Infrastructure & Operation 27th May 2015

Infrastructure & Operation 27th May 2015Update on optimisation of tunnel footprint and locationCharlie Cook (GS), John Osborne (GS)

Outline

• Optimisation of tunnel footprint & location

• Overview of GeoMol Meeting, Geneva, 20/05/2015

• First look at benefits to CE of a kink in the FCC tunnel

• Overview of CE contribution to FCC MDI meetings

Feasibility study questions

1. What is currently the best position for the tunnel circumferences under study?

2. How do the 80km, 87km, 93km & 100km options compare?

3. Do the advantages of decreased shaft depths outweigh the disadvantages of tunnelling through the Moraines under Lake Geneva?

Optioneering Development80km 87km

93km(option 1a)

100km(option 2a)

General Positioning• 80km, 87km & 93km share

the same location for point A in Meyrin

Optioneering Development80km 87km

93km(option 1a)

100km(option 2a)

General Positioning • 80km, 87km & 93km share

the same location for point A in Meyrin

• Point A for 100km in Prevessin

Optioneering Development80km 87km

93km(option 1a)

100km(option 2a)

General Positioning• 80km, 87km & 93km share

the same location for point A in Meyrin

• Point A for 100km in Prevessin

• All options rotated clockwise as far as possible to minimise depth under lake

Optioneering Development80km 87km

93km(option 1a)

100km(option 2a)

General Positioning• 80km, 87km & 93km share

the same location for point A in Meyrin

• Point A for 100km in Prevessin

• All options rotated clockwise as far as possible to minimise depth under lake

• Rotation limited by Jura (80km, 87km & 93km) or Vuache (100km)

Optioneering Development80km 87km

93km(option 1a)

100km(option 2a)

General Positioning• 80km, 87km & 93km share

the same location for point A in Meyrin

• Point A for 100km is in Prevessin

• All options rotated clockwise as far as possible to minimise depth under lake

• Rotation limited by Jura (80km, 87km & 93km) or Vuache (100km)

Small alignment and shaft movements Positioned so that:• All surface sites are in

potentially feasible locations i.e. avoid environmentally protected areas and the built-environment

• Shaft depths are minimised (F,G,H in particular)

Applying Amberg Metrics1. Data giving the geology intersected by each shaft and section of tunnel for any given

alignment is downloaded from TOT

Example(arbitrary alignment)

Applying Amberg Metrics2. Each element of construction (1 meter of shaft, 1 meter of tunnel, 1 cavern) is multiplied by its respective unit multiplication factor which are dependant on the geological conditions and relative to the cost/risk of tunnelling 1m in molasse

Shaft unit multiplication factors Cavern unit multiplication factors

Tunnel unit multiplication factors

Example(arbitrary alignment)

Applying Amberg Metrics1. This gives a total cost risk for the tunnelling, each shaft and each cavern and a grand total for the

alignment

Example(arbitrary alignment)

Applying Amberg Metrics

Amberg metrics include the cost/risk of:

Tunnels• Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) excavation

in moraines, molasse, calcaire & urgonian with or without water pressure

• Installation of a typical TBM or ‘dual mode’ TBM

Shafts• Construction of 12 shafts (conventional

and mechanical) in moraines, molasse, calcaire & urgonian with or without water pressure

TBM Caverns• Construction of 24 70mx200m2 shaft

bottom caverns for TBM assembly

Not yet included:

• Connection to the LHC • Feasibility of over ground site locations• Environmental considerations (other than

shafts avoiding protected areas)• Risk of severe tunnel squeezing at depths

up to 650m in molasse• Experimental and service caverns• Cost/risk for cavern construction at large

depths• Etc.

Latest results - Comparison between options of different circumference

80km quasi-circular 87km quasi-circular 93km quasi-circular 100km quasi-circular0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

Total cost/risk of options and cost/risk of tunnel in molasse component used to adjust for circumference

Cost/risk of tunnel in molasse

Total cost/risk of option in the Geneva basin

FCC Option

Cost

/risk

(A

mbe

rg w

eigh

ting)

Component of cost/risk dependant on circumference

Component of cost/riskindependent of circumference

Latest results - Comparison between options of different circumference

53km quasi

-circl

e

60km quasi

-circl

e

67km quasi

-circl

e

73km quasi

-circl

e

80km quasi

-circl

e

87km quasi

-circl

e

93km quasi

-circl

e

100km quasi

-circl

e

107km quasi

-circl

e

114km quasi

-circl

e0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

Total FCC option cost/risk &

Element of cost/risk dependant on circumference

Total cost/risk of FCC optionin the Geneva basin Element of cost/risk that is dependant on circum-ference

FCC Option

Cost

/risk

Am

berg

wei

ghtin

g

Latest results - Comparison between options of different circumference

53km quasi

-circl

e

60km quasi

-circl

e

67km quasi

-circl

e

73km quasi

-circl

e

80km quasi

-circl

e

87km quasi

-circl

e

93km quasi

-circl

e

100km quasi

-circl

e

107km quasi

-circl

e

114km quasi

-circl

e0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Total Amberg cost/risk adjusted for circumference

FCC Option

Cost

/risk

(A

mbe

rg w

eigh

ting)

Latest results - Comparison between options of different circumference

80km quasi-circle 87km quasi-circle 93km quasi-circle 100km quasi-circle20000

22000

24000

26000

28000

30000

32000

34000

36000

38000

40000

Total Amberg cost/risk adjusted for circumference

FCC Option

Cost

/risk

Ambe

rg w

eigh

ting

Latest results – Tunnelling through moraines vs molasse under Lake Geneva

80km 87km 93km 100km105000

110000

115000

120000

125000

130000

135000

140000

145000

Tunnelling through molasse vs. moraines under Lake Geneva

MolasseMoraines

FCC Option

Ambe

rg co

st/r

isk (F

CC o

ption

tota

ls)*

Do the advantages of decreased shaft depths outweigh the disadvantages of tunnelling through the Moraines under Lake Geneva?

*cost/risk of tunnels, shafts & TBM caverns only

Conclusions1. What is currently the best position for the tunnel circumferences under study?The best solutions found so far rely on a tunnel position as southerly as possible whilst:• Maintaining feasible sites for surface infrastructure around shafts, particularly at points A, B, D and H.• Avoiding the (highly fractured) Vuache limestone• Avoiding high overburden in the south east sections• Enabling a feasible connection to the LHC (or SPS)• Keeping shaft depths to a minimum, particularly shafts E, F, G and H

2. How do the 80km, 87km, 93km & 100km options compare?• All four options fit into the Geneva basin without any (currently obvious) ‘show stoppers’• Overburden at depths >650m in molasse poses the highest risk to the feasibility of the tunnel

construction if a site investigation reveals poor geological conditions in these areas• The 80km, 87km & 93km are able to lie further south and pass under a shallower part of the lake than

the 100km and therefore have lower total shaft depths• The 100km has further disadvantage in that it must pass through the Jura limestone• The study so far indicates that the 93km option offers the greatest ‘cost-value benefit’

3. Do the advantages of decreased shaft depths outweigh the disadvantages of tunnelling through the Moraines under Lake Geneva?The analysis so far suggests the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. However, important factors including tunnel overburden and cavern construction at depth have not yet been included.

GeoMol Meeting, Geneva – 20/05/15Organisations present: BRGM, CERN, GESDEC, GEOMOL, GEOTHERMIE2020 & SIG (Canton de Genève), UNIGEPresentations:2. Projet FCC Future Circular Collidars (CERN) 3. Etat des connaissances du sous-sol de la région au CERN, travaux en cours et données intéressantes (CERN) 4. Projet GeoMol – Zone pilote Genève – Savoie: modèle géologique 3D: état des connaissances (BRGM Orléans) 5. Projets en cours dans la région Rhône - Alpes (BRGM Lyon) 6. Projet GeoEnergy (UNIGE Sciences de la Terre) 7. Programme GEothermie 2020 – programme prospection détaillée (SIG) 8. Projet Base de données du sous-sol (Etat de Genève) 9. Modèles de température BRGM vs UNIGE 10. Projet GeoQuat (Swisstopo)

Comments relevant to CERN/FCC:• GEothermie2020 will continue to develop understanding of geology inc. faults, water circulation and natural seismicity

over the next 2-3 years• A model of the molasse & limestone rockheads covering the FCC study area (and more) has been created by GeoMol• Y. Robert has sent• The coordinates of the FCC options have been sent to GeoMol to compare results from their model with those from TOT• The TOT geology model could be over simplistic. Molasse & limestone is very variable. Molasse could even contain

aquifers.• Deep Jura limestone may contain useful drinking water resources that perhaps should not be put at risk by the FCC• C. Laughton’s paper on LEP construction issues in the Jura would be useful for Geothermie2020• Geneva dispose of over 1 million m3 of excavated material per year • A geothermal gradient of about 2.4oC over a depth of 5km, starting with a 22oC shallow rock temperature is predicted.

Does this represent shallower depths of 0-650m accurately? A plot of depth vs. temperature is available (next slide)• Evidence of hydrocarbon deposits in FCC study area• Collaboration of CERN & Geothermie2020 possible to share costs of further geological investigations in FCC vicinity

Rock Temperature Graph (Geothermie2020)

Collaboration between CERN & UNIGE possible to study the FCC’s potential for ground heat recovery

Geothermal gradient = 2.540C

First look at a kink(s) in the FCC

First look at the benefits to CE of a kink(s) in the FCC tunnelCharlie Cook, John Osborne

Presentation Content

• Single kink (100km example)

• Double kink (100km example)

• Triple kink (100km example)

• Conclusions

Single Kink – 100km Option Point A

Point B

Point C

Point D

Point E

Point FPoint G

Point L

Point K

Point J

Point I

Point H

Kink

Single Kink – 100km Option 100km Example Option 2a [100km] – no kink [slope = 0.5%]

Option 2a [100km] – single kink [slope = 2.4%]

Option 2a [100km] – single kink [slope = 1.4%]Kink 1Chainage = 34892mDist. To E = 600m

Kink 2Chainage = 64487m

Dist. To I = 600m

Single Kink – 100km Option

100km Example

Shaft Depths

Slope after kink [%]

Change in slope [%]

E F G H I

Total depth (of all 12 shafts)

Shaft depths % Reduction

0.65 0.0 132 392 354 268 170 3211 0%

0.9 0.25 131 378 339 254 169 3166 1%

1.4 0.75 128 350 307 226 166 3072 4%

2.4 1.75 110 290 241 166 157 2859 11%

Maximum kink for CE (in this example)2.4% slope after kink [change in slope at kinks = 1.75%]

100km Example

Double Kink - 100km Option

Point APoint B

Point C

Point D

Point E

Point FPoint G

Point L

Point K

Point J

Point I

Point H

Kinks

Double Kink - 100km OptionOption 2a [100km] – no kink [slope = 0.65%]

Option 2a [100km] – double kink [E-I = 1.4% E-C = 0.41/1.4%]

Option 2a [100km] – double kink [E-I = 2.4% E-C = 0.41/1.4%]

Double Kink – 100km Option

Shaft Depths

Slope E-I [%]

Slope E-C [%]

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Total depth (of all 12 shafts)

Shaft depths % Reduction

0.65 0.65 304 266 257 272 132 392 354 268 170 315 221 260 3211 0%

1.4 0.41/1.4 304 266 216 218 128 350 307 226 166 315 221 260 2977 7%

2.4 0.41/1.4 304 266 216 218 110 290 241 166 157 315 221 260 2764 14%

Triple Kink - 100km Option

Point APoint B

Point C

Point D

Point E

Point FPoint G

Point L

Point K

Point J

Point I

Point H

Kinks

Triple Kink - 100km Option

Option 2a [100km] – triple kink [E-I = 2.4% E-C = 0.41/1.4 % B-K = 0.75/0.5% ]

Option 2a [100km] – triple kink [E-I = 1.4% E-C = 0.41/1.4 B-K = 0.75/0.5% ]

Triple Kink – 100km Option

Shaft Depths

Slope E-I [%]

Slope E-C [%]

Slope B-K [%]

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Total depth (of all 12 shafts)

Shaft depths % Reduction

0.65 0.65 0.65 304 266 257 272 132 392 354 268 170 315 221 260 3211 0%

1.4 0.41/1.4 -0.75/-0.5 246 242 216 218 128 350 307 226 166 315 179 187 2780 13%

2.4 0.41/1.4 -0.75/-0.5 246 242 216 218 110 290 241 166 157 315 179 187 2567 20%

Note: the gradients between E-C & B-K are a function of a rotation around the x-x & y-y axis of the tunnel.

Conclusion• Single kink possible total shaft depth reductions (kink between points E-I):

• 4% with a maximum slope limit of 1.4%• 11% with a maximum slope of 2.4%

• Double kink possible total shaft depth reductions (kink between points E-I & C-E): • 7% with a maximum slope limit of 1.4%• 14% with a maximum slope of 2.4%

• Triple kink possible total shaft depth reductions (kink between points E-I, C-E & B-K):• 13% with a maximum slope limit of 1.4%• 20% with a maximum slope of 2.4%

OverallThere is a clear opportunity for a kink in the FCC tunnel to reduce the depth of some of the most problematic shafts. The benefit to CE could be a reduction of around 5-20% in total shaft depths. However, the greatest advantage to CE may be to use a kink as a method to mitigate issues with cavern construction at large depths, rock squeezing in the tunnel and the removal of excavated material.

Overview of MDI Meeting – Experimental Caverns

• Cavern Access Options

• CATIA Cavern Example Models

Cavern AccessShaft (vertical) vs. Inclined tunnel?

2800m

395m

3o

Shaft~400m

Cavern AccessShaft (vertical) vs. Inclined tunnel?

2800m

395m

3o

Inclined tunnel

~3000m6%

Cavern AccessOption 2 - Twin Solenoid Access options

Ø28m shaft

• Ø26m circular modules + 0.8m clearance for safety• ~1.5x diameter of CMS shaft (Ø20m)• Moderate CE challenge at depths ~200m• Very high CE challenge at depths 300m-400m

Roadheader 28mx7.5m inclined tunnel

• Ø28m Extremely large diameter tunnel• Too large for Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM)• Possible construction method could be roadheader

excavation to create a rectangular cross-section (28m x 7.5m)

• Height of tunnel = 7.5m; assumes flatbed truck (2m) + ventilation ducts on tunnel ceiling (1m) + for safety (0.5m)

Cavern AccessOption 3 - Toroid Access options

Ø22m shaft

• Moderate CE challenge at depths ~200m• Very high CE challenge at depths 300m-400m

Roadheader 5mx14m inclined tunnel

• Coil height (10.1m) + flatbed truck (2m) + ventilation duct (1m) + safety (0.9m) = 14m

• Width of coil/diameter of tube?

Space to rotate final coil must be considered in any access option

14m

5m

1m

2m

10.1m

0.9m

CERN SITG VUE

BA5

Twin Solenoid cavern with shaft

First Draft

Alcoves will be removed in the updated CATIA model

CATIA Model: ST0664602_01

36 m

38 m

65 m

Ø28 m

Twin Solenoid cavern with shaftDetector Option

Detector design

Shaft/tunnel diameter [m]

Required dimensions for installation [m]

Width of metallic

structures [m]

Cavern dimensions (LxWxH) [m]

Span [m]

Option 1 Solenoid Option 2 Twin Solenoid 28 65x30x36 8 65x38x36 38Option 3 Toroid 14 86x36x42 8 86x44x42 44

First Draft

Twin Solenoid cavern with shaft

First Draft

CERN SITG VUE

BA5

Toroid cavern with inclined tunnel

First Draft

Alcoves will be removed in the updated CATIA model

CATIA Model: ST0664667_01

42 m

44 m

86 m Ø14 m

Toroid cavern with inclined tunnelDetector Option

Detector design

Shaft/tunnel diameter [m]

Required dimensions for installation [m]

Width of metallic

structures [m]

Cavern dimensions (LxWxH) [m]

Span [m]

Option 1 Solenoid Option 2 Twin Solenoid 28 65x30x36 8 65x38x36 38Option 3 Toroid 14 86x36x42 8 86x44x42 44

First Draft

MDI meeting Friday 29th May 2015

CE update will be given on : ·         Typical underground service caverns from the CLIC study·         First results from putting a ‘kink’ in the tunnel, and its impact on Experimental Cavern depths·         Experimental Cavern design : next steps

Update on optimisation of tunnel footprint and locationInfrastructure & Operation 27th May 2015