1. AMERICAN LINEAR COLIDER PHYSICS GROUP Impressions of the Dubna Site
Update on (ILC) CFS and
Impressions of the Dubna Site
V. Kuchler

2. Overview
Brief Summary of Work Through the Reference Design Report (RDR)
Description of RDR Sample Sites
Other Sites Considered Prior to/During the RDR Process
Dubna Site, DESY Site and Alternative Design Configuration
Post RDR Plan
Efforts Toward a “Uniform Design Solution”

3. How Did We Get to the RDR w/Respect to CFS
Global Design Effort Established at Snowmass, August, 2005
Conventional Facilities and Siting Group Established
Site Criteria Matrix was Developed and Sample Sites were Identified in Each of Three Regions
Baseline Configuration Document was Generated and Completed in December, 2005
Preliminary CFS Value Engineering Review was Completed at CALTECH in October, 2006
Reference Design Report Based on Three Sample Sites with Cost Estimate was Completed in February, 2007

4. What Does the RDR Represent
The RDR Design Represents a “Consensus Design” Based on Criteria Taken at Face Value from Most/All Technical Systems
It is the Result of Minimal Value Engineering or Criteria Optimization
All Sample Sites are Based on a Deep Twin Tunnel Configuration
The RDR Design (and Cost Estimate) will Naturally Benefit from a More Comprehensive Value Engineering Process and Optimization of Technical Criteria

5. Asian Region Sample Site
Firm and uniform geology.
Large enough area spanning over 50 km.
Absence of active dislocations, wide faults in the neighborhood.
Absence of epicenters of earthquakes exceeding M6 within 50 km from anywhere in the site since AD1500.
Terrain uniformity to maintain the ILC Tunnel depths less than 600 m anywhere. Granite (compressive strength ~100 MPA)
Excavation : TBM (~ 300 m/month)
Finish : shotcrete (partially reinforced with rock-bolts)
Access by sloped tunnel instead of vertical shafts

6. European Region Sample Site
Location : Proximity of CERN existing site with its 400 kV grid connection. Close to the city of Geneva with its international airport, railway and highway network connections.
Geology : Solid and stable bedrock called “molasse” (sandstone), which stretches between the Jura mountains and the Lake of Geneva. A layer of moraines ranges from 0 to 50 m on top of the sandstone. Low seismic activity and no active faults.
Depth of main tunnels : average ~ 100 m

7. Americas Region Sample Site
Loation : in solid rock, close to existing institute, close to the city of Chicago and international airport, close to railway and highway networks.
Geology : Glacially derived deposits overlaying Bedrock. The concerned rock layers are from top to bottom the Silurian dolomite, Maquoketa dolomitic shale, and the Galena-Platteville dolomites.
Depth of main tunnels : Average ~ 135 m

8. Other Sites Considered
Near Surface Solution Near FNAL
Near Surface and Deep Tunnel Solutions in California as Part of the NLC Effort
A Potential Site at the Hanford Laboratory in Washington State was Identified
A Twin Tunnel Solution was Investigated at DESY Based on the RDR Criteria
A Twin Tunnel Solution was Investigated at Dubna Based on the RDR Criteria

10. What We Were Supposed to/Are Going to Do
Begin with Existing RDR Design
“Big Budget Bang” in December, 2007
Complete CFS Value Engineering, Revised Design Solution and Develop New Cost Estimate
Identify CFS Cost Drivers and Resume Targeted Value Engineering and Alternative Design Options
Develop Schedule Through Start of Construction and Bid to Host Documentation
Initiate CFS Collaboration Efforts with CILC and XFEL
Complete (EDR) Engineering Design Report in Late 2010 and Proceed to Start of Construction in 2012
Provide Input into the Technical Design Phase I (2010) & Phase II (2012) with Revised Criteria, Design Solutions and Cost Estimate

11. From B. Barish Dubna Talk (GDE Direction)
Program of ‘Value Engineering’, whereby an attempt is made to assure the highest value by delivering all required functions at the lowest overall cost. The TD Phase CFS activities are therefore focused on this activity and are broadly subdivided into three stages:
a preparatory stage, during which the design criteria used to develop the Reference Design are revisited and analyzed;
a Value Engineering review stage, where the functional requirements are compared one at a time with their respective cost and a small set of prospective improvements are proposed;
an evaluation and design update stage during which the design is improved through adoption and analysis of the suggestions.
Based on expected CFS engineering resources for the TD Phase, stages (1) and (2) above are expected to last about two and a half years.

12. CFS Goals for the Dubna Workshop
Examine CFS RDR Requirements
Develop Models for Alternate Tunnel Configurations and Siting Conditions (Shallow Sites and Single Tunnel Solutions)
Examine CFS Support Systems, Identify Cost Drivers and Continue Value Engineering for Cost Reduction Opportunities
Evaluate Possible Alternative Machine Layouts Which May Lead to Cost Reduction
Discuss Siting Strategies Toward a “Uniform Site Solution”

13. Current Status
The RDR Identified One Sample Site from Each of the Three GDE “Regions”
Each Sample Site was a Deep Twin Tunnel Configuration
The JINR/Dubna Site is a “Near Surface” Single Tunnel Configuration
The DESY/TESLA Site can Also be Considered a “Near Surface” Single Tunnel Configuration
The CLIC Collaboration with a Single Deep Tunnel Design will Also Provide Useful Input to the ILC Tunnel Configuration Value Engineering Effort
The Dubna Site Solution the DESY Site Work and XFEL Design Construction will Provide Valuable Information for Alternatives to the Deep Twin Tunnel RDR Design

14. Alternative Tunnel Strategies
JINR Efforts at Dubna
Looking at an Alternative to RDR Design
Working with Russian State Project Institute (GSPI, Moscow)
Near Surface Bored Tunnel with Surface Level Support Gallery
Surface Buildings Spaced for Cryo Support
Experience from the XFEL Project at DESY
Renewed Efforts for Alternate Design at DESY
Near Surface Bored Tunnel
Taken from Original TESLA Profile Updated to ILC Criteria
Collaboration with the CLIC Project
Independent Tunnel Alternatives will Also be Reviewed as Part of the Generation of a “Uniform Design Solution”

15. Location Map of Dubna Site

16. The ILC linear accelerator is proposed to be placed in the drift clay at the depth of 20 m (at the mark of m) with the idea that below the tunnel there should be impermeable soil preventing from the underlying groundwater inrush. It is possible to construct tunnels of the accelerating complex using tunnel shields with a simultaneous wall timbering by tubing or falsework concreting.
Standard tunnel shields in the drift clay provide for daily speed of the drilling progress specified by the Project of the accelerator (it is needed approximately 2.5 years for the 50 km tunnel).
Dubna Profile

17. Tunnel Cross-Section Option 1

18. Tunnel Cross-Section Option 2

19. Tunnel Cross-Section Option 3

20. Location Map at
DESY Site

21. DESY Site Detail and Profile

22. Full DESY Site Profile

23. RDR Design Solution Stability/Vibration + Egress +
Proximity of Equipment +
Maintenance and Reliability +
Installation +
Cabling +
Water Inflow +
Wave Guide –
Cost –
Enclosure Access –

24. 1 Tunnel Solution A Stability/Vibration ? Egress +
Proximity of Equipment -
Maintenance and Reliability -
Installation +
Cabling -
Water Inflow ?
Wave Guide +
Cost ?
Enclosure Access –

25. 1 Tunnel Solution B Stability/Vibration ? Egress -
Proximity of Equipment -
Maintenance and Reliability -
Installation -
Cabling -
Water Inflow ?
Wave Guide +
Cost +
Enclosure Access –

26. Cut/Cover Solution Stability/Vibration - Egress +
Proximity of Equipment +
Maintenance and Reliability +
Installation +
Cabling +
Water Inflow -
Wave Guide –
Cost ?
Enclosure Access +

27. The Post RDR Plan for CFS
Three Aspects Form the CFS Equation
Amount of Work to be Completed
Time Constraints and/or Guidance
Resources Available
Evaluate the Current and Near-Term Resource Profile at FNAL, SLAC, KEK, CERN and JINR
Develop Firm Collaborations with XFEL and CLIC Design Efforts
Develop a Prioritized Value Engineering Plan
Develop Viable Alternate Design Configurations and Adjusted Technical Design Criteria for Review and Approval
Generate a Revised Uniform Design Solution
Take Full Advantage of the Opportunities Provided by the Collaboration with the CLIC Project and the Experience Gained in the Construction of the XFEL
Agree on a Timeframe that Allows for the Completion of a Comprehensive Alternative Design Solution and an Effective ILC Siting Strategy

28. Schematic Path to a “Uniform Design” Solution
Value Engineering and Technical Criteria Review
Alternate Configurations Identified
Alternatives Ranked by Parameters (Cost)
Qualifications and/or Required Criteria Adjustments for Optimum Alternatives Reviewed
Optimized non-Site Specific Alternatives Combined into the “Uniform Design” Solution

29. So What is an “Optimized Design Solution”
Solution will not be Necessarily Site Specific
It will Involve a Review of Existing Criteria and the Development of Alternative Configurations with Criteria Adjusted to Provide a More Straightforward and Cost Effective Tunnel Configuration, Mechanical Support System, Electrical Distribution, etc.
The Combination of Individual Value Engineered Design Components will Provide a New Design Solution Optimized to the Parameter(s) Selected
For the CFS Group Specific Priorities have been Identified:
Tunnel Configuration
Underground Space
Process Cooling Water Systems
Electrical Distribution

30. Near-Term Specifics
Continue Value Engineering Effort Initiated in FY 08 as Resources Permit
Initial Efforts will Focus on the Highest Level CFS Cost Drivers
Tunnel Configuration
Deep Twin Tunnel
Deep Single Tunnel
Near Surface Single Tunnel
Near Surface w/ Utility Enclosure
Cut and Cover
Process Cooling Systems
RDR Design
All Chilled Water w/ LCW Skid
All Process Water w/ LCW Skid and Process Water Fan Coil Units
all Process Water w/ LCW Skids and Compressorized Fan Coil Units
All Process Water for Klystrons Only
Determine Specific Impacts on Technical System Criteria Generated by Alternative Design Solutions
Together with Technical Groups and Project Managers, Review Impacts and Establish Preferred Optimized Alternatives
Generate the “Uniform Design” Solution from Optimized Alternatives

31. Proposed CFS Plan for FY 09
Continued General Coordination of Global CFS Efforts
Completion of the Process Cooling Value Engineering Efforts\
(Milestone for November GDE Meeting)
Continuation of the Alternative Tunnel Review for the Main Linac
(Milestone for Spring GDE/AAP Review Meeting)
CFS Value Engineering Process (Initial Review)
Underground Space Utilization
Electrical System Design Review
Development of Functional Requirements (TDP-1)

32. Summary
We are Trying to Cope with Uncertain Funding Levels and Reconcile the Effort with GDE and Local Direction
Value Engineering and Overall Criteria Review are a Natural Part of the Preliminary Design Process
We will Leverage Other Projects Efforts from the CFS Perspective
Progress will Continue, but at a Slower Pace than Originally Planned
There are Several Chickens and Many Eggs