Summary of the CLAS12 Calorimeter and Cerenkov Counter

1

• Summary of the CLAS12 Calorimeter and Cerenkov
  Counter
• Latifa Elouadrhiri
• Jefferson Laboratory

2
CLAS12 Requirements
The 12 GeV physics program requires measurement
of exclusive reactions. At high energies cross
sections are small and high energy particles are
produced in the forward direction. The physics
program requires

• High operating luminosity of 1035 cm-2sec-1
• Small angle capabilities for charged and neutral
  particle detection
• Particle ID to higher momentum (e-/p-, p/K/p,
  g/po)
• More complete detection of hadronic final state
• Compatibility with polarized target operation

3
HTCC and PCAL Major Detectors for Particle ID
4
High Threshold Cerenkov Counter (HTCC)

• Works in conjunction with CLAS Low Threshold
  CerenKov and Preshower Calorimeter and the CLAS
  Electromagnetic Calorimeter, and Forward Time of
  Flight to provide required electron
  identification
• Optical properties defined
• Response to electrons, pions, and background
  particles simulated in detail, and meets
  requirements for high pion rejection
• Operation in magnetic field is used as constraint
  for the design of the solenoid magnet shielding
• Sensitivity of PMTs to magnetic field addressed
  in RD plan for prototype of multi-layer magnetic
  shield.
• Light-weight mirror construction techniques
  developed to limit impact on 3-momentum
  resolution
• Light readout segmentation allows use in trigger
  decisions

5
PreShower Calorimeters (PCAL)

• Provide sufficient granularity and position
  resolution for the separation of photons and
  pi-zero up to 10 GeV/c.
• Add 5 radiation length in depth to em calorimeter
  and provide full shower and energy containment.
• Chose design readout that allows use of low cost
  extruded scintillator material and low cost pmts.
  
• Non-projective geometry simplifies construction
  greatly and allows significant cost savings.
• Full GEANT simulation to optimize readout
  segmentation.
• Prototyping

6
Hall B Cost ( Need to update the numbers)
(FY07 k direct)
Total Cost for 27,268
7
Hall-B 12 GeV Upgrade Cost
8
Project Phases Updates

• 2004-2005 Conceptual Design (CDR)
• 2004-2008 Research and Development (RD)
• 2006 Advanced Conceptual Design (ACD)
• 2007-2009 Project Engineering Design (PED)
• 2008-2014 Construction
• 2013-2014 Pre-Ops (beam commissioning)

9
DOE Critical Decision Schedule
Long term schedule (CD-4) delayed 2 years since
Lehman-05 1 year since CD-1 Approval
10
12 GeV Funding Profile
11
Schedule Overview (March 28, 2007)
12
Optimized Schedule
13
Hall B Upgrade Project Organization

• Hall B Project
• Hall Leader Volker Burkert
• Cost Account Manager Latifa
  Elouadrhiri
• Hall B Engineer Dave Kashy
• CLAS12 Steering Committee
• Gail Dodge (chair), Ralf Gothe, Günther Rosner
  , Paul Stoler
• Technical Working Groups Hall B staff Users
• Tracking detectors M. Mestayer G. Dodge (ODU)
• Cerenkov counters Y. Sharabian P. Stoler (RPI)
• Calorimetry S. Stepanyan K. Giovanetti (JMU)
• TOF detectors D. Carman R. Gothe
  (USC) , W. Kim (KNU)
• Beamline A. Deur D. Crabb (UVa)
• Magnets V. Burkert O. Pogorelko (ITEP)
• Online/DAQ S. Boiarinov tbd
• Offline M. Ito M. Holtrop (UNH)

14
CLAS12 Institutions

• Arizona State University (US)
• Argonne National Laboratory (US)
• California State University (US)
• College of William Mary (US)
• Fairfield University (US)
• Florida International University, Miaimi (US)
• Glasgow University (UK)
• Hampton University (US)
• Idaho State University (US)
• Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics
  (Russia)
• James Madison University (US)
• Kyungpook National University (Republic of Korea)
• Kurchatov Institute Moscow (Russia),
• Moscow State University, Skobeltsin Institute for
  Nuclear Physics (Russia)
• Norfolk State University (US)
• Ohio University (US)
• Orsay University (France)
• Old Dominion University (US)

15
CLAS12 HTCC PCAL Projects

• CLAS12 HTCC and PCAL represent design and
  construction projects of significant size, but
  they are smaller in scale than the CLAS project.
• HTCC has 2 mirror system (elliptical and WC) with
  96 PMTs. The CLAS LTCC has triple mirror system
  (elliptical, hyperbolic, WC) with 216 PMTs.
• PCAL has only 15 scintillator layers vs 39 in
  CLAS EC. It is about 1/3 in weight.
• CLAS12 PCAL is largely based on designs and
  construction techniques that worked well for ten
  years in CLAS EC.
• CLAS12 PCAL includes many simplifications and
  uses cost-effective solutions.
• CLAS12 PCAL and HTCC designs and construction
  benefit from availability of much of the manpower
  who built the CLAS EC and LTCC.
• Prototype for PCAL sector and HTCC mirrors are
  needed for studies of construction techniques,
  optimization of operating conditions, and study
  of lower cost solutions at no loss in
  performance.
• Cost estimate are based on vendor information and
  experience with CLAS construction.
• EHS issues are taken into consideration at the
  RD and design stages.

16
CLAS12 HTCC PCAL Summary

• The scope of the HTCC and PCAL is well
  defined, and uses well known technology, with
  overall low technical risk.
• The project baseline decision CD2 in June 2007
• Main performance parameters are defined and
  verified by RD.
• Project engineering and design for all components
  to a level sufficient for baseline, including the
  verification of proper implementation of safety
  aspects in the design, in place
• Documentation of cost basis
• Refinement of resource loaded schedule in
  progress
• The CD3 project decision in 4Q FY08
• Main focus is completion of all the prototyping
• Completion of designs for all components,
  including emphasis on operational safety
  procedures

17
CLAS12 HTCC PCAL Summary

• The scope of the HTCC and PCAL is well
  defined, and uses well known technology, with
  overall low technical risk.
• The project baseline decision CD2 in June 2007
• Main performance parameters are defined and
  verified by RD.
• Project engineering and design for all components
  to a level sufficient for baseline, including the
  verification of proper implementation of safety
  aspects in the design, in place
• Documentation of cost basis
• Refinement of resource loaded schedule in
  progress
• The CD3 project decision in 4Q FY08
• Main focus is completion of all the prototyping
• Completion of designs for all components,
  including emphasis on operational safety
  procedures

18
(No Transcript)
19
12 GeV UPGRADE SCHEDULENovember 2006