29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG1 STATUS REPORT BEAM WORKING GROUP Presented by L.Gatignon COLLABORATION MEETING 1 APRIL 2005 Includes: Beam

29 March 2005 Beam Working Group report - LG 1

STATUS REPORT BEAM WORKING GROUP

Presented by L.Gatignon

COLLABORATION MEETING 1 APRIL 2005

Includes: Beam design (optics, layout, Turtle, Halo)CEDAR adaptation and integrationMAMUDSpectrometer magnetsTracker integrationCost estimates


Beam Working group activities

Contributions from :

C.Biino, A.Ceccucci, G.Collazuol, L.Di Lella, N.Doble, M.Fiorini, L.Gatignon, A.Gonidec, B.Hallgren, M.Losasso, A.Placci,G.Ruggiero, M.Scarpa, H.Wahl, O.Yuschenkoand many others

The group had 7 bi-weekly meetings and a number of subgroupmeetings.

Web page:http://na48.web.cern.ch/NA48/NA48-3/groups/beam/


Beam design (N.Doble) The unseparated 75 GeV/c beam option has

been maintained A beam with 2 bends in the same direction

(which would kill NA60) turns out to be less good in terms of muon background reduction

The beam working group assumes that a RICH for - separation has to be accommodated

The needs of the Gigatracker have been included

Niels has updated the optics Details are available at http://cern.ch/doble

now including beatch, transport, turtle and halo.

29 March 2005 Beam Working Group report - LG 4Niels

29 March 2005 Beam Working Group report - LG 5Niels


Last minute results on muon halo

Niels Doble

with RICH

At CEDAR-PM’s (r=10 cm) 10 kHz/cm2

Straw Chamber plane at |x| > 8 cm 7 MHzAverage /1 cm straw tube 30 kHzMaximum /1 cm between 8 and 9 cm 300 kHz

CHOD, LKR Total rate 7 MHzAverage 0.2 kHz/cm2

Maximum at r=12 cm 2 kHz/cm2

13 Large angle Photon Vetoes (27 m2) Total 15 MHzmax 1.5 MHz/m2

OR rate 4 MHz

Intermediate ring calorimeters 1,2 (7<r<12 cm) 3 MHz each =10kHz/cm2

Small angle calorimeter (r=10 cm) 0.5 MHz 1.5 kHz/cm2

For 3 1012 ppp over a 3 second effective spill


Alternative: Solenoidal Detector (Y.Potrebenikov et al)

29 March 2005 Beam Working Group report - LG 8Conclusions

NA48/3 LSD

Acceptance (Reg I) 4.7 % 3.0

Acceptance (Reg II) 19.1% 12.9

Acceptance (full) 23.8 % 15.9 %

LSD Acceptance for (with 10-6 background from competing K+ decay modes) - 18.9 %

+ +

_

Saved energy - 0.4 MJoulPower (for cooling) - 0.2 MWAn estimation cost – 5M CHF (without cooling system)

Conclusions for LSD

Do not consider for proposal !!!


RICH ??? In the beam working group we had a number of

exceedingly important and interesting presentations by O.Yushchenko and G.Ruggiero concerning the background rejection and the need for extra separation with a RICH.

These discussion go well beyond the beam working group and deserve to be presented separately.

We had lively discussions in the beam working group and feel that a RICH should be accommodated in the beam design.


Proposal, beam cost estimates Proposal based on ‘conventional detector’ + RICH Cost estimates are under way

Beam elements, rectifiers, magnet cabling, work, … We need to modify the 40 cm diameter hole at the

end of ECN3 (impact on Krypton dewar) ? Cedar implementation studies (H2 safety, …) just

starting Separate cost of beam line itself from

spectrometer, MAMUD and Cedar budget The beam section of the LoI has been updated so

as to reflect the latest status of the beam design


Vacuum requirementsPressure needed:

G.Collazuol, FLUKA + Toy MC

Without Cedar,10-6 with Cedar

Suggestion: design vacuum for 3 10-7 mbar


Plus outgassing from• Straw chambers (negligible?)• Photon vetoes (strong, if not encapsulated)

A.Gonidec, V.Falaleev

without Cedar


Cedar optics


Radial impact point at diaphragm

cchrmirdiachrdiamir

c

d

Rn

ZZZZZZr 1

)()()(

)]1

()1

(21

1[)( 21211

1cmc

omir Rn

LLLLRn

Rn

Rn

LZZ

where: L1 = dist. diaphragm – chromatic corrector

L2 = dist chromatic corrector – mirror

R1, Rm = Rcurv of entrance face , mirror plane mangin mirror

Rc = Rcurv of chromatic corrector lense

must be zero ( rd equal for all Zo !!! )Optics optimisation

Easier by MC…


100.0

±0.4

8 m

m

102.3

±0.4

5 m

m

Cedar-West (H2 filled)


Cedar-W (H2) vs Cedar-N (He) comparison


Z-position where is generated [mm]

Cedar-North Cedar-West

generated

hittingm

irror

hittingm

irror

NoseNose

‘Nose’ not so useful for Cedar-West(Efficiency curve almost identical with and without nose)


Position of photons hitting LAMA cells

Zoom onto unit #1

Cedar-West, Hydrogen filled


Lab tests of several photon detectors planned

A.Placci:

Anode, Cathode current:


Photon detectors Hamamatsu H7260 anode current 1.6 10-19 106 5 107 4

p.e/secgain flux p.e/PM

This gives 64 Amps for maximum rating 100 Amps, 6 Amps/channel

What about COMPASS SCiFi trackers (work at 50 MHz)? Alternatively replace each H7260 by four 10 mm round tubes,

type R2496, 8 stages (not 10), quartz window, 160 nm cut-off!Worse filling factor but better current situationNeed Winston cone to collect light

Silicon Avalanche PMInconveniences: only 3x3 mm2, huge background at room temp,

quantum efficiency < 10%, no direct contact to manufacturers

Micromegas + CsI ? Never seen to work in real detector yetTo be followed up with J.Derre et al

A.Placci


Readout proposal by B.Hallgren

The PM current is amplified with a gain of ~1.8 kohm

Bandwidth 1MHz to ~280 MHz

SNR = 180 (amplifiers and resistor thermal)




Block diagram of front-end electronics

FPGA


1 Gs/s FADC & TELL1 (using the LKr readout as reference)

x 25 faster than LKr But only 8 instead of 10 bits as LKr <20 psec? (about 6 times better than LKr CPD) Noise? Double pulse resolution 5 nsec –> simulation Pulse shape analysis

Continuous recording of the detector signals Easier zero suppression than LKr (software comparator) Rejection of accidentals, pileup and baseline shifts

Coincidence with all other channels Use of TELL1 gives big savings in HW and SW design Power increased compared to present TELL1 (but only 8 / crate)


Price for 32 channels

1 TELL1 with 4xGigabit Ethernet 5350

16 1 Gs/s dual 8bit ADC 3800 8 FPGA Cyclone2 2EPC35F484 1600 PCB and other components 1250 --------- ~12000 *8

To be added:1 Crate with power supplies + 960 MHz clock distribution + DAQ electronics (PC(s) with 32 Gigabit Ethernet connections)


Cedar recommendations Cedar-West with Hydrogen is the preferred option The heavy ‘nose’ at the entrance can be suppressed Efficiency and separation similar to N2

Suggestion to use (Linear Array?) multi-anode PM’s(or possibly Silicon avalanche PM’s, or Micromegas considered as alternative by J.Derre)

Singles rates reduced from 50 to 3 MHz Size of photon detectors well matched to optics Readout seems feasible (Bj.Hallgren)


CEDAR preliminary cost estimates

Item Cost

Mechanical design (“nose”, windows, etc) 3 man months

Construction of 2 modules (incl 1 spare) 100 kCHF

Vacuum work, special windows 10 kCHF

Hydrogen supply and venting infrastructure 50 kCHF

Mounting 2 man months

Gas control, pressure gauges, H2-rated pump, … ?Photon detectors, incl HV supplies 80 kCHF

Electronics and cabling: 32x12kCHF +… ≥ 100 kCHF

Total > 340kCHF + >5 man months


MNP33-2 (M.Losasso) Carbon copy of existing MNP33 Parameters:

Total weight ≈ 105 ton

Field integral at nominal current (1.25 KA) 0.86 Tm

Overall Dimension 4.4 m x 4.0 m x 1.3 m (WxHxL)

Coil Current (2 set of coils) 1.25+2.5 KA

Total power dissipation 0.8+1.2= 2 MW

Magnetic field ≈ 0.36 T

cooling 15 bar, 4x7.5 m3/h


MNP 33 preliminary cost analysis

• Iron material 250 KEuro approximately [scaled from Jebens estimate]

• Coils (construction and assembly)** 300 KEuro [scaled from SigmaPhi estimate]

• copper conductor 130 KSfr (for about 8 ton of material)

• ancillary systems, controls 60 Ksfr

• resources and manpower 0.3 Tech. Eng x 2 years + 0.3 Phy. Or Eng. x 2 years AND 2 person x 1.5 years for installation

* If the coils are done at CERN increase manpower by 1.5 and decrease coils cost by 200 KSfr

** GEC ALSTHOM offer in 1991 for only additional coils (but including conductor) was 3.5 MFF

Total -> 1050 KSfr + manpower


MAMUD (M.Losasso, L.Di Lella, O.Yushchenko)

Design modified following many discussions Performance evaluations have been done Provisional cost estimate available

Purpose: Provide pion – muon separation (muon veto) Bend the beam away from the small angle photon veto located at the end of the hall


beam

LKr cryostat

photon showerdetected in LKr

Liquid Krypton Hadroniccalorimeterfront face

photon shower NOT detected in LKr beam

pipe

Need additional photon veto behind LKr and increase of beam pipe diameter

Additional photon veto

MAMUD: L.Di Lella


Criteria for the design of the hadronic calorimeter and muon veto Integration with LKr calorimeter Distinguish hadronic showers from electromagnetic showers need longitudinal and lateral segmentation Sensitivity to minimum ionizing particles (MIP)

Bending power ~ T x m pT kick . GeV/c deflects GeV/c beam

by mr ( cm lateral displacement at m) An important background from K+ + decay:“catastrophic” muon energy losses

muon bremsstrahlung e+e pair production high Q2 + e scattering muon decay in flight

deep inelastic muon – nucleon scattering + + N + + hadrons

electromagnetic shower

In all processes (except muon decay) the outgoing +has generally enoughresidual energy to be detected

L.Dilella


O.Yushchenko:


O.Yushchenko:


MAMUD Detector Cost Estimate

OPERA Proposal (CERN/SPSC 2000-028): x m scintillator planes ( m in total) Each plane: m long strips read out INDIVIDUALLY from both sides using -channel multi-anode PMTs Total number of strips channel multi anode PMTs Estimated cost (including fibres and PMTs): kCHF Extrapolation to MAMUD (minimal configuration): x m scintillator planes ( m in total) Each plane: m long strips Total number of strips read out in groups of by cm diam. PMTs Total number of cm diam. PMTs =

Estimated cost 0.15 x OPERA cost of iron and coils(not including 1040 channels of read-out electronics)

“Optimal configuration”: two times more strips and PMT’s

L.Di Lella

300 kCHF


Total weight ≈ 150 ton

Overall Dimension 2.8 m x 2.6 m x 5.25 m (WxHxL)

Number of iron plates (2x) 150

Coil Current ≈ 2.7 KA

Total power dissipation ≈ 0.3 MW

Field integral on axis (from -1 m to +6.2 m)

5.0 T m

Magnetic field into a “good field region”

(by 10 cm x 10 cm)

≈ 1.0 T

MAMUD magnet parameters


Pole gap is 2x10 cm V x 30 cm H

Coils cross section 10cm x 20cm


Main results of MAMUD simulation

Magnetic field at magnet centre

Field integral on axe - Packing factor is 0.54 10 cm

10 cm


MaMuD magnet preliminary cost analysis

• Iron material 300KEuro approximately [Jebens estimate]

• Coils (construction and assembly)* 200 KEuro [SigmaPhi estimate, incremented for the cost of modified

technology]

•Cu conductor 60 KSfr about [70 chf/m or 17.5 chf/Kg, Outokumpu

estimate]

• ancillary systems, controls 50 KSfr

• resources and manpower 0.3 Tech. Eng x 2 years + 0.3 Phy. Or Eng. x 2 years AND 2 person x 1.5 years for installation

•If the coils are done at CERN increase manpower by 1.5 and decrease coils cost by 120 Ksfr

Total is about 900 KSfr + manpower


ID Task Name Duration

1 engineering design 261 days

2 constructive drawings 500 days?

3 tendering 42 days?

4 procurement and construction 263 days

5 assembly & integration 195 days

6 commissioning 44 days?

7

8

9

10 1 day?

1st Half 2nd Half 1st Half 2nd Half 1st Half 2nd Half 1st Half

A realistic timescale of the magnet project

is something about 3 y.

MaMuD project timescale


Summary MAMUD+MNP-33 magnets

• the cost and timescale of MaMuD and MNP33 magnets projects are comparable.

• a consistent saving (about 20%) can be attained if the construction is taken in charge by CERN.

• a realistic timescale means that starting on beginning of next year, the magnets cannot be commissioned before 2009.

• cost analysis done here is someway conservative, but does not include:

Contingency, Power supply, Infrastructures, Electrical power, cooling.


Beam requests for 2006 An official request for beam time is necessary (SPSC!)

In view of limited available manpower in 2005, requests for beam installation work should be made a.s.a.p.

The new beam will not be available yet in 2006, but what about 2007?

Some suggestions for tests were made in Beam WG meeting:- Gigatracker tests for beam halo, different sensors, …

- MAMUD mimicked by MBPL? Remove MUV&HAC??- CEDAR tests with Cedar-W & N2 gas, new -detectors- Beam interactions with rest gas in vacuum tank- Straw tubes prototype – probably premature?- Tests of Liquid Krypton as a veto


Final remarks Beam WG reportAt the first meeting we established a long list of topics to be addressed.

Most of them have been addressed, although the main emphasis has been on Finalising beam design and layout Cedar validation and adaptation MAMUD Spectrometers RICH justification, background rejection Vacuum requirements


Initial list of items (1) RF separated vs unseparated Is 75 GeV still the right momentum Intensity requirements Small momentum spread Large angular acceptance Parallel section for CEDAR Which gas in CEDAR (He, H2, …) H2 Rate capability of CEDAR Do we need to remove electrons?

NO Beam spot at Giga tracker Convergent neam towards tracker Halo rate


Initial list of items (2) Estimates, simulation for rates into veto counters X Requirements on vacuum quality Material budget for Giga trackers Kevlar window and vacuum tube? Straws Integration of double MNP33 + MAMUD Rectifier availability T10 and LKr are fixed monuments No ‘

H10’ Compatibility with neutral beam Access to technical gallery with beam? X Special requirements for beam control system? Primary proton beam momentum, flat top Compatibility with CNGS, COMPASS, LHC?

Documents

29 March 2005Beam Working Group report - LG1 STATUS REPORT BEAM WORKING GROUP Presented by L.Gatignon COLLABORATION MEETING 1 APRIL 2005 Includes: Beam