WBS 1.1 & 1.8 - EMU Chambers

1. WBS 1.1 & 1.8 - EMU Chambers • Andrey Korytov • L3 project manager • DOE/NSF Review • February 18, 1999

2. Outline • System Overview • EMU Chambers, Requirements, Design, Performance • Production plan and project organization • Brief summary of progress and changes since June 1998 • WBS (+ discussion of changes) • Deliverables • WBS at level 4 • Cost drivers • Schedule and major milestones • Obligation profile • FY99: Status and Plans • Major tasks in FY99, SOWs • Concerns (panels, wire, panel cleaning, ME1/3) • Contingency • Summary and Conclusions

3. EMU Chambers 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:reliable (large number, limited access) • Offline Resolution:75 mm per chamber (ME1/2) • 150 mm per chamber (others) • Trigger: ~1-2 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: precision 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(10%) • HV~4 kV (Qcathode~110 fC, Qanode~140 fC)

7. EMU CSCs: design Design is simple (few parts), robust, and suitable for mass production

8. CSC Prototypes

9. Performance: P2 beam tests at CERN, 1998 Full Scale 1:1 Large Chamber, ME2/2 or ME3/2

10. Performance: Reliability

11. Performance: Wire Local Charged Track (Wire LCT) P2 Beam Test Results, 1998 >99% required probability of finding wire LCT in presence of random hit background >92% required probability of tagging correct bunch crossing in presence of random hit background Wire hits Wire LCT

12. Performance: Sample of Strip Signals P2 Beam Test Results, 1998 Time (50ns/bin) Single muon Two close tracks Strip number

13. Performance: Offline Spatial Resolution P2 Beam Test Preliminary Results, 1998 Chamber planes are half-strip staggered and expected six-plane resolution is uniformly <100 mm, i.e. within 150 mm spec.

14. Performance: Offline Strip Time Resolution P2 Beam Test Results, 1998

15. Performance: Strip Local Charged Track (Strip LCT) s=0.7 mm • P0’ Beam Test Results, 1996 • 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

16. Chamber Production Plan PNPI Site 38 ME2/1, 38 ME3/1 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 74 ME23/1 CERN large CSCs+Electronics, tested installation/commissioning large CSCs UF Site Procurement 74 ME23/1 parts and critical tooling (smaller chambers) etc. smaller CSCs+Electronics, tested installation/commissioning frames guard strips gap bars IHEP Site wire fix bars wire 74 ME1/2, 74 ME1/3 panels

17. CSC Project Organization • US institutions involved in production: • UC Davis • UCLA • UC Riverside • Fermilab • UF • Purdue • Wisconsin • Foreign Collaborators involved in production: • PNPI - St.Petersburg, Russia • IHEP - Beijing, China

18. Highlights:progress & changes since June 1998 • Prototypes and Tests: • Summer 98: P2 (ME23/2) tested at CERN (with final front-end electronics) • Nov-Jan: P2’ (ME23/2), P3 (M2/1) assembled with all final tools • Feb-Apr: Aging tests at CERN • Spring: P2” (ME23/2) - pre-production • Summer 99: P2” (ME23/2) tests at CERN • Production Schedule: • Nov’98: CERN EDR, approved for production (except for ME1/3) • Feb 99: review of ME23/2 drawings • Apr 99: panel production begins (moved by 3 months) • Oct 99: chamber assembly begins (moved by 3 months) • Cost • Since June ‘98 Cost increased by $38K, contingency use is approved • Advanced Procurement • Fall 99: all FR4 has been purchased (~$770K, within cost estimates) • 1999: purchase of all panels is being considered (~$1,117K) • 1999: ME23/2 gap bars -- possible ($xxxK) • 1999: all chamber frame extrusions -- possible ($xxK)

19. Summary and Conclusions • From HCAL template: • The concerns raised by the Committee have been addressed. • The cumulative BCWP/BCWS is 90%, indicating little schedule slippage. • The full budget authority assigned to the HCAL subsystem was exercised in FY98. In fact additional incremental BA was used to advance the schedule. • Technical progress since the last review includes a PPP and motion table, a TIS safety review and a HB EDR. • Contingency usage has been at the ?? % level of the BCWP, compared to the 43% contingency of the full Project.

20. Slide Title Goes Here • Level 1 Heading 30 point • Level two heading is blue bold with a bullet • level 3 is dark green not bold with a bullet • level 4 is magenta bold 18 point • level 5 is black not bold size 18 • Another level 1 heading • More level 2 at 24 point • Another level 2 item that is long and rolls over onto the next line • Yet more level 2 • level 3 font size is 24 point • level 3 item - all fonts are Helvetica