EFIG Meeting 18 March 2015
EFIG Attendees: Joe Lykken (chair), Eric James, Jim Strait, André Rubbia, Mark Thomson, David Lissauer,
Elaine McCluskey, Jim Stewart, Jeff Dolph, Mike Lindgren (ex-officio), Pepin Carolan (ex-officio)
EFIG members not attending: Marzio Nessi
Non-EFIG members attending: Mike Headley, Barry Norris, Mike Andrews, David Montanari, Johan
Bremer, Christopher Mauger
AGENDA

o
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
o
11:05 - 11:20 Joint project team discussion
o
11:20 - 11:50 Discussion of LAr purification system 30'
o
o
— Does it go in the central utility cavern or in the detector caverns (presumably on a mezzanine)?
— Should we define it as part of the facility or part of the experiment?
These are for discussion, not decisions.
o
11:50 - 12:20 More discussion on near detector options 30'
11:00 - 11:05 Approval of minutes of the last meeting 5'
what can we say for the CD-1?
o
12:20 - 12:30 Suggestions for future agenda items 10'
Decisions:
1. None
Action Items:
1.
MINUTES


Minutes approved from last meeting
Discussion of LAr purification system
o Assumption has been LBNF funding
o Contributions potentially available thru DUNE?
o Driven by funding
o Will take some time to figure out available sources from each project
o Purification done historically by physicists with heavy interfaces it
o LN2 system and purification system require cryogenics engineers to design and operate
by one team
o Filters are much weight for mezzanine
o
o
o


Barry slides on purification of equipment that would be designated for mezzanine
May not separate purification from greater cryo system for engineering
Does it make sense to present them as separate systems? May be different institutions
contributing subsystems. Is there still R&D on purification? May attract more
participation by other institutions if collaboration in R&D. Engineering to be done by
professionals. How do we present at CD-1? Decide soon but can change later. Cooling
power needs available at beginning? Full power? Purification could come at later stage.
o What if capacity of purification changes are needed over time? Do we retrofit or deploy
#3 and #4 differently? Fabrication needs to begin ~one year before installation.
Purification needed on day one of fill
o Barry slides – mezzanine purification equipment very heavy (~40 metric tonnes).
Oxysorb vs. copper mole sieve can be discussed with Andre. Reducing total length of
central cavern. 9m height of equipment (phase separator dewars) plus 1-2m of added.
Identical layout for all mezzanines. Filters were optimized when in central cavern.
Shorter dewars would require wider shaft space. Need cranes requirements for
mezzanine installation and potentially maintenance. Pumps have 2.4 cu m/min capacity
to pump up to mezz. Vibration issues? Regen required at startup, none afterward. Need
walled space to contain Ar, ODH 1 space with own air handling. Barry prefers close
proximity of filter to cryostat. More installation issues on mezzanine. Additional
requirements for ventilation.
o Decision needed by end of month for CF scope for CD-1 of purification system. Need
cost criteria for change if made. Currently cost in cryo cavern. Pumps required near
system if in cryo cavern. Introduce added large steel structure from wall to wall,
increase crown height? Is there interference with detector installation? Coupling noise a
problem?
Jim Strait presents project proposal
o Joint project team to CD-1
o Interim and acting personnel for this phase in LBNF/DUNE and shared team
o Consists of executive and full PM team and assigns actions to groups as necessary to
collect data to relieve EFIG
o Immediate issues for PMT
o Details under discussion between LBNF and spokespersons
o Issues of Near Detector need discussion, next agenda item
Near Detector Options
o India detector reference design
o LAr necessary?
o Additional detector and space required
o Are there phasing options? CF requires timeframe within project for ND hall. What size
hall is required? Problem bounded by beam CF to perform for same milestone.
o Do funding agencies understand commitments that are to be in place?
o

Collaboration may develop a timeline for initial Beamline measurements only for 10kt
driven by statistics. Are there upgrade paths that can be taken based on physics
requirements?
o CF scenario should start with what we want and need with fallback for CD-1
o CD-1 approach is FGT with smaller LAr detector
o Two timescales involved; 1) CD-1 refresh, 2) physics requirements development to
determine functional equivalency of ND and FD between CD-1 and CD-2
o If undeliverable what is backup plan to present at CD-1 that is significantly cheaper? Is
this different from FD? Maybe it is, because of functionality of ND interaction for
physics. Need to prepare additional documentation on alternates? Present alternative
as scope contingency with appropriate
Future discussions
o CDR structure, is it projects to discuss? Yes
o Does EFIG need to weigh in on common fund items? Need input from Nigel, IJOG
o Maintenance and operations contained in life-cycle cost analysis. Who is taking on what
costs.
Adjourn meeting at 1:50 pm EDT