LIGO Experince in Site · In General:Based on the information provided in the proposals, information subsequently requested from proposers, information gathered in site visits and

Linear Collider JP-US Collaboration

1 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02

8th International Study Group

LIGOExperience

in Site Selection, Evaluation

and Characterization


2 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


•• Content Content •• What is all about What is all about

•• It is about LIGOIt is about LIGO•• Why should we care?Why should we care?

•• It is an Experience with some similarities It is an Experience with some similarities •• How it all happened How it all happened

•• ProcessProcess•• CriteriaCriteria•• EvaluationEvaluation•• CharacterizationCharacterization


3 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory(LIGO)

A scientific collaboration ofCalifornia Institute of TechnologyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyFunded byNational Science Foundation


4 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Aerial View of LIGO Hanford siteAerial View of LIGO Hanford site


5 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Introduction Introduction •• National Science Board (NSB) approved National Science Board (NSB) approved

LIGO ProposalLIGO Proposal in May 1990in May 1990•• NSB approved a LIGO NSB approved a LIGO site selection process site selection process

and criteriaand criteria in October 1990in October 1990•• Site SolicitationSite Solicitation was issued in Nov. 1990was issued in Nov. 1990•• Eighteen proposalsEighteen proposals received in March 1991received in March 1991•• NSF announcedNSF announced the two location of the LIGO the two location of the LIGO

Sites in February of 1992Sites in February of 1992


6 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Site selection processSite selection process•• To placed site solicitation announcement in To placed site solicitation announcement in

Commerce Business Daily (90 day response time)Commerce Business Daily (90 day response time)•• To appoint a committee to evaluate all proposed To appoint a committee to evaluate all proposed

sites for technical suitability according to the sites for technical suitability according to the Site Selection CriteriaSite Selection Criteria

•• Document analysis of each site ‘s performance Document analysis of each site ‘s performance relative to Site Selection Criteriarelative to Site Selection Criteria

•• Submit a written analysis and recommendations Submit a written analysis and recommendations for a set of site pairs to NSF for approvalfor a set of site pairs to NSF for approval

•• Arrange for final transfer of the selected siteArrange for final transfer of the selected site


7 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Site Selection CriteriaSite Selection CriteriaIn General:In General:

•• The Chosen site should permit the highest level The Chosen site should permit the highest level of research productivity and overall of research productivity and overall effectiveness, at a reasonable cost of effectiveness, at a reasonable cost of construction and operation, and with a minimal construction and operation, and with a minimal adverse impact on the environment.adverse impact on the environment.

•• Proposals should be evaluated against both Proposals should be evaluated against both technical requirements and cost considerations technical requirements and cost considerations using the following criteriausing the following criteria


8 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Site Selection CriteriaSite Selection Criteria1. Science Impact1. Science Impact

aa-- Local ParametersLocal Parameters

i. Site topography affecting LIGO facility critical parametersi. Site topography affecting LIGO facility critical parameters(angle between arms, arm length, slope of arms).(angle between arms, arm length, slope of arms).

ii. Natural and manii. Natural and man--made ground vibration spectra.made ground vibration spectra.

2. Existing Support Infrastructure2. Existing Support Infrastructureaa-- Accommodations for resident staff (housing, schools, Accommodations for resident staff (housing, schools,

shopping, etc.)shopping, etc.)bb-- Accommodations and access for visiting staff (lodging, Accommodations and access for visiting staff (lodging,

transportation, etc.)transportation, etc.)cc-- Local technical support (vendors, maintenance, fabrication, Local technical support (vendors, maintenance, fabrication,

etc. )etc. )


9 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


3. Construction Cost Impact3. Construction Cost Impact

aa-- Topography Topography

bb-- Soil and subsurface conditionsSoil and subsurface conditions

cc-- Hydrology and drainageHydrology and drainage

dd-- ClimateClimate

ee-- Environmental restrictionsEnvironmental restrictions

ff-- Accessibility (roads, rail, etc.)Accessibility (roads, rail, etc.)

gg-- Site utilities installation (power, water, sewage, etc.)Site utilities installation (power, water, sewage, etc.)

hh-- Proximity of soil waste and borrow areasProximity of soil waste and borrow areas

ii-- Local labor costsLocal labor costs


10 of n21- Asiri 06.24.02


4. Operation Cost Impact4. Operation Cost Impact

aa-- Cost of power Cost of power

bb-- Cost of local laborCost of local labor

cc-- Heating and cooling requirementsHeating and cooling requirements

dd-- Maintenance requirementsMaintenance requirements

ee-- Travel time and costs for visiting staffTravel time and costs for visiting staff

55-- Site Availability and Acquisition CostsSite Availability and Acquisition Costs

66-- Security of Facility and Access for Visiting StaffSecurity of Facility and Access for Visiting Staff


11 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


7. Risk Factors7. Risk Factors

aa-- Environmental risks (earthquakes, floods, windstorms_ Environmental risks (earthquakes, floods, windstorms_

bb-- Potential future manPotential future man--made noise from developmentmade noise from development

88-- Local ContributionsLocal Contributions

aa-- Site acquisition Site acquisition

bb-- ConstructionConstruction

cc-- OperationsOperations

dd-- Other financial or inOther financial or in--kind contributionskind contributions


12 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Site Evaluation CriteriaSite Evaluation CriteriaIn General:In General:Based on the information provided in the Based on the information provided in the proposals, information subsequently requested from proposals, information subsequently requested from proposers, information gathered in site visits and publicly proposers, information gathered in site visits and publicly available reports, rated each individual site against the available reports, rated each individual site against the Site Criteria.Site Criteria.Evaluations were made in five distinct Areas:Evaluations were made in five distinct Areas:•• Site availability and acquisition riskSite availability and acquisition risk•• Scientific suitabilityScientific suitability•• Construction suitabilityConstruction suitability•• Operations suitabilityOperations suitability•• Risks from environmental sources or future developmentRisks from environmental sources or future development


13 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Site Evaluation Process:Site Evaluation Process:•• Site availability and acquisition riskSite availability and acquisition risk

•• Acquisition risk was rated as Acquisition risk was rated as “low”, “moderate” or “high”,“low”, “moderate” or “high”,based on degree of uncertainty in whether the proposer or based on degree of uncertainty in whether the proposer or LIGO could acquire land rights to the site in LIGO could acquire land rights to the site in a timely fashiona timely fashion

•• Scientific suitabilityScientific suitability•• Scientific suitability was rated Scientific suitability was rated “Excellent” , “Good”, “Excellent” , “Good”,

“Satisfactory”, or “Poor”“Satisfactory”, or “Poor” based on assessment of importance based on assessment of importance of different noise sourcesof different noise sources

•• The most important noise sources in the assessment were The most important noise sources in the assessment were manman--made sources of vibration which could couple to the made sources of vibration which could couple to the interferometers either through the ground or air interferometers either through the ground or air


14 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02



15 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Site Evaluation Process:Site Evaluation Process:•• Construction suitabilityConstruction suitability

•• This effort represented in a few numerical values. Focused This effort represented in a few numerical values. Focused on readily quantifiable siteon readily quantifiable site--dependent factors; such as dependent factors; such as topographic variation (earthwork costs), special features as topographic variation (earthwork costs), special features as alignment crossings (roads, streams, etc.), site utilities , etcalignment crossings (roads, streams, etc.), site utilities , etc

•• The evaluation of construction suitability was rated The evaluation of construction suitability was rated ““excellent”, “Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Poor”excellent”, “Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Poor” aimed to aimed to significance of:significance of:

•• Geological conditionsGeological conditions•• Environmental considerationsEnvironmental considerations•• Flood controlFlood control•• Degree of openness or congestion in the site area which Degree of openness or congestion in the site area which

constrains facility placement or construction flexibility constrains facility placement or construction flexibility


16 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Site Evaluation Process:Site Evaluation Process:•• Operations SuitabilityOperations Suitability

•• Operation suitability was rated Operation suitability was rated “excellent”, “Good”, “excellent”, “Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Poor”“Satisfactory”, “Poor” based on the balance of positive and based on the balance of positive and negative features in the following areas:negative features in the following areas:

•• Supporting technical infrastructure (size of and distance Supporting technical infrastructure (size of and distance to nearby technical facilities, local university support) to nearby technical facilities, local university support)

•• Surrounding communities providing accommodations for Surrounding communities providing accommodations for permanent and visiting staff and availability of local permanent and visiting staff and availability of local skilled work forceskilled work force

•• Operating costs ( power costs based on usage, effects of Operating costs ( power costs based on usage, effects of climate on power usage and maintenanceclimate on power usage and maintenance

•• Accessibility and travel time for visiting staff Accessibility and travel time for visiting staff


17 of 21 - Asiri 06.24.02


Site Evaluation Process:Site Evaluation Process:•• Risks from environmental sources or future Risks from environmental sources or future

developmentdevelopment•• The risk category was rated as The risk category was rated as “Low”, “Moderate”, or “High”“Low”, “Moderate”, or “High”

based on the Site Evaluation Team’s assessment of the based on the Site Evaluation Team’s assessment of the likelihood of damage to the facility from the likelihood of damage to the facility from the enironment enironment and and probability of future development of area which might probability of future development of area which might introduce noise and vibration. introduce noise and vibration.

•• Three types of environmental dangers were considered:Three types of environmental dangers were considered:•• Earthquakes ( had greatest importance due potential Earthquakes ( had greatest importance due potential

catastrophic damage/rupture to vacuum system,and to catastrophic damage/rupture to vacuum system,and to sensitivity of delicate suspending components sensitivity of delicate suspending components

•• HurricanesHurricanes•• TornadoesTornadoes


18 of 21 - Name 06.24.02


•• The next three slides show:The next three slides show:--The LIGO vibration requirement, an excerpt from LIGO The LIGO vibration requirement, an excerpt from LIGO Proposal to NSF, Dec. 89Proposal to NSF, Dec. 89

--The LIGO Displacement Power Spectral Density at initiationThe LIGO Displacement Power Spectral Density at initiationof Ambient Ground Vibration Measurement, Feb. 92of Ambient Ground Vibration Measurement, Feb. 92

--The LIGO Displacement Power Spectral Density at initiationThe LIGO Displacement Power Spectral Density at initiationof final design, Dec. 95 of final design, Dec. 95

The critical foundations for the scientific equipment are the Laser Vacuum Equipment Area (LVEA) at the corner station and the similar foundations at the Mid and End Stations


19 of 21- Name 06.24.02



20 of 21 - Name 06.24.02


Note: Requirement for0.1 Hz to 1.0 Hzis added


n of n - Name 06.24.02


Ground –exited vibration due to ambient, facility-transmitted vibration must be <4x LSPSDVibrations produced by facility equipment: motors, pumps,chillers, etc. must be ;< 2.4 x 10 –7 m/sec2 for 0.1 Hz<f<1 Hz; < 5 x 10 –4 m/sec2 for 1 Hz<f<50 Hz;< 3 x 10 –9 m/sec2 for f >50 Hz at LVEA.

Documents

LIGO Experince in Site · In General:Based on the information provided in the proposals, information subsequently requested from proposers, information gathered in site visits and