WBS 1'1

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 (gt92 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 lt25 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 ArCO2CF4(10)
• HV4 kV (Qcathode110 fC, Qanode140 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 11 Large Chamber, ME2/2 or ME3/2
10
Performance Reliability
11
Performance Wire Local Charged Track (Wire LCT)
P2 Beam Test Results, 1998 gt99
required probability of finding wire LCT
in presence of random hit background
gt92 required probability of tagging correct
bunch crossing in presence of random
hit background
Wire LCT
Wire hits
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 lt100
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)
s0.7 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 CSCsElectronics, tested installation/comm
issioning
UC Site
large CSCs
large CSCsElectronics, tested installation/commis
sioning
Fermilab Site - panel production - large CSC
assembly
74 ME23/1
CERN
large CSCsElectronics, tested installation/commis
sioning
large CSCs
UF Site
Procurement
74 ME23/1
parts and critical tooling (smaller chambers)
etc.
smaller CSCsElectronics, tested installation/comm
issioning
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
• Nov98 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