1. CLIC Civil Engineering Update
Matthew Stuart – John Osborne SMB-SE-FAS
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

2. Reminder – Summary From 05/05/2017
380GeV, 1.5TeV and 3TeV shaft layouts to be updated for safety and installation purposes.
Klystron 380GeV machine cross sectional update.
Update the existing IR layouts to show proposed changes.
Continue CLIC-TOT development – Task 2 & 3.
Produce 3D schematic of the “baseline CLIC machine”.
A detailed cost estimate for infrastructure to be produced and work together with ILC on areas of synergy
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

3. Civil Drawing Update Updates: 380 GeV Layouts and tables.
1.5 TeV Layouts and tables.
3 TeV Layouts and tables.
Drive beam surface buildings.
Shaft Cross section.
Klystron Single Tunnel Cross section – TBM & Roadheader
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

4. Drive Beam Surface Buildings
Updates:
At the last CEIS WG meeting: 6 sectors for RF power distribution (3 TeV) was propose.
Each sector requires approximately a 1500m2 surface area
How many sectors would be required for an initial 380 GeV drive beam design?
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

5. Drive Beam Surface Buildings
Were these located within the drive beam building in the CDR?
Updates:
At the last CEIS WG meeting: 6 sectors for RF power distribution (3 TeV) was propose.
Each sector requires approximately a 1500m2 surface area
How many sectors would be required for an initial 380 GeV drive beam design?
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

6. Drive Beam Surface Buildings
Updates:
At the last CEIS WG meeting: 6 sectors for RF power distribution (3 TeV) was propose.
Each sector requires approximately a 1500m2 surface area.
How many sectors would be required for an initial 380 GeV drive beam design?
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

7. Civil Shaft Update Updates:
Initial Shaft has only one lift and two stair cases.
To adhere to safety requirements and be consistent with FCC two lifts and one stair case is proposed.
Remaining Questions:
Is the new dimensions of the handling open adequate?
Are the lift dimensions and capacities adequate?
Services within the shafts still need confirmation including ventilation.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

8. Civil Shaft Update Updates:
Initial Shaft has only one lift and two stair cases.
To adhere to safety requirements and be consistent with FCC two lifts and one stair case is proposed.
Remaining Questions:
Is the new dimensions of the handling open adequate?
Are the lift dimensions and capacities adequate?
Services within the shafts still need confirmation including ventilation.
New lift in place of stair case.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

9. Civil Shaft Update Updates:
Initial Shaft has only one lift and two stair cases.
To adhere to safety requirements and be consistent with FCC two lifts and one stair case is proposed.
Remaining Questions:
Is the new dimensions of the handling open adequate?
Are the lift dimensions and capacities adequate?
Services within the shafts still need confirmation including ventilation.
Length remains the same, width reduced by 480mm in the central region.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

10. Civil Shaft Update Updates:
Initial Shaft has only one lift and two stair cases.
To adhere to safety requirements and be consistent with FCC two lifts and one stair case is proposed.
Remaining Questions:
Is the new dimensions of the handling open adequate?
Are the lift dimensions and capacities adequate?
Services within the shafts still need confirmation including ventilation.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

11. Civil Shaft Update Updates:
Initial Shaft has only one lift and two stair cases.
To adhere to safety requirements and be consistent with FCC two lifts and one stair case is proposed.
Remaining Questions:
Is the new dimensions of the handling open adequate?
Are the lift dimensions and capacities adequate?
Services within the shafts still need confirmation including ventilation.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

12. Drive Beam Building - Transport
Section A-A: For 380 GeV a reduced building cross section has been shown:
CDR Transport proposal – Traveling crane full length of the building.
SLAC: 3km building similar to what we require however transport utilises vehicles.
Building height can be reduced by using alternative transport.
Could increase cost saving further at both initial and upgraded stages.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

13. Drive Beam Building - Transport
Section A-A: For 380 GeV a reduced building cross section has been shown:
CDR Transport proposal – Traveling crane full length of the building.
SLAC: 3km building similar to what we require however transport utilises vehicles.
Building height can be reduced by using alternative transport.
Could increase cost saving further at both initial and upgraded stages.
Adequate width for vehicle transport.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

14. Drive Beam Building - Transport?
Section A-A: For 380 GeV a reduced building cross section has been shown:
CDR Transport proposal – Traveling crane full length of the building.
SLAC: 3km building similar to what we require however transport utilises vehicles.
Building height can be reduced by using alternative transport.
Could increase cost saving further at both initial and upgraded stages.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

15. Drive Beam Building - Transport?
1. Reduced height
Section A-A: For 380 GeV a reduced building cross section has been shown:
CDR Transport proposal – Traveling crane full length of the building.
SLAC: 3km building similar to what we require however transport utilises vehicles.
Building height can be reduced by using alternative transport.
Could increase cost saving further at both initial and upgraded stages.
2. No cranes
3. Reduced Schedule
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

16. CLIC-TOT - Reminder Reminder from the last update
Datasets are to be acquired and defined, this includes:
Surface Topography.
Surface Constraints e.g. Buildings and roads.
Protected Areas.
Hydrological Data.
Produce Lattice Files for baseline design.
Geological layer showing top of molasse and top of limestone.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

17. TOT Timeline
The proposed programme task completion dates are as follows, assuming a project commencement at the end of April 2017:
Task 1
Establish Project Setup and Technical Basis
June (mid)
Task 2
Data and Functionality Prioritisation
June (end)
Task 3
Specifications and TOT-CLIC architecting/wireframing (Concept Stage)
July (mid)
Task 4
Data Integration and TOT-CLIC (beta) development Initial TOT-CLIC beta version
July (end)
August (end)
Task 5
Finalised TOT-CLIC Development
Sept (end)
Task 6
Troubleshooting and Technical Support -
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

18. Data Integration Data Integration:
Surface Elevation Model for the CLIC study area
Surface Constraints for the CLIC study area.
Protected area prioritisation within the CLIC Study areas
CLIC Baseline Lattice file.
Geological Study area, top of molasse and limestone.
Task 1
Establish Project Setup and Technical Basis
June (mid)
Task 2
Data and Functionality Prioritisation
June (end)
Task 3
Specifications and TOT-CLIC architecting/wireframing (Concept Stage)
July (mid)
Task 4
Data Integration and TOT-CLIC (beta) development Initial TOT-CLIC beta version
July (end)
August (end)
Task 5
Finalised TOT-CLIC Development
Sept (end)
Task 6
Troubleshooting and Technical Support -
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

19. CLIC Study Boundary
Buildings
Datasets are to be acquired and defined, this includes:
Surface Topography.
Surface Constraints e.g. Buildings and roads.
Protected Areas.
Hydrological Data.
Produce Lattice Files for baseline design – Lattice files are currently with Survey to be translated into an appropriate file for CLIC TOT.
Geological layer showing top of molasse and top of limestone.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

20. CLIC Study Boundary
Baseline design taken from CDR location and depth.
Datasets are to be acquired and defined, this includes:
Surface Topography.
Surface Constraints e.g. Buildings and roads.
Protected Areas.
Hydrological Data.
Produce Lattice Files for baseline design – Lattice files are currently with Survey to be translated into an appropriate file for CLIC TOT.
Geological layer showing top of molasse and top of limestone.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

21. CLIC Study Boundary
Datasets are to be acquired and defined, this includes:
Surface Topography.
Surface Constraints e.g. Buildings and roads.
Protected Areas.
Hydrological Data.
Produce Lattice Files for baseline design – Lattice files are currently with Survey to be translated into an appropriate file for CLIC TOT.
Geological layer showing top of molasse and top of limestone.
Limestone level – ranges from -200m to the top of the Jura.
Molasse level – ranges from 250m to 600m above sea level.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

22. Klystron Single Tunnel - TBM
Extraction located above false ceiling
TBM Tunnel
10m TBM required to achieve required surface width within tunnel.
Air intake added to the space below the floor. Potential to increase the size of this.
Reduced width of vehicle for transportation of beam machine and reduced space between machine and shielding wall.
Minimum distance between the crane and top of the Klystron machine increased to 800mm
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

23. Klystron Single Tunnel - TBM
TBM Tunnel
10m TBM required to achieve required surface width within tunnel.
Air intake added to the space below the floor. Potential to increase the size of this.
Reduced width of vehicle for transportation of beam machine and reduced space between machine and shielding wall.
Minimum distance between the crane and top of the Klystron machine increased to 800mm
Intake located below floor level.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

24. Klystron Single Tunnel - TBM
Minimum 750mm for transport vehicle
TBM Tunnel
10m TBM required to achieve required surface width within tunnel.
Air intake added to the space below the floor. Potential to increase the size of this.
Reduced width of vehicle for transportation of beam machine and reduced space between machine and shielding wall.
Minimum distance between the crane and top of the Klystron machine increased to 800mm
800mm instead of 1000mm
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

25. Klystron Single Tunnel - TBM
Increased to allow removal of module.
TBM Tunnel
10m TBM required to achieve required surface width within tunnel.
Air intake added to the space below the floor. Potential to increase the size of this.
Reduced width of vehicle for transportation of beam machine and reduced space between machine and shielding wall.
Minimum distance between the crane and top of the Klystron machine increased to 800mm.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 21/07/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

26. Klystron Single Tunnel - Roadheaders
Roadheader Tunnel
Single tunnel layout – 10m width, same width reductions as in the TBM section.
Much less space for extraction and air intake ducts. It is likely that larger ducts will be required.
(Machine Design is for presentation purposes only and is subject to change)
CEIS Working Group Meeting 16/06/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

27. Klystron Single Tunnel - Roadheaders
Roadheader Tunnel
Single tunnel layout – 10m width, same width reductions as in the TBM section.
Much less space for extraction and air intake ducts. It is likely that larger ducts will be required.
(Machine Design is for presentation purposes only and is subject to change)
CEIS Working Group Meeting 16/06/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

28. Cost Estimates Requirements: Cost estimate for the Klystron TBM design
Cost estimate for the Klystron roadheader design
Comparison to the previous CDR cost estimate for the drive beam.
This CDR estimate could potentially change if a larger tunnel is required.
FCC Consultants Cost model to be modified for CLIC.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 16/06/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

29. Cost Estimates – Klystron Design
Description
Known requirements
Unknown requirements
UNDERGROUND
Machine Tunnels
Machine tunnels are known and can be changed as required
Potentially significant variations due to current heat loads.
Injection caverns
Injection caverns will require information on injection lines from the surface.
Beam Dump caverns
Are any beam dumps required for a klystron design and if so how many/often?
Bypass Tunnels
Bypass tunnels are assumed the same as the initial design. 
Shafts (service and personnel)
Shafts are assumed to remain the same as the initial design
Caverns (services)
Caverns and service are to be determined for the klystron module
Junction caverns
Junction cavern requirements required at bypass tunnel locations.
Electrical Alcoves
Unknown, what are the requirements, if any, for electrical alcoves along the tunnel length?
Experiments
Experimental area assumed to remain the same as initial design.
Shafts
Experimental shaft assumed to remain the same as the initial design.
Caverns
Experimental and shaft caverns assumed to remain the same as the initial design. 
Connection Tunnels
No connection tunnels are assumed. 
Survey shafts
No survey shafts are assumed.
Survey galleries
No survey galleries are assumed.
SURFACE
Experimental sites
Drive beam injection building not required
The required surface building for the klystron design is unknown and will have a significant effect on any cost estimate.
Access sites
TEMPORARY WORKS
CEIS Working Group Meeting 16/06/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

30. Cost Estimates – Klystron Design
Other Critical requirements that will affect the cost:
FCC Consultants Cost estimate spreadsheet is to be modified for CLIC, however critical inputs still need to be defined.
Schedule will have changed since the initial design and therefore the labour costs will be significantly different.
Labour, equipment, consumables and materials are the four main aspects of the costs associated with the Civil engineering.
CDR Cost estimate done in 2010 in CHF, exchange rate has significantly changed since.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 16/06/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

31. Summary Future Study - Roadheader or TBM Tunnel CLIC TOT
Compatibility with a smaller single tunnel upgrade requires further study.
Failure rate of klystron modules is high – what are the access requirements for maintenance and is this possible with 1.5m shielding wall?
Cost and schedule comparison to be provided for the different tunnel options. This requires the previously mentioned “unknowns” to be investigated.
Heating and Cooling essential to be allow a feasible cross section to be produced.
Surface building transport options to be explored.
CLIC TOT
Compilation of all geological data to be input within the tool.
An initial draft version to be produced to allow testing and refinement of the model.
Civil Drawings
Understand the surface building requirements for the klystron machine to allow a layout drawing to be produced.
Produce 3D schematics of the “baseline CLIC machine” for both the klystron and drive beam option.
Understand the required services (especially for the klystron machine) and the HVAC systems to allow the cross sections to be updated.
Continually update the drawings as and when new information is acquired.
Next Meeting is on the 25th of August.
CEIS Working Group Meeting 16/06/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne

32. Thank You For Your Attention
Thank you to all contributors (John Osborne, Raul Ortega, Youri Robert etc…)
CEIS Working Group Meeting 16/06/2017 – Matthew Stuart & John Osborne