Summary of Blayer Replacement Workshop - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 23
About This Presentation
Title:

Summary of Blayer Replacement Workshop

Description:

Summary of B-layer Workshop. G. Darbo - INFN / Genova. ATLAS Week, ... Requires complete disassembly of at least 2 SQP's to get at least 6 cooling circuits in ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:84
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 24
Provided by: geI3
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Summary of Blayer Replacement Workshop


1
Summary of B-layer Replacement Workshop
  • October ATLAS Week
  • CERN, 10 October 2007
  • G. Darbo - INFN / Genova
  • Workshop page
  • http//indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId
    20119

2
B-Layer Workshop
http//indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId
21107
  • B-layer Replacement WS
  • Sept. 28-29, 2007
  • Workshop numbers
  • 1 1/2 days
  • 6 Sessions round table
  • 56 registered participants

3
Why Pixel Replacement
  • B-layer was designed to survive 3 years of LHC
    nominal luminosity (1034cm-2s-1)
  • NIEL fluence 1015 neq/cm2 (mainly from pions)
  • Ionizing Dose 500 kGy (50 Mrad)
  • Sensors
  • Not fully depleted at 600 V ? lower charge
    collected, lower efficiency
  • Leakage current (noise)
  • Charge trapping ? lower charge collected, lower
    efficiency
  • Electronics
  • Transistor VT shift due to charge trapping in
    the gate oxide (Ionizing Radiation). FE and MCC
    tested to 500 kGy)
  • New LHC machine scenario could move replacement
    date into the future, but large unknowns on
    operation and cooling runaway may make it
    sooner.
  • Target date for the Workshop studyWinter
    shutdown 2012

B-layer bias voltage T 0ºC operation, T
-20ºC no operation, T 20ºC for short
accesses 50 headroom uncertainty
Max DETbias
4
Replacement Constraints
  • Aim of the replacement is to improve, or at least
    restore, initial performance of the Pixel (ID)
    detector.
  • This scenario involves improvements to
    sensor/electronics design, to module and
    mechanical geometry.
  • Hope for beam pipe radius reduction, such that a
    3237 mm radius pixel detector can be inserted
    inside the existing detector.
  • The new b-layer could be inserted together with
    the beam pipe in this scenario.
  • Two scenarios have been studied and analysed in
    the workshop
  • Add a small R b-layer leave existing one
    (having reduced efficiency)
  • Add a small R b-layer remove the existing one
    (remove material)
  • Both A B requires to move the pixel package
    out of the pit. Can we do an "in situ" insertion
    without removing the pixel package, or is this
    completely excluded?
  • The additional constraint we used in the study
    was the replacement date 2012 and the shutdown
    time 6 months

Replacement
Insertable
A
B
5
Layout Simulation Method and Software
  • DC1 model of ID upgraded pixel.
  • Latest xKalmanOO (tracking).
  • Private version of b-tagging software with
    secondary vertices and recalibration for
    different trackerprocess configurations
  • B-tagging software was not specifically tuned for
    new setup (all track selection cuts were the same
    as for current pixel).

Ref. V. Kostyukhin, P. Nevski, A. Rozanov
Results presented for upgraded pixel with added
layer (4L) and with modified single b-layer
together with results obtained with current
pixel detector (3L).
Modified layout with single b-layer
Layout with 4-layers L4
Rb1 37.0 mmRb2 absentR1 88.5 mmR2
122.5 mm
Rb1 37.0mm, 1.2 X0 Rb2 50.5mm , 2.2 X0 R1
88.5mmR2 122.5mm
6
Material Studies Performance
B-tagging vs. ?
  • The b-layer with z-pitch reduced from 400 to
    250µm improves substantially Z-vertex resolution
    (top left)
  • The addition of material is critical to b-tagging
    at large ??? (figure top right is b-tagging for
    present pixel detector)

Ref. A. Rozanov
7
B-tagging Results
Ref. V. Kostyukhin
Preliminary!!!
WH(120)?uu(bb), no pileup, ATLFAST jets,
reconstructed primary vertex.
  • Tracking performance seems ok for 4 layers case
    but b-tagging is worse comparing with current
    design. Track part of b-tagging is mainly
    responsible for worsening.
  • Layout with new single b-layer at R37mm and
    removed current b-layer gives significantly
    better performance with existing tracking
    software.
  • Single b-layer at R37mm provides some increase
    of b-tagging rejection at high ? region weak
    point of existing pixel detector.

8
Disconnect / Extract the Pixel
Ref. D. Giugni
TASKS in this ENVIROMENT Set up and align the
DST, Extract the detector, Rotate the DST, Hook
up the DST to the crane. DURATION, MANPOWER,
INTEGRAL DOSE 84h, 3 people, 3.1mSv
lt50 µSv/h ? Simple controlled radiation area
/ Low occupancy areas lt 2 mSv/h ? Limited stay
area / Low occupancy areas
  • The area of the ATLAS beam line will be
    classified as Controlled Radiation Area.
  • Assuming that the Full Body Dose exceeds 50µSv/h
    the area should also be classified as Limited
    Stay Area(lt 2mSv/h).
  • This means that workers have a controlled access,
    must wear a personal dosimeter an operational
    dosimeter and be classified as Radiation
    Workers.

9
On Surface in the SR1
TASKS in this ENVIROMENT Remove SQPs, Access
the beam pipe, Remove the beam pipe, Remove and
insert the B-layer, Connectivity Test DURATION,
MANPOWER, INTEGRAL DOSE 600h (depending upon
the scenario), 4 people present, 28.9mSv
Supervised Radiation AREA lt 15 µSv/h
ITT
Simple Controlled Radiation AREA lt50µSv/h
  • Great attention has to be paid to avoid
    radioactive contamination. Grinding and cutting
    activated material would cause a contamination in
    the airborne and on the surfaces.

Ref. D. Giugni
10
Services - Additions
Intreferes with T0 Cables
OSP
Detector
ISP
Requires Removal Of all SQP on this side
Modify
BPSS
  • (Some) critical issues
  • Service Panels (SQPs) are highly integrated both
    electrically and mechanically
  • Electrical modularity of services locked in
    Mechanically
  • Tight envelopes make re-arrangement of services
    difficult
  • Penetration at PP1 uses almost all real estate at
    package ends
  • Fibers case A requires new opto-fibers to be
    re-routed (difficult) and remapping with new
    electronics, case B fiber reuse requires same
    nominal location of New Optical drivers

Ref. E. Anderssen
11
What to Open
  • Case AA-Side (to insert B-layer leaving existing
    one)
  • Need to install new cooling circuits, cant be
    C-Side, not quite enough spare Holes
  • Requires complete disassembly of at least 2 SQPs
    to get at least 6 cooling circuits in
  • Gives access to BPSS to install new PP0s
  • A lot of work, all after removal, likely on
    critical path
  • Case BC-Side (to remove existing B-layer and add
    a new one)
  • Need clear aperture to pass BP and new BL
    incannot pass PP1 Cruciform
  • Only required removal of T0 cables and enough
    SQPs to be comfortable removing BPSS
  • Remove SQPs but not dissassemble to modify for
    cable routing of new PP0s
  • Access to BPSS to install new PP0s
  • On Critical Path, but less work than A
  • Both require removal of BPSS and at least 2 SQPs
    on one side.
  • Schedule
  • Case A and B differ in the needed operations but
    the total time will not differ greatly. Case B
    requires, in first analysis 9.5 months. Case A
    could be slightly faster.
  • More detailed studies are needed.

Ref. E. Anderssen
Ref. D. Giugni
12
Envelope Studies
  • New beam pipe radius
  • Nominally reduced to R25, theoretically to R17
    (instead of R29 now) but
  • R17 will require feedback from future Atlas run
    see Rays talk at
  • Current B-layer envelope R45.5 to R74 28.5 mm.
  • Case A IR35 OR41
  • Case B IR35 OR71.5
  • Studies which might give more space
  • Insulation thickness between BP and B-Layer
  • Radial Adjustment of Beam-pipe
  • Assembly sequence/tooling which requires less
    clearance

Ref. A. Catinaccio
13
Layout Concepts Single Layer
Monolitic OD 88 mm ID 75 mm
  • Developing directions
  • Made stave prototype (for SLHC upgrade test) with
    carbon foams with good thermal conductivity but
    relatively high density (?0.55 g/cc).
  • Thermal and FEA analysis.
  • Look to low density (?0.15 g/cc) foam or
    nanotubes.

Ref. M. Gilchieriese, M. Garcia Sciveres
Stave - 2 OD 88 mm ID 70 mm
Stave - 1 OD 93 mm ID 70 mm
14
Layout Concept Double b-layer
Ref. N. Wermes
incl. angle B2 6o incl. angle B1 10o
nom. radius B2 49 mm nom. radius B1 37 mm
envelope ok
staves B2 20 staves B1 16
Wolfgan Dietsche, Walter Ockenfels
15
Local Support Structure - Stave
Ref. K.W. Glitza
  • Wuppertal stave studies
  • Use homogeneous structure all carbon based.
  • Reduce material carbon foam for the cover (
    density 0.50.9 g/cm³) thermal conductivity
    (in plane 140 W/mK out of plane 70 W/mK)
  • Material and stability woven carbon pipes

sensor
cover
base
base
pipe
Prototype
16
Sensors
  • Basically all technologies covered by
    presentations
  • N-on-n is the Pixel proven technology
  • P-on-n gives the same radiation tolerance than
    n-on-n, but single-side process cheaper and with
    higher yield
  • Thin sensors lower material, lower leakage
    current, lower charge
  • Diamond works at room temperature, pCVD (spatial
    resolution?) and scCVD (large enough sensors?).
    Work at room temperature, low noise, high cost.
  • 3D sensor high level of radiation hardness
    (highest collected charge after irradiation),
    active edge, but cost.
  • Gossip gaseous detector, many interesting
    features, but still on RD stage.

Irradiation / testbeam studies are underway (or
about to start) with most of the technologies
using the present pixel electronics Some of the
technologies have RD proposal to SLHC
17
3D Sensors - New Results
Efficiency
  • Efficiency studies of 3D sensors with 2006 test
    beam for perpendicular and inclined sensors
  • Time walk (20ns plateau) measurements with
    injected charge for 3D structures and FE settings.
  • ? 95.90.1
  • 10º
  • ? 99.60.1

BEAM
Threshold 3200 e Structure 3E
Column shadow
Ref. M.Cristinziani E.Bolle, O.Rohne 3D ATLAS
RD Meeting 27/10/2007
Time walk
Charge overdrive (above threshold) for ?T 20 ns
  • 20 gt power
  • 40 gt power

?
?
18
Electronics - System Architecture
  • Electronics designed for higher occupancy,
    radiation tolerance, SEU
  • Larger FE chip increases module live fraction
    (70 ? 90)
  • Feasible single chip (active edge) modules or
    standard multi-chip
  • Remove MCC from module and have a SCC at stave
    end
  • Opto-links use same SIMM/GRIN fibers but at
    higher speed.

19
Front-end Chip - FE-I4
  • Laboratories involved Bonn, CPPM, Genova,
    Nikhef, LBNL.
  • Very spread collaboration, difficult organize
    common effort.
  • Submission planned 12/2008.

20
Block Design for FE-I4
  • LBNL Prototype chip Submitted Feb07 in 0.13µm
    CMOS (IBM)
  • Array of 40-cell columns.
  • There are 21 total columns in a die which is
    3.6mm x 2.8mm with 110 I/O pads.
  • First results very promising (bottom left noise
    vs. input C for TP design). Slope 76 e-/fF.
  • designer is Abder Mekkaoui
  • Bonn designing blocks for FE-I4
  • LVDS TX/RX submitted to 0.13µm UMC.
  • 8/10-bit DAC with monotonic behavior
  • Designer is Michael Karagounis
  • Nikhef submitted band-gap reference in 0.13 µm
    IBM
  • Designer is V.Gromov et al.,
  • Collaboration MPC will be submitted through
    MOSIS Jan08

LVDS RX
LVDS TX
21
Workshop Outcome
  • The Workshop was quite successful, attracted more
    than 70 people and was the first serious attempt
    to look into the b-layer replacement.
  • It was the first time we did substantial study
    in
  • Simulating the b-tagging performance of the
    replacement scenarios.
  • Analyzing the impact of activation in the
    operations to be made to replace the detector.
  • Evaluating the impact on the schedule of
    different scenarios.
  • We have been somewhat surprised
  • Reduction of material is probably more important
    than reduction of the radius
  • Scope is bigger than foreseen for short time
    scale. Services are on the critical path.
    Reconnect services cannot be done in short time.
    Replace services could be faster than
    disconnecting and connecting again, but cost
    would exceed that of the funded project (34
    MSF).
  • Threshold to change is higher sensors and
    electronics could survive longer and risk of the
    intervention (in complexity and time scale) are
    higher than foreseen.

22
What to do next
  • Develop a more precise and comprehensive analysis
    of the lifetime issues for the present B-layer
  • Effect of the reduced collected charge from the
    sensors has to be studied throughout electronics
    signal generation and finally to b-tagging
    efficiency.
  • Define some "thresholds" that would imply risks
    we are willing to take, or timescales we are
    willing to consider for replacements.
  • B-layer is the unique layer, in the whole ID,
    which its reduced performance would have such a
    major effect on Physic achievements (basically,
    destroying or seriously degrading b-tagging).
  • Develop a more complete plan, in collaboration
    with TC/PO for the complete replacement
    operation, to understand the timescales and
    projections for allowed shutdowns.
  • Push RD to reduce material budget. This must
    happen mainly in the fields of sensors,
    electronics and integrated support structures
    (staves).
  • Study ways of extending lifetime of present
    detector cooling, operating sensors for longer
    life (limit bias current to keep them cooler).

23
Last but not Least (Conclusions)
  • The B-layer replacement, at a modest scope (no
    more than about 34 MSF CORE equivalent) is a
    funded project, though not approved in detail.
  • it is not only a necessary intermediate step
    before going to a 1035 upgrade but should extend
    the secondary vertex related physics reach for
    ATLAS (or maintain it for longer).
  • The timescale must fit with the SLHC, although
    that is not an approved project with a
    schedule.
  • We will gain critical experience (pixel hookup
    and closing ATLAS) in next months so more natural
    time to reach a conclusion on baseline
    replacement option is again summer 2008.
  • More engineering manpower will be released from
    the present priority task of Pixel detector
    completion and will be directed to the study of
    the new detector.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com