DP-PDS TDR: Status and Plans Burak Bilki, Michel Sorel DP-PDS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

DP-PDS TDR: Status and Plans

Burak Bilki, Michel Sorel DP-PDS Consortium Meeting 2019-03-12

TDR topics for today

• First high-level comments on 1st draft from Tim Bolton, TDR

General Editor

• Review progress on 1st draft Todo list, to be addressed by 2nd

draft timescale (April 5th)

2

Comments from Tim Bolton (1/3)

• Overall, excellent set of comments, which we should incorporate

in 2nd draft

• See next two slides
• So far we have replied to him with quick answers where we had
• ne, but still nothing implemented in TDR text
• Let’s discuss today
• Also coming soon: writing suggestions from language editor

(Nora Ransom)

3

Comments from Tim Bolton (2/3)

1.“The draft is on the whole very good. Thanks for all your efforts!” 2.“Is the WLS coated FC part of the baseline or not? This is not

• clear. The physics studies as presented in the chapter seem to

point towards "in the baseline", especially for nucleon decay. For the TDR, it needs to be clearly "in" or “out”." 3.“The discussion of physics impacts at the beginning is very good, although it is launched with little introduction. A paragraph

• r two at the front reminding the reader of a few things might be

useful (TPB coated PMT-based solution, PMTs in the cryostat viewing a homogeneous volume, excellent initial results from WA105, imminent results expected from fully realized design DP PD,...). These points are made later, but starting with them would reinforce the points.”

4

Comments from Tim Bolton (3/3)

4.“If I were an LBNC reviewer, I might ask the following questions, in addition to the one about the WLS FC option: a.Does TPB coating have 20+ year lifetime required for DUNE physics? b.How optimal is PMT spacing. Does performance change dramatically

• ver (0.75 m)^2 --> (1.25 m)^2 coverage variation, for example.

c.What is impact of 1 PMT loss, or 1 sector loss. Is there any way a sector could be lost? d.Would a redundant power/signal connections provide meaningful risk reduction? e.The filling process seems especially precarious for the PMT. Does this motivate extra monitoring from CISC to help, or development of special procedures? Is there any "cascaded implosion risk" a la Super-K? Does PD-DP satisfactorily retire this risk?”

5

1st draft Todo list (1/10)

• Plus: update interface documents (Burak, Ines, Dominique)

6

Repeat Figs. 1.14 and 1.15 in PEs/MeV units rather than (incident photons)/MeV units, account-

2

ing for different PMT QE for LAr and WLS light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3

The WA105 DP demonstrator simulation to be validated in this section needs to change from

4

LightSim to LArSoft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5

Add lessons learned from ProtoDUNE-DP installation and commissioning here? . . . . . . . . . . 30

6

Need to repeat the studies for a 15.4 ns sampling and a correspondingly reduced S/N ratio (latter

7

number TBD, check with Antonio). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

8

Need to check that neutron component of radiological model is implemented correctly . . . . . . 32

9

Update NDK plots to include three cases: no foils, full foils, half foils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

10

Update SNB plots to include three cases: no foils, full foils, half foils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

11

Add full study of PDS-based energy reconstruction performance, using simulated beam νe charged

12

current (CC) interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

13

Complete costs table, Tab. 1.8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

14

If included in the baseline design, move to section 1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

15

• To make it into 2nd draft, should have all/most of this done by

next Consortium meeting (March 26th)

1st draft Todo list (2/10)

• Status: done! See Jose’s slides later.

7

Repeat Figs. 1.14 and 1.15 in PEs/MeV units rather than (incident photons)/MeV units, account-

2

ing for different PMT QE for LAr and WLS light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3

The WA105 DP demonstrator simulation to be validated in this section needs to change from

• Can this really be completed over a 2-week timescale?

8

1st draft Todo list (3/10)

ing for different PMT QE for LAr and WLS light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 The WA105 DP demonstrator simulation to be validated in this section needs to change from

4

LightSim to LArSoft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5

Add lessons learned from ProtoDUNE-DP installation and commissioning here? . . . . . . . . . . 30

Track-PMT shortest distance [mm] 500 1000 1500 Number of PE

3

10

4

10 PMT 1

Neg./Coated

Track-PMT shortest distance [mm] 500 1000 1500 Number of PE

3

10 PMT 2

Neg./Plate

Track-PMT shortest distance [mm] 500 1000 1500 Number of PE

3

10

4

10 PMT 3

Pos./Coated

Track-PMT shortest distance [mm] 500 1000 1500 Number of PE

3

10 PMT 4

Pos./Plate

Track-PMT shortest distance [mm] 500 1000 1500 Number of PE

3

10

4

10 PMT 5

Neg./Coated

Data MC

• It would be useful to add more text/figures from installation
• phase. Based on Ana’s slides?

9

1st draft Todo list (4/10)

Add lessons learned from ProtoDUNE-DP installation and commissioning here? . . . . . . . . . . 30

6

Need to repeat the studies for a 15.4 ns sampling and a correspondingly reduced S/N ratio (latter

• Current simulation studies all made with 4 ns sampling, as used

in WA105 DP demonstrator

• Probably no time to repeat with 15.4 ns sampling and reduced

S/N ratio. But should not matter much, given high S/N

• Concerning sampling, we could be more explicit about benefits
• f 15.4 ns versus 400 ns sampling, the two options currently on

the table

10

1st draft Todo list (5/10)

Add lessons learned from ProtoDUNE-DP installation and commissioning here? . . . . . . . . . . 30 Need to repeat the studies for a 15.4 ns sampling and a correspondingly reduced S/N ratio (latter

7

number TBD, check with Antonio). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

8

Need to check that neutron component of radiological model is implemented correctly . . . . . . 32

• Ana’s current results point to negligible neutron background contribution

for PDS-based SNB triggering

• Doubt came from P. Lasorak’s SP-PDS results, where neutron

background most important. Need to check: Ana, Jose, Pierre, Juergen?

11

1st draft Todo list (6/10)

Need to check that neutron component of radiological model is implemented correctly . . . . . . 32

9

Update NDK plots to include three cases: no foils, full foils, half foils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Other SNnu APA CPA Ar39 Neutron Krypton Polonium Radon Ar42 AllBackground All 1 −

10 1 10 average number of hits in cluster

signal optical clusters background optical clusters

• P. Lasorak, 2018/10/08

• So far, full analysis results only for no-foil configuration
• Still to be done for full/half foils: Jose for NDK, Ana for SNB
• Goal: present results in two weeks

12

1st draft Todo list (7/10)

Update NDK plots to include three cases: no foils, full foils, half foils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

10

Update SNB plots to include three cases: no foils, full foils, half foils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

11

Add full study of PDS-based energy reconstruction performance, using simulated beam charged

SN Distance (kpc) 1 10

2

10 Triggering efficiency 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

DE=0.077 & BGR=0.05 Hz DE=0.081 & BGR=0.10 Hz DE=0.090 & BGR=0.25 Hz DE=0.103 & BGR=0.50 Hz DE=0.112 & BGR=0.75 Hz DE=0.122 & BGR=1.00 Hz DE=0.156 & BGR=2.00 Hz DE=0.187 & BGR=5.00 Hz

• Bea has made significant progress on this, but still work-in-progress
• Goal: present in two weeks

13

1st draft Todo list (8/10)

Update SNB plots to include three cases: no foils, full foils, half foils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Add full study of PDS-based energy reconstruction performance, using simulated beam νe charged

12

current (CC) interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

13

Complete costs table, Tab. 1.8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

• Progress made on DPPD Cost Book, see Ines’ slides
• Decide whether including some cost information in 2nd draft, or

later on

14

1st draft Todo list (9/10)

Complete costs table, Tab. 1.8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

14

If included in the baseline design, move to section 1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

• This refers to WLS reflector panels on field cage, description of

system design and installation currently missing

• Should we organize ad-hoc meeting between DPPD Consortium

members (Burak, Ines, Enrique, Jose, Michel, etc.) with HV Consortium members?

• Who should be contacted for HV Consortium?
• When? Use Tuesday’s HV Consortium meeting slot?

15

1st draft Todo list (10/10)

If included in the baseline design, move to section 1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

15