U.S. ATLAS Upgrade Detector R&D (as an example of university relevance)

1. U.S. ATLAS Upgrade Detector R&D(as an example of university relevance) Howard Gordon U.S. ATLAS Construction Project Manager U.S. ATLAS Research Program Deputy Manager (to Mike Tuts) BNL

2. Points to be covered • High Energy Physics – Excitement NOW • ATLAS Upgrade R&D Program • Based on an increase by a factor of 10 in luminosity to extend the physic reach • How the U.S. participates • Our view of the priority of this work • How universities fit in • There is a large spectrum of abilities in different universities – probably that is good • What sets the scale for the participation • How infrastructure is critical for success

3. My Personal View • High Energy Physics in my career has never been as exciting as now • There are big discoveries on the horizon • Electroweak symmetry breaking: Higgs? SUSY? • Tevatron? • If not: hopefully at the LHC if not with • ILC needed to make the detailed measurements • Dark Matter? • Dark Energy??? • CP Violation in the neutrino sector? • Extra Dimensions? • However, the funding for our field is close to flat-flat and everyone is struggling – New York Times: Jan. 8, 2007

4. Future Upgrade: “Super LHC” • Although we expect to make discoveries and a lot of measurements at the LHC, plans have started for upgrading LHC • Higher energy difficult without major R&D development • Higher luminosity (1035 cm-2 s-1) seems feasible • Some studies have been done to evaluate increased physics potential: • Very prelim. studies also suggest it is possible with 3000 fb-1 per experiment to make the first measurement of the Higgs self-coupling via HH production • Detector R&D is getting underway, to be ready for ~ 2010-2014 Construction Period • For ATLAS the entire Inner Detector would be replaced as well as the Liquid Argon on-detector electronics • PROCESS LHCSLHC • 14 TeV14 TeV 28 TeV • 100 fb-11000 fb-1 100 fb-1 • Squarks 2.534 • Z’ 568 • Extra-dim (=2) 91215 • q* 6.57.5 9.5 • compositeness 3040 40 TGC () 0.00140.0006 0.0008

5. LHC Upgrade Parameters are NOT Set • The 12.5 ns scenario seems to have left the scene (for how long?) • The 75 ns scenario pushed backwards • Two new scenarios appears in the front • 50 ns long bunch 340 events/bunch crossing (at start of fill) - likely • 25 ns high ß 223-296 evt/bc Keep doors open and remember that we do not know (yet) tot at LHC . (some theoreticians say anywhere between 100 and 150 mbarn!)

6. Important Milestones - ID • Ready for beam: 1/1/2016 • Beam off – start decommissioning 7/1/2014 (18 month for installation) • Straw man Layout -12/31/2006 • (Modification/changes to be made in term of performance /Risk/Cost etc.) • TDR -Feb/2010 • Cooling PRRApril/2010 • Mechanical Support Design completeOct/2010 • Sensor PRRJuly/2010 • FE-electronicsSept/2010 • Surface AssemblyMarch/2012 • Ready for InstallationAugust/2014 • Barrel InstallationFeb/2015 • B-layer/beam pipeAugust/2015 Conceptual Design R&D Prototypes Pre-series Production Assembly& Installation TDR: Technical Design Report; PRR: Production Readiness Review

7. 4+3+2 (Pixel, SS, LS) Strawman

8. ATLAS Upgrade Organization Executive Board Technical Coordination Main Efforts now are: Establish working groups to coordinate the R&D Upgrade Steering Group Upgrade Project Office

9. ATLAS Wide Upgrade Steering Group Francesco Lanni has taken the lead in defining and developing cost estimates for the U.S. LAr Upgrade program  U.S. people

10. Upgrade Project Office Composition • ATLAS Management (Ex-officio) S. Stapnes, F. Gianotti, P Jenni • ATLAS Management and TC: M. Nessi • Steering Group Chair: N. Hessey • POL: : D. Lissauer • PO Deputy/Reviews : M. Tyndel • Electronics Coordinator: P. Farthouat ( 2-3 Electronics and DAQ) • Radiation and Shielding: V. Hedberg (Acting) • Machine Interface : P. Grafstrom • Cooling : G. Viehhauser • Sensors : N. Unno • Integration/Installation : H. Pernegger (Starting early next year) • Module Integration : P. Allport • Mechanical Structures : (Under discussions) • LAr : F. Lanni (Acting) • Trigger : S. Tapprogge • B-Layer Upgrade : G. Darbo Additional persons invited for special discussions. Some permanent members still missing. (Tile, Muons, Trigger)

11. The ATLAS Process for Upgrade R&D • There are proposals submitted to the whole collaboration with the aim of eliminating duplication and including every institution which wants to join. An example:

12. There are often International Collaborations

13. WBS 4.1.1.1 Innermost Pixel Detector

14. WBS 4.1.1.1 Detectors – 3D is Rad Hard!

15. WBS 4.1.1.2 Strip Detectors Beginning to develop a detailed understanding of the behavior of n-on-p detectors. Curve is a summary of some measurements, symbols are predictions from paper by Bruzzi, Sadrozinski, and Seiden. Unlike p-on-n detectors, charge collection does not require very large voltages at large fluences. Region of good charge collection matches well our plan to keep the strip detectors at radii larger than 25 cm.

16. Sample of Interesting Results • Development of 1m and 2m long staves has started. This includes detailed engineering studies as well knowledge gained from the measurements of noise for ATLAS style modules mounted on the CDF stave. Solid model rendering of a stave constructed using an 8mm diameter aluminum tube that has been reformed to enhance thermal transport area. View of overall stave depicting strip detectors, hybrids and chips. The assembly comprises 15 strip detectors with a length of 993.5mm.

17. WBS 4.3 Liquid Argon R&D Current LAr calorimeter architecture structure Proposed baseline architecture for the LAr calorimeter readout upgrade

18. WBS 4.3.2.3 Work so far in FY07

19. Flip-chip bonding PLL and clock generator REFclock encoder Laser Laser Driver serializer Parallel Data TX transmitter Module Optical data Flip-chip bonding Photonic Parallel Data Decoder De- serializer PIN TIA/LA Clock/Data recovery REFclock Receiver Module WBS 4.3.2.4 Link-on-Chip • Improve performance • No off-chip high speed lines • Flip-chip bonding reduces capacitance and inductance • Reduce power consumption • No 50-Ohm transmission lines between chips • Designed and Implemented in Silicon-on-Sapphire technology • Targeting speed:>2.5Gbps

20. Dec. 4th ATLAS LAr Calorimeter Upgrade Workshop at CERN • Express of Interest (EOI) of ROD R&D finalized • Participating Institutions • U.S.A. • Brookhaven National Laboratory • Hucheng Chen, Joe Mead, Francesco Lanni • University of Arizona • Ken Jones, Joel Steinberg • Stony Brook University • Dean Schamberger • France • LAPP, Annecy • Jacques Colas, Guy Perrot • Italy • INFN, Milan • Mauro Citterio

21. U.S. ATLAS has put Priority on Upgrade R&D • We still need to complete the construction, commissioning, and pre-operations of ATLAS • We have several items on the critical path and need to focus resources to accomplish our goals • However, we believe that the U.S. can make seminal intellectual contributions to the Upgrade R&D and need to do work in order to establish this • Key technical personnel may be finished with their work on construction, commissioning and pre-operations and the Upgrade R&D provides a way to engage them so they do not drift on to other projects • We hope this support will continue through the Upgrade Construction. • This work is a partnership between the U.S. National Laboratories and the universities. • Each provides crucial contributions • The Labs typically have more of a critical mass of technical people to address issues in a more system-wide manner • Example of the Low Voltage Liquid Argon Power Supplies • Universities, besides providing intellectual input, also have students and postdocs who can carry out a focused part of the R&D

22. Funding Targets • Original targets based on bottoms up estimates, out years evaluated yearly • AY M$ NSF Guidance Note: The NSF funding numbers above are shown on a fiscal year monthly spending plan. NSF funding breakdown: 8/1/04 = 3.5M; 5/1/05 = 5.25M; 2/1/06 = 6.75M; 11/1/06 = 9M; 11/1/07 = 9M

23. U.S. ATLAS Upgrade R&D FY07 Budget Average of the 12 university budgets ~$125k

24. U.S. ATLAS Upgrade R&D Personnel (FY07) Currently 12 university groups are working on the Upgrade R&D. We expect several more to join in the next year and most of the 37 university groups to contribute to Upgrade Construction.

25. Location of U.S. ATLAS Personnel (FTEs in FY07) Note these are universities plus labs – but % is probably similar in both. The Core Research Program is CRUCIAL for M&O and Upgrade R&D

26. Upgrade Construction Planning in ATLAS • The entire tracker must be replaced • Technologies which now work at inner radii will work at outer radii – but new technologies must be developed for the inner radii • For example, 3-D pixels • Cost estimates for a new pixel layer are expected to be ~34 MCHF • New silicon strip layers ~105 MCHF (130 m2) • Calorimetry ~15-32 MCHF • Muon System and Trigger/DAQ 20-30 MCHF • An Upgrade Project Office has been established to insure that R&D work is coherent and services are considered from the beginning.

27. Upgrade Construction Given to P5 in March 2006 • ATLAS has made an estimate for the cost of the upgraded detectors • We have calculated the U.S. share based on the current $/CHF ratio, the experience with CERN cost estimates and U.S. accounting, plus some escalation • There are larger error bars on these numbers but they were presented to P5 and (hopefully will be included) in agency planning

28. ILC Detector R&D • I chaired the DOE/NSF Panel for ILC Detector R&D for a couple of years. • It was a great learning experience for the committee • However, I believe the amount of money available was not enough to carry out serious detector R&D • Even though the committee had discretion to recommend what it wanted and although the committee chose the most relevant and time critical topics, generally there was a request and a recommendation for some M&S, a grad student and perhaps a post doc • In contrast, with about $3M/year, the U.S. ATLAS choice of funding Upgrade R&D at that level has already produced some good results • As far as the synergy of ILC and LHC R&D, some groups will try to find the synergy but it does not have to follow logically

29. Conclusions • We have not dealt with the real issues which need to be addressed in the future: • How many university groups need to be supported in HEP • How much support should they get to be effective • What is the role of the university group and the national labs – (we hope a partnership) • Rather we have described a collaborative system built on needs and capabilities – market driven by the needs of the ATLAS upgrade and the capabilities of the group • The ATLAS upgrade is moving ahead with Upgrade R&D • U.S. university groups are contributing to this by participating and often leading R&D proposals where they can make a unique contribution • Based on their contribution, the U.S. ATLAS Research Program offers some support of infrastructure • Even in the Physics Analysis, it is difficult for a single university group to have a mastery of all the software and data bases needed for analysis. • Still there is a WIDE variation in the capabilities of various university groups • In the past, a lot of infrastructure support was in the Core Research Program • Most groups are asked to choose between technical infrastructure and a post doc or student and we know how they choose • Some have sufficient resources to tackle state of the art problems • Univ. X has a state of the art silicon production facility; univ. Y has good electrical engineers • Others are in the model of a professor with a good idea and students

30. Critical Issues from Mike Tuts at your September 2006 meeting (still critical!) • What are the critical issues threatening the achievements of the project goals? • Funding • Currently ~flat in the out years – some relief in profile starting in 2008 promised in Oct. 2006! • P5 quote “The level of support for this program should not be allowed to erode through inflation” • Travel/COLA costs are higher for CERN • Fall 2005 US ATLAS survey indicates ~x2 over domestic program • ~ $2M/yr problem for Core program • Upgrade funding (not just R&D) needs to be in US planning efforts • Has been presented to P5, so may be in there now • Infrastructure • How do we preserve the technical infrastructure for the upgrade? • Upgrade R&D RP can help, but year-to-year funding makes it difficult to plan • Is it enough? • Collaborative tools • Not yet taken seriously at CERN • Even good audio is a problem • Have a plan (see RTAG 12 report for example), but no funding • Experiments are trying to help • We have a couple of well outfitted rooms, but need more • Office space • Rapidly becoming an issue • Not a threat, but we need to gain experience with our physics analysis support model – good so far!