** Comments please on this revised introduction + ECAL section. ** Timescale Text in the post by 21-Sep Revised Activities for the UK CMS programme Sept 19th 1995 ------------------------------------------- -------------- Introduction and Overview ------------------------- The UK CMS collaboration welcomes the very strong support from the PPESP for UK involvement in CMS and its endorsement, without reservation, of the physics aims of the experiment. The collaboration is pleased that the panel noted the high level of responsibility within CMS presently taken by the UK members and that the physics returns, from the contributions proposed by the UK, would put UK physicists in a strong position for the analysis and interpretation of data. However, the allocations proposed by the PPESP will be insufficient to carry out the programme outlined in "PPESP Request for funding the CMS Experiment" (June 1995). As a consequence the collaboration has reevaluated its programme for each of the scenarios given by the PPESP. The collaboration feels that a UK ECAL Regional Centre can only be established in the optimised funding scenario. This is also the only scenario which would permit the ECAL and Tracker core activities, which make maximum use of our technical expertise, to be maintained. The collaboration believes the latter to be essential for maximising the long-term impact of the UK on the CMS collaboration. We have established programmes for the Mid and Unoptimised scenarios. However we wish to make clear, from the outset, that both seriously compromise our forseen contributions. The level of academic staff at Imperial College, for the CMS project, may increase. There have been discussions with the head of Imperial College's physics department and the department's management committee concerning the resorces required for Imperial to play the major role in both CMS calorimetry and tracking forseen in the present plan. It has been accepted that new younger academic staff will be required for Imperial's obligations to be met and therefore, once the plan is approved, the department will make a request to the college to appoint two lecturers, specially for the CMS programme, within the next 12 months. The details of the programmes for the optimised, mid and unoptimised scenarios suggested by the PPESP, are given in the ECAL and Tracker sections. The table below shows the breakdown of the manpower allocation to the ECAL and Tracker for the three scenarios given by the PPESP. This is followed by a table with the proposed breakdown of the requisitions. ECAL Tracker Total ------ --------- ----- Optimised 6.5(+1.5)* 4.5(+.6)* 11 Mid 6.5(+1.5)* 4.5(+.6)* 11 Unoptimised 5.5 4.5(+.6)* 10 * (+1.5)* indicates that 1.5 additional man-years per annum will be required to incorporate the ECAL Regional Centre programme. This is discussed in the ECAL section. * (+.6)* indicates that .6 additional man-years per annum will be required to support the Tracker programme. This is discussed in the Tracker section. The table below gives the allocation of resources for the ECAL, Tracker and CMS Common fund for the three PPESP scenarios. ECAL Tracker Common fund Total ------ ------- ----------- ----- Optimised 3.35 3.4 2.0 8.75 Mid 2.9 2.9 1.7 7.5 Unoptimised 2.5 2.5 1.5 6.5 1) The Electromagnetic Calorimeter & the Calorimeter Global Trigger ------------------------------------------------------------------- The revised ECAL programme in the Optimised, Mid and Unoptimised scenarios is outlined below. The detailed breakdown of the use of RAL Technology manpower together with the time profiles for spend and manpower use are shown in the tables at the end of this section. It should be noted that the programme for the Calorimeter Global Trigger has been maintained in all three scenarios. We believe that our unique expertise in this area should be fully exploited and that this contribution complements the other ECAL activities. a) The Optimised Scenario (8.75M total - 3.35 ECAL, + 11 SY) The setting up and running of a Regional Centre to produce one quarter of the CMS ECAL formed an important part of our initial programme. We are very keen to continue this activity. We believe that we have made significant progress in order to accomodate the programme within the much reduced manpower allocation to RAL Technology Department. 1) We believe that the Regional Centre programme is only viable if the Optimised funding route is open to us in 1997. We estimate that an absolute minimum of 8 SY/Y will be needed, on average, from RAL Technology Department to support the programme. This is 1.5 SY/Y more than currently envisaged after the sharing of available manpower resources between the ECAL and Tracker in the Optimised scenario. With this modest increment in manpower allocation we believe that the programme will be sensibly balanced at the outset. Unless this level of manpower resource can be found we believe that our core activities, which make maximum use of our technical expertise, will be undermined. This would be unacceptable to us. 2) In order to fulfill the role of a Regional Centre in the UK we have concluded that much of the construction, previously forseen to take place at RAL, will have to be undertaken at the universities. The manpower allocation at RAL, even with the additional request above, precludes it from becoming the single central facility for the programme. 3) The proposed organisation of the Regional Centre activies is shown in Fig 1.1. Single crystals will be delivered to RAL. The crystals will be tested and then incorporated into 'sub units', containing 36 (or possibly 144) crystals. Over the 5-6 year construction period about 556 of these 'sub units' will be made, containing a total of 20,000 crystals. We estimate that 3 Technology Department SY/Y will be needed to provide a manager and two technicians for this work. In addition 6 hired staff per year will be needed to man the 3 'sub unit' production lines. 3-4 RAL PPD staff will be required per year for testing and database analysis. The UK programme assumes that crystals arrive either wrapped or coated. The programme also assumes that the final ECAL design will be realised from modular units similar to those described here. The choice of ECAL design will be made by mid 1996. 4) The 'sub units' will be delivered to Imperial College and Bristol University for fitting out and for incorporation into larger entities or 'units' containing 4 x 5 (20) 'sub units'. A unit would thus contain 720 crystals and would form one quarter of a supermodule. If necessary the further incorporation of units into supermodules could be carried out at Imperial College. At present this final activity is expected to be carried out at Cern by the CMS ECAL group. Fitting out a 'sub unit' will involve mounting an APD, a monitoring fibre, and the very front end electronics to each crystal. We expect that these items will be in a self contained package that can be 'bayonet' locked to the back of each crystal. We expect that about 2 'sub units' per week can be prepared in this way in the UK. The 'sub units' need to be accurately mounted on a support spine. The spine forms the mechanical reference and method of incorporation for the 20 'sub units' into a unit. Connection from the front end electronics to the digital (FERMI) readout will probably be made on a lattice of 12 x 12 crystals. Thus 5 sets of FERMI readout and cooling will be installed per unit together with the fibre monitoring system. This programme is very well suited to the current technical expertise which can be found at both Bristol University and Imperial College. Together with the necessary testing and database logging at each stage of assembly, the programme offers an ideal base for students. Imperial College are able to accomodate this programme within their existing staff profile. Bristol University are likely to need to hire one extra person for the regional centre programme. 5) Brunel University will work closely with RAL, particularly to establish both the checking proceedures and the hardware necessary to pass individual crystals before their incorporation into 'sub units'. The testing of the front end electronics, before incorporation into the 'sub units' at Bristol or Imperial College, will be carried out at Brunel. In addition they will take responsiblity for the detailed checking and characterisation of a subset (possibly 1 in 500) of the crystals during the construction of the ECAL. This makes optimal use of their specialised skills and their resources such as the Co60 irradiation facility. Brunel will also diagnose the faults, if any, in 'sub units' should they fail, at the level of the front end system tests, at Bristol or Imprial College. This will permit the production lines to be kept running while action is taken elsewhere to remedy faults. 6) RAL will undertake its traditional role of managing the project and managing the flow of goods and materials for all parts of the regional centre programme. We estimate that this will require a total of 10 SY from RAL Technology Department for the period 1995-2004. 7) The total level of effort which the universities are able to deploy, in the new organisation, is greater than before. This is because we are able to maximise the use of the high grade technical effort already existing in Brunel, Bristol and Imperial College. It is now better matched and therefore makes more efficient use of the existing personnel. Indeed, for the integration of the 'sub units' at Bristol and Imperial College, the available manpower deployment matches the Cern estimate of what is needed. The collaboration feels that at least 50% of any manpower allocation to Technology Department for the ECAL should be used for high level tasks. This is necessary to safeguard the areas of high expertise which will be needed for the long term benefit of the project. The lower level tasks carried out by Technology Dept which are required for the regional centre would have to fit within this scenario. ECAL design and front end electronics design will be the main activities in the optimised scenario until 1997/1998. At this point these activities will be severely curtailed as the Regional Centre part of the programme takes over. Work relating to the two activities will be expanded again once the regional centre activity is complete and installation in CMS becomes the priority. We expect to take part in the test beam calibration of units or supermodules at Cern during the 6 year construction period. b) The 'Mid' scenario (7.5M Total - 2.9M ECAL, + 11 SY) In this scenario the regional centre activity would probably be abandoned. The decision depends crucially on the source for funding the extra manpower (1.5 staff years per year) in Technology Department, the 36 hired man years and the single hired staff member at Bristol. The mid scenario means that 0.45M pounds is lost from the ECAL budget. The resulting sum is 2.9M pounds. Our expected contribution to CMS, given in the CMS cost review for the ECAL, is 4.0M ChFr, or 2.1M pounds. Included in the cost review is a sum set aside for hired labour at a regional centre. This is about 0.4M pounds. Thus the remaining 0.8M pounds will be needed to fund the additional hired labour needed in the UK, beyond that forseen in the cost review, of 0.6M pounds plus the global trigger programme at 0.22M pounds. This uses up all the remaining resources, does not cover the single hired staff member at Bristol and does not include prototyping costs (these are not included in the CMS cost review). To undertake the Regional Centre programme in the Mid scenario would imply renegotiating our contribution to CMS. This we would be prepared to do before making a final decision to embark on the Regional centre programme in the mid scenario. 1) Activities in the Mid scenario if a regional centre cannot be accomodated ECAL design, including the design of the substantial infrastructure needed at the test beam and for installation at CMS, would form about 50% of the programme and would directly involve Bristol, Imperial College and RAL. The design and integration of the photodetector and front end electroncs, would form the rest of the programme in the Technology Department at RAL. The UK could provide about 50% of the front end readout channels to CMS in this scenario. A substantial test beam calibration activity would also be part of this programme, leading directly to the physics analysis by programme optimisation at the test beams. We would intend to play a full role in the characterisation of the ECAL, including contributions to the simulation studies of key physics channels. All four institutes involved in the UK ECAL project would take part in these activities. It is likely that Bristol would become more heavily involved in simulation and the design of the front end electronics than would have been the case if the regional centre were part of the programme. In the absence of the regional centre programme Brunel intends to capitalise on its experience and facilities to contribute to the detailed investigations of the PbWO4 crystals sampled from the entire ECAL production. They would use their Co60 irradiation facility, and the neutron facility at ISIS, for detailed irradiation studies. They have developed a precision spectrophotometer dedicated to PbWO4 crystals which allows measurements to be made longitudinally and laterally on any crystal. In addition they can measure scintillation decay times, including wavelength filtering to look for the effect of particular defects on the time spectra. Brunel will also contribute to the running of CERN test-beams and the overall calibration of super-modules. c) The 'Unoptimised' programme (6.5 + 10 SY) The activies in this scenario will be similar, but appropriately scaled back, to those described in the Mid scenario where the regional centre programme is abandoned. Integrated RAL Technology Division Staff Years, 1995-2005 ========================================================= PLAN *OPTIMISED* MID * UN-OPT * ITEM * * * * Mech Design & Integration * 19.25 * 23.25 * 17.25 * Front End Design * 11 * 10 * 10 * Front End Manufacture *DROPPED * 12 * 10 * R Centre: 1 ==> 6*6 * 20 * DROPPED * DROPPED * R Centre: 6*6 ==> 500/2000 *DROPPED * DROPPED * DROPPED * R Centre: Coordination * 10 * DROPPED * DROPPED * CERN Beam Tests * 6 * 6 * 5 * CERN beam calibration * 6 * 6 * 5 * Trigger * 7.75 * 7.75 * 7.75 * ************************************************************** TOTAL ECAL * 80.0 * 65.0 * 55.0 * ************************************************************** Provisional allocation * 65.0 * 65.0 * 55.0 * ************************************************************** Balance * 15.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * ************************************************************** The RAL Technology SY and spend profiles for the three scenarios are tabulated below : Year Requisitions Phase Ral Tech (SY) ---- ------------ ------- ---------------------- |Optimal| |Optimal| Mid| Un-opt| ----------------------------------------------------------- 95/96 85+50?c/o 6.75 6.25 6.25 96/97 200 Design/ 8.75 6.25 6.25 97/98 250 prototype 9.0 6.5 6.5 ----------------------------------------------------------- 98/99 350 10.0 6.5 6 99/00 400 Construction 9.5 7 6 00/01 450 and 7.5 7 5.5 01/02 450 Calibration 7.0 7 5 02/03 450 7.0 7 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ 03/04 375 Install'n 6.5 5.5 4 04/05 300 Commission 8.0 6 4.5 ------------------------------------------------------------ Total 3350 80.0 65.0 55.0 ------------------------------------------------------------ The requision profile for the Mid and Unoptimised scenarios is expected to scale pro rata to the optimised profile given above. In the optimised scenario, for the regional centre : Cost, if from requisitions, for 15 SY = 15 * L50k / SY = L0.75M Cost for Hired labour for 36 HY = 36 * L30k / HY = L1.08M Cost for one hired person at Bristol = 6 Y * L30k / Y = L0.18M Total L2.01M, cf original ECAL BID requisitions of L3.35M, balance L1.34M Table: Imperial College ECAL support for the 3 PPESP scenarios 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 total Detect.Suppt. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Opt Inter. equipt. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UnOpt Eng Des/Install. 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 0.5 1.0 1.0 3.25 Eng.O 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.25 Eng.M 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.25 Eng.U Des/Handling 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0 5.75 Eng.O Equipt./ 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 3.75 Eng.M Test Beam 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 3.75 Eng.U Manufacture/ 2.25 2.25 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,5 2.5 2.5 2.5 22 Techs O handg. equipt 1.0 1.0 1,5 1,5 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.5 2.5 16 Techs M Test beam/Install. 0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 12 Techs U Calibration etc 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 32 RA O Test beam/R&D 2.0 2.0 2..0 2.0 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 24 RA M 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 16 RA U Staff...............................................................19.5 Students ........... ................................................31