Login

Discussion

→ Europe/Zurich
    • 1
      Discussion
      Speakers: Anastasiya Magazinik (Tampere University of Technology (FI)), Connor Miraval, Filippo Resnati (CERN), Jamie Boyd (CERN), Jean-Pierre Corso (CERN), Larry Bartoszek (University of Colorado Boulder (US)), Milind Vaman Diwan (Brookhaven National Laboratory (US)), Steve Trabocchi (Brookhaven National Laboratory), Steven Linden, Yichen Li
      N2_considerations.pptx

      Some questions for starting discussion 

       

      1. What were the requirements on the shaft ?  Is the transport area fixed ?  Can it be widened, enlarged, etc.  ?
      2. What are the length constraints on the shaft ? 
      3. What is the weight limit, and other specifications for the shaft ?   Can we have the specification document shared with all engineers ? 
      4. What are the current specs for the main FPF cavern in terms of floor loading,  crane coverage, etc. Is there a brief document ? 
      5. What is the usual CERN method for formulating the requirements for services such as Power,  Water, Ventillation, A/C, heating, cryogens, cranes etc.  
      6. Is there a template that we can use to fill and provide this information in a coordinated way  ?
      7. What is the limitation on making the FPF cavern taller, above the line of sight and also deeper below the line of sight.  How does the cost vary if we keep the span of the cavern fixed.  
      8. What is the limitation on making the FPF cavern longer towards the French side (West).  
      9. Timeline:  for the next iteration of estimates and documentation needed for the various CERN committees and planning exercises, what is the minimum that we need to do ? When must the experimentalists make decisions on the preliminary requirements for the Civil construction CDR ? 
      10. What are the rough estimates for construction timescale after all approvals are in place ? 
      11. Are there methods for transporting cryogenic liquids through shafts at CERN that we need to consider for both LAr and LN2 deliveries to FLARE.  

       

      This is the reference to the brief document we sent to US planning committee.  

      https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1972463 

       

      Excellent discussion with John Osborne. Key points are 

      The cavern is designed to be of a standard design at CERN. Although larger and most customized caverns have been built.

      The key feature for the stability of the cavern (tunnel) is the circular opening that is lined with concrete. The circular shape makes is 

      stable from all sides.  The shape and size is considered most economical for the rock at CERN. 

       

      It is possible to make the cavern longer with the best economy.  The bore exploration was done at the location of the current shaft.

      But moving is by ~ 5 meters is not an issue.  

      Making the cavern diameter larger is possible, but will cost more, and a cost increment will be provided.  

      Making the cavern taller to get more space above and below the line of sight  is also possible.  

       

      Jamie will interact with Osborne to understand the cost increments for 1) larger diameter, 2) taller, and 3) longer.  

       

      Steven T presented the LN2 turbo-bryton approach versus LN2 piping to the underground space.  

      The turbo-bryton will deposit large (~70-80 kW) heat underground that must be removed.  It is unclear 

      what is more cost effective right now. 

      Space will be needed for cryogenic tanks for bringing cryogens 80 meters down.  We need to size these tanks.  

      Lay down and assembly space is also needed and not yet fully considered.  

       

      Yichen will present a schematic for a much smaller system that he has designed himself and built.  We need to scale up from his system and 

      scale down from the protodune system.