1. SPIDER Silicon Pixel Detector R&D  Birmingham University (N. Watson, J. Wilson, R. Staley), Bristol University (J. Goldstein, D. Cussans, R. Head, S. Nash, J. Velthuis), Imperial college (P. Dauncey), Oxford University (A. Nomerotski, R. Gao, J. Jaya John), RAL (M. Tyndel, C. Damerell, M. Stanitzki, J. Strube, G. Villani, S. Worm, Z. Zhang, R. Turchetta, R. Coath, J. Crooks, P. Murray, S. Thomas)  Goal is to develop monolithic silicon pixel sensors 1.Design 2.Modelling 3.Characterisation 4.Digital Calorimeter test stack

2. Outline of Proposal  Over view of proposal  International context of proposal  Scientific goals  The program  Resources  Monolithic silicon pixel sensors  Digital Calorimetry

3. International context of proposal  International roadmap for particle physics foresees a linear collider following LHC  Current initiatives (ILC, CLIC…) call for a TDR in 2012/13  Precision physics at the high energy frontier requires improved precision and granularity.  The ultimate goal would be an affordable, low material pixel detector Precision measurements for vertexing Pattern recognition for tracking High resolution calorimetry  The goal of SPIDER is for UK groups to exploit the rapidly evolving CMOS imaging technology to develop pixel sensors for linear colliders (or any future high energy physics project).  Build on earlier initiatives within the LCFI and CALICE programs  Focuses on 3 emerging technologies which could revolutionise the field ISIS – an idea to store raw charge developed for particle physics in the UK INMAPs – the use of a deep p-well to screen complex CMOS circuitry so that it can coexist with efficient sensors – developed for particle physics in the UK 4T architecture – the development of 4T for small signal transfer from a large capacitance signal node – proposed and hopefully developed by us in the UK

5. International context of proposal  Why the UK?  Have one of the strongest CMOS & Sensor design groups at RAL Others are at CERN, FNAL…  The UK has experience and a proven track record in the construction of large scale silicon detectors ATLAS, CMS, LHCb…. and earlier DELPHI, OPAL, SLD…  Why now?  The TDRs for a future linear collider project are 4 years off Now is the time to develop new ideas and show proof-of-principle  Because of the earlier work in CALICE and LCFI the UK has a head- start and favoured access to new technology. MAPs with deep p-well 4T architecture ISIS charge storage  Opportunity to establish UK leadership

6. Scientific Goals  To establish the viability of monolithic silicon pixel sensors for future high energy physics projects  Developing sensors with significantly improved performance  Demonstrating the performance of digital calorimetry using pixel sensors

7. Scientific Goals  What are the critical issues?  How to implement large area pixels and cover large areas? The original motivation to develop solutions based on commercial imaging sensors  Charge collection and storage? SPIDER investigates use of deep p implants and 4T and CCD based ideas  Noise performance SPIDER investigates raw charge storage and CDS combined with 4T  How to achieve 100% detection efficiency? SPIDER investigates in pixel electronics made possible by deep p implants  Radiation tolerance SPIDER will design for radiation tolerance and measure  How to minimise material and power? Precise solution depends on applications  How to construct large scale systems? SPIDER will design and build a digital calorimeter stack

8. The program  Design and evaluation of the silicon sensors (ref Andrei)  Assembly and evaluation of a calorimeter stack (ref Paul)  Project management  Organisation is arranged by function (not by device) so as to achieve the best use of resources – also provides flexibility in case of delays Sensor design team Semiconductor modelling Device evaluation shared between facilities in institutes Assembly and measurement of the electromagnetic stack  KE  The sensor RD is relevant to other areas of science – X-ray, nuclear structure (FAIR), synchrotron…  The technology developments are of interest to the foundries for ‘high-end’ applications

9. Resource request  3 year RD program  Cost is £3.4M  £2.6M (effort/travel)  £0.8M (material)  [Detailed breakdown in proposal}  Staff costs  University (Academic[1] & RG) 16.4fte£1077K[1]  Engineering – University &RAL-TD11.1fte£ 822K  New recruits (RAs)8.5 fte£ 585K  Submissions & equipment£ 817K  Travel£ 132K  Note:  Reducing the scope of the program by cutting ISIS/TPAC/CHERWELL saves 320K/350K/220K unless testing effort also cut; not doing TPAC also kills DECAL  [1] Note average academic research fraction is 0.32 [1]

11. How to respond to ‘priority’ question?  Considered 4 ways to tackle this question:  1) Trim the effort further  Further trimming will make groups non viable  (36fte = 2-3fte per year per institute)  2) Focus on calorimetry  Prioritise TPAC/CHERWELL & DECAL  Achieve saving by reducing people/institutes  Destroys the UK activity (and leadership) on vertexing  3) Focus on vertexing  Prioritise ISIS/CHERWELL  Achieve saving by reducing people/institutes  Destroys the UK activity (and leadership) on digital calorimetry  4) Focus on sensor development  Prioritise ISIS/CHERWELL/TPAC  Achieve saving by reducing people/institutes  Delays and possible loses the UK activity (and leadership) on digital calorimetry