Experimental Areas Studies Lessons learnt at CMS M Gastal & CMS Technical Coordination (A Ball, W Zeuner) 10/06/[email protected]

Experimental Areas Studies Lessons learnt at CMS

M Gastal & CMS Technical Coordination (A Ball, W Zeuner)

10/06/2009 [email protected]

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

10/06/2009 [email protected] 2

Agenda

1. The CMS experimental Area – an overview2. Key innovative features validated at CMS3. Additional features that would have been

beneficial4. What would we do differently?

10/06/2009 [email protected]

1. The CMS experimental area


UXC55 L,W,H 53m 26m 25m

USC55 L,W,H 83m 18m 15m

PM54 Ø, D 12.1m 100m

PX56 Ø, D 20.5m 100m



SX5 L,W,H 142m 22m 23m

SDX5 L,W,H 36m 17m 15.5m

To be lowered to 15.5m

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


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 HallAdjacent buildings to host technical facilities needed for detector commissioning.Two 80 tons cranes needed for the assembly operations


→ 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



→ 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



Routing from USC55 to UXC55 goes through shafts, trenches & cross passages

→ Apart from the central barrel of CMS, all elements are mobile. Connecting them to services is done through mobile cable chains and patch panels



Trenches underneath the UXC55 floor host the cable chains


Design by CMS Integration group, April 2005.

→ 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 roomsCV roomEL safe roomDAQ rooms (including IT and safety systems)



This cavern has to be manned at all times1 access shaft for personnel

→ 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


2. Key innovative features validated at CMS

This fast opening relies on Air PadsThe floor of the UXC55 has therefore been foreseen to include metal plates to provide appropriate flatness.

→ 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



→ 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



→ 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


3. Additional features that would have been beneficial(was the budget found for it…)

→ 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



Parking alcove

→ 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




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 toPM54 lift

→ 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.


4. What would we do differently?(should we build a second CMS…)

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



Documents

Experimental Areas Studies Lessons learnt at CMS M Gastal & CMS Technical Coordination (A Ball, W Zeuner) 10/06/[email protected]