NuMI-L-54 4 Jan 1995 K. Heller REPORT OF THE LBNE DETECTOR R&D COMMITTEE D. Ayres, K. Heller (chair), D. Michael January 4, 1995 A. Proposals received (* indicates contact person): Argonne #1 - revised (I. Ambats, D. Ayres*, J. Thron): "Long baseline detector R&D proposal: tracking chambers." Develop designs for cathode strip chambers and limited streamer tube detectors. Build prototype detectors and a 3-ton test beam calorimeter. Provide cost estimates for far detector chambers. FY 1995 request: $10K for chamber materials. FY 1996 estimate: $100-200K for 30-ton neutrino-beam prototype calorimeter. Argonne #2 - revised (J. Dawson, W. Haberichter, J. Thron*): "Long baseline detector R&D proposal: trigger and readout electronics." Develop a conceptual design for triggering and readout of detectors using cathode strip chambers, limited streamer tubes, and RPC's (with 5 nsec timing). Build prototypes and provide cost estimates for a full system. FY 1995 request: $10K for custom monolithic chip design. FY 1996 estimate: $50-100K for chips for 30-ton neutrino prototype calorimeter. Argonne #3 - revised (D. Crane, T. Fields*, D. Jankowski, P. Schoessow, L. Turner): "Long baseline detector R&D proposal: iron plate magnetization." Perform design calculations and model magnet measurements to determine realistic field configurations in the far detector. Investigate permanent magnet options. FY 1995 request: $10K for model magnet test setup. FY 1996 estimate: $200-300K for detailed magnet and steel engineering. Caltech (D. Michael*): "Proposal for RPC development at Caltech." Build and test RPC's with focus on proportional mode operation and discharge spreading effects. Also apply knowledge about this kind of operation to tests for low-cost mass production construction techniques for large chambers. FY 1995 request: $10.0K for chamber materials, shipping from Italy, travel, Infrastructure electronics and gas mixing equipment loan from Fermilab requested. FY 1996 estimate: $20K for test beam calorimeter, if not provided in FY 1995. ITEP-LPI (Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics - Lebedev Physical Institute) (V. Tsarev, I. Trostin*, E. Kuznetsov, V. Chechin, V. Smotriaev) Participate in steel engineering, magnet design, and Monte Carlo studies. Develop prototype glass plate RPC chambers. Upgrade computer network hardware. FY 1995 request: $5K. FY 1996 estimate: $20-80K for large RPC development, $100K for detector steel order. Livermore #1 - revised (O. Fackler, M.Libkind, J. Swan, D. Wright*, T. Yakota, R. Yamamoto): "Engineering R&D for the magnetized steel." Produce engineering conceptual design of magnetized steel system including cost studies for various options. Develop spread sheet models to predict costs for different designs and parameter choices. FY 1995 request: $16K for engineering effort. FY 1996 estimate: $370K for effort to complete final engineering design. Livermore #2 - revised (E. Ables, R. Bionta, H. Olsen, L. Ott, D. Wright*): "Resistive plate chamber R&D." Build two identical RPC's for nonflammable gas studies at Livermore and Rutherford. Perform search for safe RPC gas. FY 1995 request: $12K for technician effort and gas system operation. FY 1996 estimate: $45K for 10 prototype chambers plus 10 test beam chambers. Minnesota (P. Border, D. Ciampa, H. Courant, P. Cushman, K. Heller, D. Maxam, K. Ruddick*, R. Rusack, M. Schub, N. Wallace), Indiana (C. Bower): "Proposal for development of detectors suitable for a long baseline experiment." Determine preliminary manufacturing costs for two alternative detection methods: segmented scintillator and Soudan-2 type drift tube technology. FY 1995 request: $20.2K for materials, shop work, students ($9.7K for scintillator, $10.5K for drift detector, $2k for travel) FY 1996 estimate: (not included in proposal) Oxford - revised (W. Allison, C.B. Brooks, J. Cobb*, D. Petyt, J. Thomas): "Long baseline detector R&D proposal." Develop and test proportional chambers with cathode strip readout. Design front-end electronics chip with time-over- threshold pulse-height readout. Begin design of readout architecture. FY 1995 request: $7.5K for chamber materials and electronics. FY 1996 estimate: (not included in proposal) Rutherford - revised (G.J. Alner, R. Cotton*): "Wide gap avalanche RPC's." Use Rutherford RPC test setup to study avalanche mode operation of RPC's, including the LLNL RPC, with nonflammable gases. Develop mass production techniques. FY 1995 request: $4.5K for test stand & gas mixer upgrades, materials, travel. FY 1996 estimate: $50K for construction of RPC test beam calorimeter. Tufts - revised (T.Kafka, W. A. Mann*, R. Milburn, W. Oliver): "Limited Streamer mode tubes and chambers." Develop electromechanical and assembly aspects of plastic extrusion limited streamer tubes and provide a cost estimate for mass production. Assemble and test full length prototype chambers. FY 1995 request: $10K for chamber materials, travel, extrusions. FY 1996 estimate: $40K for development of chamber production facility. Summary of FY 1995 requests: Argonne #1 (LST's, CSC's): $10.0K Argonne #2 (electronics): $10.0K Argonne #3 (magnet) $10.0K Caltech (RPC's): $10.0K Indiana (scintillator with Minn.) $ 2.0K ITEP-LPI (steel, magnet, chambers) $ 5.0K Livermore #1 (magnet, steel): $16.0K Livermore #2 (RPC's): $12.0K Minnesota (scintillator & drift technologies): $20.2K Oxford (CSC's, electronics): $ 7.5K Rutherford (RPC's): $ 4.5K Tufts (LST production, costs): $10.0K ------ FY 1995 total $117.2K Summary of FY 1996 estimates: Steel and magnet engineering : $200-370K Steel for near detector or prototype: $100K Charged particle test beam module: $ 20- 80K Neutrino beam calorimeter construction: $100-200K Electronics for neutrino beam calorimeter: $ 50-100K Chamber production facility: $ 40K --------- FY 1996 total $510-870K B. General recommendations 1. We need to reduce the number of different detector technologies being worked on very soon in order to effectively utilize the collaboration's limited resources. At its December meeting the collaboration decided to review the status of all detector R&D work around April 1, 1995, with the goal of eliminating some of the detector technologies from further consideration. Since the choice of detector technology will ultimately be based on cost and performance criteria, an initial focus of all R&D efforts must be to determine a preliminary manufacturing cost (to be verified later by standard engineering costing methods). Different groups which propose to work on the same detector technology should collaborate closely, and focus their efforts on the development of a common design at the earliest possible stage. They should attempt to avoid duplication by working on different aspects of the same technology. 2. Specific detector technologies are listed below together with the committee's comments: a. Liquid scintillator Advantages: non-gas calorimetry, fast timing for track direction Disadvantages: potential liquid leaks Challenges: enough light yield to use low cost photodetectors, large scale construction cost estimate needed. b. RPC's Advantages: rugged chambers, fast timing for track direction Disadvantages: flammable gas, discharge spreading Challenges: nonflammable gas needed, may require proportional mode operation, large scale construction cost estimate needed. c. Drift tube technology with thin iron plates Advantages: excellent pattern recognition, few readout channels, nonflammable gas, simple iron support for thin plates, 1 kT manufacturing and operating experience with Soudan 2 Disadvantages: separate function magnets needed, no fast timing, complex electronics, sensitivity to electronegative gas impurities Challenges: simplify construction to reduce costs from Soudan 2. d. Limited streamer tubes (LST's) Advantages: large scale manufacturing and operating experience Disadvantages: breakable wires, no fast timing, flammable gas Challenges: nonflammable gas needed, large scale construction cost estimate needed. e. Cathode strip chambers (CSC's) Advantages: nonflammable gas, mechanically similar to LST's Disadvantages: fragile wires, small signals, no fast timing Challenges: large scale construction cost estimate needed. 3. In general, the committee feels that it is too early to invest substantial resources in designing electronics for specific detector technologies. Initial work should focus on development of conceptual electronics for each of the proposed detector technologies so that differences in electronics costs can be included in the preliminary manufacturing cost estimates. The electronics development programs proposed at Argonne and Oxford are very similar, and are both aimed at slow LST or CSC detectors. The Argonne group has agreed to develop electronics for RPC's, to take advantage of their fast timing properties. At present electronics development efforts do not parallel all detector technologies under consideration. Such development must be undertaken to encompass all technologies which continue to be favorable. 4. The collaboration should plan to study the performance of candidate detector technologies in both charged particle and neutrino test beams. It is not clear that we will be ready to build small charged particle test beam calorimeters during FY 1995. Funds for building these test beam calorimeters should be deferred until the end of this fiscal year or until the beginning of FY 1996. Such detectors might cost $20K each, assuming that electronics is obtained from PREP. Construction of neutrino beam test calorimeters could begin in FY 1996, and would cost $150-300K each, including electronics. C. Other development work 1. The Argonne group has initiated an investigation of safe and acceptable methods for mixing, handling and venting RPC and LST gases with varying concentrations of different flammable components in the mine. Additional resources may be required to continue this work beyond the conceptual design stage. 2. The Argonne group has initiated an engineering study of the concrete section of the reference detector which was defined at the December collaboration meeting. This work will provide a conceptual design and cost estimate for the January 1995 proposal. The collaboration may need to allocate additional resources to continue this work beyond the conceptual design stage. D. Specific recommendations 1. The Argonne, Oxford and Tufts proposals for chamber development are very similar. These groups should coordinate their efforts closely. If they choose to pursue independent design and prototype efforts initially, they should develop a plan for bringing these efforts together and focusing on a common detector design after a period of a few months. They must deliver preliminary manufacturing cost estimates. 2. The Argonne and Oxford proposals for electronics development are very similar. We urge these groups to undertake, in a coordinated manner, a conceptual design of the necessary electronics for each of the detector technologies proposed, including preliminary manufacturing cost estimates. 3. We encourage the Minnesota group to focus as much effort as possible on the segmented liquid scintillator technique in view of its attractiveness for calorimetry and the potential for fast timing. High priority should be given to the enhancement of photon yield to allow for the use of low cost photodetectors. They must develop a preliminary design with an appropriate photon yield and a preliminary design and cost estimate for a photon detector. 4. The RPC detector development proposals of the Caltech, Livermore, and Rutherford groups appear to be complementary but need to be better coordinated. We encourage them to collaborate closely to move ahead rapidly with the plans they have described. Deliverables should include a study to determine if nonflammable gas operation is feasible in time for our experiment, tests of operating RPC's in the proportional mode with nonflammable gas, and a manufacturing cost estimate of an RPC based detector. In addition, acceptable discharge properties with cosmic ray muons should be demonstrated prior to proceeding with any construction aimed at a calorimeter test. By April, the collaboration should support, at most, a single, unified RPC development program. 5. The Argonne and Livermore proposals for magnetized steel studies and engineering models appear to be complementary. Both groups are encouraged to pursue the plans they have described, and to collaborate in their efforts. Deliverables should include conceptual designs and cost estimates for magnetized and unmagnetized steel structures, suitable for a planar detector with steel plates of 1, 2 and 4 cm thickness. 6. The ITEP-LPI group should give high priority to upgrading its computer network connections in order to coordinate work with other collaborators. Of the several activities proposed, the investigations of sources and the usefulness of Russian steel appear to be the most interesting. This work should be pursued in close coordination with the Argonne and Livermore groups. Plans to work on RPC development and toroid design should be closely integrated with the efforts at Caltech, Livermore, and Rutherford before committing significant resources. E. Funding recommendations The committee recommends the funding levels listed below based on the immediate need of the collaboration to choose a detector technology with acceptable cost and performance. Proposal Request Recommendation Notes -------- ------- -------------- ----- Argonne #1 (LST's, CSC's): $10.0K $ 5.0K 1 Argonne #2 (electronics): $10.0K $ 5.0K 2 Argonne #3 (magnet) $10.0K $10.0K - Caltech (RPC's): $10.0K $ 8.0K 3 Indiana (scintillator) $ 2.0K $ 2.0K - ITEP-LPI (steel, magnet, chambers) $ 5.0K $ 5.0K - Livermore #1 (magnet, steel): $16.0K $16.0K - Livermore #2 (RPC's): $12.0K $12.0K - Minnesota (scintillator): $ 9.7K $ 9.7K - Minnesota (drift technology): $10.5K $10.5K - Oxford (CSC's, electronics): $ 7.5K $ 7.5K - Rutherford (RPC's): $ 4.5K $ 4.5K - Tufts (LST production, costs): $10.0K $10.0K - ------ ------ FY 1995 total $117.2K $105.2K Notes: 1. ANL chamber R&D funding reduced due to recommended delay of test beam calorimeter construction until FY 1996. 2. ANL electronics R&D funding reduced due to recommended delay of prototype chip fabrication until FY 1996. 3. Caltech chamber R&D funding reduced due to restrictions on use of Livermore RPC test stand. F. Critical issues for April review At the December collaboration meeting the Detector R&D Committee was asked to provide a list of critical issues to be addressed by proponents of each active detector technology at the April 1995 review. The committee has compiled the following list of critical issues. It is not intended that all of these issues be resolved by the April review but that progress on these fronts be reviewed, as many technologies as possible be eliminated, and the resources needed to make further progress be determined: 1. Liquid scintillator a. Enough light yield to use low cost photodetectors, b. Develop cost estimate for electronics, c. Large scale construction cost estimate needed. 2. RPC's a. Solve or characterize discharge spreading problem, b. Identify satisfactory Freon 13B1 substitute, c. Understand spatial resolutions and calorimeter performance, d. Develop nonflammable gas for spark mode operation, or e. Demonstrate avalanche mode operation with nonflammable gas, f. Develop cost estimate for electronics, g. Large scale construction cost estimate needed. 3. Drift tube technology a. Develop thick corrugated steel plate fabrication technique, b. Develop cheap drift tube "bandolier" subassembly, c. Develop cost estimate for electronics, d. Describe separate function magnets and performance, e. Large scale construction cost estimate needed. 4. Limited streamer tubes (LST's) a. Develop acceptable techniques for handling flammable gas in the mine, b. Develop cost estimate for electronics, c. Determine wire lifetime and broken wire repair scheme, d. Large scale construction cost estimate needed. 5. Cathode strip chambers (CSC's) a. Develop cost estimate for electronics, b. Determine wire lifetime and broken wire repair scheme, c. Large scale construction cost estimate needed.