FCC Infrastructure & Operation studies: progress and outlook Philippe Lebrun, CERN on behalf of the FCC Infrastructure & Operation Working Group FCC Week

FCC Infrastructure & Operation studies:progress and outlook

Philippe Lebrun, CERNon behalf of the FCC Infrastructure & Operation Working

Group

FCC Week 2015Washington D.C., 23-27 March 2015

http://doc.cern.ch/archive/electronic/cern/others/PHO/photo-bul/bul-pho-2007-046_01.jpg

FCC Week 2015 - Washington, DC 2

Scope

• The physics, detector and accelerator physics & technology parts of the FCC conceptual design are essentially site-independent

• They are to be complemented by a study of the implantation and infrastructure for the 80 km to 100 km perimeter ring in the neighbourhood of CERN

• This would permit optimal re-use of the existing infrastructure, a strong asset of a CERN-based FCC

• The study should also address integration, installation, computing and control, as well as operational aspects including reliability/availability, power/energy consumption and safety

• Together with the detector and accelerator parts of the FCC conceptual design, the infrastructure study is an essential input to the cost, schedule and risk assessments, as well as to the future environmental impact assessment

Ph. Lebrun



Basic input to FCC Infrastructure & Operation

Quasi-circular tunnel of 80 to 100 km perimeter

Ph. Lebrun

e+ e- colliderCollision energy 90 to 350 GeVVery high luminosity

Hadron collider16 T 100 TeV for 100 km20 T 100 TeV for 80 km



Infrastructure is a cost driverCost structure of high-energy accelerators

Ph. Lebrun

CLIC 500 ≡ “green field”

LHC “green field” (reconstructed)



Accelerator design roadmap“Waterfall” vs “concurrent” engineering

Ph. Lebrun

Acceleratorphysics

Acceleratortechnology

Infrastructure

Cost & Schedule

Environmental impact

SafetyPower & Energy

Performance targets

Reliability & availability



Infrastructure & Operation topics

• Geology & civil engineering• Integration• Electrical distribution• Cryogenics• Cooling & ventilation• Transport & handling• Installation• Survey & alignment• Controls• Power/energy consumption• Availability & reliability• General safety• Radiation protection

Ph. Lebrun



Topographical constraints

Plaine du genevois350 – 550 m/mer

Mon

t Sal

ève

550

- 138

0

Lac Léman300 – 372 m/mer

Mandallaz Bornes – Aravis600 – 2500 m/mer

Plateau du Mont Sion550 – 860 m/mer

Pré-Alpes du Chablais600 – 2500 m/mer

Vallon des Usses380 – 500 m/mer

Vallée du Rhône330 m/merValée de l’A

rve

400 – 600 m/m

erM

assi

f du

Jura

550

– 17

20 m

/mer

Ph. Lebrun

___ 260 m/mer

___ 170 m/mer

Rhône & Usses canyons

Lake crossing

Evires pass



Geological context

Ph. Lebrun

MOLASSE(Grès, Marnes)

TERRAINS MEUBLES(Moraine, Alluvions)

Karsts

CALCAIRE



Updated model of molasse layer(from test drillings and seismic logs)

Ph. Lebrun

Tertiary-quaternary interface(top of molasse layer)

Cretaceous-tertiary interface(bottom of molasse layer)



Hydrography

Ph. Lebrun

Aquifers in quaternary layers Karstic networks…

…more or less plugged off!



Man-made hazards

Ph. Lebrun

Gas pipe-lines



3D digital model of local geologyGIS decision-aid tool for tunnel siting

Ph. Lebrun

ARUP



FCC 93 km perimeterPossible siting

Ph. Lebrun



FCC 100 km perimeterPossible siting

Ph. Lebrun



Geology & Civil Engineering

• Next steps– Optimization algorithms (maximum gradient and/or genetic) for

optimization of tunnel siting based on 3D model and GIS tool– CE studies on tunnelling options (shallow crossing of lake), access

shaft/ramp construction, deep underground caverns (risk of rock convergence), environmental aspects (handling of spoil), cost

– Design criteria for experimental areas (underground caverns and surface buildings), functional analysis and preliminary layout drawings

– Design criteria for technical areas (underground caverns and surface buildings), functional analysis and preliminary layout drawings

Ph. Lebrun

J. Osborne, “Civil engineering & geology”, Thursday 26 March, 8h30



Tunnel footprint

• 4 values of perimeter considered, rational multiples of LHC taken as high-energy booster for FCC-hh– 80.0 km– 86.6 km– 93.3 km– 100.0 km

• Arc radius of curvature maximized– FCC-hh: to reach maximum beam energy at achievable magnetic field– FCC-ee: to reach maximum luminosity at 50 MW/beam synchrotron power

• Geometry– Experimental areas “clustered” and separated by short arcs, away from

injection and collimation regions– Long straight sections for IRs and RF– Distribute RF in LSS to limit energy sawtoothing (FCC-ee) – Extended straight sections for FCC-hh collimation and extraction– Dispersion suppressors on either side of LSS and ESS– Very short technical straight sections between long arcs (FCC-hh)

Ph. Lebrun



Allocation of Straight Sections FCC-hh

Ph. Lebrun

INJ EXP

INJ

EXP EXPEXP

COLL + EXTRCOLL + EXTR

SECTOR FEED/RETURN

SECTOR FEED/RETURN

SECTORFEED/RETURN

SECTOR FEED/RETURN



Allocation of Straight Sections FCC-ee

Ph. Lebrun

INJ + RF EXP + RF

EXP + RF EXP + RF

COLL + EXTR + RF

COLL + EXTR + RF

EXP + RF

INJ + RF

RF? RF?

RF? RF?



Space allocation in tunnelfrom functional and accessibility analysis

Ph. Lebrun

FunctionsMachine

zoneTechnical

zoneSafety zone

House accelerator(s) XInstall accelerator(s) X XMaintain accelerator(s) X XTransport accelerator components XAlign accelerator components XDrain water ingress X X XDistribute raw water X XDistribute cooling water (demineralized) X XDistribute chilled water X XDistribute fire-fighting media X X XDistribute compressed air X XDistribute cryogenic fluids X XDistribute HV electrical power XDistribute MV/LV electrical power X XVentilate: normal & emergency X X XAllow personnel normal access/egress X X XTransport personnel from/to access points XAllow emergency egress local local XEnsure general safety of personnel XEnsure radiation protection safety of personnel localEnsure general safety of equipment XEnsure radiation protection safety of equipment XHouse accelerator protection equipment ? XHouse magnet power converters XHouse magnet protection equipment XHouse RF powering equipment localHouse vacuum powering equipment XHouse geodetic monuments X ?House cooling equipment XHouse ventilation equipment XHouse electronic & control equipment ? XHouse power cables X XHouse signal cables X XHouse optical fibers ? XHouse wireless communication equipment ? X XHouse public address equipment ? ? ?House safety detection & warning equipment X X X

FUNCTIONALITY MATRIX

Operation modeMachine

zoneTechnical

zoneSafety zone

Long shutdown Y Y YIndividual system tests Y w. restrictions Y YCooldown/Warmup Y w. restrictions Y YTechnical stop Y Y YCold check-out, technical systems on Y Y YCold check-out, machine powered N Y YBeam interruption, technical systems on Y Y YBeam interruption, machine powered N Y YBeam commissioning, pilot beams N N NOperation with beam N N N

ACCESSIBILITY MATRIX

Machine

zone

Safetyzone

Technical zone


FCC Week 2015 - Washington, DC 20Ph. Lebrun

FCC-hh arcsSingle tunnel, longitudinal ventilation



FCC-hh arcsDouble tunnel, longitudinal ventilation

Ph. Lebrun



Low-field dipoles for FCC-eeBenefits of a twin magnet

Ph. Lebrun

Return bars to contain stray field

Separate magnets

Twin magnetHalf the conductor volume, half the power consumption

Compatibility with handling of synchrotron radiation?

e+ e-

e+ e-



FCC-ee twin dipoleSaves transverse space, capital cost and power

Ph. Lebrun

A. Milanese

• Parallel field in both apertures• Powered by 4 bus bars instead of 8 for separate magnets



FCC-ee arcsSingle tunnel, small beam spacing

Ph. Lebrun



FCC-ee long straight sectionsSingle tunnel + klystron/modulator gallery

Ph. Lebrun



FCC-hh cryogenicsFirst estimate of cryogenic heat loads

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Tcm = 4.5 K Tcm = 1.9 K Tcm = 4.5 K Tcm = 1.9 K

FCC-hh 100 km FCC-hh 83 km

Arc

equi

vale

nt re

frig

erati

on c

apac

ity [k

W @

4.5

K]

Beam screen Thermal shield Cold mass CL

LHC cryoplant

State-of-the-art cryoplant

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tcm = 4.5 K Tcm = 1.9 K Tcm = 4.5 K Tcm = 1.9 K

FCC-hh 100 km FCC-hh 83 kmTo

tal e

lect

rical

pow

er to

refr

iger

ator

[MW

]

LHC installed power

Per arc For FCC-hh (12 arcs)

Ph. Lebrun

L. Tavian, “Overview of FCC cryogenics”, Thursday 26 March, 10h30



FCC-hh cryogenicsCooling the beam screen

• Optimum beam screen temperature results from minimizing total entropic load

• For cold mass at 1.9 K, the optimum beam screen temperature is around 70-80 K but– Surface impedance increases with T– Forbidden ranges due to vacuum

instabilities• Favor the 40-60 K window• This represents the largest load on

the refrigeration plant (~100 MWe)• Investigate non-conventional

solutions for high efficiency (Turbo-Brayton with Ne-He mixtures)

Ph. Lebrun

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 50 100 150 200

Tota

l pow

er to

refr

iger

ator

[W/m

per

bea

m]

Beam-screen temperature, Tbs [K]

Tcm=1.9 K, 28.4 W/m

Tcm=1.9 K, 44.3 W/m

Tcm=4.5 K, 28.4 W/m

Tcm=4.5 K, 44.3 W/m

Forbidden by vacuum and/or by surface impedance

L. Tavian, “Cooling the FCC beam screens”, Thursday 26 March, 11h30

S. Klöppel, “Cryogenic refrigeration with Ne-He mixtures: roadmap and first results of the TU Dresden study”, Thursday

26 March, 11h10



Options for FCC cryogenic architecture

Layout 1Arc cooling

12 cryoplants6 technical sites

Layout 2½ arc cooling12 cryoplants

12 technical sites

Layout 3½ arc cooling24 cryoplants

12 technical sites

• Cryoplant unit size beyond state-of-the-art• Estimate 50 to 100 kW @ 4.5 K, including 10 kW @ 1.8 K

Ph. Lebrun

F. Millet, “Large-capacity helium refrigeration: from state-of-the-art towards FCC reference solutions”, Thursday 26 March, 10h50

F. Millet, “Study of a magnetic refrigeration stage”, Thursday 26 March, 9h25



Cryogenics

• Next steps– Heat loads: estimate heat inleaks based on conceptual design of machine

cryostats, refine assessment of dynamic heat loads following progress of accelerator systems definition

– Cooling schemes: explore variants for cooling schemes of superconducting accelerator components, beam screens/beam pipes, including non-conventional working fluids

– Cryoplants: investigate options for increase of unit capacity and efficiency, including impacts on operability, CAPEX and OPEX; study implantation at ground level and underground

– Cryogenic distribution: define pipe sizes, conceptual mechanical and thermal design of distribution lines, explore options of integrated piping vs external cryoline

– Cryogen inventory: address issues of cryogen inventory management (initial fill, thermal transients, losses)

Ph. Lebrun



Vertical transportLimits on elevator and crane heights

Ph. Lebrun

Lift travel of ~ 500 m considered as maximum feasible with steel cable (safety factor of 12)

Recent development of carbon-fiber ropes (KONE lifts) opens the way for lift travel of 1000 m or more

Crane lifting height of ~ 3000 m currently feasible (offshore, mining)

Few 100 m problematic with standard configuration EOTs



Horizontal transportExplore contactless powering of electrical

vehicles

Ph. Lebrun

Continuous during travel

Battery charge at parking

Supercapacitor recharge at periodic stops


http://primove.bombardier.com/typo3temp/GB/1e2d675bd8.jpg


Personnel and equipment transport

• Next steps– Design options for elevators and cranes with large lifting heights– Technological watch on contactless guiding and powering of electrical

vehicles– Study of “high”-velocity people mover in safe area of tunnel– Vertical/horizontal traffic & duty cycle optimization for access and

installation phases– Remote/automated intervention systems– Robotics/remote handling for radiation-hot areas

Ph. Lebrun

I. Ruhl, “Transport & handling considerations”, Thursday 26 March, 8h50



Operational aspectsControls, RAMS, power consumption

Beam dump

Setup(Ramp down and Preparation for

next fill)

Injection

Ramp

Squeeze

Collide

Stable beams

Ene

rgy

Ph. Lebrun

Ph. Gayet, “Control concepts for future circular accelerators: why it is not too early to speak about them”, Thursday 26

March, 13h30

Scale from LHC experience !



Reliability, availability, maintainabilityLHC experience, from Run 1 to HL-LHC

R2E MITIGATIONSHL TARGET

2012 AVAILABILITY

P. Sollander, “A key attribute of a Future Circular Collider:availability performance (RAMS)”, Thursday 26 March, 9h10

Ph. Lebrun



Power and energy consumption

• Two approaches– Analytical: proper when PBS/WBS is known, from elementary values to

aggregates by system to complete facility – Scaling from existing project: adapted to obtain a first estimate, must

choose reference project(s) and scaling laws• At present, use only scaling to get first estimates enabling to assess

design options for utilities: cooling, ventilation and electricity distribution

• Reference installations– FCC-hh: LHC– FCC-ee: LEP, LEP2, recent developments in SC RF

• From power to energy– Investigate partial operation and standby modes– Explore options for energy efficiency and energy management

Ph. Lebrun

R. Steerenberg, “Preliminary power estimates for FCC-hh”, Thursday 26 March, 9h30



UtilitiesFeeding FCC from the HV network (Source: RTE)

Ph. Lebrun



Utilities

• Next steps– Electrical: collect requirements for normal, emergency and no-break

power for the different systems; explore on-site and off-site distribution options (staging of voltages, network architecture including redundancy, location of substations, routing of lines)

– Cooling and ventilation: collect requirements from technical systems, define different modes of operation and standby, establish general architecture of cooling (primary & secondary) and ventilation networks, study options for heat rejection and/or recovery

Ph. Lebrun



Safety & environmentLongitudinal ventilation with smoke extraction

Length of Smoke Compartment

Dynamic Confinement

Extraction duct Ø 1.2 m

Ph. Lebrun

u

Lb

Region IFr ≤ 0.9

Region II0.9 ≤ Fr ≤ 10

Region IIIFr > 10

H

Fo

rce

dve

ntil

atio

n

Stratification Mixing



Safety & environment

• Next steps– Develop safety studies in underground areas (MCA, fire containment,

smoke/helium extraction, ODH, emergency access & egress)– Optimize sizing of cryogenic relief devices in two-phase & supercritical

flow– Calculate radiation maps in and around tunnel(s) for personnel and

equipment safety– Study radiological aspects of modified LHC as FCC-hh injector– Address environment protection, radiological & conventional– Prepare environmental impact study

Ph. Lebrun

A. Henriques, “Lessons learnt and new concepts for conventional safety in FCC”, Thursday 26 March, 13h50

M. Widorski, “Optimised civil engineering layout for radiation protection in FCC”, Thursday 26 March, 14h10



Summary

• Substantial progress in FCC Infrastructure & Operation studies, concurrently with developments in accelerator design and technology– Siting studies based on topography, hydrology and geological model of

underground– Tunnel footprint and machine integration in tunnel cross-sections

investigated– First sizing of cryogenic systems has allowed to identify areas for

developments and establish collaborations– Unconventional transport and handling options studied– Operational aspects, including reliability, addressed via experience with

existing machines (LHC) and scaling to FCC– Power and energy issues are being addressed, prerequisite to design of

electrical distribution and cooling/ventilation systems – Novel safety aspects resulting from large size and high-energy and

luminosity performance of the FCC machines• In the second year of study, home in onto reference design of

machines (with variants) enabling to refine configuration and sizing of infrastructure systems

• Welcome further development of external collaborations on both site-specific and site-independent topics

Ph. Lebrun


Documents

FCC Infrastructure & Operation studies: progress and outlook Philippe Lebrun, CERN on behalf of the FCC Infrastructure & Operation Working Group FCC Week