Towards a TDR for the IBL

1. Towards a TDR for the IBL ATLAS Upgrade Week CERN, 24 February 2009 Session: Overall Goal of this AUW G. Darbo - INFN / Genova ATLAS Week Agenda page: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=45460 DRAFT – v.2

2. A Few Words before…

3. Insertable B-Layer Challenges • B-Layer Task Force – BLTF (Chair A. Clark & G. Mornacchi) mandated by ATLAS. • BLTF recommend an insertable (B)-layer of pixel – IBL (inside the present B-layer) together with a smaller beam-pipe. • Project is technically extremely challenging: mechanically, electronically and environmentally (high radiation level reached near the beam pipe). • Initial feasibility by BLTF, lot of progress for Nikhef, final feasibility need to workout a TDR. • IBL can reuse some of the present technologies, but also some new and several critical new designs: • Front end electronicsto comply with high total dose (2÷3 x 1015 neq/cm2) and occupancy at smaller radius (3.7cm respect to 5cm) and higher foreseen luminosity (3x1034) before SLHC will replace the whole ID. • Sensors to provide enough charge at total dose (present n-on-n at 600 V are not sufficient for an integrated luminosity of~550 fb-1 that will be seen by the IBL) and to reduce the dead region at the sensor edges. • Mechanics to reduce material in the local support (X0 strongly affects physics performance), to fit into the tight envelopes. • Cooling: improvement is desirable to use smaller beam pipe and more room in the operating temperature. • Services need planning for their routing in tight spaces everywhere, high bandwidth (160 Mb/s) e-links running ~5÷6 m from FE chips to opto-boards. • Global mechanicshas to link beam-pipe, IBL and Pixel detector

4. IBL Project Plan • IBL Organization plan: • Very motivated Pixel and Project Office groups, fully behind the IBL, require a more structured organization to make the next steps that initially will concentrate on costing definition and starting up the process to arrive to the Technical Design Report (TDR). • ATLAS has defined an “IBL mandate, management and project organization” document (ATU-ORG-MG-0001). • First step in the organization is the IBL Project Leader (PL) endorsement (last Friday CB). He is the highest level executive with overall responsibility for the execution of the project. • During the searching phase of the IBL PL candidates, the wide range of technical oriented work packages, indicated that the tight collaboration of a Technical Coordinator (TC) with the IBL PL would greatly help the project by combining different skill of the two. A TC coordinator will be appointed by the IBL PL. I will ask the Pixel and PO groups to approve my choice of Heinz as TC. • Project mandate. The IBL project will have his feet in the Pixel (many core technologies developed in >15 years) and in the TC/PO (new beam-pipe, installation, etc…). The project will be concluded with the commissioning of the IBL, that will be then integral part of Pixel and ATLAS.

5. WBS and Costing • WBS constructed on “IBL strawman”. Has to be revised by better knowledge of the design: • Cost assigned at level 3 in the hierarchy (WBS xx.xx.xx) -> RRB for April; • Groups & people interest assigned with a smaller granularity (WBS xx.xx); • WBS backbone for TDR Prototypes, Stave-0 will be included R&D are not in the costs Design understanding modifies WBS: EOS chip does not look to exist anymore, Clean up the WBS • Cost need to be completed and scrutinised…. Costs Groups & people

6. TDR – IBL Requirements & Constraints • Urge definition of global requirement (from physics, LHC) and constraints (from interfaces to existing components, like envelopes, and amongst different partition blocks of the IBL, like sensor, electronics, cooling, etc.). • Convergence to “official numbers” -> establish procedure and maintain centrally available “tables of parameters”; • PL and TC have to work together at this process; • Information infrastructure needed to collect and maintain information till it goes into the TDR • Global IBL Requirements: • From LHC machine we need Luminosity plots (Roland Garoby agreed to update them). My best knowledge of some numbers: • IBL design Luminosity = 3x1034, • Integrated Luminosity seen by IBL = 550 fb-1 • Installation date. This will coincide with the superconductive triplets of quadrupoles in the ATLAS/CMS interaction regions. Was scheduled for Winter 2012 before the LHC accident. Triplet schedule is at least 6 month delayed. No new SLHC phase I schedule available (soon). • NIEL (not ionizing energy loss) and TID (total ionizing dose) are important parameters for the detector design. Updated simulation of fluences from Ian Dawson are available for IBL. What are the safety to include? How these numbers have to revised with LHC running at 8÷10 TeV next year?

7. LHCC: Luminosity Plot • Luminosity plot need update. 3 main IBL parameters: Integrated Luminosity, Peak Luminosity, Installation date. INTEGRATED LUMINOSITY Integrated Luminosity: 2008-17: 650 fb-1 2013-17: 550 fb-1 New injectors + IR upgrade phase 2 Before LHC accident. A new scenarios will not come too soon… 2012: IBL Installation (Triplet Installation) Peak Luminosity: 2017: 3x1034 cm-2s-1 SLHC Start-up Early operation Collimation phase 2 Linac4 + IR upgrade phase 1 Ref: LHCC 1/7/2008 – Roland Garoby

8. TDR – IBL Requirements (cont.) • Requirements (cont.) • from Physics: • Material budget. Need kept under control and always consider it in adopting technical solutions. Will have to fight between reducing material budget and safety of the selected technology. Schedule impact influence the decision on technologies to be chosen. • Hit resolution. It is affected by pixel size (that is fixed to 50x250 µm), FE electronics (resolution on charge measurement), tilt angle (Lorentz angle), sensor kind (mechanism the charge is collected, also after life dose). • Layout and geometrical coverage/efficiency. What coverage in phi? What coverage in Z? (no space for module shingling). What coverage in eta? (we assume 60 cm active staves. What about 58? Do we need longer or we can make shorter?) • Should consider responsible persons for physics validation of engineering layout (both from mechanics, sensor, and layout), for tracking material budget, for LHC machine parameters and implication on total dose and peak luminosity on systems,…

9. TDR – Interfaces & Constraints • IBL design has strong constraints from existing ATLAS detector: everywhere fight for space. • The whole IBL design split into small parts (following WBS). Each part need definition of constraints and interfaces: • For instance “stave flex-hybrid” is interfaced with Electronics (power, signals), Sensors (bias voltage), Stave (where the flex-hybrid will run) • The same flex-hybrid will have input constraints: number and impedance of lines, currents, high voltage, etc, and output constraints: dimension, material budget, etc. • IBL design optimisation design need iterate on constraints: distribute constraints uniformly and avoid to be locked by an impossibly tight constraints that will need a (too) late revision of a large part of the IBL design. • WBS is the backbone, we need to map to a “Collaborative Tool” to keep and transfer information.

10. TDR – Existing “Strawman(s)” • We have de-facto (reached by consensus) several technical options. Some was developed by BL task force, many others came after: • FE-I4 specifications – Chip/Pixel size, power, Cin range, etc. • Optoboards outside IBL package – Radiation dose, accessibility, link speed. • Fibers – GRIN fibers, “low-speed links” (40÷160 Mb/s). • I/O choices for R/O – have several R/O issues discussed with a proposed baseline. • Envelopes, beam-pipe (maximum internal radius – can be pushed to a smaller one?) • Etc… • In several cases concurrent options: • Cooling – CO2 and C3F8 • Sensors – 3D, several planar flavors (n-on-n, n-on-p, thin sensors), diamonds • TDR should have not options inside: • Sensors might have options • TDR writing has to be completed by beginning of 2010

11. IBL – Initial Organization • In the first period of the IBL project the organization structure will be light and the main scope is writing the TDR and focus on R&D/prototypes: • Project Leader (appointed) a Technical Coordinator (found the person, will be appointed by the PL); • PL and TC have to work together to structure the TDR: • PL at level of WBS packages (project structure, find resources) • TC at level of WBS deliverable interfaces (constraints); • Project Engineer(s) (PE), appointed by PL (after consulting Pixel PL and ATLAS TC), will have responsibilities of mechanical designs, mechanical envelops and thermal mechanical analysis of all the IBL/Beam-pipe structures. • Working groups with TDR section editors; • Construction MoU will develop during TDR writing: • People involved in TDR activities will more naturally move to deliverables as they build up expertise.

12. PO Review Office • The Review Office of Project Office is the body that helping to review progress milestones, select amongst option and put in place FDRs and PRRs of the project components. • Several reviews must be put in place soon: • Cooling option – early selection of cooling option avoids duplicated efforts. • Reduce sensor options – the number of sensor options has to be reduced. Also design specification has to fix for the selected technologies.

13. IBL Schedule • Schedule has to be developed: • Need better guess for installation date, coming from machine • Schedule has to consider that development time of some components are in the critical path: FE-I4 is one to watch carefully. • Production schedule has to consider small quantities: production “infancy” drives the schedule.

14. Organization: Meetings • General IBL meetings: • ~3 times/year, ~2 days, parallel sessions & plenary. All activities covered. • Thursday/Friday before General ID weeks. Possible extension on Wed and Sat if need. • Next IBL General Meeting: 25-26 June. • Technical Coordination meetings: • TC call meetings (bi-weekly/monthly) with reporting covering all technical coordination activities. • Weekly (or other regular time) working group meetings: • In person/phone meetings. • Have to cover all IBL activities. • Organized by working group chairs and PE(s) together with TC. • Kick-off meetings: • When activities have not started yet, or are lacking initial boost and need clustering interest from groups; • Example are: internal services (from FE to PP1), Installation/Safety, etc…

15. Organization: Meetings • IBL Summary Session in the AUW: • To keep a “foothold” in SLHC phase II upgrade. • People in SLHC phase II are interested to be kept up to date. • Have an IBL slot in PO and Pixel meetings: • PL and TC have to report to both groups.

16. Organization: Collaboration Infrastructure • The tight interconnected activities need support of “Collaboration Tools” • Mailing list: general IBL mailing list, working group mailing lists; • Information has to be transmitted by official mailing lists; avoid personal mailing list; • Documents: • Official approved document in EDMS. • Build up of reference documents / tables / specification in defined accessible place: Collaborative Workspace. • Indico Agenda: create a IBL category under Inner Detector. • Information Portal • WEB based portal as starting point to search for Mailing archives, Documents, News, Indico agendas. • Also forum based discussion could be considered.

17. Conclusions