**Title of Review: Design & Cost Review for MINERνA Frame, Absorbers and
Stand (WBS 8)**

**Focus on Frames and Stands**

[Overall Comments]{.underline}:

**D. Boehnlein**

The fundamentals of cost and procurement appear to be well-understood
and plans for this part of the project look pretty solid. Some details
of the design may need to be revisited in the aftermath of eliminating
the magnetic coil. It will be important to ensure that any design
modifications take into account all other relevant factors (examples in
specific comments below). The installation schedule is uncertain to the
extent that there must be some coordination with MINOS and probably with
an accelerator shutdown. Furthermore, the installation of a drip ceiling
(off-project) should precede any other installation for MINERνA.

**D. Pushka:**

Thank-you for providing the opportunity to learn about this detector and
the plans for building it. From what I have seen, this project has every
chance of succeeding fabulously.

It is clear that considerable effort has gone into developing the cost
and schedule. Large procurements have estimates based on quotations;
smaller efforts are based on extrapolations from similar previous
activities. This is entirely appropriate.

It seems that the physics design of the detector is still being fine
tuned based on the recent change to remove the magnetic field from the
detector.

**B. Bradford:**

Many of the large costs in WBS8 are related to procuring and machining
large amounts of steel, and it looks as if Jim's experience from Minos
will be helpful here.

**B. Flight:**

Jim presented his information very well.

**H. Carter:**

The material presented was concise and well organized. I was a bit
surprised and the immaturity of the overall design. Fundamental
questions arose that I felt should have been answered long
ago\-\-\--items such as absorber steel thickness, the gap size between
absorber plates, the mechanical anchoring (bookend) of the plates,
etc.\-- in order for the complete mechanical system analysis and the
design and costing of component parts. While it was clear that many of
these issues have been thought about and discussed among collaborators,
it was apparent that many important decisions remain to be made before a
mature design is developed.

[Specific Comments/Recommendations]{.underline}:

**D. Boehnlein**

1.  The most important quality control factor seems to be the flatness
    of the plates, and there is some concern about the cost of meeting
    the criterion of 1/8", which exceeds ASTM standards. Kevin offered
    the suggestion of making the steel frame thinner and wider, thus
    providing the same amount of steel for exiting muons and a wider gap
    between planes, relaxing the flatness tolerance. Such a redesign
    could result in a substantial cost savings, but before it is adopted
    several questions should be addressed:

    a.  It seems likely that the assembly area will be the Wideband Lab,
        the door of which can barely accommodate planes of the current
        design by angling them through. It might not be possible to
        build the wider design planes in the Wideband Lab and there
        seems to be no other building available to us.

    b.  There are a number of small factors which, taken together, could
        partially offset the cost savings of the thinner steel:

        i.  The WLS fiber runs will have to be longer (5 inches per
            fiber);

        ii. Maybe the clear fiber cables too?

        iii. The stand and bookend will have to be wider (and
             correspondingly more expensive);

        iv. The strongbacks will have to be bigger;

    c.  An engineer should verify that the thinner, wider frame will
        adequately support the inner detector components.

2.  The proposal to move the PMT "forest" from the top of the detector
    is a good suggestion. This modification will make access to the PMTs
    easier and safer. It is my recollection that we originally planned
    to put them on top of the detector mainly to accommodate the coil,
    which is no longer in the design.

3.  The MINOS Near Detector is a fact of life that the installation
    schedule and procedures will have to take into account. While the
    detector is operating, which it presumably will be until the Main
    Injector shuts down next March, it produces fringe magnetic fields
    that may affect the movement of steel for MINERνA installation.

4.  The presence of an installation crew will affect occupancy limits in
    the MINOS area. The installation of the drip shield may necessitate
    the protection of the MINOS detector from dust and debris. The
    bottom line is that the schedule for MINERνA installation activities
    will have to be coordinated with MINOS.

5.  The flatness of the steel was cited as the primary quality control
    criterion, but it was also mentioned that steel thickness is of
    interest. For MINOS, the steel thickness was found to be consistent
    to about 0.4%, using the same manufacturer as proposed for MINERνA.
    Thickness measurements for QC might not be necessary, but are always
    nice to have. If MINERνA decides to make any steel thickness
    measurements, they should be planned and budgeted for early in the
    procurement process.

**K. McFarland:**

1.  Steel flatness strategy: width can compensate for reducing the
    thickness of plat to allow for larger gaps. going from 1.5-\>1.25
    would imply making the outer frames \~5\" thicker per side. we could
    include the extra price of this option in our contingency.

2.  optioning the steel purchase (for FY2007 and FY2008) seems like a
    very reasonable approach for controlling contingency

3.  QC procedure probably focuses on thickness (at several points) and a
    flatness measurement. I suggested we might prepare a clear template
    as a check and photograph each plate, but John Voirin suggested this
    was unnecessary based on MINOS experience.

4.  It would be optimal if Rochester crew can be as small as two techs
    over a long period of time.

**D. Pushka:**

1\. Steel Plane Installation Cart

> Some informal discussion has transpired on the subject of re-using the
> 'Ingrid Cart' for installing the Minerva Detector Planes. While
> initially, this seems like a cost savings measure, it may cost more in
> the long run. Ingrid's cart is significantly bigger and much heavier
> than is needed for Minerva. I would start by considering what is
> needed to safely and efficiently move the Minerva planes and only
> after the needs are accessed, consider if the Ingrid cart meets these
> needs. It is possible that the modifications to Ingrid's cart made
> below ground (because this cart is difficult to remove from the tunnel
> due to its size) will cost as much labor and materials as if a new
> cart were built from scratch in the shop, reusing only the expensive
> castors from the old cart.

2\. Plane flatness.

> I tend to agree with Jim's statement that the costs of Blanchard
> grinding or roll leveling each flame cut section are expensive and not
> warranted. I believe that once the locations and numbers of axial
> bolts are understood, the combination of the axial bolt sizing
> together with the appropriate alignment hardware will result in a
> plane that is flat enough to meet the physics requirements without
> resorting to the more expensive approaches.

3\. Detector Support Stand:

> The detector support stand appears to be very straight forward and
> well understood. Cost estimate at \$2.50 per pound is reasonable.
> Sufficient bracing appears to be included for stability and to resist
> seismic loads. It appears that some minor cost savings can be achieved
> during the final engineering of this stand, but this isn't a big
> dollar issue.

4\. Detector Orientation:

> I cannot help but to conclude (based on what little I know about this
> detector) that locating the PM tubes on the hexagons sides nearest the
> floor results in an orientation which is safer and more efficient to
> install and maintain. Tooling to safely remove the relatively heavy
> (20#) PMT boxes while an individual works on the electrical and
> optical connections will need to be designed and built. But solving
> this problem working from the floor is much simpler that attempting to
> put people and equipment above the detector.
>
> There should not be apprehension about having a person crawl under the
> detector. Head bump protection and perhaps safety glasses (depending
> on the work being done) are appropriate PPE.

5\. Drip Ceiling:

> I heard mention of the expense of extending the drip ceiling over the
> rest of the MINOS near detector hall. Folks have unfortunately
> repeated costs estimates that appear to be wildly high and based on
> hand waving (no detailed, itemized estimate). It does make sense to
> extend the drip ceiling over the Minerva detector. It **[does
> not]{.underline}** make sense to build a small umbrella over the
> Minerva detector. The design of the existing drip ceiling exists.
> Little EDIA is needed. Funding will need to come from PPD (PPD is the
> landlord for this space). I would strongly encourage the project to
> address this issue with PPD to start the process of installing this
> drip ceiling at least over portions of the hall where the Minerva
> detector will be installed (perhaps do half of the un-covered portion
> of the hall).

6\. Other Projects in the same area:

> Currently, the COUPP detector is blocking easy cart access to the
> MINOS hall. Plans are underway to install an emulsion detector (or
> two) directly in front of the MINOS near detector (right were Minerva
> will go). These interferences with Minerva appear to be issues that
> the director's office of program planning can easily deal with. It
> would be useful to see a schedule from program planning that shows the
> removal of these interfering detectors prior to the start of the
> Minerva installation.

7\. Heat Loads to the MINOS Near Detector Hall:

> It was stated that Minerva will contribute a 5 kW heat load to the
> Minos Near Detector Hall. If this is an accurate number (no detailed
> accounting of the source of this value was presented) then this
> represents about 10% of the total available cooling capacity in the
> hall. Since the cooling capacity can not be increased as it is limited
> by the water inflow, the temperature of the near detector hall will
> increase by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit due to the operation of
> the Minerva detector electronics.

**B. Bradford:**

1\. Many of the WBS items have overlap, and we need to clarify the
definitions to make sure that we don't have redundancy in the budget.
Jim budgeted money for frame spacers and connectors, but we've been
working on that for WBS9, module assembly and installation. I think
we'll find similar issues with other WBS items. We need to clarify who
is responsible for some of these smaller tasks.

2\. Many of the uncertainties in the WBS8 costs related to the assembly
procedure will be answered as we finish the prototyping efforts here at
UofR. We'll then have a handle on the assembly procedure, and will be
able to provide the inputs that Jim needs to settle his budget issues.
It is a good idea to have Jim co-manage WBS9 as communication between
WBS9 and 8 seems to be crucial. I think Jim should plan to visit UofR.
later as we finish our time/motion studies. We could walk through the
proposed assembly procedure (with our prototypes) and make sure its
feasible given his strongbacks, etc.

3\. The steel flatness issue is going to have bearing on the fiber
routing. If the frame steel is "flat" to within ½", then I think we
should pursue quotes on grinding or other machining techniques. If the
minimum clearance between 2 frames is supposed to be 1/8" (giving us a
guaranteed 1/8" for fiber routing), then we really do need to think
about the flatness issue. Do we have Jeff Nelson's input on this issue?
The fiber routing workshop may also have something to say here.

4\. While the talk dwelt mostly on the stand, frames, and strongbacks,
what about the absorber material?

**H. Carter:**

1\. Decide on the steel absorber plate thickness as soon as possible.

2\. Decide on the location of the PMT boxes (top or bottom of detector)

a\. Consider future equipment service access issue

b\. Consider personnel safety issues

c\. Bottom installation might simplify the drip protection for the
detector (see note

in 3. below).

3\. The issue of a drip ceiling (design and location) needs to resolved
quickly. While this is a fundamental infrastructure component, the cost
of such an item is significant and needs to be conveyed to laboratory
management as soon as possible. There is potential for serious project
schedule impact if this item is not addressed and resolved prior to
commencement of project installation. **Note:** If one places the PMT
boxes at the bottom of the detector, then a simple sheet metal cover of
aluminum or stainless steel could be constructed over the detector and
attached to the support rails. This would be an inexpensive solution to
the problem.

4\. The fundamental support system stand design appears reasonable and
adequate for the intended service. As stated during the review, the
addition of a bookend to stabilize the detector array is essential.

5\. The issue of steel absorber plate flatness is very important and
methods such as roller leveling and Blanchard grinding should be costed
in order to determine if these methods are indeed cost prohibitive and
must be excluded.

**N. Grossman**

1.  Need to look at the MINOS coil and how it pulls on MINERvA and how
    the MINERvA detector pulls on the MINOS coil. Probably not a
    problem, but need to do the calculation and document it.

2.  Remind me of the resolution of the steel flatness issue and what is
    costed.

3.  You will need to address the "questions to be answered" items on
    slide 15 at the next review. I will not reiterate them here.

4.  Do you know what tasks need MINOS off for installation? This is more
    a WBS 9 question I guess.