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

2. 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) April 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

3. CFS Meetings: Feb. 25, March 4, 25, April 1
Source Material
CFS Meetings: Feb. 25, March 4, 25, April 1
slides ed, no postings, to my knowledge
MDI Meetings: Feb. 5, March 13, April 4
ADI/CFS Mtg.: April 7-10

4. 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

5. 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

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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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 CFS-ADI Joint Meeting

11. 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

12. 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”

13. 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 CFS-ADI Joint Meeting

14. 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

15. 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

17. 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

18. Harrison’s April 10 Conclusion