1 / 22

KOPIO Closeout BNL, April 22, 2005

KOPIO Closeout BNL, April 22, 2005. The KOPIO Sub-panel: Marj Corcoran Peter Denes Karol Lang Dick Loveless Leo Piilonen Stan Wojcicki + NSF, NSERC observers. ,. Preamble.

rvoorhees
Télécharger la présentation

KOPIO Closeout BNL, April 22, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. KOPIO CloseoutBNL, April 22, 2005 The KOPIO Sub-panel: Marj Corcoran Peter Denes Karol Lang Dick Loveless Leo Piilonen Stan Wojcicki + NSF, NSERC observers ,

  2. Preamble • We thank the KOPIO Collaboration and the RSVP Project Office for frank and open discussions and presentations. • We have been impressed with the amount of effort put into the planning of the experiment. • At the conceptual level KOPIO appears to be well thought-out and ingenious. • It is also understood that limited funds available so far have led to a yet-incomplete detailed design but we have not identified any “show-stoppers”. • We were unable to thoroughly review the physics capabilities but have no reason to doubt the claims presented in the CDR. Findings and recommendations of the recent Ritchie’s Panel have been largely accepted by KOPIO. • We are reminded, however, that the past history teaches that upgrades will be necessary to reach the design sensitivity • Below are our findings, comments and recommendations.

  3. First physics run in 2012

  4. KOPIO breakout sessions • Presentations by • Mike Marx – Status and plans • Dana Beavis – Vacuum (WBS 1.2.1) • Toshio Numao – Preradiator (WBS 1.2.2) • Nello Nappi – KOPIO Trigger (WBS 1.2.7) • Oleg Mineev – Photon veto (WBS 1.2.5) • Vladimir Issakov – Calorimeter (WBS 1.2.3) • Doug Bryman - Backgrounds • Discussions with sub-system managers • Vacuum (WBS 1.2.1) – Lang, Piilonen  Beavis + an eng • Preradiator (WBS 1.2.2) – Loveless  Numao • Calorimeter + Photon Veto (WBS 1.2.3/1.2.5) - Corcoran, Lang  Issakov, Mineev • Charged Particle Veto (WBS 1.2.3) - Piilonen  Frank • Trigger, DAQ (WBS 1.2.7/1.2.8) – Denes  Nappi, Kettel, Schamberger • Offline (WBS 1.2.9) – Piilonen  Poutissou • No discussions on System Integration and Project Services (WBS 1.2.10/1.2.11)

  5. 1.2.1 Vacuum - Findings • System consists of • Upstream Vacuum Decay Vessel ( $1418k) • Vacuum Transitions (windows + membrane) ( $359k) • D4 Vacuum Box ( $238k) • Downstream Veto Vacuum Tank ( $393k) • Vacuum Pumping Station ( $630k) • Management Activities (includes ¼ engineer for 4 years) ( $167k) • “Biggest technical challenge” • 12m3, 10-7 Torr, 7% X0 • Investigated many options • Beryllium, Carbon fiber, Al Honeycomb, Aluminum • Carbon fiber 1/5 scale under construction in Russia • Spun aluminum seems best – vendor quotes and fabrication plan (SPINCRAFT) – a vessel for $381k • Will order 2 vessels, the first one for tests • Membrane to separate 10-3 and 10-7 Torr vacuums. • Charge Particle Veto (CPV) to reside inside 10-3 volume • CPV will weigh about 500 lb. Mounting inside not designed. • PMTs will generate about 550 W, to be conducted to walls • Preliminary concept on ATLAS-like feedthroughs, to be incorporated into the design • D4 and downstream boxes to be manufactured by universities, lab, + outside shops (large size excludes the lab’s machining)

  6. 1.2.1 Vacuum - Findings 1.2.1 Vacuum - Comments • Costs and Schedule • Probed down to level 5 cost drivers • In the past invested heavily in engineering of the tank – good call! • More engineering necessary and is budgeted! • Need to integrate Charge Particle Veto • mounting • feedthroughs • define the membrane • Costing on D4 and D/S vacuum box agrees with past experience • Need to integrate the Magnet Photon veto system • Main cost drivers: Vacuum tank, pumping station • Reasonable costs and schedule and the level of contingency 1.2.1 Vacuum - Recommendation • Complete the design – CPV engineering integration

  7. 1.2.2 Preradiator - Findings • The preradiator is a 3 x 3 m2 sandwich of 256 (2x2x64) cathode strip drift chambers and 288x27 6” scintillator planks (8 mm thick) with Pb radiators • Designed to measure gamma ray location with a position accuracy of 5mm and an angular accuracy of 25mrad. • The cathode strip chambers consist of 75K channels of anode (wire –TDCs) and 75K channels of cathode (strips – ADCs). • On the outside of the scintillator-drift chamber sandwich is an array of 32x36 external photon vetos, which are made of Pb-scintillator. • The Triumf group is responsible for the preradiator including the front-end chamber electronics. • They will provide and install all parts of the preradiator except the external veto counters. • $5M from Canada • The estimated cost of the complete preradiator is 22.6M$ with a contingency of 5.4M$ (31%).

  8. 1.2.2. Preradiator - comments • The cathode strip drift chambers are well-suited to measuring the position and angle of the o conversion. • This is a well-developed technology used in other contemporary experiments • The WBS structure shows good detail and is fairly complete • Contingency of 31% seems small for a project of this size and development • Labor costs for chambers are comparable to materials costs (reasonable) but labor costs for electronics seems small • Electronics testing is part of vendor delivery -- may need additional testing of assembled systems • Includes funding for 3 years of a system engineer .

  9. 1.2.2 Preradiator – findings/comments • The estimated base cost for the chamber electronics (not including contingency) is 6.53M$ • $32/channel for both anode and cathode • Labor for all electronics costed under anode, should be redone • Spares (about 10%) should be included • Scintillator design uses extruded planks with holes • WLS shifting fibers inserted into holes -- nice design • Cathode strip chambers are excellent antennas • Solid grounds are essential • May need considerable work/testing during installation at Brookhaven • Triumf group is likely to need additional people/support to complete this project • responsibility for installing/integrating the photon vetos not designated

  10. 1.2.3 Calorimeter - comments • The design of the lead/scintillator modules is well-thought-out and complete. Costing was well documented and based on extensive experience. • The Calorimeter will be a shashlyk structure fabricated in Russia. • The group at Vladimir has an impressive track record in producing such devices, including Phenix, LHCb, and HERA-B. • They can produce the modules very cost-effectively.

  11. The photon vetoes consist of four different subsystems: • Upstream Veto + Barrel Veto + Magnet Veto + Downstream Veto • “Shashlyk” + “log” lead/scintillator technology • These systems need a single-photon veto inefficiency on the order of 10-4 for KOPIO to succeed. • Where possible E949 phototubes will be recycled, resulting in considerable cost savings. • Shashlyk technology also used in the Preradiator photon veto. 1.2.5 Photon Vetoes - Findings

  12. 1.2.5 Photon Vetoes - comments • The designs of the lead/scintillator modules seemed to be well-thought-out and complete. Costing was well documented and based on extensive experience. • Support structures: In all cases except the barrel veto, the mechanical design of the support structure is yet to be designed. • Responsibility for installing/integrating the photon vetos not designated • Hermeticity is crucial to the success of the experiment. Therefore, the design of the support structure, especially ensuring it introduces no gaps or inert material is of utmost importance. • Spares: For devices which are using 949 PMT’s, there are some spare phototubes. For detectors which need new PMT’s, no spares are in the baseline. None of the detectors have spare front-end electronics. But it is clear that the experiment cannot tolerate even one dead channel in the photon vetoes 1.2.5 Photon Vetoes - recommendations • Assign responsibility and provide adequate engineering to develop designs for the photon veto support structures and integration.

  13. 1.2.6 Photon Catcher – findings/comments • The photon catcher is the an aerogel-lead device sensitive to the Cherenkov radiation produced by photons which convert in the lead. The sensitivity to neutrons is only 0.3%, but even so this detector produces about 4-5% dead time. • This detector is the responsibility of the Japanese group, who has assumed all financial costs. • The Photon Catcher needs to achieve an inefficiency of 10-2, so the requirements are not nearly as stringent as for the other photon vetoes. • The Monte Carlo studies have been validated with beam tests at KEK, resulting in excellent agreement with Monte Carlo and data.

  14. 1.2.4 Charged Particle Veto - Findings • Cost: $2.63M * 1.27 = $3.35M Schedule: detector construction/installation done by FY08, electronics delivered by FY09 • Thin segmented scintillator envelope inside vacuum tank to detect charged particles with >99.99% efficiency and ~100% solid angle [scints overlap: no cracks except for beamline] • Barrel design, construction, assembly by Zurich: design is advanced • Downstream design, construction, assembly by BNL: design is conceptual • Front-end electronics shares common design with other systems, but who constructs, assembles and maintains it? • Each scint viewed by 3 or 2 direct-mount phototubes for redundancy [this detector is ~inaccessible] • Integration with vacuum vessel is needed at early stage of vacuum vessel design [feedthroughs at vacuum vessel flanges for low voltage and LED monitor; high/low vacuum barrier–including mounting scheme–and its contribution to the inert-material budget in front of each scint; support structure; heat-conduction scheme] • Steeper charged particle entrance angle into downstream scints  need thin scint coating – MgF2? –instead of wrapping to meet the inert-material budget [is this <20 mg/cm2 or <8 mg/cm2?]

  15. 1.2.4 Charged Particle Veto - comments • The Charged Particle Veto is well designed. Some issues vis a vis integration with the vacuum vessel (feedthroughs, support, heat transfer, high/low vacuum barrier) need to be resolved. • The costs of this subsystem, probed down to WBS level 7 for the cost-drivers, are well-documented with price quotations for materials/equipment and reasonable estimates for fabrication/installation. No spares. • Fairly complete WBS. All aspects of the necessary work, including material procurement, design, labour, tooling, integration, and installation are included. [Not clear who is responsible for the readout electronics, though.]

  16. Electronics Many different components in many different WBS elements CLOCK • Chamber readout owned by preradiator • Photon readout is common • Photodetector owned by subdetector • Rest is “owned” by ? (Virtual) electronics group or subdet. • Integration owned by subdetector • Clock owned by L1 Trig • L3 trigger = 400 node processor farm • L2 trigger TBD Anode TDC Cathode ADC 40 MHz Logic/Pattern Boards ADC PMT Base ADC APD Super- visor 250-500 MHz DAQ Front end and digitizers Collectors L1 Trig.

  17. Electronics - comments • Certain elements well developed and prototyped; others in (pre-) conceptual design • Significant engineering needed • For prototype to production board design • For trigger electronics design • For FPGA coding • Work estimates “reasonable” for “an iteration” perhaps short for “final production” • Testing and integration manpower needed • Schedule is tight for certain items • L1 trigger has ~6 months float  need manpower/engineering by ~then • 10x10 calo prototype assumed to use final electronics  ~18 months to finalize calo electronics

  18. Electronics - comments • The group appropriately exercised the contingency methodology proposed by the project. • Relative to charge: recognizing, importantly, that the construction project will include significant engineering design and development activity KOPIO presents no significant electronics challenges Electronics - recommendations • Add people (and use that as a metric) • Consider forming an electronics group (at least for everything other than the chamber front-end)

  19. 1.2.9 Offline - Findings • Cost: $0.78M * 1.18 = $0.92M • Schedule: hardware purchased as late as possible, software development schedule to be fleshed out in Fall 2005 with work done on collaborators’ existing equipment • Hardware: purchase commodity components – tape silo (4 tape drives, 600 tapes, 1 TB/tape) for raw data; disk farm (100 TB) for skimmed data; 84 dual-node processor farm for real-time processing; 15 workstations; network switches; racks • System manager (0.5 FTE) is shared with L3 trigger. Software: simulations, reconstruction, generation of calibration constants, quality assurance monitor, data analysis, skimming, data management • One professional programmer and many physicists to design and manage analysis framework, data format, data management system, detector description language, and documentation • Full-time software managers (physicists) needed for simulation, event reconstruction, calibration analysis, physics analysis, quality assurance monitor. Additional manpower (physicists) needed to do the work.

  20. 1.2.9 Offline - comments • A plan needs to be formulated this year for the software development effort. • The hardware costs of this subsystem, probed down to WBS level 6 for the cost-drivers, are well-documented with price quotations for equipment (based on recent TRIUMF purchases) and reasonable estimates for performance improvements in 4 years. • Software costs are dominated by salary of one computer professional. However, additional professionals will be needed. • All aspects of the necessary work, including equipment procurement, design, labour, tooling, integration, and installation, are included in the WBS. Timetables are to be solidified for software work. • Additional manpower needs are likely. • L3 and offline should consider adopting a common processor-node spec.

  21. Contingency • Currently, bottoms up Lockheed formula. This appears to be artificial and not adequate. • Top-down contingency proposed by the RSVP management is 45%. It is more reasonable but we are unable to assess if it is correct. This would give a total cost of KOPIO to be: $53M * 1.45  $77M + spares • We recommend that KOPIO refines contingency analysis to improve credibility of the cost estimation.

  22. Response to the charge • Technical approach and feasibility • Conduct early beam tests as feasible • Refine simulations to improve credibility of background calculations • Completeness of the plan (WBS) • Reasonably complete • NO spares! • Readiness to proceed to construction • Significant engineering required • Expansion of the Collaboration necessary • Likely duration of the experiment • Past experience for this type of experiments teaches that upgrades and improvements will be necessary to reach the design sensitivity • (Technical) metrics of progress • Adding personnel is the most critical need • Costs and schedule • Refine contingency analysis to improve credibility of cost estimation

More Related