Insertable B-layer Project Status

Insertable B-layer Project Status ATLAS Week Barcelona, October, 5-9 2009 G. Darbo - INFN / Genova Indico agenda page: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=47256 DRAFT

IBL Project Status – Time Line • Project approved by ATLAS • Project Leader endorsed by ATLAS CB (February 20th) • IBL has put in place its management structure (Management Board) – Endorsed by ATLAS EB (April 3rd) • ATLAS Institutes Participation • IBL Kick-off (July 8th) meeting with Institute’s Leaders to focus participation in the project. • Large interest in the project (~35÷40 institutes participated at the kick-off meeting and have shown interest in parts of the project) • Project cost evaluated and funding model proposed: 4.0 MCH (M&O-A), 5.6 MCH (M&O-B, new project) • Technical Design Report (TDR) • Main editor / technical editor (K. Einsweiler / M. Capeans) and chapter editors in charge • Editor’s meetings every 3 weeks since end of July, 1st draft to collaboration by X-mas, TDR for print in April 2010. • Memorandum of Understanding foreseen in “interim” form by the end of the year: • MoU will be signed after TDR (spring 2010)

TDR - Schedule

IBL Layout and New Beam Pipe • Several layouts under study: “best option” inverted turbine with 14 staves at Rmin=~3.1 cm • Single or double staves – One or two (redundant) cooling channels – 13 or 14 staves Junction Bus-Pigtail • Reduction of beam-pipe (ID from 29R to 25R) allows enough clearance to fit the IBL • The IBL internal envelope is defined by the new beam pipe and by the thickness of the insulation required during the bakeout. • Beam pipe ID= 50, thickness = 0.8 mm, Insulation =4 mm Bus 1.11 Staves: 14 • Sensor tilt: 12.35 • n. on pipe: 1 • Sensor : 65.3mm • Inner Nom: 62.2mm • Outer Nom: 75.5mm FE/module Pigtail Wire-Bondings FE- Pigtail Inverted turbine Credits: N. Hartman et al.

Requirements for Sensors/Electronics • Requirements for IBL (sensors/electronics) • IBL design Peak Luminosity = 3x1034 cm-2s-1 New FE-I4, higher hit rate • Integrated Luminosity seen by IBL = 550 fb-1 • Total NIEL dose (rmin=3.1cm): Φ1MeV = 3.1 x 1015 ± 30% (σpp) ± 50% (sensor damage factor) • Safety factor for IBL (60%)  design for 5x 1015 neq/cm2more rad-hard sensors • Total ionization dose (TID) > 200 Mrad • ATLAS Pixel Sensor/FE-I3 designed for 1015 neq/cm2 / 50 Mrad 1MeV and TID for integrated luminosity of 1000 fb-1 Ref. Ian Dawson – ATLAS IBL General Meeting (25-26 June 09)

Sensor: 3D, Planar, Diamond • IBL sensor developments coming from ATLAS R&D efforts – IBL define specification and requirements for the sensors: • ATLAS 3D Sensor R&D Collaboration (16 Institutes and 4 processing facilities): Bergen, Bonn, CERN, Cosenza, Freiburg, Genova, Glasgow, Hawaii, LBNL, Manchester, New Mexico, Oslo, Prague, SLAC, Stony Brook, Udine - Processing Facilities: CNM Barcelona, FBK-IRST (Trento), SINTEF/Stanford. • ATLAS Planar Pixel Sensor (PPS) R&D Collaboration (16 Institutes) Bonn, Berlin, DESY, Dortmund, MPP & HLL Munich, Udine, KEK, CNM Barcelona, Liverpool, LBNL, LPNHE, New Mexico, Orsay, Prague, Santa Cruz. • ATLAS Diamond R&D Collaboration (6 Institutes, 2 vendors): Bonn, Carleton, CERN, Ljubljana, Ohio State, Toronto. • Bring the 3 sensor technologies to the prototype phase for IBL • Meeting (Org. by Heinz, 9/9/09) between IBL and the 3 sensor representatives. • module prototypes with FE-I4 (second half 2010) – limit options (≤3 options/technology) • Stave prototype tested with modules and cooling. • Target time to finish qualification: 2010, early 2011. • 3D/Diamond: single-chip modules / Planar sensors: 2-chip modules • Define “best” sensor layout for each technology by Dec.09. • Sensor “Reference” for engineering and system layout: establish specification for parameters (layout, max Vbias , Ibias & power) of each technology to progress on cooling/stave/service design – Iterate in Oct, fix by Nov.

Planar Sensors – Slim Edge • Planar sensor prototyping for IBL • Large numbers of new results with strips and diodes (RD50) promise enough CCE for IBL • Parameter optimization under study – what the best trade-off for IBL parameters? • Detector bias • Present pixel Vbias=600V, looking at implication of higher Vbias (1000÷1500V) • Optimize guard ring (geometrical inefficiency in Z) for slim edge • 300÷500 µm look feasible • Reduce thickness: more charge collected for given Vbias, lower bulk current • 250 is the standard, 200÷220 µm looks feasible, 140µm would be attractive

3D Sensors - Test Beam • Jun.09 test beam: 1 ATLAS Pixel planar, 1 3D SINTEF/Stanford (full column), 2 FBK partial double columns (FBK 3EM5 has low breakdown @ 10V) • For inclined tracks 3D sensors have similar efficiency and spatial resolution as planar – No Lorentz angle effect in 3D sensor • Active edge (STA) show efficiency up to 5÷10µm from edge • Very good collaboration between all 3D sensor producers: • Two meetings (Jun’09, Sep’09) • They look for collaboration more than competition: better chances for IBL of having compatible 3D design in time! Ref.: O. Rohne – Vertex 2009

Diamond • Diamond advantages: • Small capacitance  low noise (140e vs 180e of planar); possible lower threshold operation (1500e) • Operation with no cooling: no leakage current • Two modules built, more prototypes in 2010 Noise = 137 e IBL Life Dose Threshold = 1450 e MPV = 3600e

FE-I4: Review, Submission, Prototyping • FE-I4 submission review • Review on “Submission Ready” • Nov 3-4 (K. Einsweiler to chair) • Submission, if review is passed, planned before the end of the year • Engineering run • Up to 12 wafers from one engineering run (additional wafers are possible?) • ~50 FE-I4 fit in a 8” wafer – yield “for good enough for module prototype” chip estimated 40÷70% • Planned prototypes with sensors by spring 2010 • Limited number of sensor options (max 3) for each of the three technologies • ~10% of IBL in prototyping size • 200÷300 FE-I4 dedicated for module prototype Review team: Francis Anghinolfi, CERN - StéphaneDebieux, Geneva (IBL Electronic Project Engineer) - Kevin Einsweiler, LBNL (Review Chair) - Philippe Farthouat, CERN (Project Office) - Alex Grillo, UCSC - Kostas Kloukinas, CERN - Xavier Llopart, CERN - Mitch Newcomer, Penn - Ivan Peric, Heidelberg - Ned Spencer, UCSC - Mike Tyndel, RAL (Project Office) - Rick Van Berg, Penn FE-I4 in a 8” wafer , Vladimir Zivcovic

Off-detector Electronics • R/O chain: • IBL ROD/BOC kick-off meeting (Org.: S.Debieux and T.Flick, 1/10/2009) – discussion involving Pixel TDAQ and former ROD designers. • BOC need redesign: change in the FE-I4 R/O protocol. • ROD need at least FPGA/DSP firmware/software changes . • Several component obsolescence & bottlenecks in the architecture. • Upgrade/redesign need to carefully consider impact in the software (0.5M lines of code and >30 people contribution!). • BOC/ROD: decided to start weekly phone meetings: BOC/ROD and Pixel TDAQ together – resources are becoming available. • Opto-board, TX/RX plugins activities started. • Fiber optics also covered. • Power chain • LV: assumed same off-detector components (PP2 regulators need upgrade) • HV: planar & diamond require higher voltage. • High tech cables (flex hybrid/Internal services) under study/prototype, “low” tech (Type2, 3 & 4) need to be addressed (plan to install two years before IBL)

Stave Prototyping and Cooling Homogeneous Stave • Pipes & QC status: • Ti and CF pipes:ø=2, 3 and 4 mm • Almost all the produced pipes are qualified in term of leak rate and pressure test. • CF pipes need micro crack QC after irradiation • Staves & QC status: • Almost all kind of prototype staves with Ti and CF pipes (several with heater) & pipe+foam+heater are ready/almost ready (some in test with cooling) • Fittings • CF to Ti (splicing) and Ti to Ti fittings under development • Fitting use TIG and Laser/EB welding techniques • C3F8 and CO2 • Both prototype cooling plants in development • Plans to qualify CF and Ti pipes/staves before TDR Pocofoam 45/135 W/mK STYCAST 2850 FT CF Pipe 55deg layup Laminate [0/-60/+60]S2 Cynate Ester • Beam-pipe bake-out • Thermal simulation and mock-up going on Beam-pipe heating (>200ºC) Stave cooling (<-30ºC)

BP Extraction & IBL+BP Insertion • Material from Raphael/Neal

Physics Goal & Performance Benchmarks • IBL Physics goals • Some discussion started in the new forming IBL software group (Chair: A. Andreazza) • Action made on ATLAS Physics coordination to provide guidance • IBL Physics performance • Basic single track performance (zero luminosity) • 1x1034 and 3x1034 luminosity studies – vertexing and b-tagging • Started to implement an IBL geo-model and digitisation in ATHENA/GEANT4 • List of physics/performance benchmarks prepared • Need feedback from Physics coordination • Lot of work, looking for manpower, need results for TDR!

Schedule • ATLAS EB decision (139th EB – 24/7/2009): “The IBL installation will be decoupled from the LHC phase 1 upgrade, is assumed to take 8 months and is targeted to the 2014/15 shutdown.” • IBL schedule fits with installation at the end 2014: • IBL cannot be ready much before without sacrificing performance: • need new technology development (on going) and prototyping (next year) for FE-I4 (more radiation hard, R/O efficiency), Sensors (more radiation hard), Staves (lighter). • IBL is a “safety insurance” for present Pixel B-layer • hard failures (cooling, opto-links, interconnections, etc.) of present B-layer could strongly compromise b-tagging performance. • IBL improves physics performance of present tracking • lighter structure (1.5 % X0) and small radius than present B-Layer • Be ready in time and improved performance are the key of the project!

Implications of IBL on LHC Phase I • IBL will impact other components of the LHC machine and ATLAS • Smaller beam-pipe and larger aperture new triplets (sLHC phase I) require to revisit the TAS and the forward shielding • Larger aperture triplet and new TAS design requires to look at: • Effects on muon background; • Protection of a smaller radius IBL. • Also, we have other beam-pipe issues, like going to much longer beryllium sections. • This is not strictly sLHC phase I, but has same timescale. • LHCC: reviews & discussion on experiments and machine upgrades • Five LHC experiment upgrade review meetings since July ’08. • http://indico.cern.ch/categoryDisplay.py?categId=1949

IBL (i-)MoU • IBL kick-off meeting took place in Thoiryon July 8th, 2009 • http://indico.cern.ch/internalPage.py?pageId=0&confId=56905 • Large interest from Institutes - serious interest in the project (35÷40 Institutes) and serious expression of intention for funding support. • Eagerness to get going with an interim-MoU by the end of 2009 • Complicate process that involves technology dependent options, requires to enlarge the interest of focus to strongly cover the whole project and to resolve over covered items. • Many progresses in the last 3 months: many people moving from intentions to real work – this is the best way to see how to contribute and for the IBL management to understand how well the project is covered. • Funding scenario: • 9.6 MCH project cost: 4.0 MCH (M&O-A) + {4.4 MCH (M&O-B) + 1.2 MCH (New)} • Contribution from Institutes/FA’s follows the CORE mechanism (deliverables) • Process is developing within FA’s and RRB.

Conclusions • IBL organization structure well in place • TDR and MoU in progress – project cost evaluated • Motivated groups and Institutes support • Challenging project: • Tight envelopes, material budget reduction, radiation dose and R/O bandwidth requirements • New technologies in advanced prototype phase: • Sensors, FE-I4, light supports, cooling • Ready for installing in 2014 together with a smaller beam pipe • It is not just a “replacement of existing B-layer”, but it improves performance for b-tagging and it is an assurance for hard failures of present B-layer

Backup slides

FE-I4 • FE-I3 not suitable for IBL • ~7% inefficiency at 3.7 cm and L = 3x1034 cm-2s-1 • FE-I3 works at 50 Mrad, but has major faults at 100 Mrad • FEI4 design collaboration formed in 2007 between: • Bonn, CPPM, Genova, LBNL, NIKHEF • FE-I4_proto chip (3/08) • Main analog blocks (3x4mm2) • Irradiated to 200 Mrad: noise increase by 20% (ENC 100120 with 400fF load and IAVDD=10µA/pixel) FE-I3 Inefficiency

Installation Scenarios R. Vuillermet • Two global support / installation scenarios: IBL support tube (1) / no tube (2): • An IBL support tube would have advantage on stiffness and simplicity/safety for IBL installation, but drawback are envelope needs (~1÷1.5 mm) and increase of radiation length • Procedure studied on mock-up at bld.180 - procedure (1) animation: • The beam pipe flange on A-side is to close to the B-layer envelope - Need to be cut on the aluminum section • A structural pipe is inserted inside the Beam Pipe and supported at both sides. • The support collar at PP0 A-side is disassembled and extracted with wires at PP1. • Beam pipe is extracted from the C-side and it pulls the wire at PP1 • New cable supports are inserted inside PST at PP0. • A support carbon tube is pushed inside the PST along the structural pipe. • The support carbon tube is fixed in 2 point of PP0 and on PP1 walls on side C and A. • The structural pipe with a support system is moved out from the support carbon tube. . The new beam pipe (in any configuration with OD up to 82,5 mm) is inserted from A-side. It has 2 supports at PP0 area and 2 floating wall at PP1 on side A and C. C-side A-side Started to setup a 1:1 mock-up of Pixel/beampipe/PP1 in Bat 180

Stave & Thermal Management • Stave design goals: • Reduction of material budget from Pixel (2.7 % 1.5 % of X0): Carbon Foam • Carbon Fiber (CF) pipe (no corrosion, CTE match) and Titanium (Ti) pipe prototypes: • 2mm OD (for CO2 cooling), 3mm OD (for C3F8 or CO2) and 4mm OD. • Thermal figure of merit (DT between module and pipe internal wall) of staves and pipes under measurements • High pressure test (150 bar for CO2) passed by CF and Ti pipes • Fittings and pipe splicing under development • Cooling: • Prototyping CO2 and C3F8cooling system in cooperation with ATLAS CERN cooling groups and NIKHEF • IBL mock-up to confirm thermal simulation of beam-pipe bakeout Stave Material Budget Credits: D. Giugni, P. Schwemling, H. Pernegger

TDR Structure • Introduction • Overview • Modules • Staves • Integration • Installation • Off-detector • Prototyping, Testing • Critical Integration • Commissioning • Management Overview Chapters: Basic description of full project, including history and issues that have shaped the IBL concept. Because the IBL is so tightly integrated with the present ATLAS detector, useful to develop context in more detail, understand development of IBL concept Core chapters covering the design: They cover the four major deliverable-oriented boxes in the IBL organization. These chapters will be edited by the corresponding coordinators of these activities. Summary Chapters: They cover prototyping/testing issues, integration issues, commissioning issues, and the overall management and organization.

FEI4 drives the schedule for modules • getting the next FEI4 asap is crucial for module qualification Stave 0 plays a crucial to qualify the IBL system (mechanics, staves and off detector electronics) Service installation happens in shutdowns - need definition & procurement of services (USA15->PP2) early on to use shutdown time efficiently Commissioning as part of Pixel system

Interim-MoU – Project Funding • M&O-A: • To cover common costs. • Spending is needed from 2010 • Items might be covered in kind • M&O-B/New project • Deliverables • Central orders (FE-I4, Sensors, Bump-bonding, etc)

Insertable B-layer Project Status