Mu2e WGM

1. Mu2e WGM 7/21/2010 R. Ray Mu2e Project manager

2. L2 Systems and Managers 1.1 Project Management R. Ray FNAL 1.2 Accelerator M. Syphers FNAL 1.3 Conventional Construction T. Lackowski FNAL 1.4 Solenoids M. Lamm FNAL 1.5 Muon Channel S. Feher FNAL 1.6 Tracker Mukherjee FNAL 1.7 Calorimeter INFN 1.8 Cosmic Ray Veto C. Dukes UVa. 1.9 Trigger and DAQ M. Bowden FNAL This is Mike’s last full week. Managing resources in AD is one of a Project’s most important and difficult tasks. We need an AD insider to do this job. We can’t afford to lose momentum on this critical subsystem. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

3. Solenoid Update • Had our first design review at the end of June. • R. Coleman (Chair) • S. Feher • H. E. Fisk • J. S. Kerby • K. J. Krempetz • J. P. Miller • R. Ostojic • R. S. Tschirhart • The review took place June 29-30 and was organized in three sections: • Production Solenoid (PS) • Transport Solenoid (TS) • Detector Solenoid (DS) R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

4. Charge Recognizing the time constraint for a completed Conceptual Design by October 1st, to allow time to complete remaining CD1 documentation, please evaluate the state of the conceptual designs of the Detector Solenoid (DS), Production Solenoid (PS) and Transport Solenoid (TS): • Does the basic design concept meet the Mu2e Experiment Requirements as listed in the Mu2e Requirements Documents? • Are the design concepts sound? i.e. could it lead to a magnet system that can operate reliably and at a reasonable operating cost? • What is the likelihood that the magnet systems could be engineered and built by industry (for PS, DS) or components built in industry with final design and assembly in house (TS)? Does it require major tooling innovation, existing tooling, or a reasonable extension of available technology? • Given the time constraints for CD1, where should the design emphasis be placed in order to achieve a conceptual design by October 1st? Input for Committee • Draft Requirements document (magnet attributes needed to meet Experiment Goals) will be furnished to the committee 1 week prior to the review • Draft Function Specification (minimum magnet attributes specified to vendor) for each Magnet System will be furnished to the committee prior to the review • Presentations at the review in “PowerPoint” format will be available on the web a few days priors to the reviews • Reviewers will have access to additional documentation including internal memos prior to the review. Report of the mu2e Solenoid Review Committee. • Closeout. Present a summary of the Committee’s principal findings, recommendations, and comments in bullet format. • Final report. Prepare a final report by July 19, 2010 R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

5. Solenoid Review- Key Points • “The Committee was impressed by the quantity and excellent quality of work presented. The Committee also noted that the schedule to CD1 is very aggressive.” • There are a number of requirements that have not been provided. “Requirements documents need to be frozen soon, certainly by September 1.” • Field uniformity study due this week. • Many requirements listed in the Production Solenoid Requirements Specification are satisfied, but there are several that should be reviewed or further developed with respect to the production solenoid alone, and more that involve the production solenoid as it relates to other systems in Mu2e as a whole. Examples of these include: • Number of thermal cycles • Axial and gravitational loads • Shipping loads • Interfaces (magnetic, vacuum, electrical) to TS1 • Testing requirements R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

6. Solenoid Review- Key Points • The magnet team is responsible for the magnetic measurements, but the Mu2e collaboration needs to specify the accuracy that must be measured in the detector region of the DS. The requirements should include how often and under what conditions measurements are needed (pre or post detector installation). Given the requirements, a plan should be developed that specifies the measurement device and how the required number of positions will be obtained including positional accuracy of the measurements. • During the presentations a baseline design for the TS was presented which did not meet the absolute value specifications of the magnetic field. It is understandable that this is an iterative process, but either the specifications or the design need to be revised soon. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

7. Solenoid Review- Key Points • Calibration: The most precise Mu2e solution is to rotate the middle collimator in the TS, converting the beam reaching the DS from negative to positive. Then use 70 MeV/c positrons from stopped pion decay to calibrate the spectrometer. The DS field needs to be reduced by 70% for good acceptance of the positron. An alternate scheme that can be done more frequently with normal beam conditions, uses electrons from muon decay in orbit which have a momentum shoulder at 57 MeV. For this scheme the DS needs to be reduced by ~50% and the beam intensity must be reduced substantially. The Mu2e collaboration needs to finalize these solutions. The magnet team needs to confirm the field uniformity when the field is scaled down by factors of 0.7 and 0.5. • Quench protection of the magnets should be carefully analyzed. It is especially important to demonstrate that low field quenches can be properly detected and the magnet can be adequately protected. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

8. Solenoid Review- Key Points • The construction of the current PS design, or large portions of it, appears to be consistent with industrial capabilities. • One question is the development of the impregnated coil system, and how such a system would be deemed acceptable when industrially manufactured. This is an issue for all 3 solenoids. • Overall the current DS design appears to be consistent with industrial capabilities. • Final acceptance testing criteria will need to be carefully specified, and the acceptance testing may be best done at the laboratory. How we specify the interfaces between solenoids that might come from different vendors and can only be measured with iron and both matching solenoids in place will likely be challenging- a careful plan needs to be written. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

9. Solenoid Review- Key Points What are the major cost and schedule drivers? • Completing an end-to-end simulation / integration of the PS in the Mu2e experiment as a whole such that a specification can be adequately written, and understanding the technical items that industry may want to take exception to in the specification. • As with any superconducting magnet system, conductor procurement. • The TS magnetic field requirements lead to a large number of differing coils. That, combined with the novel S-shape, drives the construction cost. • The choice of main conductor parameters for the TS, coil winding and other construction issues seems to be relatively independent from the PS and DS. Nevertheless, the teams should try to profit from efforts elsewhere in the project to converge on the baseline choices (e.g. choice of the insulating scheme, PS seems to be most advanced) • The TS field level requirements, while conservative for SC magnets, are made difficult by the coupling with PS and DS solenoids, and in particular by the Mu2e requirement that the TS3 section be independent and movable. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

10. Solenoid Review- Key Points Specific preparations for CD1: • To focus the work over the next few months, the current baseline for the design, R&D plan, assembly and measurements needs to be written. • Iteration with the beamline design and Mu2e system to converge on a specification and baseline design that are self consistent. • Development of a complete list of failure modes and effects. • Development of a standard list of acceptable safety factors (mechanical, electrical, cryogenic…). • Development of a baseline acceptance plan with the expected vendor deliverables and checks done to show specifications are met. • Development of interface issues (a good start on a mechanical model was shown, this effort needs to be expanded for other systems). • Procurement strategy needs further refinement. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

11. Simulations update • Dave Brown from LBNL has adopted the SuperBfastsim Monte Carlo to Mu2e and has implemented the T-Tracker geometry. • Making good progress. Will provide a much needed requirement on the field uniformity of the Detector Solenoid within a week. • Students from INFN running G4 simulations on thin mylar to generate energy loss and multiple scattering distributions at relevant energy (~100 MeV). • Distributions will be paramaterized and used in fastsim. • Chris Poly has agreed to become the local expert on fastsim. • Have placed a P.O. with Muons Inc. for some of Tom Roberts time between now and September to update G4 beamline (Muons Inc. product) and to work with J. Miller and R. Coleman and muon channel simulations. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

12. Tracker Update • University of Houston (Ed Hungerford) has joined Mu2e and is putting together a grant request to DOE for Mu2e support. • We have an electronics scheme for the tracker that we are developing into a conceptual design for CD-1. • Fermilab is responsible for the preamps • Berkeley/LBNL is responsible for the front end digitizer • Houston/Rice will be responsible for the sequencer • Fermilab will be responsible for the DAQ, defined as everything downstream of the sequencer. • Fermilab will be responsible for the global clock system and for providing time stamps for all detectors. • Basic understanding reached about location of parts, where addresses get set, where threshold information gets stored, etc. • Details all remain to be worked out. • Houston and Rice are also interested in playing some role in detector assembly in the future. Will also participate in some R&D (thinner straws). R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

13. Calorimeter • Hope to have a L2 manager from Frascati in September. • Becoming a significant concern. • WBS and WBS dictionary written to L4 (by me) • Discussions with DOE about how to handle the calorimeter IF INFN provides in kind. • Would not define calorimeter as a CD-4 deliverable. Project closeout and success would not depend on the calorimeter from DOE perspective. • For CD-1 we have to produce a cost range. For the low end of the range we will likely zero out the total calorimeter cost. For the high end of the range we would include full calorimeter cost. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

14. ES&H • Draft of Project Information Form (PIF) completed and sent to PPD ES&H. • Useful comments received. Working on second draft. • Need to have first pass shielding assessment completed before PIF is complete. • PIF is important input for CX for Mu2e. • Would like to get this signed off on as soon as we can, otherwise we have to plan for and identify resources to work on an EA. • Started work on Preliminary HA (required for CD-1). • Received input from all L2 managers. Working to incorporate into a document. • Will need some help from ES&H at some point. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

15. CD-1 Time R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

16. Schedule CD-1 CD-2/ 3a CD-3b R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

17. Requirements R. Ray - Mu2e WGM

18. Action Items • Get L2 Manager for calorimeter in place – R. Ray • Still working on this. Won’t happen until September. • Understand and document the magnitude of the heat shield/Production Solenoid problem – Coleman/Mokhov/Rivera • Concern about increased resistance in aluminum stabilizer as coil is irradiated by neutrons. • Think we are “OK” but we have to be more quantitative about what “OK” means (safety factor). Measurements being made in Japan on cold aluminum samples in the Fall could change this perception. • Have a mechanical layout for copper/tungsten shield from Eric Rivera. Working with tungsten vendor on cost estimate. • Get moving on Electronics – Ron Ray • Met with PPD to discuss Project EE. Expect a name soon. • Progress on tracker electronics. • Need to make some progress on Calorimeter and CRV electronics. • Complete set of requirements documents – Miller/Bernstein • Some progress after Collaboration. Have slowed down a bit in the last few weeks. Need another push. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM