hft project overview cd0 review h.g. ritter lbnl
TRANSCRIPT
HFT Project Overview
CD0 Review
H.G. RitterLBNL
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 2
Project
• In the first part we have shown– Compelling science– Proposed detector can do necessary
measurements• In the second part we will show
– Properties of detector– How we build it– We have the team and the organization
to build it
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 3
OverviewSTAR Tracking Upgrade to identify mid-rapidity Charm and Bottom hadrons through direct reconstruction and measurement of the displaced vertex
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 4
HFT Project
• Time line:– February 2008 (CD-0) – June 2013
(CD-4)• Budget
– Previous (proposal):$15.1M-16M– Present estimated cost range:
$11.1M-14.7M•Updates to Design•Contingency
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 5
PIXEL
• 2 layers of 30x30 m pixels at 2.5 and 8 cm radius
• Very low material budget to limit multiple scattering
• Rapid insertion and removal• Precision positioning• Air cooling • Data reduction and formatting on
chip
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 6
PIXEL
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 7
Engineering Prototype
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 8
IST
• One layer of single sided silicon pads at a radius of 14 cm
• ~23 ladders• 11 units
(modules) per ladder
• Conventional and proven technology
• MIT expertise
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 9
Optimal technology
• Pixel: New technology– Resolution– Low material budget
• IST: Proven strip-pad technology– Experience– Cost effective
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 10
SSD• Existing detector• Needs upgrade to cope with DAQ1000
– (order of 350k$)
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 11
Collaboration
• BNL: C. Chasman, D. Beavis, R. Debbe, J.H. Lee, M.J. Levine, F. Videbaek, Z. Xu
• UCLA: R. Cendejas, H. Huang, S. Sakai, G. Wang, C. Whitten• Kent State: J. Joseph, D. Keane, S. Margetis, V. Rykov, W.M.
Zhang• Prague: M. Bystersky, J. Kapitan, V. Kushpil, M. Sumbera • Strasbourg: J. Baudot, C. Hu-Guo, A. Shabetai, M. Szelezniak,
M. Winter• MIT: J. Balewski, D. Hasell, J. Kelsey, R. Milner, M. Plesko, R.
Redwine, B. Surrow, G. Van Nieuwenhuizen• LBNL: E. Anderssen, X. Dong, L. Greiner, H.S. Matis, S.
Morgan, H.G. Ritter, A. Rose, E. Sichtermann, R.P. Singh, T. Stezelberger, X. Sun, J.H. Thomas, V. Tram, C. Vu, H.H. Wieman, N. Xu
• Purdue: A.S. Hirsch, X. Li, B. Srivastava, F. Wang, Q. Wang, W. Xie
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 12
STAR - HFT Collaboration
• LBNL, MIT and BNL are main institutes for construction– Excellent track record– Experience
• Strasbourg/LBNL - active pixel sensor development
• Kent State, Purdue, Prague, UCLA, LBNL play lead role in simulation, analysis software and calibration
• Entire STAR collaboration will analyze data– Excellent track record– Experience
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 13
Management Structure
HFT Project ManagementContract Project Manager: HG Ritter (acting) LBNLDeputy, Contract Project Manager: RP Singh LBNL
Deputy, Contract Project Manager: F. Videbaek BNL
PIXEL
Wieman LBNL
Anderssen LBNL
IST
B. Surrow MIT
J. Kelsey MIT
Integration
F. Videbaek BNL
J. Kelsey MIT
Software
S. Margetis KSU
SSD LiaisonJ. Thomas LBNL
Safety CoordinatorTBD
DOEJ. Simon-Gillo
Budget ControlS. Morgan LBNL
STARSpokesperson: T. HallmanUpgrade coord: R. Majka
BNLLBNL
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 14
HFT Technical Committee
Ritter - Project ManagerSingh - Deputy Project ManagerMorgan - BudgetVidebaek - IntegrationWieman - PixelAnderssen - Pixel, IntegrationSurrow - ISTKelsey - IST, IntegrationThomas - SSD LiaisonMargetis - SoftwareHallman - STARMajka - STAR
Weekly meetings, management control
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 15
Risk Management
• APS Sensors depending on Strasbourg pace of development– Early prototypes, involved in testing
and design• Kinematic mount, low mass ladder,
alignment challenging– Solve problem in the R+D phase
• SSD is essential– Involved in upgrade and running of
SSD, design redundancy into IST
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 16
Performance Requirements
• Thickness of beam pipe + first Pixel layer < 0.5% radiation length
• Pixel integration time < 200 s• Read-out compatible with DAQ
1000• Internal alignment and stability
better than 20 m for Pixel and better than 300 m for IST
• Detector hit efficiency of Pixel > 95%
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 17
Projected Run Plan
1) First run with HFT: 200 GeV Au+Au v2 and RCP with 500M M.B. collisions
2) Second run with HFT: 200 GeV p+p RAA
3) Third run with HFT: 200 GeV Au+Au Centrality dependence of v2 and RAA
Charm background and first attempt for electron pair measurements
C baryon with sufficient statistics
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 18
Milestones
◊ CD-0 February 2008◊ CD-1 October 2008◊ CD-2/3 August 2009◊ CD-4 June 2013◊ Modified East Cone with West Cone in for Summer
’09 – June 2009◊ Installation of Engineering Prototype – September
2010◊ Engineering Prototype in Beam – January 2011◊ Ultimate Installed – September 2011◊ Ultimate In Beam – January 2012◊ IST Installed – July 2012
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 19
Estimated Cost Range
WBS Task Name
Cost in $K
Cont. in %
Cont. in $K
Lower Range in $K (Est. TPC)
Upper Range in $K
1.1Research and Development
1,461 0 0 1,461 1,461
1.2 Pixel 1,985 46 1,125 3,110 4,354
1.3 Strip Detector 2,345 36 878 3,223 4,351
1.4 Integration 1,665 41 946 2,611 3,656
1.5 Software 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 Project Management 732 0 0 732 878
Total 8,188 29 2,949 11,138 14,701
Appropriate labor ratesEscalated Risk based contingency
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 20
Summary• Compelling science for the RHIC II era• A detector
– That can deliver the science– Built on the strength of STAR
•Coverage and particle identification– Uses innovative technology to get
superior resolution • A team and an organization
– That can build the detector– That will extract the science in a timely
fashion• Meets the charges
Back-up
HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 22
Technology Driven Schedule