LHCb Technical Board 28/08/2000



  1. Approval of the last TB summary (28/07/00)
  2. Status of the Calorimeter TDR                      J. Lefrançois
  3. Status of the RICH TDR                              D. Websdale
  4. AOB

INTAS                                                     H. J. Hilke

LHCb counting house and DELPHI barrel    R. Lindner

ITR milestones                                             U. Straumann


Participants: J. Christiansen, H. Dijkstra, W. Flegel, R. Forty, J. Harvey, H.J. Hilke, B.Koene, D. Lacarrere, J. Lefrançois, R. Lindner, T. Nakada, T. Ruf, O. Schneider, A.Schopper, U. Straumann, I. Videau, D. Websdale

Excused: B. Schmidt


  1. The summary of the Technical Board meeting on July 28th was approved and will be accessible on the LHCb Web
  1. J. Lefrançois reported on the status of the Calorimeter TDR. All modifications, which were agreed at the last TB, have been implemented. Sections describing the costs and the distribution of responsibilities have been included as well as a section about the safety aspects. A. Schopper added further details. H.J. Hilke will prepare a sentence concerning the recent Initial Safety Discussion ISD with TIS. A similar sentence should be included in all LHCb TDRs.

    An author list will be available on the 30th of August from the LHCb Management. This list may include colleagues proposed by the calorimeter group, who are not ‘Members of LHCb’ according to our normal criteria but have contributed significantly to the work presented in the TDR

    J. Lefrançois presented a plot showing the x-y distribution of radiation lengths in front of the Calorimeters, as implemented in the simulation. A strong increase in the region of the flat mirrors seems to be in contradiction to the numbers given in the RICH TDR. This discrepancy should be resolved rapidly.

  1. D. Websdale presented the status of the RICH TDR. Chapter 1,2 and 3 have been reorganised, chapter 2 has been rewritten completely and chapter 3 has been updated. A few new sections have been added to chapter 4. The electronics part in chapter 5 has been completed.
  2. Then followed a discussion on various point, in particular on spares and details of the cost table. Finally, the consequences of the delays in the production of the pixel chip were discussed. It was concluded that the submission date of the TDR should not be changed.


  3. AOB


H.J. Hilke informed the group about the status of the two present LHCb INTAS projects for LHCb (Muon Chamber and aerogel development). He then asked, whether any group was interested in starting new projects in this year’s round of ‘open calls’. Drafts would have to be sent to HJH by September 11th for a discussion with the CERN Management.

INTAS is the International Association for the promotion of co-operation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. The ‘Joint Calls’ are funded 50/50 by INTAS and Western participants (at least two from

different countries/ project).

The TB members concluded that LHCb should skip this year’s round and first gain experience with the approved projects, which run into 2002.

LHCb counting house and DELPHI barrel

R. Lindner reported on the present layout of the LHCb counting house and the DELPHI barrel detector behind the radiation wall in the hall UX85 ( see Annex 1). DELPHI Barrack D and one level of barracks B and C placed on top of D will serve as counting house for LHCb. With this arrangement, LHCb has space for a maximum of 160 racks. The present requests amount to ~66 racks behind the radiation wall.

The gas racks will be placed on additional platforms above the two SAS. There will be space for 32 gas/cooling racks on two levels. In the present layout the gangways of barrack D need no changes.

Inner Tracker Schedule

U. Straumann confirmed the TDR submission date but proposed to delay the freezing of the chamber parameter's (size, resolution and layout) and to decide on the choice of technology only shortly before the TDR. He enumerated the reasons for this request. After a very brief discussion it was concluded that he would prepare a short written note explaining the reasons in more detail to permit a more thorough discussion in the next TB.


R. Lindner

topdelphi.jpg (275987 bytes)