Prsentation PowerPoint

1
EPIPHANY Conference at Cracow Physics in
Underground Laboratories and its connection with
LHC - 6 to 8 January 2010 - Fréjus site for
LAGUNA Luigi Mosca CEA-Saclay and
LSM-Fréjus )
2

• Present LSM (Laboratoire Souterrain de Modane)
• depth 4800 mwe, volume
  3500 m3
• Main Experiments
• - EDELWEISS II (Dark Matter direct detection)
• - NEMO 3 (Double b Decay) --
• - Weak radioactivity measurements for different
  purposes
• (15 Germanium test-benches)

3
Project of a first extension of the present LSM
(volume 60 000 m3) mainly for the next
generation of Dark Matter and Double b Decay
experiments
4

• First a brief reminder of
• LAGUNA
• as a European cooperation
• and as an FP7 Design Study Network

5

• European Cooperation Project LAGUNA
• (30 Institutions in 10 countries)
• 
  Grand Unification
• Proton Decay
  up to 1035 years lifetime
• mainly to study
  Supernovae (burst relics)
• the
  Sun (solar ?s )
• Neutrinos from
  Cosmic rays (atmospheric ?s)
• the Earth (geo ?s )
• Neutrino properties accelerators
  (super-beam and beta-beam)
• and
  Astrophysics

6

• In the LAGUNA Cooperation
• the main Physics goals are common,
• while 3 different detection techniques are
  proposed
• 3 detector types GLACIER, LENA, and MEMPHYS,
  and
• 7 candidate sites Boulby (UK), Fréjus
  (France/Italy), Umbria (Italy), LSC (Spain),
  Pyhäsalmi (Finland), Sunlab (Poland), Slanic
  (Romenia)
• There is a strong complementarity
• among the 3 detector approaches,
• to be better investigated inside LAGUNA

7

• The 3 detectors RD and physics
• GLACIER (Liquid Argon TPC) --gt Dorota Stefan
  talk
• LENA (Liquid Scintillator) --gt Michael Wurm
  talk
• MEMPHYS (Water Cherenkov) -gt Michela Marafini
  talk

8
80 m
9
An example of complementarity
L. Mosca
EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010
9
10
CERN
Pyhhäsalmi 2300 Km
Bulby mine 1050 Km
SUNLAB 950 Km
130 Km
Unirea Salt Mine
630 Km
CASO
659 Km
11

• LAGUNA as an FP7 Design Study Network
• Four Working Packages
• WP1 Management and coordination
• WP2 Underground Infrastructures and engineering
  (including
• tanks and liquids handling)
• WP3 Safety and environmental and socio-economic
  issues
• WP4 Science Impact and Outreach
• Main deliverable a conceptual design report
  on the feasibility
• of a megaton-scale underground infrastructure to
  allow policy
• makers to define the European strategy in this
  field of research

12

• Main topics to be addressed in the feasibility
  study for each site and each type of experiment
  on the basis of their requirements
• 1) determination of the best shape for very large
  cavities and of their possible dimensions (using
  simulations constrained
• by the knowledge of the type, structure
  and stress of the rock)
• 2) optimisation of the access to these cavities
  (tunnels, shafts, local bypasses, )
• 3) study of the basic equipment and facilities
  ventilation and air-filtering and conditioning,
  liquid production (if any) and transportation
  and continuous purification factories (in
  connection with WP3), electrical power supply,
  clean rooms, computing facilities, etc.
• 4) incorporation of the relevant safety
  conditions and equipments (for long term
  stability of the cavities, for fire, liquid leaks
  and evaporation risks, etc), in connection with
  WP3.
• 5) evaluation of the cost and time of realisation
  of the different parts of each sites
  infrastructure (and also maintenance cost)

13

• Now let us consider the study() (well
  advanced)
• of the Fréjus site as a candidate for the LAGUNA
  Project
• () by the Lombardi Company

14
14
15
(No Transcript)
16
130 Km
16
17
Example of possible location of LAGUNA detectors
near the existing infrastructure
FRANCE
LSM (1982)
Safety tunnel (2009 under construction)
LAGUNA detector (example with MEMPHYS)
ITALY
Road tunnel (1974 1978)
18
Caverns shape and dimensions for the 3 detectors
candidates
 

• Volumes of excavations
• GLACIER 160'000 m3
• LENA 111'000 m3
• MEMPHYS 838'000 m3 (3 caverns)

L. Mosca
18
19

• GLACIER

20

• LENA

21

• MEMPHYS

22
GLACIER Final lining

• Thickness 1.5 m (roof and vertical wall)

23
LENA Final lining

• Thickness 0.7 m (roof and vertical wall)
• In vertical walls to be installed proceeding
  bottom-up
• Thickness of the lower part (20 m) increased to
  1.2 m

24
MEMPHYS Final lining

• Thickness 1.5 m (roof and vertical wall), 2.3 m
  in the lower part (15 m)

25
Roof excavation sequence (GLACIER)
26
Geomechanical feasibility

• GLACIER, LENA and MEMPHYS option are all feasible
  at Fréjus site.
• The geomechanical feasibility remains valid also
  by a small change of the size of the excavation,
  both in the diameter and height of the cavern.
• The geomechanical conditions at Frejus are well
  known and further investigations are basically
  not required. The safety tunnel under
  construction will provide further information.
• The support system proposed guarantees the long
  term stability and the absence of significant
  time dependent displacement of the cavity.
• The support system proposed has sufficient
  reserve to ensure the stability of the cavern in
  case of earthquake.

27
Mechanical interaction with rock (MEMPHYS)
28
Thermal interaction with rock (MEMPHYS)
ROCK T 30C WATER T 13C
HEAT ENERGY TRANSFER (Q)
Solution with the insulation
Solution without the insulation
29
Tank feasibility and tank construction

• The solution with tank placed in contact with the
  rock mass is feasible at Fréjus site for LENA and
  MEMPHYS option. For GLACIER option an independent
  tank is preferable.
• The solution with tank placed in contact with the
  rock mass can save the amount of steel needed
  (7200 kg for MEMPHYS option, 3600 kg for LENA
  option).
• Both the solution with the insulation and without
  insulation are feasible at Fréjus site.
• In case of absence of water circulation in the
  rock mass, the solution without the insulation is
  preferable, from an economic point of view.

30

• Concerning the distance of a given site from CERN
• two different strategies can be considered
• (see Mauro Mezzetto talk)
• a) short long-baseline (with low n energy)
  
• - low background (absence of inelastic
  events)
• - negligible matter effect (good for a
  clean CP-V measurement)
• - mass hierarchy determined by
  atmospheric n events
• - feasible with the present CERN
  accelerators (PS and SPS)
• long long-baseline (with high n energy)
• - higher background due to inelastic
  events
• - mass hierarchy determination possible
  without atmospheric n,
• but need to disentangle it from CP-Violation
  effects
• - need more important upgrade of the CERN
  accelerators

31
A possible schedule for a European Lab. at Fréjus
decision for cavity digging decision for SPL
construction decision for EURISOL site
32

• Conclusions and outlook
• - The main physics goals are common inside
  the LAGUNA Cooperation
• - The LAGUNA programme aims at otherwise
  inaccessible fundamental phenomena
• - The 3 detector approaches are
  complementary
• - LAGUNA is a European cooperation, but it
  is also open to the world community !
• - The FRÉJUS site (at the French/Italian
  border)
• - is the deepest in Europe (4800 mwe)
• - GLACIER, LENA and MEMPHYS options
  are all possible from the
• geo-mechanical point of view
  (optimal type of rock) at this depth
• - independent horizontal access via
  the safety tunnel (f 8m)
• - the long-distance access is optimal
  by highways, TGVs and airports
• - the distance from CERN (130 Km) is
  OK (even if not fully optimized)
• for a Q13 and CP-Violation
  strategy with a short long-baseline
• - strong support from the local
  authorities

33
and finally at EPIPHANY the Magi indicate to
us the direction that we have to follow
34

• DZIEKUJE !

35

• Back-up

36
Neutrino Background from Power Plants based on
2008 data W.H.Trzaska on behalf of the Finnish
LAGUNA Team(calculations by Kai Loo)
Measured spectra of reactor neutrinos for
U-235,Pu-239 andPu-241 were used. For U-238
calculated spectra were used. Event rates were
calculated for a KamLand-type scintillator det.