LAGUNA
WG5: Sites

Juha Peltoniemi

Presented in LAGUNA meeting

Zürich 12th October 2006

LAGUNA WG5: SITES

Members:

Juha Peltoniemi (convener), Finland

Neil Spooner, UK

Luigi Mosca, France

Jan Kisiel/Agnieszka Zalewska, Poland

Representatives of other possible sites welcome

Purpose:

Study the feasibility of very large excavations

Compare local conditions

Pre-select suitable sites

Work closely with ILIAS-N2-WG1

And respective wg in ILIAS-next

Sites and experiments

Application must be written strategically as open as possible

Milestones and Work Packages:

Comparison chart

Site Study

Preliminary design

Detail Design

Recommendation of technical constructibility

An outline design

Final plans

-2008

2007-2009

2008-2009

2009-2011

Select sites/ experiments for technical study

Select sites/expts for next phase

Decide to build the experiment

Scientific site comparison study

General Feasibility Study

Recommendation of realisability for given site

Select site/expt for further design

Scope of

LAGUNA

WG5

1. Feasibility Study: General Layout

Tasks:

Define the detailed requirements of the experiments

Investigate the possibilities to locate the experiments in the local bedrock

Make a preliminary prediction of the construction costs

Produce propaganda material

Deliverable:

Recommendation of technical constructibility of the experiments in the considered sites

Decision that needs this information:

Select the experiments/sites for the next phase

2. Feasibility Study: Site Study

Tasks:

Investigation of the suitability of the rock of the considered site

Studies of the realisations of the experiments on the conditions of the sites

Prediction of costs

Deliverable:

Recommendation of the realisability of the experiments in the chosen locations

Consequtive decision:

Select the experiment/site for further design

3. Preliminary Design

Tasks:

Investigation of the rockbed of the sites (sampling & analysis)

Process planning of experiments (interface expt-environment)

Architectural design

Rock construction planning (rock mechanics, rock removal,...)

Structure planning (foundations, supports, hooks, tanks, ...)

Planning of building technics (air, water, power, heat/cool, ...)

Equipment planning

Deliverable:

An outline design, with an estimate of construction costs for each case

”A conceptual design report”

Consecutive decisions:

Select the experiment and the site to be done (first)

By this community

Fund and realise the experiment

By funding agencies

4. Detail Design

Tasks:

As above in 3, but in full detail

Deliverable:

Final construction plans

Call for tenders for the contract

This phase typically done after final decisions

included for the construction costs

Not within this Design Study

Budget

The budget prediction for the planning of the cavity:

Preliminary information from Finnish consults, not a bid.

Includes the design of the tank (like a fuel tank)

Design of underground labs is expensive

Must be done very well

So far very large contingency

Well planned is half done

Clearly cannot do parallel 3*5 studies to the end

Need to restrict after first and second phases to 1-3 studies

Total for 5 sites may not be 5 times above: Synergies achievable

Consult work

Need to hire external consults for planning

Unrealistic to do it ourselves

Consults may participate either as (if there is choice at all):

Partner: true costs, no profit

Subcontractor: European-wide call for tenders

International coherence mandatory

Different consults must commit to co-operate

One common consult agency for all?

How to organise local conditions?

To get better cost estimates, we have to define our goals and conditions very exactly.

Previous studies:

Frejus pre-feasibility study for MEMPHYS: ca 100 kEUR

CUPP pre-feasibility study for smaller halls: ca 90 kEUR

Final remarks

Budget request:

Mostly external contractors/non-scientific partners

May need some technical/scientific staff

Minor networking costs

Min 4 MEUR (already on the higher side)

Max >45 MEUR (beyond all realism)

Local contributions mandatory (at least 25 %)

The proposed planning cost includes a tank:

As a traditional fuel tank, as it is usually integrated in rock

Anything beyond that is extra

Overlap with WG2

Old/reserve slides follow

Site selection issues

Requirements to be defined

Background

Depth (muons)

Radioactivity

Size of cavities

Logistics

Services and supplies (e.g. Liquid argon)

Conditions in the depth

Temperature, humidity etc

(Distance to beam source)

Properties of sites to be considered

Rock quality

Constructivity of large (and small) caverns

Access

Existing infrastructures

Co-operation with host infrastructure

Road tunnel, mine, ...

Bedrock zones in the Earth

Red: very old bedrock, hard crystalline rock: usually very good

Green: mobile belts (mountains etc), hard rock: fair/variable

White: sedimentary covers (soft rock): often bad

Local variations within each zone

Rock types

Hard rock (e.g. Granites)

The hardness of the rock not a problem for excavation

The most stable environment

Possible to excavate very big caverns

Water tight deep (shallow parts wet)

U & Th contents vary, may be high

Soft rock (sediments, limestone, sandstone etc)

Challenging environment

Water conductor

Salt

Very low radioactivity (U&Th)

Very dry

Easy and fast to dig new caverns

Long terms stability of large caverns problematic

Very large stable caverns virtually impossible

Nuclear reactor background

Relevant mostly for LENA

Reactor fluxes estimated globally

Marine reactors irrelevant?

Prediction for 2015

2005

Galactic supernovae

Possibility that the Earth shadows a galactic supernova

The norther the better

Small difference

60 %

58 %

57 %

56 %

53 %

Neutrino oscillation physics

Suitable baseline may be important

Many detectors may reserve neutrino beams

Beam source (neutrino factory, betabeam, superbeam) not yet decided, and not to be decided in the near future

Optimal baseline still an open issue

Not to include beam aspects to LAGUNA proposal

Separate projects and applications?

CUPP - Underground Physics

Pasi Terästi

2003-02-20T11:01:58

Juha Peltoniemi

Juha Peltoniemi