Transcript BNL DOE HEP Review

The Daya Bay Experiment
1)
2)
3)
4)
Motivation
Reactor anti-ne
Daya Bay Experiment
Collaboration/BNL involvement
Steve Kettell
BNL
Neutrinos
• Connecting Quarks to the Cosmos: One of the eleven `profound
questions’ addresses the mass and mixing of neutrinos. (2003)
• Quantum Universe: “Detailed studies of the properties of
neutrinos  their masses, how they mix, and whether they are
Majorana particles will tell us whether neutrinos conform to
the patterns of ordinary matter or whether they are leading us to
the discovery of new phenomena.” (2004)
recommendation of the APS n Study Group (11/04)
• The U.S. should mount one multi-detector reactor experiment
sensitive to nedisappearance down to sin22θ13 ~ 0.01.
NuSAG (2/28/06)
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
2
BNL PAC
• BNL High Energy Nuclear Physics Program Advisory Committee
meeting 3/23/06
• The BNL neutrino group's presentation of the Daya Bay experiment and
their involvement in it was very well received. In particular, the
committee noted the crucial role BNL plays in R&D work for the Daya
Bay experiment. In conjunction with the BNL Chemistry department,
the group studies solubility of Gd in scintillator, and attenuation of light
in the Gd doped scintillator. These R&D issues are at the heart of the
potential success of both the Daya Bay and Braidwood reactor efforts.
The committee recognizes and encourages the great synergy between the
BNL physicists and chemists in the reactor program.
• PAC Membership: Stanley Brodsky, Donald Geesaman, Miklos Gyulassy,
Barbara Jacak, Peter Jacobs, Bob Jaffe, Takaaki Kajita, James Nagle, Jack
Sandweiss, Yannis Semertzidis, (Bonnie Fleming, Frank Sculli)
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
3
The Last Unknown Neutrino
Mixing Angle: 13
UMNSP Matrix
Maki, Nakagawa, Sakata, Pontecorvo
1
0

 0 cos 23

0 sin  23
U e1 U e 2 U e 3  0.8

 
U  U 1 U  2 U  3  0.4

 
U 1 U 2 U 3  0.4
  cos13
 
sin  23 
0


i CP
cos 23  
e sin 13
0
atmospheric, K2K
23 = ~ 45°
0 ei CP sin 13   cos12
 
1
0
 sin 12

0
cos13 
  0
reactor and accelerator
13 = ?
0.5
0.6
0.6
sin 12
cos12
0
U e 3 

0.7 
0.7 

0 1
0
 
0 0 e i / 2
 
1 0
0
SNO, solar SK, KamLAND
12 ~ 32°
?
0
0
e i / 2i





0n
?
What isne fraction of n3?
Is there  symmetry in neutrino mixing?
Ue3 is the gateway to CP violation in neutrinos.
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
4
Measuring 13 with Reactor
Neutrinos
Search for 13 in oscillation experiment
2 
m 2 L 

4
2
2 m21 L
31
Pee  1 sin 213 sin 
 cos 13 sin 212 sin 

4E
4E


n 
n 
Ue3
2
PePeee
2
detector 1
13

nuclear reactor
detector 2
~1.8 km
Distance (km)
~ 0.3-0.5 km
Daya
Bay,
China
April 18,
2006
Pure measurement of 13.
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
5
Detection of antineutrinos in
liquid scintillator
• The reaction is inverse -decay in 0.1% Gd-doped liquid scintillator:
ne  p  e+ + n (prompt)
50,000b
 + p  D + (2.2 MeV)
(delayed)
 + Gd  Gd*
 Gd + ’s(8 MeV) (delayed)
• Time- and energy-tagged signal is a good
tool to suppress background events.
Arbitrary
0.3b
From Bemporad, Gratta and Vogel
Observable n Spectrum
• Energy of ne is given by:
En  Te+ + Tn + (mn - mp) + me+  Te+ + 1.8 MeV
10-40 keV
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
6
Current Knowledge of 13
13
12
m12
Established technique (e.g. Chooz)
 with improvements for Daya Bay
Limit on 13 from Chooz
2.7% without near detectors
• limited statistics
• reactor-related systematic errors:
- energy spectrum of ne (~2%)
- time variation of fuel composition (~1%)
• detector-related systematic error (1-2%)
• background-related error (1-2%)
April 18, 2006
At m231 = 2.4  103 eV2,
sin2213 < 0.15
allowed region
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
7
Requirements for improving the
sensitivity to sin2213  0.01
Higher statistics:
• More powerful reactor cores
• Larger target mass
Better control of systematic errors:
• Utilize multiple detectors at different baselines (near and far)
 measure RATIOS
• Make detectors as nearly IDENTICAL as possible
• Careful and thorough calibration and monitoring of each detector
• Optimize baseline for best sensitivity and small residual reactorrelated errors
• Interchange detectors to cancel most detector systematics
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
8
Goals And Approach
• Utilize the Daya Bay nuclear power facilities to:
- determine sin2213 with a sensitivity of 1%
- measure m231
• Employ horizontal-access-tunnel scheme:
- mature and relatively inexpensive technology
- flexible in choosing overburden and baseline
- relatively easy and cheap to add experimental halls
- easy access to underground experimental facilities
- easy to move detectors between different locations with
good environmental control.
• Adopt three-zone antineutrino detector design.
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
9
Daya Bay, China
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
10
The Daya Bay Nuclear Power Facilities
• Powerful facilities (total thermal power):
11.6 GW (now)  17.4 GW (2011)
comparable to Palo Verde, the most
powerful nuclear power plant in U.S.
• Adjacent to mountain, easy to
construct tunnels to underground
labs with sufficient overburden to
suppress cosmic rays
April 18, 2006
Ling Ao II NPP:
2  2.9 GWth
Ling Ao NPP:
2  2.9 GWth
Ready by 2010-2011
1 GWth generates 2 × 1020 ne per sec
Daya Bay NPP:
BNL DOE HEP Review
2  2.9 Steve
GWKettell,
th
11
Far site
1600 m from Ling Ao
2000 m from Daya
Overburden: 350 m
Empty detectors: moved to underground
halls through access tunnel.
Filled detectors: swapped between
underground halls via horizontal tunnels.
Ling Ao Near
500 m from Ling Ao
Overburden: 98 m
Mid site
~1000 m from Daya
Overburden: 208 m
290 m
(8% slope)
Entrance
portal
Ling Ao-ll NPP
(under const.)
230 m
(15% slope) Ling Ao
NPP
Daya Bay Near
360 m from Daya Bay
Overburden: 97 m
Daya Bay
NPP
Total length: ~2700 m
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
12
Antineutrino Detector
• Antineutrinos are detected via inverse -decay
in Gd-doped liquid scintillator (LS)
20 tonnes
Gd-LS
Description:
• 3 zones: Gd-LS target (20 tonnes),
LS gamma catcher, oil buffer
• 2 nested acrylic vessels, 1 stainless vessel
• 200 8” PMT’s on circumference of 5m  5m
cylinder
• reflective surfaces on endplates of cylinder
• energy resolution is 14%/E
April 18, 2006
buffer
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
gamma catcher
13
Conceptual Design of Muon Veto
Neutron background vs.
thickness of water
2m of
water
rock
muon
tracker
water
~0.05
a conceptual design
• Detector modules enclosed by 2m of water to shield neutrons
•
•
•
(and gamma-rays)
Water shield also serves as a Cherenkov veto
Augmented with a muon tracker: scintillator or RPC's
Combined efficiency of Cherenkov and tracker > 99.5%
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
14
Findings of Geotechnical Survey
• No active or large faults
• Earthquakes are infrequent
U.S. experts in geology and
tunnel construction assist
geotechnical survey:
• Rock: massive and blocky granite
• Rock mass: slightly weathered or
Joe Wang
(LBL)
Pat
Dobson
(LBL)
Chris Laughton
(FNAL)
Yanjun
Sheng
(IGG)
fresh
• Groundwater: low flow at tunnel
Borehole drilling
depth
• Quality of rock: stable and hard
Good geotechnical conditions for tunnel construction
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
15
Tunnel construction
•
•
•
•
The total tunnel length is ~3 km
Preliminary civil construction design: ~$3K/m
Construction time is ~24 months (5 m/day)
A similar tunnel already exists on site
7.2 m
April 18, 2006
7.2 m
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
16
Background
•
•
Accidental Background:
•
Natural Radioactivity: PMT glass, Rock, Radon in the air, etc
•
Neutrons
Correlated Background:
•
Fast neutrons Neutrons produced in rock and water shield (99.5% veto efficiency)
•
Cosmic Ray production of 8He/9Li which can decay via -n emission
Near Site
Far Site
Radioactivity (Hz)
<50
<50
Accidental B/S
<0.05%
<0.05%
Fast neutron B/S
0.14%0.16%
0.08%0.1%
0.41%±0.18%
0.02%±0.08%
8He/9Li
B/S
For reference, 560(80) neutrino events per
detector per day at the near(far) site
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
17
Systematic Uncertainty
Systematic error
Chooz
Reaction Cross Section
1.9%
0, near-far cancellation
Energy released per fission
0.6%
0, near-far cancellation
Reactor Power
0.7%
0.1%, near-far cancellation
Number of Protons
0.8%
0, detector swapping
Detection efficiency
1.5%
~0.2%, fewer cuts, detector
swapping
Total
2.75%
~0.2%
Statistical Error (3 years): 0.2%
Residual systematic error: ~ 0.2%
April 18, 2006
Daya Bay
2.8% (Chooz)
2.7%
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
18
Sensitivity
Far (80t)
Antineutrino detector
modules, each with
20 tonne target mass
3-year run with 80 t at far site
Ling Ao
near (40t)
Horizontal tunnel
Tunnel
entrance
April 18, 2006
Daya Bay
near (40t)
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
19
The Daya Bay Collaboration:
China-Russia-U.S.
20 institutions, 89 collaborators
Yu. Gornushkin, R. Leitner, I. Nemchenok, A. Olchevski
Joint Institute of Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
X. Guo, N. Wang, R. Wang
Beijing Normal University, Beijing
V.N. Vyrodov
Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia
L. Hou, B. Xing, Z. Zhou
China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing
B.Y. Hsiung
National Taiwan University, Taipei
M.C. Chu, W.K. Ngai
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
J. Cao, H. Chen, J. Fu, J. Li, X. Li, Y. Lu, Y. Ma, X. Meng,
R. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, Z. Xing, C. Yang, Z. Yao,
J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, H. Zhuang, M. Guan, J. Liu, H. Lu,
Y. Sun, Z. Wang, L. Wen, L. Zhan, W. Zhong
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing
Y. Chen, H. Niu, L. Niu
Shenzhen University, Shenzhen
S. Chen, G. Gong, B. Shao, M. Zhong, H. Gong, L. Liang,
T. Xue
Tsinghua University, Beijing
Z. Li, C. Zhou
Zhongshan University, Guangzhou
April 18, 2006
R.D. McKeown, C. Mauger, C. Jillings
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, U.S.
K. Whisnant, B.L. Young
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, U.S.
X. Li, Y. Xu, S. Jiang
Nankai University, Tianjin
K.S. Cheng, J.K.C. Leung, C.S.J. Pun, T. Kwok,
R.H.M. Tsang, H.H.C. Wong
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
M. Bishai, M. Diwan, D. Jaffe, J. Frank, R.L. Hahn, S. Kettell,
L. Littenberg, K. Li, B. Viren, M. Yeh
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973-5000, U.S.
W.R. Edwards, K. Heeger, K.B. Luk
University of California and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.
V. Ghazikhanian, H.Z. Huang, S. Trentalange, C. Whitten Jr.
University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, U.S.
M. Ispiryan, K. Lau, B.W. Mayes, L. Pinsky, G. Xu,
L. Lebanowski
University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, U.S.
J.C. Peng
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801, U.S.
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
20
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
21
Accomplishments at Feb
Collaboration Meeting
• Bylaws were ratified by the collaboration.
• Institutional board, with one representative from each member
•
institution and two spokespersons, was established.
Executive board was established:
Y. Wang (China)
C. Yang (China)
M.C. Chu (Hong Kong)
Y. Hsiung (Taiwan)
A. Olshevski (Russia)
K.B. Luk (U.S.)
R. McKeown (U.S.)
• Scientific spokespersons were chosen:
Y. Wang (China), K.B. Luk (U.S.)
• Project management in China and U.S. were compared.
• Initial discussions of construction project management.
• Task forces were set up. Each task is led by at least one member
from China and one from U.S.
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
22
Collaboration Communications
•
•
•
•
•
Weekly collaboration phone meetings
Weekly U.S. Daya Bay phone meetings
LBL serves as the hub for both phone meetings
BNL provides web archive for phone meetings
Several face-to-face collaboration meetings have been held in
Beijing, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and Berkeley. The most recent
one was held at IHEP in February 2006.
• Next collaboration meeting in Beijing, June 9-12, 2006.
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
23
Joint U.S.-China Task Forces
International working groups with U.S.-China co-leadership for main detector
systems and R&D issues established at the February collaboration meeting.
1. Antineutrino Detector
Co-Chairs: S. Kettell (BNL, U.S.)
Y. Wang (IHEP, China)
6. Offline Data Distribution and Processing
Co-Chairs: J. Cao (IHEP)
B. Viren (BNL)
2. Calibration
Co-Chairs: R.D. McKeown (Caltech, U.S.)
X. Biao (CIAE, China)
7. Project Management and Integration
Co-Chairs: B. Edwards (LBNL, U.S.)
S. Kettell (BNL, U.S.)
Y. Wang (IHEP, China)
H. Zhuang (IHEP, China)
3. Communications
Co-Chairs: J. Cao (IHEP, China)
K.M. Heeger (LBNL, U.S.)
W. Ngai (CUHK, Hong Kong)
4. Liquid Scintillator
Co-Chairs: R.L. Hahn (BNL, U.S.)
Z. Zhang (IHEP, China)
I. Nemchenok (Dubna, Russia)
8. Simulation
Co-Chairs: J. Cao (IHEP, China)
C. Jillings (Caltech, U.S.)
9. Tunneling and Civil Construction
Lead:
C. Yang (IHEP, China)
U.S. Consultant: C. Laughton (FNAL, U.S.)
5. Muon Veto
Co-Chairs: L. Littenberg (BNL, U.S.)
K. Lau (Houston, U.S.)
Y. Changgen (IHEP, China)
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
24
Why BNL?
• The Physics is compelling! and a critical step to CP
• BNL provides a strong National Laboratory presence to
•
•
•
assure the success of the experiment.
BNL has a rich and storied tradition in n physics: in both
the Physics and Chemistry departments
BNL Chemistry has been involved in liquid scintillator
research for Daya Bay for 3 years
This experiment provides a bridge from the current Physics
Department effort on MINOS to a long-baseline effort to
measure CP violation in the neutrino sector.
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
25
BNL involvement in Daya Bay
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Formally joined collaboration at Feb. 2006 meeting in Beijing
Member of Institutional Board (Kettell)
Lead of liquid scintillator task force (Hahn,Yeh)
Lead of muon veto task force (Littenberg, Diwan, Bishai)
Central detector task force (Kettell)
Simulations task force (Jaffe)
Project and other engineering resources available
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
26
BNL in Daya Bay
• BNL is deeply involved in the muon tracker design
• BNL is working with engineer from LBNL on antineutrino
•
•
•
detector design and project management
BNL is looking to incorporate additional BNL engineering
One third of R&D request for BNL projects
As MINOS analysis effort matures, more effort directed to
Daya Bay construction project and later to DB analysis
VLBN
E734
MINOS
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
27
U.S. R&D Plan
DOE-HEP Daya Bay
Primary R&D Goals:
FY06 R&D Request
• Ensure a strong U.S. contribution to the
1/23/06, revised 1/31/06
Daya Bay experiment.
FY06 ($k)
• Match the schedule of Chinese R&D and R&D Tasks
design.
1) Simulations
195
 Don’t let U.S. slow project down!
255
• Optimize U.S. scope while minimizing cost. 2) Liquid Scintillator
Full R&D funding in FY06 (and FY07):
• Enable U.S. input to experiment design.
• Timely technology choices.
• Early determination of project cost and
schedule.
• Finalize preparations for CD-1 in about six
months.
April 18, 2006
3) Antineutrino Detector
500
4) Calibration
370
5) Electronics
150
6) Muon Veto
419
7) Site Development
200
8) Project Definition
265
Total
2354
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
28
Gd-Loaded Liquid Scintillator
1.
2.
3.
Require stable (~years) Gd-LS with high light yield, long attenuation length.
Explore alternatives to pseudocumene, PC.
Evaluate chemical compatibility of Gd-LS with acrylic (detector vessel).
BNL lead role: substantial R&D at BNL on metal loaded LS (funded by ONP + LDRD)
• Avoid the chemical/optical degradation problems encountered in the Chooz and Palo Verde
experiments
Primary R&D Goals:
• Study alternatives to PC (Low flashpoint: 48oC, health/environmental issues, attack acrylic)
– For example, mixture of 20% PC and 80% dodecane
– Current R&D is with Linear Alkyl Benzene, LAB, which is very attractive (high
•
•
•
flashpoint:130o, biodegradable and environmentally friendly, readily available with tons
produced by industry for detergents)
Successfully prepared Gd-LS in 100% LAB, with favorable properties (over Gd in PC)
Further studies needed to determine stability over time
Develop mass-production techniques to go from the current bench-top scale of kg (several
liters) to tonnes (thousands of liters)
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
29
Optical Attenuation of BNL Gd-LS
Absorbance at 430 nm
Stable for ~500 days so far
Calendar Date
Gd-LS under UV light
(in 10 cm cells)
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
30
Muon Veto/Tracker
Understanding muon and spallation backgrounds:
1. High efficiency, redundant muon vetoes.
2. Tracking ability for systematic studies and event identification.
Primary R&D Goals:
• Evaluate candidate technologies for muon tracker:
• Plastic scintillator strips
• Resistive Plate Chambers
• Liquid scintillator modules
• Evaluate candidate technologies for muon veto:
• Water pool Cherenkov
• Modular water Cherenkov
BNL Role
• Subsystem in which U.S. is likely to take the lead  BNL has extensive
experience in both plastic and liquid scintillator.
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
31
Antineutrino Detector
Measurement of sin2213  0.01 requires detector systems designed to
minimize systematic uncertainties.
1. Identical detector modules:
•
•
identical scintillator volumes, optical transparency.
facilitate calibration/monitoring system.
2. Moveable detectors:
•
•
•
design detectors for identical performance at all sites.
engineer support and movement structures.
time critical due to close interface with tunnel/cavern design.
Primary R&D Goals:
• Mechanical design of central detector.
• Design of transportation and installation systems for detectors.
• Identify vendors for fabricating acrylic vessels.
BNL Role:
• Engineering and leadership experience at LBNL and BNL.
On the critical path (civil construction design contract).
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
KamLAND 2005
32
Site Development
1. Analyze core samples: input for detailed civil construction design studies.
2. Define surface building and underground halls (space and infrastructure).
3. Define liquid scintillator purification and handling (space and infrastructure).
Primary R&D Goals:
• Define underground hall specifications in order to proceed to final civil design
contract.
• Interface between experiment design and hall design.
BNL Role:
• Engineering and physics design experience
• Specification of civil design is on the critical path; minimize delay and reduce
risk for civil construction.
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
KamLAND 2005
33
Project Definition
1.
2.
3.
4.
Develop complete project scope and schedule (joint with China).
Define U.S. and Chinese deliverables (joint with China).
Develop U.S. cost and schedule ranges.
Build U.S. project team and organization.
Primary R&D Goals:
• Develop the U.S. project scope, cost and schedule.
• Coordinate with China on total project scope, cost and schedule.
BNL Role:
• U.S. responsibility. Exploit project experience at LBNL and BNL.
• Continue to develop coordination with Chinese effort.
• Develop baseline project.
• Develop overall experiment design.
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
KamLAND 2005
34
Initial definition of Project Scope
U.S.-China primary responsibilities
U.S. Scope
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Muon tracking system (veto system)
Gd-loaded liquid scintillator
Calibration systems
Antinu Detector (Acrylic, PMT’s)
Electronics/DAQ/trigger hardware
Detector integration activities
Project management activities
other contributions
Description
1
Central Detector
Sy stem design, steel v essels, unloaded LS, mineral oil,
readout electronics co-design, electronics mf g, saf ety
sy stems, racks, assembly & installation
Acry lic v essels, PMT's & support structure, Gd loaded LS,
LS purif ication sy stem, locomotion sy stem, readout
electronics co-design, cables, crates
2
and plastic scintillator
• Taiwan: acrylic vessels and trigger
• Hong Kong: calibration and data
storage
Veto Detector
Sy stem design, muon tracker sy stem, supplemental water
v eto PMT's, muon tracker assy & test
Water v eto sy stem hardware, compensation coils, readout
electronics mf g, saf ety sy st, water v eto assy & test
3
Calibration & Monitoring Systems
WBS
Automated deploy ment sy stem & glov e box, laser sources,
monitoring sy stem & sy stem test
Manual calibration sy s & glov ebox, LED sources, radioactiv e
calib.
sources, low-background source & matls counting sy st
Description
4
• Russia: liquid scintillator, calibration,
April 18, 2006
WBS
DAQ, Trigger, Online & Offline Hardware
DAQ & trigger board co-design, board manuf acture, racks,
monitoring & controls hardware, some on-line hardware
DAQ & trigger board co-design, crates, cables, on-line hardware
of f -line hardware & data archiv ing in US, sy stem test platf orm
Majority Responsibility
China
US
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć Responsibility
Majority
Ć
China
US
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
Ć
shared
shared
Ć
Ć
shared
shared
5
DAQ, Trigger, Online & Offline Software
Ov erall sof tware architecture, DAQ & trigger sof tware,
on-line & of f -line sof tware, simulations sof tware
Monitoring & controls sof tware
6
Conventional Construction & Equipment
Tunnels, entrances, experimental halls, underground utilities,
saf ety sy stems, surf ace f acilities
Ć
Ć
Ć
7
System Integration
Ć
Ć
8
Project Management
Ć
Ć
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
35
U.S. Project Scope & Budget
Institution
WBS element
Budget
Lead? target ($K)
BNL
Muon tracker sy stem
Gd-loaded liquid scintillator
Y
Y
5,000 joint with univ ersity groups
1,500 may include LS purif ication sy stem
Y
2,000 joint with univ groups & LBNL
Calif ornia Institute TechologyCalibration sy stems
Univ ersity of Houston
DAQ hardward & sof tware
LBNL
Project management
Sy stem integration
PMT's, bases & control
Locomotion & cranes
Readout & trigger electronics
Acry lic Vessels
Comments
1,000 joint with univ groups & LBNL
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U. Ill at Urbana-Champaign, addn'l univ ersity -based scope
Iowa State Univ ersity ,
UCLA + other univ ersities
1,700
1,700
3,000
600
1,000
2,000
joint
joint
joint
joint
with
with
with
with
BNL
univ ersity groups
BNL
univ groups & BNL
4,200 see next slide f or details
Other Necessary Items
Common f und
Project contingency
~30%
Total:
Total:
April 18, 2006
2,000
7,000
32,700
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
36
Overall Project Schedule
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
37
Project Development
• Schedule/activities over next several months:
Determine scale of detector for sizing halls:
now – June
Continue building strong U.S. team - key people: now – summer
Conceptual design, scale & technology choices: now – Aug
Firm up U.S. scope, schedule & cost range:
July – Nov
Write CDR, prepare for CD-1:
Aug – Nov
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
38
Funding Profile
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
U.S. R&D
$2M
$3.5M
U.S. Construction $10M
$14M
$8M
CD-1 review
Begin construction in China
November 2006
March 2007
CD-2 review
Begin data collection
Measure sin2213 to 0.01
September 2007
January 2010
March 2013
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
39
Summary and Prospects
• The Daya Bay nuclear power facility in China and the mountainous topology in the
vicinity offer an excellent opportunity for carrying out a measurement of sin2213
at a sensitivity of 0.01.
• The Chinese funding agencies have agreed in principle to a request of RMB 150M
to fund civil construction and ~half of the detector.
• NuSAG endorsed U.S. participation in a 13 experiment, P5 is evaluating 13
experiments as part of the Roadmap, and we are hopeful for a positive decision by
DOE.
• BNL/LBNL submitted R&D request to DOE for FY06 in January 2006.
• Have begun to form project leadership team with China: progress on organization,
scope and cost.
• Will complete a conceptual design of detectors, tunnels and underground facilities
in 2006, aiming for CD1 review this year and a CD2 review in 2007.
• In the ~3 months since BNL joined the Daya Bay collaboration we have made
huge strides in defining and understanding the project and the U.S. scope.
• Plan to commission a Fast Deployment plan in 2009, with full operation in 2010.
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
40
Backup
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
41
A Versatile Site
• Rapid deployment:
• Full operation:
- Daya Bay near site + mid site
- 0.7% reactor systematic
error
April 18, 2006
(A) Two near sites + Far site
(B) Mid site + Far site
(C) Two near sites + Mid site + Far site
Internal checks, each with different
systematic
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
42
Cosmic-ray Muon
• Apply a modified Gaisser parameterization for cosmic-ray flux at surface
• Use MUSIC and mountain profile to estimate muon flux & energy
near site
~350 m
~208 m
far site
~98 m
~97 m
April 18, 2006
DYB
LingAo
Mid
Far
Elevation (m)
97
98
208
347
(m.w.e.)
280
280
560
930
Flux (Hz/m2)
1.2
0.94
0.17
0.045
Mean Energy (GeV)
55
55
97
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
136
43
Science Goals → Experiment
Design → R&D
Reduce and control systematic errors:
•
“Identical” detectors at multiple sites
→ detector design/construction, side-by-side comparisons
• Detector performance - well-understood, stable
→ materials/construction, calibration/monitoring
• Reduce radioactivity background
→ materials/construction, Gd-loaded scintillator
• Reduce and measure cosmogenic backgrounds
→ shielding, muon veto and tracking, DAQ system
• Swap detectors
→ horizontal tunnel system, locomotion equipment
U.S. R&D tasks focused on achieving these goals
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
44
Background estimated by GEANT MC simulation
Near
far
Neutrino signal rate(1/day)
560
80
Natural backgrounds(Hz)
45.3
45.3
Single neutron(1/day)
24
2
Accidental BKG/signal
0.04%
0.02%
Correlated fast neutron Bkg/signal
0.14%
0.08%
8He+9Li
0.5%
0.2%
April 18, 2006
BKG/signal
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
45
Detector-related Uncertainties
Absolute
measurement
Relative
measurement
w/Swapping
→0
→ 0.006
→0
→ 0.06%
Baseline: currently achievable relative uncertainty without R&D
Goal: expected relative uncertainty after R&D
Swapping: can reduce relative uncertainty further
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
46
Experimental Parameters
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
47
H/C ratio
• CHOOZ claims 0.8% absolute based on multiple lab
•
•
analyses (combustion)
We need only relative measurement
Double-CHOOZ claims 0.2%
 Adopt 0.2% baseline
 Adopt 0.1% goal
R&D: measure via NMR or neutron capture
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
48
Target Volume
• KamLAND: ~1%
• CHOOZ: 0.02%?
• Flowmeters – 0.02% repeatability
 Baseline = 0.2%
 Goal = 0.02%
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
49
Energy Cuts
• CHOOZ = 0.8% absolute
• Baseline 0.2%
• Goal = 0.05% for
2% energy calibration
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
50
Energy Cuts
KamLAND calibration data:
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
51
Time Cuts
Neutron time window uncertainty:
t = 10 ns  0.03% uncertainty
 Use common clock for detector modules
 Baseline = 0.1%
 Goal = 0.03%
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
52
H/Gd ratio
Measure neutron capture time
CHOOZ measured  to ±0.5s  e=0.01% for t1=0.2s
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
53
Livetime
•
•
April 18, 2006
Measure relative livetimes using accurate common clock
Should be negligible error (note SNO livetime error of ~10-5
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
54
What Have We Learned From
Chooz?
Rate:
~5 events/day/t (full power)
including 0.2-0.4 bkg/day/t
P = 8.4 GWth
L = 1.05 km
D = 300 mwe
~3000 ne
candidates
(included 10% bkg) in
335 days
5 t Gd-loaded liquid scintillator
to detect
ne + p  e+ + n
e+ + e-  2 x 0.511 MeV 
n + Gd  8 MeV of s;  ~ 30 s
April 18, 2006
CHOOZ Systematic Uncertainties
Reactor n flux & spectrum
Detector Acceptance
2%
1.5%
Total
2.7%
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
55
Reactor anti-ne
For
235U,
for instance, an
P(ne  ne )  1
ne/MeV/fission
average of 6 nes are produced
per fission (~200 MeV).
3 GWth generates 61020 ne per sec
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
56
April 18, 2006
3.5
2.5
2
3
235U
239Pu
241Pu
1
1.5
238U
0.5
0
Typically known to ~1%
normalized flux times cross section (arbitrary units)
Time Variation of Fuel
Composition
1
2
E (MeV)
3
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
57
Calibration
• Radioactive Source
137Cs, 22Na, 60Co, 54Mn, 65Zn
, 68Ge, Am-Be
252Cf, Am-Be
• Gamma generator
KI & CIAE
p+19F→ α+16O*+6.13MeV;
p+11B→ α+8Be*+11.67MeV
• Backgrounds
cosmic-induced neutrons, Michel’s electrons, …
LED calibration
40K, 208Tl,
•
Hong Kong
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
58
What Target Mass Should Be?
(3 year run)
DYB: B/S = 0.5%
LA: B/S = 0.4%
Far: B/S = 0.1%
m231 = 2  10-3 eV2
Systematic error
Black : 0.6%
Red : 0.25% (baseline goal)
Blue : 0.12%
tonnes
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
59
Sensitivity
With four 20-t modules at the far site and two 20-t modules at each near
site:
For 3 years
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
60
Precision of m231
sin2213 = 0.02
sin2213 = 0.1
April 18, 2006
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
61
Synergy of Reactor and
Accelerator Experiments
Δm2 = 2.5×10-3 eV2
sin2213 = 0.05
Reactor experiments can help in
Resolving the 23 degeneracy
(Example: sin2223 = 0.95 ± 0.01)
90% CL
Reactor w 100t (3 yrs)
+T2K
T2K (5yr,n-only)
90% CL
Reactor w 10t (3 yrs)
+T2K
Reactor w 100t (3 yrs) + Nova
Nova only (3yr + 3yr)
Reactor w 10t (3yrs) + Nova
90% CL
Reactor experiments provide
a better determination of 13
April 18, 2006
McConnel & Shaevitz, hep-ex/0409028
Steve Kettell, BNL DOE HEP Review
62