Cms relocation options towards an r2e baseline
1 / 18

CMS Relocation Options Towards An R2E Baseline - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

CMS Relocation Options Towards An R2E Baseline. M. Brugger for the R2E Project. First. MANY THANKS

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' CMS Relocation Options Towards An R2E Baseline' - bao

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Cms relocation options towards an r2e baseline

CMS Relocation OptionsTowards An R2E Baseline

M. Brugger for the R2E Project



Anne-Laure, Katy, Martin, Jean-Claude, Philippe, Yvon, Piero, Sylvain, Michael, Giovanni, Jean-Pierre, Nuno, John, Caterina, Daniel, Frederic, Julie, Marco, Stephane, Jean-Marc, Christoph, Cezary, Stefan, Andre, Samy, Equipment Owners,…

and many more …

Goal of today
Goal Of Today

  • Update/Review of P5 relocation options

  • Possible show-stoppers & planning constraints

  • Advantages/Disadvantages of each proposal

  • CMS gallery and requirement due to R2E

  • Do we need to foresee the shielding

  • -> Towards a baseline solution

  • R2E project proposal for P5 baseline solution

    • Presented to R2E committee

    • Proposal from R2E committee towards LHC management

    • Detailed study (Integration/Planning/Implementation)



  • R2E constraints and introduction [Markus]

  • Status and options as available at R2E workshop [Markus]

  • Summary of alternative solutions (no or minor impact on escape path) [Anne Laure]

  • Update on impact of CMS gallery [Martin]

  • Summary & Conclusions[All]

R2e constraints
R2E Constraints

  • Work must fit into available shutdown (12months today)

  • Long operation periods between shutdowns require full relocation in case risk of radiation induced failures is to be minimized

  • Highest priority: full relocation

  • Timing: long lead times required -> Baseline Now (planning/purchase and preparation requirements)

  • Available cost envelope is estimated as around 3-4MCHF; contingencies possible, but not excessive

R2e workshop status
R2E Workshop Status

  • Common approach: use the UJ561 and USC55 S4

  • Scenario A: use space UL55 bypass tunnel in addition

  • Scenario B: use space in USC55 control room in addition

  • Three possible options for the CMS escape route

    • As is today

    • Through bypass

    • New gallery

Scenario a
Scenario A

  • Using the UL55 in addition to the UJ561 and the USC55S4 area


  • Equipment installed there would not be available during operation (as for most LHC equipment)

  • Using space for future upgrade projects


  • No need for additional CE work

  • Work in an area relatively empty

Scenario b
Scenario B

  • The USC55 control room area would be used in addition to the UJ561 and the USC55S4 area


  • Need for new metallic structures, as well as at least 1 service duct (CE work) between UJ561 and USC55

  • Additional mixing of LHC/CMS networks (already the case in S4)


  • Equipment available at all times (if ok with RP!)

  • Work on the metallic structures could be done during operation => no penalty for schedule

  • Space in Bypass remains available for future projects such as inner triplet upgrade

  • Synergies with CMS upgrade programs

Escape route options
Escape Route Options

Option 1 (through UJ561):

  • Presence of flammable material (also in UJ56!)

  • Small clearance between equipment and wall ~1m (???)

  • Escape route would go through a safe room

  • No need for civil engineering

  • Identical to existing path

Escape route options1
Escape Route Options

Option 2 (through UL55):

  • Slightly more complicated and a little bit longer

  • Less favorable for ALARA (breezing of potentially activated air) -> RP ok

  • Minor civil engineering work

  • No need to enter the UJ561

Escape route options2
Escape Route Options

Option 3 (through UJ561):

  • Civil engineering work required for ~ 3 months

  • Complication of access system

  • Insertion in PM56 to be defined

  • Shorter and safer escape route

  • “fully compliant” with requirements (definition unclear)

Result of first studies
Result of First Studies


  • EN/EL dominating part (~2.3MCHF)

  • CE estimate not complete (at workshop)

  • CV and other parts not available then…

  • Total costs: 3.5-4MCFH

  • Gallery would cost <=1MCHF in addition


  • Difficult (Impossible) to fit into 12months (expected between 15 and 18 months)

  • “Defining a baseline scenario is urgently needed to focus the few resources available on detailed studies”

    Escape Route:

  • UJ561: passing safe-room + reduced width

  • Bypass option not excluded

  • Gallery is preferred solution for CMS

Next Talks:

Anne-Laure, Martin

Some questions
Some Questions

  • Safety Exit Route?

    • 2nd route, thus 0.9m ok if <=100 people -> why not?

    • 1.2m per definition ok

    • passage through bypass:

      • ok for RP

      • no reason (difference) in terms of ‘combined’ risks

      • two turns more -> why not?

  • Risk/Impact – How to Weight?

    • machine failure due to radiation damage (increasing frequency, intervening personnel, ...)

    • not the best possible 2nd escape passage(best option would be not having personnel underground, or less of them)

Summary conclusions
Summary & Conclusions

  • Integration:

    • Required safety passage can be achieved

    • Safe-Room solution to be tackled independently

    • Bypass solution seems to have highest flexibility

  • Costs

    • Similar for all options (minor gain in full UJ561 solution -> 3.5-4MCHF

    • CMS Gallery will ad ~1MCHF

  • Planning Constraints:

    • difficult to achieve in given constraints for all options >=12months

    • gallery won’t make it easier

    • Long lead-time (final integration, planning, preparation)

    • Baseline to be defined before end of 2010

    • LHC constraints: 2011/2013/14/15 Operation, 2012/2016 Shutdown

Summary conclusions1
Summary & Conclusions

  • Shielding:

    • expected to be insufficient given the foreseen operation plan and expected radiation levels

    • Full relocation highly recommended, cost saving is 400-500kCHF

  • CMS Gallery:

    • Requirement (if agreed by CERN management) seems independent to R2E activities

  • Risk:

    • Work other than for direct relocation might lead to additional delays

    • No additional risk to personnel due to relocation activity

    • Exit route through bypass seems ok?

    • Project flexibility: leave UJ561 empty (at least for now)

  • Preferred Solution: full relocation to bypass?