u.s. atlas upgrade detector r&d (as an example of university relevance)

DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS) January 8, 2007 SLAC

U.S. ATLAS Upgrade Detector R&D

(as an example of university relevance)

Howard GordonU.S. ATLAS Construction Project Manager

U.S. ATLAS Research Program Deputy Manager (to Mike Tuts)

BNL

DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS) January 8, 2007 SLAC2

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


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


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

Future Upgrade: “Super LHC”

PROCESS LHC SLHC 14 TeV 14 TeV 28 TeV 100 fb-1 1000 fb-1 100 fb-1

Squarks 2.5 3 4 Z’ 5 6 8 Extra-dim (=2) 9 12 15 q* 6.5 7.5 9.5 compositeness 30 40 40 TGC () 0.0014 0.0006 0.0008


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!)


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 PRR April/2010 Mechanical Support Design complete Oct/2010 Sensor PRR July/2010 FE-electronics Sept/2010 Surface Assembly March/2012 Ready for Installation August/2014 Barrel Installation Feb/2015 B-layer/beam pipe August/2015

Conceptual Design R&D

Prototypes

Production

Assembly& Installation

Pre-series

TDR: Technical Design Report; PRR: Production Readiness Review


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


Main Efforts now are:

Establish working groups to coordinate the R&D

ATLAS Upgrade Organization

Executive Board

Technical Coordination

Upgrade Steering Group

Upgrade Project Office


ATLAS Wide Upgrade Steering Group

ID Giovanni Darbo, Abe SeidenLAr Francesco Lanni Tiles Dominique PallinMuons Sandro Palestini, Tatsuo KawamotoTDAQ Stefan Tapprogge EC Phillipe FarthouatShielding/Radiation Vincent HedbergTCn David Lissauer Machine Link Per GrafstromPhysics Giacomo Polesello

Nigel Hessey (Chair of Steering Group) ATLAS management, ex-officio

Francesco Lanni has taken the lead in defining and developing cost estimates for the U.S. LAr

Upgrade program U.S. people


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)


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:


There are often International Collaborations

France IN2P3 C. De La Taille Spain CNM Barcelona M. Ullan USA BNL S. Rescia

UC Santa Cruz A.A. Grillo U of Pennsylvania M. Newcomer

Evaluation of Silicon-Germanium (SiGe) Bipolar Technologies for Use in an Upgraded ATLAS

Detector

ATLAS Upgrade Document No: Institute Document No. Created: 15-Jun-06 Page: 1 of 10

Modified: Rev. No.: 0.00


WBS 4.1.1.1 Innermost Pixel Detector


WBS 4.1.1.1 Detectors – 3D is Rad Hard!


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.


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.

Support and alignment pins, two at each end

Solid model rendering of a stave constructed using an 8mm diameter aluminum tube that has been reformed to enhance thermal transport area.

Port card

Strip detector

Hybrid and chips

Coolant inlet and exit

View of overall stave depicting strip detectors, hybrids and chips. The assembly comprises 15 strip detectors with a length of 993.5mm.


WBS 4.3 Liquid Argon R&D

Current LAr calorimeter architecture structure

Proposed baseline architecture for the LAr calorimeter readout upgrade


WBS 4.3.2.3 Work so far in FY07


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

Optical data

LaserLaserDriverserializer

encoder

Flip-chipbonding

TXParallelData

REFclock

transmitter Module

Photonic

PIN

Receiver Module

TIA/LADe-

serializerDecoderParallel Data

Clock/Data recovery

Flip-chipbonding

REFclock

PLL and clock generator


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


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


Funding Targets

Original targets based on bottoms up estimates, out years evaluated yearly

AY M$

(AY M$) FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Software & Computing 15.1 16.5 17.4 19.0 17.9

M&O 17.7 10.1 10.1 10.3 10.5

Upgrade R&D 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

Management Reserve 2.1 3.8 3.8 4.0 5.9

DOE guidance 22.6 24.6 25.5 27.5 28.5

NSF guidance 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

Carryover/unobligated 6.4

Total 38.0 33.6 34.5 36.5 37.5

NSF Guidance Note:The NSF funding numbers above are shown on a fiscal year monthlyspending 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


U.S. ATLAS Upgrade R&D FY07 Budget

FY07 Budget for U.S. ATLAS Upgrade R&D

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

UCSC

Hampto

nPen

nSMU

New M

exico

Hawaii

Oklaho

ma

Oklaho

ma Stat

eBNL

LBNL

Ohio S

tate

Arizon

a

Stony B

rook

Nevis

Institution

(k$) Series1

Average of the 12 university budgets ~$125k


U.S. ATLAS Upgrade R&D Personnel (FY07)

EE Tech Designers Assemblers Students Total

Laboratories 2.499 5.762 1.032 0.776 - 10.068

Universities 3.833 5.133 - - 1.822 10.788

Total 6.332 10.895 1.032 0.776 1.822 20.856

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.


Location of U.S. ATLAS Personnel (FTEs in FY07)Scientific Non-Scientific

M&O At CERN 68.55 24.4

Not at CERN 19.03 27.8

Total 87.58 52.2

Upgrade R&D At CERN 1.3 1.7

Not at CERN 7.05 19.1

Total 8.35 20.8

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


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.


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

Fiscal Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals

U.S. ATLAS Upgrade Estimate (M$) 9.3 19.2 39.7 41.1 10.6 119.9


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


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


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!

u.s. atlas upgrade detector r&d (as an example of university relevance)

Documents