1 / 53

WBS 1.1 EMU Chambers

WBS 1.1 EMU Chambers. Cathode Strip Chambers Andrey Korytov L3 Manager. Outline. System Overview CSC Group Organization R&D: - cost efficient design - performance results CSC Production Plan, Production Sites Schedule, Milestones US Deliverables Base Cost Analysis Contingency

alexandra-roberson
Download Presentation

WBS 1.1 EMU Chambers

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. WBS 1.1 EMU Chambers • Cathode Strip Chambers • Andrey Korytov • L3 Manager

  2. Outline • System Overview • CSC Group Organization • R&D: - cost efficient design - performance results • CSC Production Plan, Production Sites • Schedule, Milestones • US Deliverables • Base Cost Analysis • Contingency • Summary

  3. CMS Endcap Muon System Large CSCs (3.4x1.5 m2): 72 ME2/2 chambers 72 ME3/2 chambers Small CSCs (1.8x1.1 m2): 72 ME1/2 chambers 72 ME1/3 chambers 20o CSCs (1.9x1.5 m2): 36 ME2/1 chambers 36 ME3/1 chambers

  4. Performance requirements • Operation:very reliable (limited access) • Offline Resolution:75 mm per chamber (ME1/2) • 150 mm per chamber (others) • Trigger: ~1 mm resolution per chamber • fast (>92% within 25 ns window) • Rates:~300-1000 Hz/cm2 (random hits) • ~100 Hz/cm2 (charged particles) • no aging up to 0.1 C/cm (10 years of LHC) • B-field: non-uniform and up to 1 T

  5. Cathode Strip Chambers • Same chamber: presision measurements + trigger • offline spatial resolution ~50 mm • trigger spatial resolution ~1 mm in presence • of electromagnetic debris (6-layer CSC) • fast timing: <25 ns for 6-layer CSC • Can work in difficult environment: • high rate capabilities (~1 kHz/cm2) • large (4 Tesla) and non-uniform B-field • Also: • two coordinates from single plane • strips can be shaped to measure f-coordinate; alignment marks are easy • no stringent control of gas mix, temperature, and pressure

  6. CMS EMU CSCs • trapezoidal chambers • length up to 3.4 m • width up to 1.5 m • 6 planes per chamber • 9.5 mm gas gap (per plane) • 6.7 to 16.0 mm strip width • strips run radially to measure f-coordinate • 50 µm wires spaced by 3.2 mm • 5 to 16 wires ganged in groups • wires measure r-coordinate • gas Ar+CO2+CF4=30+50+20 • HV=4.1 kV (Qcathode~110 fC, Qanode~140 fC)

  7. EMU Chamber Parameters

  8. CSC Group institution involvement UC Davis - Simulation Production (UCLA Site) UCLA - R&D, Design Production (UCLA and Fermilab Sites) UC Riverside - R&D Production (UCLA Site) Carnegie Mellon - R&D, Design Fermilab - R&D, Design Production (Fermilab Site) Florida - R&D, Design Production (UF and Fermilab Sites) Livermore - R&D Ohio State - R&D, Design Purdue - R&D, Design Production (Fermilab Site) Wisconsin - R&D, Design Production (Fermilab Site) PNPI - St.Pitersburg - R&D, Design Production (PNPI Site) IHEP - Beijing - Design Production (IHEP Site)

  9. CSC Group Organization

  10. CSC R&D Goals • CSC Cost Minimization: • Simple and Robust Design: • geometry to allow for relaxed tolerances • minimal number of parts and simple assembly • Identify Cost Driving Materials, minimize their cost: • find readily available commercial products • Identify Cost Driving Labor, minimize cost : • automate labor intensive operations • minimize in-house labor, i.e. place orders in industry • testing in the production to minimize repairs • Maintain Adequate Performance: • Reliable operation at Qcathode>100 fC • 75-150 mm off-line spatial resolution • ~1 mm trigger spatial resolution • >92% probability of correct bunch crossing assignment

  11. milled strips long wires 2 different wires (30 mm Luma, 50 mmSylvania) 70 144 cm ´ guard strips/wires different discriminators w=10 mm and none s=2.5 mm , 2r=30/50 m m 2 70 144 cm ´ w=10 mm and none s=2.5 mm , 2r=30/50 m m R&D: CSC Prototypes P0 (1995) - muon beam performance tests T0 (1994) - design tests 6 planes 60x60 cm2 w=16 mm s=2.5 mm 2r=30 mm 2 planes "top" of large CSC (ME2/2) s(x/w), timing, efficiencies, tails P0’ (1996) - muon beam performance tests T1A (1995) - design tests new winding technique s=3.2 mm (no wire support, timing!) HV segmentation, buttons RTV gas sealing strips milled with 45-degree cutter grinding was used to make gap bars 6 planes 60x60 cm2 w=6 mm s=3.4 mm 2r=50 mm T1B (1995) - design tests "bottom" of precision CSC (ME1/2) s(x/w), timing, efficiencies, tails, 1/2-strip finding trigger hardware LCT in presence of e/m debris 2 planes (both T1A and T1B) P1A (1996) - large scale design tests 2 planes 3.3 m long 1.2-0.8 m wide w=16-10 mm s=3.2 mm 2r=50 mm P1 (1996) - large scale complete chamber 6 planes 3.3 m long 1.2-0.8 m wide w=16-10 mm s=3.2 mm 2r=50 mm P2 (1997) - full scale 1:1 large chamber 6 planes 3.3 m long 1.5-0.8 m wide w=16-8 mm s=3.2 mm 2r=50 mm detailed performance studies: cosmic ray tests first complete set of final electronics prototypes 1998 muon beam tests 1998 high rate tests (muon beam + gammas)

  12. CSC Design : Single Plane Parameters • Large Gas Gap -- 10 mm (cf. 5-10 mm) • relaxes panel flatness tolerances • allows for wider strips (save on electronics channels) • Thick Wires -- 50 mm (cf. 20-30 mm) • very robust mechanically • Large Wire Spacing -- 3.2 mm (cf. 2-2.5 mm) • relaxes wire placement tolerances • no intermediate wire supports • fewer wires

  13. CSC Design: overall chamber Design is simple (few parts), robust, and suitable for mass production

  14. CSC Design: Cost Driving Materials • Cost Driving Materialshave been identified: • Panels • Wires • Gap Bars • Wire Fixation Bars • Significant cost reduction of these materials has been achieved as a result of an extensive R&D (still they constitute 74% of the overall material cost) • All material costs based on vendor quotes • Materials tested on large prototypes

  15. CSC Design: Panels - material cost driver • Panels from 3 bidders (out of 11 - see on the right) were ordered • flatness, mechanical properties studied (CMS Note 1995-094) • Plascore was chosen: • panels with FR4 skins (ready product) • very stable polycarbonate core • flat within our spec.’s • inexpensive • willing to work on technology improvements • EuroComposite and Teklam are fallback options • A few batches of panels from Plascore have been ordered since 1995 • All large prototypes (and most of small ones) were made out of these panels • and showed very reliable performance Panel Manufacturers AAR Cadillac ACT Advanced Composites EuroComposite Hexcel M.C.Gill Norfield Oregon Composites Plascore Teklam Todco

  16. CSC Design: Wires - material cost driver • Large MWPC Systems used Luma wire: $587/km for 50 mm wire • Sylvania quote for similar wire: $144/km (also used in MWPCs) • Sylvania and Luma wires were purchased and thoroughly tested, • thus, we could directly compare Sylvania wire against Luma’s • visual analysis under microscope: good • elasticity limit and breakage point: good • breakage under sparking: good • chamber performance: good • All large scale prototypes have Sylvania wire • and have shown reliable operation

  17. CSC Design: Cost Driving Labor • Strategy for minimizing labor cost: • robust and simple chamber design, suitable for mass production • labor intensive operations are identified and automated/optimized: • strip milling vs. etching • wire winding • wire soldering • gluing • parts are purchased from commercial vendors to minimize in-house labor • testing along chamber assembly to minimize repairs

  18. CSC Design: Strips - labor cost driver • Lowest etching quote (two bidders: CCT, Buckbee-Mears): • $9,549 per chamber (9 panel sides) • plus $104K initial investment is required • Milling (all based on large scale prototypes): • ~1 hour (per plane with 80 strips):fast • ~ 25 mm precision:good • 45o cutter mills with almost etching quality:good • smooth vs. milled cathode CSC performance:identical • With all handling, cleaning and testing, milling will cost • $1,900 per chamber, i.e. 5 times cheaper (~$2M of savings) • All prototypes (except for the small P0) have had milled strips • and showed very reliable operation

  19. CSC Design: Wire Winding - labor cost driver • Transfer frames: too labor intensive • New winding machine to wind directly on panels: • two planes (1000 wires each @4 turns per min) - less than one shift • minimum handling • no asymmetric stresses on a panel • Chamber prototype results: • uniform tension ±5% (we need ±10%) • wire spacing ±100 µm (we need ±200 µm) • All prototypes showed very reliable operation

  20. CSC Design: Wire Soldering - labor cost driver • Hand-soldering (P1A large scale prototype: 1000 wires per plane): • 2 FTEs x 6 days per 6-plane chamber • Robotic soldering machine was built at Fermilab • using commercially available automated soldering head (Panasonic): • - 3.5 sec per soldering joint (tested on P2 full scale CSC), • - high quality and uniformity of soldering joints • Projected Time with all handling, wire cutting, etc: • 1 FTE x 4 days per 6-plane chamber, • i.e. 3 times faster than hand soldering • Estimated Savings at Fermilab Production Site • $270K (labor) - $90K (machine investment) = $180K • P2 protototye (full scale large CSC) works reliably since January 1998

  21. Performance R&D: Operation Reliability • P1A, P1, P2 large scale prototypes: • operation point at 4.1 kV and at 4.5 kV prototypes are still operational • P1 has been under HV for more than a year • P1A shipped twice, P1 shipped once: no problems (a >10g) • Aging Studies: • 10 years of LHC at full luminocity: ==> accumulated charge on wires is ~0.1 C/cm • Use of CF4 gas is know to prevent aging: ==> no aging effects up to 10 C/cm • CSCs made according to our design and out of the design materials • 20% CF4 - chamber irradiated in excess of 13 C/cm • 10% CF4 - chamber irradiated in excess of 13 C/cm (high gas flow) plus • additional 0.7 C/cm accumulated at gas flow rate 0.1 V/day • and 1.5 C/cm at gas flow of 1 V/day (nominal) • No gas gain variations were observed. Dark current remained small.

  22. 400 300 Spatial Resolution, s (mm) 200 100 six plane chamber resolution (MC) 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Hit coordinate across strip (x/w) Performance R&D: Off-line Spatial Resolution solid points: single plane resolution in cosmic rays for top ( ), middle ( ), bottom ( ) parts of the trapezoidal CSC (P1 prototype) solid curves: single plane resolution Monte Carlo dashed curves: 6-plane resolution as extrapolated from single plane data P1 - large scale prototype Chamber planes are half-strip staggered and expected six-plane resolution is ~80 mm, i.e. well within 150 mm spec.

  23. Performance R&D: Trigger Spatial Resolution s=0.7 mm • BEAM TEST RESULTS: • comparators find hits to within a 1/2-strip with 92% efficiency • six-plane patterns (LCTs) are found with 99% efficiency • and 0.11(strip width) ~ 0.7 mm resolution • in presence of em debris accompanying muon behind the iron

  24. Nominal Operating Point 1.0 Probability (92% requirement) 0.8 0.6 2nd out of 6 1st out of 6 0.4 0.2 0.0 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 HV, kV Performance R&D: Trigger Bunch Tagging • 6-plane patterns are found with • 99.5% efficiency • (smaller prototype beam tests) • Time stamp: 97% probability to be • within 25 ns window • for the 2nd earliest signal • out of 6 hits in an LCT pattern • (well within the required 92%) P1 - large scale prototype

  25. CSC Design Summary • Chamber Design is optimized • Cost Drivers (materials and labor) are identified • and their cost is well understood and minimized • Mass Production Tooling is prototyped • Full Scale Chamber Prototypes meet our requirements

  26. CSC Production Plan • Production is divided between five sites: • Fermilab site • UC site • UF site • PNPI - St.Petersburg site • IHEP - Beijing site • optimal use of Fermilab infrastructure and university contributions • use of the base program resources at Fermilab and universities: • - chamber construction and tooling experts • - physicists with expertise in chambers and electronics • use contributions from CMS collaborators (PNPI-St.Petersburg, • IHEP-Beijing): assembly of smaller chambers (~$4M in US costs) • one common chamber dsign • all parts and critical tooling made in US • same assembly and test procedures on all sites

  27. CSC Production Sites • Fermilab site (Fermilab/university consortium): • - procurement of chamber parts for all chambers • - strip milling for all chambers • - assembly and HV-training of large chambers (148 ME23/2) • - sample testing • UC and UF sites: • - outfitting large chambers with electronics and services • - system tests of large chambers • - installation, commissioning, maintenance of large chambers • PNPI and IHEP sites: • - assembly and tests of smaller chambers • - installation, commissioning, maintenance of smaller chambers • all parts and critical tooling are provided by US • labor is covered by PNPI and IHEP--it is their contribution to CMS

  28. CSC Production PNPI Site parts and critical tooling (smaller chambers) smaller CSCs+Electronics, tested installation/commissioning large CSCs UC Site large CSCs+Electronics, tested installation/commissioning Fermilab Site: - panel production - large CSC assembly CERN large CSCs+Electronics, tested installation/commissioning large CSCs UF Site Procurement parts and critical tooling (smaller chambers) etc. smaller CSCs+Electronics, tested installation/commissioning frames guard strips gap bars IHEP Site wire fix bars wire panels

  29. Fermilab Site: Panel Milling Location: Lab 8 Operations: Inspection: incoming panels (thickness, flatness, etc.) Axxiom Machine: drill holes, cut trapezoids Gerber Machine: mill strips, cathode and anode artwork Certification: milled panels cleaned, milling quality certified Packaging: panels wrapped for storage & shipping

  30. Fermilab Site: CSC Assembly Location: MP-9 Operations: Gluing Station: - glue wire fixation bars - glue long and short guard strips - glue gap frame bars Winding+Soldering Station: - wind wires on panels, glue wires - solder wires, cut wires Pre-Assembly/Testing Station: - solder Rs, Cs, connectors, protection boards - test HV in air; wire tension/spacing (sample) Assembly Station: - stack panels and Al frame bars, test HV - tighten bolts, RTV seal - wire HV connectors HV-training Station: - HV-training of chambers Repair Station

  31. Final Assembly & System Tests Sites Location: UCLA and UF Operations: Long Term HV-Conditioning Final Assembly: - services and gadgets - electronics cards and enclosures (10 units per chamber) - cabling, marking cables (~100 different cables per chamber) Tests without HV: - cable connections (no mix-ups) - no dead channels, oscillations, pickup noise (ground/shield) - electronics-on-chamber (strip calibration, thresholds, delays) Tests with HV: - HV is properly filtered - determine operation point for each plane (gas gain, efficiency) - minimum plateau with respect to Idark and Nnoise (wires/strips) - tune anode LCT timing w.r.t. to cosmic muons - time matching between anode and cathode LCTs Detailed tests: - time permitting (not necessarily on each chamber) Chamber repairs Database

  32. CSC Project Schedule

  33. CSC Production Schedule Lab 8 MP 9 UC Site UF Site PNPI IHEP 1999 22 6 /.5 yr 2000 98 17 8 8 2001 98 50 25 25 20 38 2002 98 50 25 25 26 50 2003 56/.5 yr 25/.5 yr 16/.5 yr 16/.5 yr 30 60 Panel Count by CSC type at Lab 8 ME23/2 ME23/1 ME1/23 TOTAL 1999 22 22 2000 42 20 36 98 2001 42 20 36 98 2002 42 20 36 98 2003 (1/2 yr) 16 40 56

  34. Major CSC Milestones • 01/01/98 P2 (ME23/2) 1:1 scale prototype • 12/20/98 ME23/2 - final design • 11/16/98 ME2/2 Preproduction Prototype • 12/08/98 ME2/1 Prototype • 01/15/99 Panel Production Design Review • 03/16/99 Panel Production Site is ready, Start of panel production • 12/21/99 22 ME23/2 CSC worth of panels made, Full Speed Production begins in Jan 2000 • 03/15/99 Chamber Assembly Design Review • 07/01/99 Chamber Assembly Site is ready, Start of ME23/2 chamber assembly • 12/21/99 6 ME23/2 CSCs assembled, Full Speed Production begins in Jan 2001 • 12/21/99 ME3/1 and ME1/2 Preproduction Prototypes, small chamber design review • 12/20/00 PNPI and IHEP Sites ready, Start of Small Chamber Production in Jan 2001 • 12/21/99 FAST sites are ready, Start of detailed CSC tests with prototype electronics • Full Speed Final Assembly and Testing begins in July 2000 • 07/01/03 First Endcap CSCs are installed • 03/01/04 Second Endcap CSCs are installed

  35. WBS 1.1 Deliverables • Design Deliverables • Cathode Strip Chambers:ME1/2, ME1/3, ME2/1, ME3/1, ME23/2 • CSC production tooling • CSC testing equipment and procedures • High Voltage System • Production Deliverables • 144+4=148 large ME23/2 chambers: production of parts, assembly, outfitting with electronics, testing, commisssioning at CERN (Fermilab, UC, UF sites) • All parts for smaller CSCs (assembly kits): • 36+2=38 ME2/1, 36+2=38 ME3/1 (to be assembled/outfitted/tested at PNPI) • 72+2=74 ME1/2, 72+2=74 ME1/3 (to be assembled/outfitted/tested at IHEP) • Critical tooling and testing equipment for PNPI and IHEP sites • High Voltage for all ME1/2, ME1/3, ME2/1,ME3/1, ME23/2

  36. CSC Cost Estimate: WBS L3 M$12.835 (base, in FY97 $) + 42% (Contingency) = M$18.227

  37. CSC Base Cost Estimate: WBS L3

  38. CSC Base Cost Estimate: Categories

  39. CSC Base Cost Estimate: Details • CSC Base Cost = M$12.835

  40. CSC Cost: material cost database • I. Parameters, Parts for all CSCs

  41. CSC Cost: material cost database • II. Quotes are linked to the part list

  42. CSC Base Cost Estimate: Materials

  43. CSC Base Cost Estimate: Labor • construction of the full scale prototypes (P1, P2) is the basis for the estimate • major and most of minor tooling protypes have been used in the full scale chamber prototypes assembly • all operations have been timed • operations at individual production stations are outlined in space and time • 80% efficiency is assumed (Lab 8, Lab 6 experience), i.e. manpower assumed is sufficent to make 1 CSC every 4 days, whileaverage yeald is assumed to be 1 CSC every 5 days • tooling capability is 1 CSC every 3 days in one shift • soft production ramp-up is built in • standard Fermilab and University labor rates are assumed

  44. CSC Cost: Panel Production Labor

  45. CSC Cost: CSC Assembly Labor

  46. CSC Cost: Labor at peak of production Fermilab: 1 PhD supervisor (senior) Lab 8: 1 PhD supervisor 0.5 tech. supervisor (P.Deering) 2 CNC operators (1 Axxiom, 1 Gerber) 1 tech (cleaning/inspection/wrapping) 0.4 tech’s (2 tech’s one day a week for handling/shipping/etc.) MP 9: 1 PhD supervisor 1 tech. supervisor (K.Kephart) 7 tech’s (primary assembly stations) 1 specialist (testing/HV-training expert) 2 PhD’s (repairs/tests/etc.) FAST Sites: 1 PhD supervisor (senior) 1 PhD lab physicist (full time in the lab) 1 tech (outfitting with services, electronics, handling, etc.) 1 expert (electronics/chamber problem debugging) 2 FTE students (1 FTE assembly, 0.5 cathode work, 0.5 anode work)

  47. CSC Manpower Profile

  48. CSC Cost: Obligation Profile

  49. Contingency: MFxJF Materials: maturity factor (MF): 1.0 - purchased 1.1 - catalog item, P.O. 1.2 - vendor quote 1.3 - complete design (TDR) 1.4 - indirect estimate, request for info w/sketches 1.5 - estimate based on conceptual design judgment factor (JF): 1.0 - standard, simple, we buy now at this price 1.1 - extracted from very similar quote 1.2 - chain of vendors - not 100% prototyped 1.3 - single vendor 1.4 - lack of knowledge (not prototyped) contingency on not purchased materials: cannot be less than 20%

  50. Contingency: MFxJF Labor and Engineering: maturity factor (MF): 1.25 - vendor quote and/or complete design judgment factors (JF): 1.0 - coordination, management 1.1 - labor directly verified on prototypes 1.2 - not 100% prototyped 1.4 - lack of knowledge (not prototyped)

More Related