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 one, 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 or 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 over (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) Repeat Figs. 1.14 and 1.15 in PEs/MeV units rather than (incident photons)/MeV units, account- 2 ing for di ff erent 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 ν e 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 • Plus: update interface documents (Burak, Ines, Dominique) • To make it into 2nd draft, should have all/most of this done by next Consortium meeting (March 26th) � 6
1st draft Todo list (2/10) Repeat Figs. 1.14 and 1.15 in PEs/MeV units rather than (incident photons)/MeV units, account- 2 ing for di ff erent PMT QE for LAr and WLS light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3 The WA105 DP demonstrator simulation to be validated in this section needs to change from • Status: done! See Jose’s slides later. � 7
1st draft Todo list (3/10) ing for di ff erent 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 Number of PE Number of PE Number of PE 4 10 4 10 PMT 1 PMT 2 PMT 3 Neg./Coated Neg./Plate Pos./Coated 3 10 3 10 3 10 0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 Track-PMT shortest distance [mm] Track-PMT shortest distance [mm] Track-PMT shortest distance [mm] Number of PE Number of PE Data PMT 4 PMT 5 4 10 Pos./Plate Neg./Coated MC 3 10 3 10 0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 Track-PMT shortest distance [mm] Track-PMT shortest distance [mm] • Can this really be completed over a 2-week timescale? � 8
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 • It would be useful to add more text/figures from installation phase. Based on Ana’s slides? � 9
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 • 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 of 15.4 ns versus 400 ns sampling, the two options currently on the table � 10
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 • 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? average number of hits in cluster P. Lasorak, 2018/10/08 10 signal optical clusters 1 background optical clusters − 1 10 Krypton AllBackground Other SNnu APA CPA Ar39 Neutron Polonium Radon Ar42 All � 11
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 Triggering efficiency 1 DE=0.077 & BGR=0.05 Hz DE=0.081 & BGR=0.10 Hz DE=0.090 & BGR=0.25 Hz 0.8 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 0.6 DE=0.187 & BGR=5.00 Hz 0.4 0.2 0 2 10 1 10 SN Distance (kpc) • 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 (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 ν e charged 12 current (CC) interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 13 Complete costs table, Tab. 1.8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 • Bea has made significant progress on this, but still work-in-progress • Goal: present in two weeks � 13
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 • 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 (10/10) If included in the baseline design, move to section 1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 15 • 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
Recommend
More recommend
