cms relocation options towards an r2e baseline
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
CMS Relocation Options Towards An R2E Baseline

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

CMS Relocation Options Towards An R2E Baseline - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 66 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

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

first
First

MANY THANKS

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)

…afterwards

agenda
Agenda
  • 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

Disadvantages:

  • Equipment installed there would not be available during operation (as for most LHC equipment)
  • Using space for future upgrade projects

Advantages:

  • 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

Disadvantages:

  • 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)

Advantages:

  • 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

Costs:

  • 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

Timing:

  • 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
slide15
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?
ad