ITk Layout Task Force Report Practicalities Mailing list

  • Slides: 17
Download presentation
ITk Layout Task Force Report Practicalities • Mailing list: atlas-itk-ILTF@cern. ch • Meetings: bi-weekly

ITk Layout Task Force Report Practicalities • Mailing list: [email protected] ch • Meetings: bi-weekly on Friday 4 -6 PM, next on Friday 27 th • Web site: https: //twiki. cern. ch/twiki/bin/view/Atlas/ITk. Layout. Task. Force C. Gemme (INFN Genova), A. Salzburger (CERN) Mar 19 th 2015 1

Feedback from the ITK week ü The Task Force is active since December. ü

Feedback from the ITK week ü The Task Force is active since December. ü First idea was to push on two parallel paths: the scoping exercize and the new layout, and for that, starting from the basic requirements on ITK. g in p o Sc Definition of the decosting option(s) Definition of the baseline La Jan 22 yo ut Requirements document ~ ITK week Evaluation of the performance for baseline and de-costed options Feb 26 Layouts Projects definitions ILT Wrap- F Deup , c 1 9 th May-June Evaluation of the performance of Wrap -up the selected layouts March/April Early winter 2016

Feedback from the ITK week ü The Task Force is active since December. ü

Feedback from the ITK week ü The Task Force is active since December. ü First idea was to push on two parallel paths: the scoping exercize and the new layout, and for that, starting from the basic requirements on ITK. g in p o Sc La yo ut Scoping document: Having defined the layouts to be considered, the leading role is now to Upgrade and Simulation and Definition Physics Evaluation of the performance Definition of the Wrap. Performances WGs. of the for baseline decosting up baseline In the ILTF we and will have regular reports as the de-costed options option(s) exercize is useful for the layouts definition as well as in the tools and expertize setting up. May-June Feb 26 Jan 22 We want instead to give more time to the discussion of the layouts. ILT De F, c 1 9 th Requirements document ~ ITK week Layouts Projects definitions Evaluation of the performance of Wrap -up the selected layouts March/April Early winter 2016

Requirements wrap-up ü Preliminary document is linked in the ILTF twiki ü Divided in

Requirements wrap-up ü Preliminary document is linked in the ILTF twiki ü Divided in chapters, several of them already discussed in our meetings: 1. Basic Operational Parameters (S. Mc. Mahon, Pippa) 2. Tracking Performance (A. Salzburger, M. Elsing) Started 3. Interface to the LHC machine (C. Gemme, S. Mc. Mahon, & discussion with TC) 4. Interface to ATLAS experiment (C. Gemme, S. Mc. Mahon, D. Francis) 5. Access to the machine and maintenance scenarios (Georg) 6. Mechanical requirements (Georg) 7. Electrical requirements (Alex, Richard) 4

Some requirements discussed ü The detector needs to be able to accumulate a total

Some requirements discussed ü The detector needs to be able to accumulate a total integrated luminosity of 3000 ifb (no safety factor). ü A maximum instantaneous luminosity of 7. 5 x 1034 cm-2 s-1 corresponding to ~200 proton-proton interactions per bunch crossing (in simulations we assume Poisson fluctuations around this mean value). ü … ü Beam spot in the longitudinal direction will have a sigma of 75 mm and the detector will have to be ‘hermetic’ for such a beam spot width. ü … ü Mechanics updates in Georg’s talk. ü For tracking requirements effort to translate the initial requirements in layout specifications. 5

Some requirements discussed 3/3/2011 C. Gemme, INFN Genova CONF-2010 -109 6

Some requirements discussed 3/3/2011 C. Gemme, INFN Genova CONF-2010 -109 6

Requirements wrap-up ü Proposed time scale: • Fri 20 th: include what already discussed

Requirements wrap-up ü Proposed time scale: • Fri 20 th: include what already discussed and agreed. Update the document. • Fri 27 th: Discuss at the meeting open/controversial items, complete the tracking discussion. • Fri 3 th: Document on CDS open for comments to ITK collaboration. • Fri 10 th: final wrap-up discuss at the meeting • Upgrade week (20 -24 April): approve the document. Then future changes will have to go through a formal revision process. 7

New layouts FAQs ü We want to devote next TF meetings to the discussion

New layouts FAQs ü We want to devote next TF meetings to the discussion of general questions that are often raised. • we will propose a topic and ask to the WGs or detectors to give their inputs for discussion. • The discussion will then give hints on actions to be taken in the next future to solve the issue. 8

New layouts FAQs - I ü Which is the radius of the pixel ‘volume’?

New layouts FAQs - I ü Which is the radius of the pixel ‘volume’? • Independently on engineering solution, we assume that there will a radius separating Pixel and strips • There are motivations to study an increase of the current Lo. I radius mainly driven by the R&D of CMOS technology • Balance between possible improvements in performances and costing (need to be affordable in the overall ITK budget) • We would like to compare Lo. I radius layouts and “aggressive” layouts in which the pixel volume may contain at least one layer more. • Verify the improvements in performances, • Evaluate cost with current technology, assuming reduction in strips layers Being affordable means that the increasing in radius is anyhow few cm. • The strip community can work on these two scenarios as well. 9

New layouts FAQs - II ü Which is the h coverage? • We need

New layouts FAQs - II ü Which is the h coverage? • We need inputs from high eta TF. • … there will be a recommendation at 3. 2 (? ) and may explore solution up to 4 (? ). BUT we need to know the requested performances for the physics objects that clearly can’t be as good as in the central part. • Are being defined in the requirements documentation. ü How many layers, specifically for the high h region ? • Given the requested performances, we can set verifiable parameters (!= min number of layers) • we need a dedicated effort for the forward region (also including the pattern recognition): we might just use the LOI-VF and masking disks to investigate the effect of the number of disks/ hits on tracks on the tracking performance in the high eta range. 10

New layouts FAQs - III ü Transition between barrel and endcap • At which

New layouts FAQs - III ü Transition between barrel and endcap • At which eta? • Is the alpine (inclined) option better that a traditional barrel + end cap… ? • How to avoid the stubs in the strips? • Is the extended innermost layers a valuable solution? Proper reconstruction tools to evaluate it. 11

Next steps: projects At the ITK week, we have positively realized that groups start

Next steps: projects At the ITK week, we have positively realized that groups start to merge ideas in layouts proposals. • This is the direction we were aiming at in view of the projects documents and we strongly encourage the exchange of ideas so to have the best and more supported detector. • we encourage to build partnerships between proposals (e. g. SLIM as addition to another layout, common ring forward solutions) ü Ideally a project should include a solution for the full ITK but if we keep a short deadline (April) it may even propose only a solution for a specific part (e. g. the slim idea). ü However we would appreciate if in the same project solutions are presented for Lo. I radius, aggressive radius, baseline eta (3. 2) and extended (4. 0). 12

Timeline Given the time scale of the strip TDR, we need to complete the

Timeline Given the time scale of the strip TDR, we need to complete the layout definition At the beginning of 2015. AUW: ½ day TF Projects presentation June Workshop: Discussion of the ITK projects to be fully simulated ~Aug: preliminary production ~Oct: Full sim production ~July: choose the projects to be fully simulated 13

SPARES 3/3/2011 C. Gemme, INFN Genova CONF-2010 -109 14

SPARES 3/3/2011 C. Gemme, INFN Genova CONF-2010 -109 14

15

15

Performances evaluation for the Project report A. Salzburger https: //indico. cern. ch/event/355826/ 16

Performances evaluation for the Project report A. Salzburger https: //indico. cern. ch/event/355826/ 16

17

17