1. Experimental Areas Studies Lessons learnt at CMS M Gastal & CMS Technical Coordination (A Ball, W Zeuner) 10/06/20091martin.gastal@cern.ch

2. M Gastal - Background → Working for EN-MEF group → Applied Physicist + MBA → Planning officer from the construction phase of the CMS experimental area onwards → In charge of consolidated detailed planning during the installation of CMS underground → Design and update of shutdown schedules → CMS Experimental Area Manager → Responsible for the operation of the CMS experimental area alongside CMS Technical Coordination → Drafted the first ILC construction schedule → Link person between the CES experimental area design effort and the MDI/CLIC detector groups → Involved in the construction of the CMS EA and in charge of its operation => opportunities to identify and exploit synergies with the design effort for the CLIC EAs 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch2

3. Agenda 1.The CMS experimental Area – an overview 2.Key innovative features validated at CMS 3.Additional features that would have been beneficial 4.What would we do differently? 10/06/20093martin.gastal@cern.ch

4. 1. The CMS experimental area 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch4 UXC55 L,W,H53m26m25m USC55 L,W,H83m18m15m PM54 Ø, D12.1m100m PX56 Ø, D20.5m100m

5. 1. The CMS experimental area 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch5 SX5 L,W,H142m22m23m SDX5 L,W,H36m17m15.5m To be lowered to 15.5m

6. 1. The CMS experimental area → Designed to accommodate a new detector construction & installation concept → Detector construction took place in a surface assembly hall while the underground facilities were being built 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch6

7. 1. The CMS experimental area → Construction of CMS on the surface required a large surface building and the availability of technical services (CV, EL, Gas, Cryogenics, IT, DAQ…) SX5 assembly Hall Adjacent buildings to host technical facilities needed for detector commissioning. Two 80 tons cranes needed for the assembly operations 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch7

8. → Once commissioned on the surface, the detector is lowered into the experimental cavern using a rented heavy load (2000t) gantry crane → Only fully commissioned elements of CMS are lowered → No need for a heavy load crane in the experimental cavern → Scheme made possible by the modular structure of CMS, e.g. 13 individual elements 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch8 1. The CMS experimental area

11. → Once underground, each CMS element has to be hooked up to the services installed in the USC55 and to the rest of the elements → USC55 was built inside the LHC ring to minimise equipment exposure to radiation 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch11 1. The CMS experimental area Routing from USC55 to UXC55 goes through shafts, trenches & cross passages

12. → Apart from the central barrel of CMS, all elements are mobile. Connecting them to services is done through mobile cable chains and patch panels 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch12 1. The CMS experimental area Trenches underneath the UXC55 floor host the cable chains

13. 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch13 Design by CMS Integration group, April 2005.

14. → CMS has gathered all its technical infrastructure in the service cavern USC55. Protected from radiations produced in the UXC55 by a 7m pillar wall Laser and gas rooms CV room EL safe room DAQ rooms (including IT and safety systems) 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch14 1. The CMS experimental area This cavern has to be manned at all times 1 access shaft for personnel

15. → Having designed the detector into separate large elements allows accessing the most inner part of CMS in a very short time. Opening one side of CMS can be achieved in 3 days 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch15 2. Key innovative features validated at CMS This fast opening relies on Air Pads The floor of the UXC55 has therefore been foreseen to include metal plates to provide appropriate flatness.

16. → To allow lowering material on both ends of the UXC55 cavern, the access shaft for the USC55 also reaches the UXC55 → An airtight mobile shielding takes care of the radioprotection issues 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch16 2. Key innovative features validated at CMS

17. → To allow for the mobile elements of CMS to move, cable chains have to be installed. Under the floor of the UXC55 cavern, a labyrinth of trenches has been built. → It allows the installation and connection of the services on to the detector → Enough space was left to easily perform the commissioning and repair work in-situ 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch17 2. Key innovative features validated at CMS

18. → During the commissioning phase of the detector on the surface, it would have been very useful to have the final gas and cooling plants available. → These would then have had to be lowered in the USC55 upon completion of the commissioning → Additional trenches would have been useful under the floor of the SX5 building in a similar fashion as in the UXC55 → Additional alcoves would have probably been needed to host the plants 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch18 3. Additional features that would have been beneficial (was the budget found for it…)

19. → Have 2 light weight cranes in the UXC55 coupled with two parking alcoves → Would have allowed more work in parallel during installation → Alcoves would have made the coverage areas of both cranes identical → Alcoves would also have taken care of radiation concerns for the crane electronics 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch19 3. Additional features that would have been beneficial (was the budget found for it…) Parking alcove

20. → Relying on one 1 shaft for both personnel and material access has put quite a lot of constraints on the installation work → To this day, the CMS access shaft lift is the busiest throughout the LHC. The lift does on average 11000 trips per month and 250/day. It can take 40persons or 3000kg per trip → The lift reliability became a very significant parameter in the coordination of the underground work 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch20 3. Additional features that would have been beneficial (was the budget found for it…)

21. 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch21 4. What would we do differently? (should we build a second CMS…) → The physical interface with the LHC accelerator could be improved. The CMS experimental area is vulnerable to incidents taking place in the machine tunnels. The partition between the LHC areas and the CMS ones could have allowed for more flexibility → The bypass goes through the envelope of the USC55 The sector doors prevent using the PM56 as backup to PM54 lift

22. → The amount of personnel allowed inside the UXC55 at any one point in time is defined by the size of the shelter areas. These areas could have been made much bigger. 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch22 4. What would we do differently? (should we build a second CMS…)

23. Conclusions → CMS is the first large HEP experiment that was pre-assembled and tested on the surface and then lowered. The modular structure of CMS means that any detector component can be reached for service/repair within about 3 weeks. The experimental area has been design to allow such installation & operation model. → When it comes to efficiently operating an experimental area, many parameters have to be taken into account: Flows of personnel and material, safety, flexibility of available tooling and infrastructure… → Synergies can be further identified between what has been done at CMS and the design of a new CLIC experimental area → New studies will start taking into account input from the detector community and constraints highlighted by the CES working group → The starting point of these studies will be the layout presented in the ILC RDR which is the current CLIC baseline 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch23

24. 10/06/2009martin.gastal@cern.ch24