Transcript IBL

IBL @ October RRB
Slides for Marzio’s RRB talk
CERN, October, 11th 2010
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
o
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
IBL @ October RRB
RRB – October 2010
IBL Detector
Material
from B-Layer
Raphael/Neal
The
Insertable
(IBL) is a fourth
layer added to the present Pixel detector
between a new beam pipe and the current
inner Pixel layer (B-layer).
PP1 Collar
Sealing
service ring
Alignment
wires
IBL key Specs / Params
IST
IBL Support Tube
IBL Staves
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
IBL @ October RRB
•14 staves, <R> = 33.25 mm
•CO2 cooling, T < -15ºC @ 0.2 W/cm2
•X/X0 < 1.5 % (B-layer is 2.7 %)
•50 µm x 250 µm pixels
•1.8º overlap in ϕ, <2% gaps in Z
•32/16 single/double FE-I4 modules per
stave
•Radiation tolerance 5x1015 neq/cm2
RRB – October 2010
2
IBL Layout
Beam-pipe reduction:
• Inner R: 29  25 mm
Very tight clearance:
• “Hermetic” to straight tracks in Φ (1.8º
overlap)
• No overlap in Z: minimize gap
between sensor active area.
Material budget:
• IBL Layer (with IST): 1.5 % of X0
• Other Pixel layers: ~2.7 % of X0
Beam-pipe (BP) extracted by cutting the flange
on one side and sliding (guiding tube inside).
IBL Support Tube (IST) inserted.
IBL with smaller BP inserted in the IST
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
IBL @ October RRB
RRB – October 2010
3
IBL Technical Design Report
ATLAS TDR includes:
• Overview and motivation for the project
• Study of the physics performance
• Technical description of the project with
baseline and options for critical issues
• Three sensor technologies.
• Beam-pipe, extraction/insertion,
installation, ALARA.
• Organization of the project and
resources
Editorial team:
M. Capeans (technical editor), G. Darbo,
K. Einsweiller, M. Elsing, T. Flick,
M. Garcia-Sciveres, C. Gemme,
H. Pernegger, O. Rohne and R. Vuillermet.
Approved by the ATLAS Collaboration
Board (October 2010 ATLAS Week)
• 43 Institutions and 300 people in IBL
CERN-LHCC-2010-13, ATLAS TDR 19
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
IBL @ October RRB
RRB – October 2010
4
Physics Performance
b-tagging with pile-up
IBL Physics & Performance Task
Force – M. Elsing et al.
2 jets of 500 GeV event with 2 x 1034 pile-up
Same event w/o pile-up
IBL
b-tagging with pile-up & inefficiencies
b-tagging performance crucial for:
• New Physics (3rd generation !)
• observation of H → bb through boosted WH production
Main conclusions of IBL performance Task Force:
• performance at 2x1034 with IBL is equal to or better than
present ATLAS without pile-up
• w/o IBL and 10% B-layer inefficiency: b-tagging ~ 3
times worse at 2x1034 than today
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
IBL @ October RRB
RRB – October 2010
5
The New Front-end Chip (FE-I4)
60 KGD / Wafer
Reason for a new front-end chip
FE-I4 submitted on July 1st
20.2 mm
160
336 rows
FE-I3
(Pixel)
18
19 mm
• Increased radiation hard (> 250 Mrad)
• New architecture to reduce inefficiencies
(L=2x1034): faster shaping; not move hits
from pixel until LVL1 trigger.
• Smaller pixel size 50 x 250 µm2 (achieved
by 0.13 µm CMOS with 8 metals)
• Larger fraction of footprint devoted to
pixel array (~90%) – little space for IBL
envelope.
FE-I4
(IBL)
80 columns
• More than 2 years of engineering work for a
team of >15 Engineers/physicist
• Largest HEP chip ever 20.2x19.0 mm2, 87
million transistors!
• 60 Known Good Dies (KGD) / 8” wafer.
• 16 wafer engineering run – 3 received and
under test.
Money contributions collected following
interim-MoU share.
• Engineering run cost > 500kCH
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
IBL @ October RRB
RRB – October 2010
6
Sensor Technologies for IBL
Three candidate sensor technologies address the IBL requirements with different trade-offs:
• Prototyping with FE-I4 – qualification with irradiation (5x1015 neq/cm2) and test beam – production yield
Planar sensors (3 producers)
• slim edge n-in-n & n-in-p
• require the lowest temperature
and high bias voltage.
• have very well understood
manufacturing sources,
mechanical properties,
relatively low cost, and high
yield.
3D sensors (3 producers)
• Active edge, single/double side
• require the lowest bias voltage,
intermediate operating
temperature, and achieve the
highest acceptance due to
active edges.
• their manufacturability with high
yield and good uniformity must
be demonstrated.
450 µm
n-in-n slim edge
IBL layout
Planar Sensor
Diamond sensors (2 producers)
• polycrystalline CVD (pCVD)
• require the least cooling and
have similar bias voltage
requirements to planar
sensors.
• their manufacturability with
high yield, moderate cost, and
good uniformity must all be
demonstrated.
Selection in summer 2011
IBL FE-I4 diamond sensors
3D column
Thin n-in-p
11 µm
3D Sensor
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
ATLAS Pixel FE-I3 diamond
module
IBL @ October RRB
RRB – October 2010
7
SPARE SLIDES
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
IBL @ October RRB
RRB – October 2010
8
History of IBL Project - Time Line
1998: Pixel TDR
• B-layer designed to be substituted every 3 years of nominal LHC (300 fb-1): due
to then available radiation hard sensor and electronic technologies.
2002: B-layer replacement
• became part of ATLAS planning and was put into the M&O budget to RRB.
2008: B-layer taskforce
• B-layer replacement cannot be done – Engineering changes to fulfil delayed ondetector electronics (FE-I3, MCC) made it impossible even in a long shut down.
• Best (only viable) solution: “make a new smaller radius B-layer insertion using
technology being developed for HL-LHC prototypes”. This became the IBL.
2009: ATLAS started IBL project:
• February: endorsed IBL PL and TC
• April: IBL organization in place (Endorsed by the ATLAS EB)
2010: TDR and interim-MoU
• TDR is under approval in ATLAS
• Interim-MoU is collecting last signatures.
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
IBL @ October RRB
RRB – October 2010
9
Interim-MoU - Institutions
There are 43 institutions in the IBL
project
• Large interest for the sensor (22
Institutions)
• Full effort and funding
requirements are covered
300 people have expressed their
interest to contribute to the project
• many have already started to
work.
• In most cases institutes contribute
with money where also there is
contribution with manpower.
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
IBL @ October RRB
RRB – October 2010
10
Management Board (MB)
MB ad-interim membership
IBL Project Leader: G. Darbo
IBL Technical Coordinator: H. Pernegger
“Module” WG (2 Physicists): F. Hügging & M. GarciaSciveres
“Stave” WG (1 Phy. + 1 M.E.): O. Rohne + D. Giugni
“IBL Assembly & Installation” WG (2 M.E. initially, a Phy.
Later): F. Cadoux + R. Vuillermet
“Off-detector” WG (1 Phy. + 1 E.E.): T. Flick + S. Débieux
IBL Management Board (MB)
Membership:
•IBL PL + IBL TC
•2 cordinators from each WG
•Plus “extra” members
Module WG
(2 cordinators)
•FE-I4
•Sensors
•Bump-Bonding
•Modules
•Procurement & QC
•Irradiation & Test Beam
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
“Extra” members:
IBL/Pixel “liaison”: Off-line SW: A. Andreazza, DAQ: P.
Morettini, DCS: S. Kersten
Ex officio: Upgrade Coordinator (N. Hessey), PO Chair
(M. Nessi), Pixel PL (B. Di Girolamo), ID PL (P. Wells), IB
Chair (C. Gößling)
Stave WG
(1 Phys + 1 Eng.)
•Staves
•Cooling Design &
Stave TM
•HDI (Flex Hybrid)
•Internal services
•Loaded stave
•Procurement & QC
Integration &
Installation WG
(2 Eng.)
•Stave Integration
•Global Supports
•BP procurement
•Ext. services inst.
•BP extraction
•IBL+BP Installation
•Cooling Plant
IBL @ October RRB
Off-detector
(1 Phys + 1 E.Eng.)
•BOC/ROD
•Power chain & PP2
•DCS & interlocks
•Opto-link
•Ext. serv .design/proc.
•Procurement & QC
•System Test
RRB – October 2010
11
FE-I4 Table
FE-I3
Pixel size [µm2]
50x400
50x250
Pixel array
18x160
80x336
7.6x10.8
20.2x19.0
3.5
87
74%
89%
26 / 17
10 / 10
17
10
1.6 / 2.0
1.5 / 1.2
Chip size [mm2]
No. of transistors [millions]
Active fraction
Analog/digital current [µA/pix]
Digital current [µA/pix]
Analog/digital voltage [V]
G. Darbo & H. Pernegger
FE-I4
IBL @ October RRB
RRB – October 2010
12