Klystron Cluster with 70 klystrons feeds 64 accelerator modules. RDR X 70 RDR X 64 Long high-power waveguides

5. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 5 5 Reference slides: RF Cluster Scheme,

6. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 6 Surface Station of RF Cluster Scheme A cluster of 70 Klystrons feed 64 RF units

7. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 7 Estimation of floor size

8. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 8 Local distribution of RF Cluster Scheme

9. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 9 Schematic layouts of conventional facilities and RF units Four more surface stations

10. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 10 DRFS power distribution system (1 RF unit) Distributed 13 small klystrons feed 26 cavities in one accelerator modules. X 13 Lower voltage

11. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 11 4 reference slides:

12. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 12 (2) Distributed RF System (Tunnel view)

13. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 13 (2) Distributed RF System (Tunnel view)

14. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 14 (2) Distributed RF System (Tunnel view) Tunnel Size Under Consideration Pros; no big step-up transformer, less waveguides. Cons; more klystrons and drive systems. - XFEL and TESLA design are references -

15. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 15 Pros and Cons on CFS compared with RDR CF ItemsRDRRF ClusterDistributed RF Civil Tunnel:  4.5m, 22.3 km x 2 Penetration:  0.43m x 10 m x 560  0.3m x 10 m x 2 x 560 Safety path: 1.2m x 2.2m x 20m X48 Sloped tunnel: 7m x 6.5m x ~1,270m x 6 Cavern: 16m X18m X120m x 6 Surface building: 4,300m 2 Half long tunnel Eliminated penetrations Smaller shaft-base caverns Four additional shafts / tunnels Larger surface area and buildings Fire compartments / refuge areas Half long tunnel Eliminated penetrations --- Fire compartments / refuge areas Larger tunnel diameter ? Fire compartments / refuge areas Electricity RF: 76 MW Conventional Power: 58.09 MW Emergency Power: 0.4 MW Reduced tunnel maintenance electricity ~10% more electricity for klystron Reduced tunnel maintenance electricity --- Process Cooling Water LCW: 56 MW Chilled water: 21 MW Eliminated tunnel LCW Skids Reduced size but stainless pipe for LCW ~10% more heat loads for klystron --- --- HVAC Eliminated tunnel fan coil and chilled water HVAC for four additional shafts / tunnels --- --- Other Areas Reduced safety equipment Increased piped utilities for fire suppression Reduced safety equipment Increased piped utilities for fire suppression

16. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 16 Pros and Cons compared with RDR CF ItemsRDRRF ClusterDistributed RF Safety Opposite tunnel is the refuge area when troubles occurred. Escape paths connect two tunnels at every 500 m. High-power equipment moved to surface Need smoke exhaust ducts and refuge areas at every 600 m (US regulation) Or Need fire/smoke compartment at a proper distance Lower-voltage equipment Need smoke exhaust ducts and refuge areas at every 600 m (US regulation) Or Need fire/smoke compartment at a proper distance Availability Service tunnel accessible even during operation. More surface equipment Some tunnel equipment not accessible --- Some tunnel equipment not accessible Construction s Less underground Civil E works More surface works Less underground Civil E works - Risks High-power treatment

17. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 17 Details on CE criteria for cost estimates Main Linac CFRDRRF ClusterDistributed RF Tunnel Penetration Safety path Safety area  4.5m, 22.3 km X2 (double) (  0.43m,  0.3m X2) X10m X560 1.2m X2.2m X20m X48 Opposite tunnel  4.5m, 22.3 km X1 (single) None Refuge area  4.5m, 22.3 km X1 (single) None Fire/smoke protection Access shaft/tunnel (Size and quantity) X6 7m X6.5m X~1,270m X10 7m X6.5m X~1,270m X6 + 3.5m X3.5m X~1,270m X4 X6 7m X6.5m X~1,270m X6 Shaft-base cavernX6 16m X18m X120m X6 ~ half X6 16m X18m X120m Surface buildingX6 4,300m 2 X10 (4,300m 2 +1,000m 2 )X6 ~3,800m 2 X10 X6 4,300m 2 X6 Remarks Tunnel and shaft-base cavern decreased but access-tunnels and surface buildings increased Tunnel decreased half

18. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 18 Preliminary cost estimates based on RDR cost WBS

19. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 19 Preliminary results (only for Civil work) Main Linac CFRDRRF ClusterDistributed RF 1711 Engineering8.4% -1.9% 6.5% -3.1% 5.3% 1712 Underground75.3% -26.8% 48.5% -28.8% 46.5% 1713 Surface6.7% +14.6% 21.3% +0% 6.7% 1714 Site development9.6% +2.3% 11.9% -2.2% 7.4% 171 Total100.0% -11.8% 88.2% -34.1% 65.9% Remarks Decreased cavern size and increased access tunnels almost cancelled

20. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 20 Reference slide: Cost impact factor (RDR)

21. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 21 Process Cooling Water 10.8 MW Chilled Water 3.4 MW 104 RF units 208 Cooling Fans 26 skids Racks in 104 RF units 26 skids In RF cluster scheme, ~40% of the heat loads remain in the undergroud. Area for substation at shaft-base cavern and RF skids will be reduced in capacity but not eliminated. Cooling system evaluation will be studied

22. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 22 Site specific issues for Asian sample site

23. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 23 Inpacts on design: Longer transportaion of RF (RF cluster)

24. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 24 Longer transportaion of RF (RF cluster)

25. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 25 Potential plans for further study

26. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 26 Summary of this talk  As a study of minimum machine, two kinds of single-tunnel schemes were investigated if they might be applied for the Asian sample site (deep tunnel).  Though both of two are considered applicable, from a civil-engineering point of view, “Distributed RF Scheme” seems more suitable for the Asian site.  Further studies should cover overall CF designs such as cooling issues until ALC09.

27. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 27 APPENDIX 1

28. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 28 GDE ACCELERATOR ADVISORY PANNEL REVIEW CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING GROUP Fire Safety for Single Tunnel Preliminary Study Masami Tanaka

29. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 29 Purpose of Study ▪ Change of tunnel scheme from twin to single configuration has been studied as effective cost reduction means in the value engineering efforts of TDP-1. configuration has been studied as effective cost reduction means in the value engineering efforts of TDP-1. ▪ Study of an impact or drawback on operation and safety caused by change of tunnel configuration has been performed. ▪ Among safety issues, fire safety is the essential concern.

30. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 Safety Measures ▪ Following fire safety measures which are planned for twin tunnel are applicable to single Tunnel too. ▪ Following fire safety measures which are planned for twin tunnel are applicable to single Tunnel too. ・ Prevention ・ Prevention ・ Early detection ・ Early detection ・ Smoke control ・ Smoke control ・ Evacuation support equipment ・ Evacuation support equipment ・ Operational measures ・ Operational measures 30

31. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 Evacuation Scheme ▪ Evacuation method for twin tunnel illustrated below is not possible for single tunnel. ▪ Evacuation method for twin tunnel illustrated below is not possible for single tunnel. ▪ Alternative method must be developed. ▪ Alternative method must be developed. 31

32. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 Evacuation Methods for Single Tunnel ▪ Following four methods are conceived at present 32

33. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 Evacuation Passageway Method ▪ A narrow passageway is provided in the is provided in the tunnel. tunnel. ▪ The passageway is shielded with fire wall shielded with fire wall and fire door from the and fire door from the tunnel. Fire and smoke tunnel. Fire and smoke free inside the passageway. free inside the passageway. ▪ Diameter of tunnel is enlarged. 33

34. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 Compartmentation Method ▪ Dividing a space in limited areas with fire wall is the most effective way to fire wall is the most effective way to prevent a spreading of fire and smoke. prevent a spreading of fire and smoke. ▪ People are safe by moving to the adjacent area. adjacent area. Fire wall @ 500 m Fire wall @ 500 m Water screen Fire door Water screen Fire door Water screen method Fire door method Water screen method Fire door method (XFEL) (CLIC) (XFEL) (CLIC) 34

35. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 Refugee Area Solution ▪ The alcoves are constructed @ 1.25 km. along the tunnel. Water curtains protect it from fire the tunnel. Water curtains protect it from fire and smoke. and smoke. ▪ The refugee area is provided inside provided inside the alcove. the alcove. ▪ It is shielded by fire wall and fire fire wall and fire door. door. (Figure by T. Lackowski, FNAL) (Figure by T. Lackowski, FNAL) 35

36. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 Shielded Power Sources Solution ▪ This solution is conceived in conjunction with Distributed RF System. with Distributed RF System. ▪ Potential sources of fire shall be located in the shall be located in the area shielded by fire wall area shielded by fire wall in the tunnel. in the tunnel. 36

37. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 Summary ▪ Evacuation method optimum and conforming to selected tunnel configuration shall be to selected tunnel configuration shall be chosen from above mentioned methods. chosen from above mentioned methods. ▪ Presumably, there will be no drawbacks on safety for single tunnel configuration. safety for single tunnel configuration. 37

38. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 38 APPENDIX 2

39. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 Allowance of Safety Equipment* in Japan Masanobu Miyahara KEK CF Department * except radiation safety 39

40. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 General Laws for Safety and Jurisdiction authority ▪ Architecture The Japanese Construction Standard Act. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. ▪ Car Tunnel ▪ Car Tunnel Regulations exists. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. ▪ Subway Regulation exists (revised strictly after Korean accident), Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. ▪ Railway Tunnel Independent Regulation, Japanese Railway Co. 40

41. Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Integrated Design Meeting, DESY, 28-29 May 2009 Standars for Safety Equipment of Public Facilities vs. KEK Accelerators 41 ■Regulations for Road Tunnel ●Japanese Construction Standard ○ Spontaneous by KEK Items Public FacilityKEK Accelerator Remarks Road tnl.Infra tTunnelHall AlarmEmergency Call ■ × ○● Emergency Button ■ × ○● Fire Alarm ■ × ○● Emergency Alarm ■ ×× ● Fire FightingFire extinguish eq. ■▲▲● ▲ Fire Fighting Regulation Hydrant ■ ×× ● Escape Smoke exhaust Or Escape way ■ ××○*×○* ● ○ * Escape-way within 300m without smoke exaust Escape-way Sign ■ × ○● OthersBroadcast ■ ×× ● Sprinkler ■ ×× ●*●* ● * connectable water pipe Surveillance camera ■ × ○● Fire compartment ▲▲● ▲ Fire Fighting Regulation