L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 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 )
Jan 29, 2016
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 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
)
• Present LSM (Laboratoire Souterrain de Modane) :
depth ≈ 4800 mwe, volume ≈ 3500 m3
• Main Experiments :
- EDELWEISS II (Dark Matter direct detection)
- NEMO 3 (Double Decay) --
- Weak radioactivity measurements for different purposes
(15 Germanium test-benches)
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 2
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 3
Project of a first extension of the present LSM (volume ≈ 60 000 m3) mainly for the next generation of Dark Matter and Double Decay experiments
First a brief reminder of
LAGUNA as a European cooperation
and as an FP7 Design Study Network
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 4
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 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
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 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
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 7
• The 3 detectors : R&D and physics
• GLACIER (Liquid Argon TPC) --> Dorota Stefan talk
• LENA (Liquid Scintillator) --> Michael Wurm talk
• MEMPHYS (Water Cherenkov) -> Michela Marafini talk
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 8
80 m
An example of complementarity :
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 9
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 10
130 Km
630 Km659 Km
Bulby mine: 1050 Km
SUNLAB 950 Km
Unirea Salt Mine
= CERN
CASO
Pyhhäsalmi 2300 Km
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
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 11
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 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 site’s infrastructure (and also maintenance cost)
Now let us consider the study(*) (well advanced)
of the Fréjus site as a candidate for the LAGUNA Project
(*) by the Lombardi Company
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 13
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 1414
0 1000 2000 3000
04 0002000 6 000 8 000
102
103
104
105
106
IMB
SOUDAN
CANFRANC
KAMIOKA
BOULBY MINE
GRAN SASSO
HOMESTAKE LSM
BAKSAN MONT BLANC
SUDBURY
Depth (meters)
Depth (meters of water equivalent)
(FINLANDE)
ST GOTHARD
(WIPP)
muon
flux
per
m2
and
per
year
( FRÉJUS )
4800
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 15
≈ 13 km (12 870 m)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
70 m x 70 m x 250 m
France Italy
Future Lab.
Present road Tunnel at Fréjus (grey)andfuture Tunnel (black) for safety (*) and for an independent access to the Fréjus Lab(s)______________________________________________________ (*) with 34 bypasses (shelters) connecting the two Tunnels
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 1616
130 Km
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 17
Example of possible location of LAGUNA detectors near the existing infrastructure
LSM(1982)
Road tunnel(1974 – 1978)
LAGUNA detector(example with MEMPHYS)
Safety tunnel(2009 – under construction)
FRANCE
ITALY
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 18L. Mosca 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)
GLACIER
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 19
LENA
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 20
MEMPHYS
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 21
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 22
GLACIER – Final lining
•Thickness: 1.5 m (roof and vertical wall)
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 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
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 24
MEMPHYS – Final lining•Thickness: 1.5 m (roof and vertical wall), 2.3 m in the lower part (15 m)
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 25
Roof excavation sequence (GLACIER)
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 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.
Mechanical interaction with rock (MEMPHYS)
FREE TANKTANK IN CONTACT WITH
ROCK
TOP THICKNESS
1.0 cm 1.0 cm
BOTTOM THICKNESS
15.7 cm 1.0 cm
STEELMASS
11‘170 kg 3‘970 kg
L. Mosca 27EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010
Thermal interaction with rock (MEMPHYS)
Solution with the insulation Solution without the insulation
ROCK: T = 30°C
WATER: T = 13°CHEAT ENERGY TRANSFER (Q)
L. Mosca 28EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 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 (7‘200 kg for MEMPHYS option, 3‘600 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.
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” energy) : - low background (absence of inelastic events)
- negligible matter effect (good for a clean CP-V measurement)
- “mass hierarchy” determined by atmospheric events
- feasible with the present CERN accelerators (PS and SPS)
• “long” long-baseline (with “high” energy) :
- higher background due to inelastic events
- “mass hierarchy” determination possible without atmospheric but need to disentangle it from CP-Violation effects
- need more important upgrade of the CERN accelerators
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 30
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 31
A possible schedule for a European Lab. at Fréjus
Year 2008 2012 2016 2020
Safety tunnel Excavation
Lab cavity ExcavationPS Study
detector PM R&D PMT production
Det.preparation InstallationOutside lab.
Non-acc.physics P-decay, SN
Superbeam Construction Superbeam
betabeam Beta beamConstruction
decision for cavity digging decision for SPL construction decision for EURISOL site
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 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 ( = 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 13 and CP-Violation strategy with a “short” long-baseline - strong support from the local authorities
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010
and finally at EPIPHANY the “Magi” indicate to us the direction that we have to follow …
33
DZIKUJ !
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 34
Back-up
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 35
L. Mosca EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 36
Neutrino Background from Power Plants based on 2008 data
W.H.Trzaska on behalf of the Finnish LAGUNA Team(calculations by Kai Loo)
+ 77
After 2012
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.