Linear Collider TPC R

1
Progress at Snowmass on some ILC physics, machine
and detector issues

• Introduction
• ILC GDE, ILC Challenges, ILC/LHC
• Detectors/Subdetectors
• Benchmark reactions
• 2 detectors/2 IPs
• TPC tasks, RD plans for the future
• Momentum-resolution needed
• Detector configuration
• TPC-Magnetic-field issue
• Detector costing

2
S N O W M A S S 2005
30 WGs!! several plenaries, town meetings
or forums benchmarks,2det/2IR,GDE,det.RD,ILCchal
lenges,LHC/LC,Outreach
3
Physics Overview by Peter Zerwas
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12

• News from the ILC

from Barry Barish Users Meeting Fermilab in
summer 05 with Snowmass updates for todays
meeting by R.S.
13
Why ee- Collisions?

• elementary particles
• well-defined
• energy,
• angular momentum
• uses full CMS energy
• produces particles democratically
• can mostly fully reconstruct events

14
A Rich History as a Powerful Probe
15
The Energy Frontier
16

• The Global Design Effort

Formal organization begun at LCWS 05 at
Stanford in March 2005 when Barry became director
of the GDE
Technically Driven Schedule
17
GDE Near Term Plan

• Organize the ILC effort globally
• First Step --- Appoint Regional Directors within
  the GDE who will serve as single points of
  contact for each region to coordinate the program
  in that region. (Gerry Dugan (North America),
  Fumihiko Takasaki (Asia), Brian Foster (Europe))
• Second --- Open website, coordinate meetings,
  coordinate RD programs, etc
• RD Program
• Coordinate worldwide R D efforts, in order to
  demonstrate and improve the performance, reduce
  the costs, attain the required reliability, etc.
  Proposal and priority driven to GDE, BOTH
  machine and detector RD

18
Global Design Effort GDE _at_ Snowmass

• Accelerator summaries Friday 19/08/2005
• GDE organizational meeting Saturday 20/08/2005
• Convergence towards GDE summarized by Nick
  Walker Friday 26/08/2005

19
ILC Challenges

• Forum on Tuesday 23/08/2005
• Jonathon Dorfan, ICFA chairman
• Fred Gilman, chairman of US HEPAP
• John P. (Pat) Looney, former assist. science
  policy adv. to US president
• Tunneling through the DC
  barrier
• Robert Staffin, assoc. dir. DOE office of HEP
• Michael Turner, assist. dir. of NSF
• Roberto Petronzio, chair of FALC (Funding
  Agencies for ILC
• Canada, France, Germany,
  Italy, Japan, Korea, UK, US, Cern)
• Shin-ichi Kurokawa, ACFA chair incoming ILCSC
  chair repl. Maury Tigner
• Albrecht Wagner, incoming ICFA chair

Discussion weighted towards US-hosting of ILC.
Significant statement by R.Petronzio on CERN
policy 0.5-1.0TeV s.c. ILC is next machine
CLIC technology is generation-after-next
20
ILC/LHC

• Discussed on several occasions, e.g.,
• - By Joe Lykken at opening plenary on Discovery
  of the Quantum Universe, HEPAP Report on ILC/LHC
  for EPP2010, saying
• both are important, but not necessarily
  running simultaneously
• At afternoon debate Wednesday 24/08/2005 on
  whether ILC justification depends on LHC
  discoveries, among others
• Sven Heinemeyer ? no
• Mike Peskin ? yes (has since changed his mind)
• Many comments

21
Detectors/Subdetectors
22
(No Transcript)
23
Large Detector example
6x10-5
.30
Particle Flow
-5
24
GLD Detector for ILC experiments
Detector design Philosophy

• Good jet energy resolution
• g calorimeter inside a coil
• highly segmented calorimeter
• Efficient High purity b/c tagging
• g Thin VTX, put close to the IP
• Strong solenoid field
• Pixel type
• High momentum resolution
• Hermetic down to O(10)mrad
• Shielded enough against beam-related background

Muon detector
Calorimeter
Coil
Vertex detector
Tracker
25
GLD
Contact persons Hwanbae Park
Mike Ronan Ron Settles Mark Thomson
Graham Wilson Hitoshi Yamamoto
Muon detector
Calorimeter
Coil
Vertex detector
Tracker
26
SiD
27
Physics determines detector design

• momentum d(1/p) 10-4/GeV(TPC only)
• 0.6x10-4/GeV(w/vertex)
• (1/10xLEP)
  
• ee-gZHgll X goal dMmm lt0.1x GZ
  
• ? dMH dominated by beamstrahlung
• tracking efficiency 98 (overall)
• excellent and robust tracking efficiency by
  combining vertex detector and TPC, each with
  excellent tracking efficiency

28
Benchmark Reactions
29
Benchmark Reactions
30
Benchmark Reactions
31
Benchmark Reactions

32
2 Detectors/2IPs
33
Strawman Final Focus
Barry
34
2 Detectors/2IPs
by Joel Butler (devils avocate from FNAL) and
Jim Brau, Tsunehiko Omori and R.S. for the WWSOC
35
2 Detectors/2IPs
36
2 Detectors/2IPs
37
2 Detectors/2IPs
and 20 more
38
2 Detectors/2IPs
39
2 Detectors/2IPs
40

• 2 Detectors/2IPs
• Basically what came out of the discussion was
  that
• Almost all agreed to the arguments for 2
  complementary detectors if they can be afforded
• Barry preferred the 1IP/2det push-pull versions
  to save money
• The discussion is continuing

41
TPC central-tracker tasks

• ISSUES
• Performance/Simulation
• Design
• Backgrounds, alignment, corrections

42
HISTORY 1992 First discussions on detectors in
Garmisch-Partenkirschen (LC92). Silicon?
Gas? 1996-1997 TESLA Conceptual Design Report.
Large wire TPC, 0.7Mchan. 1/2001 TESLA Technical
Design Report. Micropattern (GEM, Micromegas) as
a baseline, 1.5Mchan. 5/2001 Kick-off of
Detector RD 11/2001 DESY PRC proposal. for TPC
RD (European North American teams) 2002
UCLC/LCRD proposals 2004 After ITRP, WWS RD
panel Europe Chris Damerell (Rutherford Lab.
UK) Jean-Claude Brient (Ecole Polytechnique,
France) Wolfgang Lohmann (DESY-Zeuthen,
Germany) Asia HongJoo Kim (Korean National U.)
Tohru Takeshita (Shinsu U., Japan) Yasuhiro
Sugimoto (KEK, Japan) North America Dan
Peterson (Cornell U., USA) Ray Frey (U. of
Oregon, USA) Harry Weerts (Fermilab, USA)
GOAL To design and build an ultra-high
performance Time Projection Chamber as
central tracker for the ILC detector, where
excellent vertex, momentum and jet-energy
precision are required


43
Motivation Because we want to make precision
measurements of the Higgs
Expt (GeV) Decay Channel (GeV/c2) ln(1s/b) 115 GeV/c2
1 ALEPH 206.7 4-jet 114.3 1.73
2 ALEPH 206.7 4-jet 112.9 1.21
3 ALEPH 206.5 4-jet 110.0 0.64
4 L3 206.4 E-miss 115.0 0.53
5 OPAL 206.6 4-jet 110.7 0.53
6 Delphi 206.7 4-jet 114.3 0.49
7 ALEPH 205.0 Lept 118.1 0.47
8 ALEPH 208.1 Tau 115.4 0.41
9 ALEPH 206.5 4-jet 114.5 0.40
10 OPAL 205.4 4-jet 112.6 0.40
44
TPC RD Groups
America Carleton U Cornell/Purdue Indiana
U LBNL MIT U Montreal U Victoria
Europe RWTH Aachen CERN DESY U Hamburg U
Freiburg U Karlsruhe UMM Krakow Lund MPI-Munich NI
KHEF BINP Novosibirsk LAL Orsay IPN Orsay U
Rostock CEA Saclay PNPI StPetersburg
Asian ILC gaseous-tracking groups Chiba
U Hiroshima U Minadamo SU-IIT Kinki U U
Osaka Saga U Tokyo UAT U Tokyo NRICP
Tokyo Kogakuin U Tokyo KEK Tsukuba U
Tsukuba Tsinghua U
Other MIT (LCRD) Temple/Wayne State (UCLC) Yale
NB Started as subset of these groups working
together in the framework of the DESY PRC, but it
is not yet a formal collaboration forming this
will be the next step.
45
Performance/Simulation

• Momentum precision needed for overall tracking?
• Momentum precision needed for the TPC?
• Arguments for dE/dx, Vº detection
• Requirements for
• 2-track resolution (in rf and z)?
• track-gamma separation (in rf and z)?
• Tolerance on the maximum endplate thickness?
• Tracking configuration
• Calorimeter diameter
• TPC
• Other tracking detectors
• TPC outer diameter
• TPC inner diameter
• TPC length
• Required B-mapping accuracy in case of
  non-uniform B-field?

46
Design

• Gas-Amplification technology ? input from RD
  projects
• Chamber gas candidates crucial decision!
• Electronics design maximum density possible?
• Zeroth-order conventional-RO design
• Is there an optimum pad size for momentum, dE/dx
  resolution and electronics packaging?
• Silicon RO proof-of-principle
• Endplate design
• Mechanics
• Minimize thickness
• Cooling
• Field cage design

47
Backgrounds/alignment/distortion-correction

• Revisit expected backgrounds -gt Akira started
• Maximum positive-ion buildup tolerable?
• Maximum occupancy tolerable?
• Effect of positive-ion backdrift gating plane?
• Tools for correcting space charge in presence of
  bad backgrounds?

48
TPC RD Plans

• 1) Demonstration phase
• Continue work for 1 year with small prototypes
  on mapping out parameter space, understanding
  resolution, etc, to prove feasibility of an MPGD
  TPC. For Si-based ideas this will include a
  basic proof-of-principle.
• 2) Consolidation phase
• Build and operate large prototype (Ø 75cm,
  drift 100cm) within framework of EUDET grant
  from the EU which allows any MPGD technology, to
  test manufacturing techniques for MPGD
  endplates, fieldcage and electronics. Design
  work would start in 1/2 year, building and
  testing another 2-3 years.
• 3) Design phase
• After phase 2, the decision as to which endplate
  technology to use for the LC TPC would be taken
  and final design started.

49

• I3 Proposal ? Integrated Infrastructure
  Initiative
• Defacto approved! 7 M over 4 years to
  provide RD infrastructure
  
  by European associated groups
• RD open to whole world (a EU group should a
  collaborating member)

50
Work Packages for Large Prototype
P R E L I M I N A R Y !
51
Momentum resolution needed

• momentum d(1/p) 10-4/GeV(TPC only)
• 0.6x10-4/GeV(w/vertex)
• (1/10xLEP)
  
• ee-gZHgll X goal dMmm lt0.1x GZ
  
• ? dMH dominated by beamstrahlung
• ? 5 X better needed? Tim Barklow studying
• tracking efficiency 98 (overall)
• excellent and robust tracking efficiency by
  combining vertex detector and TPC, each with
  excellent tracking efficiency

52
Momentum resolution needed?Study by Bruce
Schumm
Easy 3D track recognition dE/dx TPC ? d(1/p)
Silicon
53
Momentum resolution needed
Club sandwich possible in GLD because of large
size. We will study performance feasibility of
this option in case the momentum precision is
required.
54
On the Magnetic-field Requirements for the LC TPC
55
LC Note in preparation
based on experience with Aleph TPC
56
The B-field issue The standard TPC requirement
for the B-field homogeneity has been (from the LC
Note)
57
On the Magnetic-field Requirements for the LC TPC

• Dan Peterson and I presented two different
  viewpoints at an LDC meeting on Monday.
• Both of these viewpoints are based on simplified
  arguments to help understand the effects.
• Back-of-the envelope must be interpreted
  carefully,
• what is needed to understand the problem in
  detail is simulation work.
• We both agree that the problem is solvable

58
The B-field
http//wisconsin.cern.ch/wiedenma/TPC/Distortions
/CERN_LC.pdf
59
The B-field
http//wisconsin.cern.ch/wiedenma/TPC/Distortions
/CERN_LC.pdf
60
The systematic uncertainty
61
The B-field
Corrections exact if B-field known exactly so
what must B accuracy be?
E-field
The relevant equations for movement of drifting
electrons in B-field
62
From the LC Note
?
63
From the LC Note
Problems - Different coil configuration between
mapping and running - Hall plate
drifts - Temperature drifts ?
Aleph should have taken more time for the
calibration of various effects and mapped with
more configurations.
64
B-field Map for the LC TPC

• Aleph map almost good enough for the LC TPC
  profit from experience
• Lay out map to achieve 0.1 as was originally
  planned in Aleph.
• Construct main detector coil to adhere to 2mm
  condition if affordable.
• Establish tolerances with careful simulation
• Do same for stray fields of MDI magnets.
• Mount matrix of Hall plates on LCTPC to
  monitor/check while running.
• Devise model including all material to compare
  with Hall-plate matrix.

65
Preliminary conclusion on LC TPC B-map
Tolerance on B-field map
1 x 10-4 in the LC TPC (goal) 5 x 10-4 in the
Aleph TPC (achieved)

Map B-field to
B-field accuracy after corrections using tracks
(based on very simple, conservative model ?
simulation needed to provide better answer) h
field homogeneity s_o tolerance on systematic
error of single point measurement
1.5 x 10-5 for the LC TPC (goal) 1-4 x 10-5 for
the Aleph TPC (achieved)

66
ILC Detector Cost Estimating

• Issues,
• Numbers?talk by
• Marty Breidenbach
• GLD A. Miyamoto R. Settles
• LCD H. Videau
• SiD M. Breidenbach

67
Motivation

• Gain understanding of the cost scale of these
  detectors.
• Attempt to provide a basis for comparing detector
  costs.
• Develop tools for cost optimizing the detector
  concepts.
• SiD has beginnings of WBS and parametric cost
  tools.
• LDC has WBS and is intending a parametric
  approach
• GLD is beginning cost estimation
• All policy issues reflect our understandings- and
  are not official in any way.
• ILC is beginning to develop a cost methodology.
  ITER is possible model. ITER has Core Values in
  ITER Units, which are used as a basis for
  distributing responsibilities.
• Tasks are Key (interesting to most everyone)
  and Conventional (boring??). Attempts are made
  to fairly allocate both varieties.
• ITER model is that host country pays all
  Facilities Costs.

68
Issues

• Accounting Rules
• US versus European accounting
• US convention is to cost all technical labor
• Engineering
• Technicians
• Trades
• But not faculty, physicists, students
• European convention (appears to) cost none of the
  labor.
• European system makes sense if adequate labor is
  permanently employed by the participating
  universities and labs and conversely!!
• Both systems cost full MS.
• France is tending towards accounting of all labor
  by program.
• Japanese accounting seems similar to European,
  except that there is relatively little in-house
  labor. Consequently labor appears to be costed
  MS.
• ILC Account for MS in ILC Units
• Account for labor by type in Man-Years.

69
SiD Working Assumptions

• All technical labor included
• Contingency is explicit
• All engineering is included
• Indirects are included
• Escalation is included
• Comparison among detectors requires agreement on
  the accounting issues!

70
Highest Level WBS(then there are 2nd,
3rd,levels)
71
The Answer
Summary  
   
VXD 6.0
Tracker 19.9
EMCal 74.7
Hcal 74.2
Muon System 26.0
Electronics 37.5
Magnet 164.1
Installation 9.6
Management 9.4
Escalation 140.2
Indirects 38.5
Total 600.2
72
SiD Costs by type
SiD Costs by type  
   
MS 244
Labor 70
Contingency 107
Indirects 39
Escalation 140.2
Total 600
73
Some final, random remarks

• New configuration exercise being studied by GLD
  ?
• 4th detector concept appeared (Wigmans et al)
• Vertex people starting global collaboration
  (similar to other subdetectors
• Chances for ILC _at_ Fermilab look not-impossible
  (European, Japan sample sites not yet known)
• GDE working groups well on the way after
  Snowmass, but got a long way to go baseline
  configuration end 2005, costed CDR end 2006, etc

74
The story began 1991, we seem to be making
progress