1. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 o Insertable B-layer Project Status ATLAS Week Barcelona, October, 5-9 2009 G. Darbo - INFN / Genova Indico agenda page: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=47256

2. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 2 IBL Project Status – Time Line Project approved by ATLAS Project Leader endorsed by ATLAS CB (February 20 th ) IBL has put in place its management structure (Management Board) – Endorsed by ATLAS EB (April 3 rd ) ATLAS Institutes Participation IBL Kick-off (July 8 th ) meeting with Institute’s Leaders to focus participation in the project. Large interest in the project (~35÷40 institutes participated at the kick-off meeting and have shown interest in parts of the project) Project cost evaluated and funding model proposed: 4.0 MCH (M&O-A), 5.6 MCH (M&O-B, new project) Technical Design Report (TDR) Main editor / technical editor (K. Einsweiler / M. Capeans) and chapter editors in charge Editor’s meetings every 3 weeks since end of July, 1 st draft to collaboration by X-mas, TDR for print in April 2010. Memorandum of Understanding foreseen in “interim” form by the end of the year: MoU will be signed after TDR (spring 2010)

3. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 3 TDR - Schedule ActionDeadline # Weeks from previous TDR Printout, submission to LHCCApril 1 st 20102 Final Draft Deadline for commentsMarch 15 th 20102 Sent to Collaboration for ApprovalMarch 1 st 20102 Draft 2 Deadline for commentsFeb 15 th 20103 Sent to CollaborationJan 25 th 20102 Draft 1 Deadline for commentsJan 11 th 20104 Sent to CollaborationDec 15 th 20092 Approval by TDR Editors and PO/USGDec 1 st 20092 Preparation TDR IntegrationNov 16 th 20093 Editors meeting 4 - final internal draftOctober 19 th 20093 Editors meeting 3September 28 th 20093 Editors meeting 2September 7 th 20093 Editors meeting - final chapter’s structureAugust 19 th 20093 Editors Kick off meetingJuly 22 nd 2009

4. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 4 Bus FE/module Pigtail 1.11 Junction Bus-Pigtail Wire-Bondings FE- Pigtail IBL Layout and New Beam Pipe Reduction of beam-pipe (ID from 29R to 25R) allows enough clearance to fit the IBL The IBL internal envelope is defined by the new beam pipe and by the thickness of the insulation required during the bakeout. Beam pipe ID= 50, thickness = 0.8 mm, Insulation =4 mm Several layouts under study: “best option” inverted turbine with 14 staves at R min =~3.1 cm Single or double staves – One or two (redundant) cooling channels – 13 or 14 staves Inverted turbine Credits: N. Hartman et al. Staves:14 Sensor tilt:12.35  n. on pipe:1 Sensor  :65.3mm Inner Nom:62.2mm Outer Nom:75.5mm

5. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 5 Requirements for Sensors/Electronics Requirements for IBL (sensors/electronics) IBL design Peak Luminosity = 3x10 34 cm -2 s -1  New FE-I4, higher hit rate Integrated Luminosity seen by IBL = 550 fb -1 Total NIEL dose (r min =3.1cm): Φ 1MeV = 3.1 x 10 15 ± 30% (σ pp ) ± 50% (sensor damage factor) Safety factor for IBL (60%)  design for 5 x 10 15 n eq /cm 2  more rad-hard sensors Total ionization dose (TID) > 200 Mrad ATLAS Pixel Sensor/FE-I3 designed for 10 15 n eq /cm 2 / 50 Mrad Ref. Ian Dawson – ATLAS IBL General Meeting (25-26 June 09) 1MeV and TID for integrated luminosity of 1000 fb -1

6. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 6 Sensor: 3D, Planar, Diamond IBL sensor developments coming from ATLAS R&D efforts – IBL define specification and requirements for the sensors: ATLAS 3D Sensor R&D Collaboration (16 Institutes and 4 processing facilities): Bergen, Bonn, CERN, Cosenza, Freiburg, Genova, Glasgow, Hawaii, LBNL, Manchester, New Mexico, Oslo, Prague, SLAC, Stony Brook, Udine - Processing Facilities: CNM Barcelona, FBK- IRST (Trento), SINTEF/Stanford. ATLAS Planar Pixel Sensor (PPS) R&D Collaboration (16 Institutes) Bonn, Berlin, DESY, Dortmund, MPP & HLL Munich, Udine, KEK, CNM Barcelona, Liverpool, LBNL, LPNHE, New Mexico, Orsay, Prague, Santa Cruz. ATLAS Diamond R&D Collaboration (6 Institutes, 2 vendors): Bonn, Carleton, CERN, Ljubljana, Ohio State, Toronto. Bring the 3 sensor technologies to the prototype phase for IBL Meeting (Org. by Heinz, 9/9/09) between IBL and the 3 sensor representatives. module prototypes with FE-I4 (second half 2010) – limit options (≤3 options/technology) Stave prototype tested with modules and cooling. Target time to finish qualification: 2010, early 2011. 3D/Diamond: single-chip modules / Planar sensors: 2-chip modules Define “best” sensor layout for each technology by Dec.09. Sensor “Reference” for engineering and system layout: establish specification for parameters (layout, max V bias, I bias & power) of each technology to progress on cooling/stave/service design – Iterate in Oct, fix by Nov.

7. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 7 Planar Sensors – Slim Edge Planar sensor prototyping for IBL Large numbers of new results with strips and diodes (RD50) promise enough CCE for IBL Parameter optimization under study – what the best trade-off for IBL parameters? Detector bias Present pixel V bias =600V, looking at implication of higher V bias (1000÷1500V) Optimize guard ring (geometrical inefficiency in Z) for slim edge 300÷500 µm look feasible Reduce thickness: more charge collected for given V bias, lower bulk current 250 is the standard, 200÷220 µm looks feasible, 140µm would be attractive

8. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 8 3D Sensors - Test Beam Jun.09 test beam: 1 ATLAS Pixel planar, 1 3D SINTEF/Stanford (full column), 2 FBK partial double columns (FBK 3EM5 has low breakdown @ 10V) For inclined tracks 3D sensors have similar efficiency and spatial resolution as planar – No Lorentz angle effect in 3D sensor Active edge (STA) show efficiency up to 5÷10µm from edge Very good collaboration between all 3D sensor producers: Two meetings (Jun’09, Sep’09) They look for collaboration more than competition: better chances for IBL of having compatible 3D design in time! Ref.: O. Rohne – Vertex 2009

9. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 9 Diamond Diamond advantages: Small capacitance  low noise (140e vs 180e of planar); possible lower threshold operation (1500e) Operation with no cooling: no leakage current Two modules built, more prototypes in 2010 Threshold = 1450 e Noise = 137 e IBL Life Dose MPV = 3600e

10. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 10 FE-I4: Review, Submission, Prototyping FE-I4 submission review Review on “Submission Ready” Nov 3-4 (K. Einsweiler to chair) Submission, if review is passed, planned before the end of the year Engineering run Up to 12 wafers from one engineering run (additional wafers are possible?) ~50 FE-I4 fit in a 8” wafer – yield “for good enough for module prototype” chip estimated 40÷70% Planned prototypes with sensors by spring 2010 Limited number of sensor options (max 3) for each of the three technologies ~10% of IBL in prototyping size 200÷300 FE-I4 dedicated for module prototype FE-I4 in a 8” wafer Review team: Francis Anghinolfi, CERN - Stéphane Debieux, Geneva (IBL Electronic Project Engineer) - Kevin Einsweiler, LBNL (Review Chair) - Philippe Farthouat, CERN (Project Office) - Alex Grillo, UCSC - Kostas Kloukinas, CERN - Xavier Llopart, CERN - Mitch Newcomer, Penn - Ivan Peric, Heidelberg - Ned Spencer, UCSC - Mike Tyndel, RAL (Project Office) - Rick Van Berg, Penn, Vladimir Zivcovic

11. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 11 Off-detector Electronics R/O chain: IBL ROD/BOC kick-off meeting (Org.: S.Debieux and T.Flick, 1/10/2009) – discussion involving Pixel TDAQ and former ROD designers. BOC need redesign: change in the FE-I4 R/O protocol. ROD need at least FPGA/DSP firmware/software changes. Several component obsolescence & bottlenecks in the architecture. Upgrade/redesign need to carefully consider impact in the software (0.5M lines of code and >30 people contribution!). BOC/ROD: decided to start weekly phone meetings: BOC/ROD and Pixel TDAQ together – resources are becoming available. Opto-board, TX/RX plugins activities started. Fiber optics also covered. Power chain LV: assumed same off-detector components (PP2 regulators need upgrade) HV: planar & diamond require higher voltage. High tech cables (flex hybrid/Internal services) under study/prototype, “low” tech (Type2, 3 & 4) need to be addressed (plan to install two years before IBL)

12. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 12 Stave Prototyping and Cooling Pipes & QC status: Ti and CF pipes: ø=2, 3 and 4 mm Almost all the produced pipes are qualified in term of leak rate and pressure test. CF pipes need micro crack QC after irradiation Staves & QC status: Almost all kind of prototype staves with Ti and CF pipes (several with heater) & pipe+foam+heater are ready/almost ready (some in test with cooling) Fittings CF to Ti (splicing) and Ti to Ti fittings under development Fitting use TIG and Laser/EB welding techniques C 3 F 8 and CO 2 Both prototype cooling plants in development Plans to qualify CF and Ti pipes/staves before TDR Pocofoam 45/135 W/mK CF Pipe  55deg layup STYCAST 2850 FT Laminate [0/-60/+60] S2 Cynate Ester Homogeneous Stave Beam-pipe bake-out Thermal simulation and mock-up going on Beam-pipe heating (>200ºC) Stave cooling (<-30ºC)

13. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 13 BP Extraction & IBL+BP Insertion Material from Raphael/Neal

14. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 14 Physics Goal & Performance Benchmarks IBL Physics goals Some discussion started in the new forming IBL software group (Chair: A. Andreazza) Action made on ATLAS Physics coordination to provide guidance IBL Physics performance Basic single track performance (zero luminosity) 1x10 34 and 3x10 34 luminosity studies – vertexing and b-tagging Started to implement an IBL geo-model and digitisation in ATHENA/GEANT4 List of physics/performance benchmarks prepared Need feedback from Physics coordination Lot of work, looking for manpower, need results for TDR!

15. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 15 Schedule ATLAS EB decision (139 th EB – 24/7/2009): “The IBL installation will be decoupled from the LHC phase 1 upgrade, is assumed to take 8 months and is targeted to the 2014/15 shutdown.” IBL schedule fits with installation at the end 2014: IBL cannot be ready much before without sacrificing performance: need new technology development (on going) and prototyping (next year) for FE-I4 (more radiation hard, R/O efficiency), Sensors (more radiation hard), Staves (lighter). IBL is a “safety insurance” for present Pixel B-layer hard failures (cooling, opto-links, interconnections, etc.) of present B- layer could strongly compromise b-tagging performance. IBL improves physics performance of present tracking lighter structure (1.5 % X 0 ) and small radius than present B-Layer Be ready in time and improved performance are the key of the project!

16. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 16 Implications of IBL on LHC Phase I IBL will impact other components of the LHC machine and ATLAS Smaller beam-pipe and larger aperture new triplets (sLHC phase I) require to revisit the TAS and the forward shielding Larger aperture triplet and new TAS design requires to look at: Effects on muon background; Protection of a smaller radius IBL. Also, we have other beam-pipe issues, like going to much longer beryllium sections. This is not strictly sLHC phase I, but has same timescale. LHCC: reviews & discussion on experiments and machine upgrades Five LHC experiment upgrade review meetings since July ’08. http://indico.cern.ch/categoryDisplay.py?categId=1949

17. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 17 IBL (i-)MoU IBL kick-off meeting took place in Thoiry on July 8 th, 2009 http://indico.cern.ch/internalPage.py?pageId=0&confId=56905 Large interest from Institutes - serious interest in the project (35÷40 Institutes) and serious expression of intention for funding support. Eagerness to get going with an interim-MoU by the end of 2009 Complicate process that involves technology dependent options, requires to enlarge the interest of focus to strongly cover the whole project and to resolve over covered items. Many progresses in the last 3 months: many people moving from intentions to real work – this is the best way to see how to contribute and for the IBL management to understand how well the project is covered. Funding scenario: 9.6 MCH project cost: 4.0 MCH (M&O-A) + {4.4 MCH (M&O-B) + 1.2 MCH (New)} Contribution from Institutes/FA’s follows the CORE mechanism (deliverables) Process is developing within FA’s and RRB.

18. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 18 Conclusions IBL organization structure well in place TDR and MoU in progress – project cost evaluated Motivated groups and Institutes support Challenging project: Tight envelopes, material budget reduction, radiation dose and R/O bandwidth requirements New technologies in advanced prototype phase: Sensors, FE-I4, light supports, cooling Ready for installing in 2014 together with a smaller beam pipe It is not just a “replacement of existing B-layer”, but it improves performance for b-tagging and it is an assurance for hard failures of present B-layer

19. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 19 BACKUP SLIDES

20. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 20 FE-I4 FE-I3 not suitable for IBL ~7% inefficiency at 3.7 cm and L = 3x10 34 cm -2 s -1 FE-I3 works at 50 Mrad, but has major faults at 100 Mrad FEI4 design collaboration formed in 2007 between: Bonn, CPPM, Genova, LBNL, NIKHEF FE-I4_proto chip (3/08) Main analog blocks (3x4mm 2 ) Irradiated to 200 Mrad: noise increase by 20% (ENC 100  120 with 400fF load and I AVDD =10µA/pixel) FE-I3 Inefficiency

21. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 21 R. Vuillermet The support carbon tube is fixed in 2 point of PP0 and on PP1 walls on side C and A. The structural pipe with a support system is moved out from the support carbon tube.. The new beam pipe (in any configuration with OD up to 82,5 mm) is inserted from A-side. It has 2 supports at PP0 area and 2 floating wall at PP1 on side A and C. Two global support / installation scenarios: IBL support tube (1) / no tube (2): An IBL support tube would have advantage on stiffness and simplicity/safety for IBL installation, but drawback are envelope needs (~1÷1.5 mm) and increase of radiation length Procedure studied on mock-up at bld.180 - procedure (1) animation: The beam pipe flange on A-side is to close to the B-layer envelope - Need to be cut on the aluminum section A structural pipe is inserted inside the Beam Pipe and supported at both sides. The support collar at PP0 A-side is disassembled and extracted with wires at PP1. Beam pipe is extracted from the C-side and it pulls the wire at PP1 New cable supports are inserted inside PST at PP0. A support carbon tube is pushed inside the PST along the structural pipe. Started to setup a 1:1 mock-up of Pixel/beampipe/PP1 in Bat 180 A-side C-side Installation Scenarios

22. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 22 Stave & Thermal Management Stave design goals: Reduction of material budget from Pixel (2.7 %  1.5 % of X 0 ): Carbon Foam Carbon Fiber (CF) pipe (no corrosion, CTE match) and Titanium (Ti) pipe prototypes: 2mm OD (for CO 2 cooling), 3mm OD (for C 3 F 8 or CO 2 ) and 4mm OD. Thermal figure of merit (  T between module and pipe internal wall) of staves and pipes under measurements High pressure test (150 bar for CO 2 ) passed by CF and Ti pipes Fittings and pipe splicing under development Cooling: Prototyping CO 2 and C 3 F 8 cooling system in cooperation with ATLAS CERN cooling groups and NIKHEF IBL mock-up to confirm thermal simulation of beam-pipe bakeout Credits: D. Giugni, P. Schwemling, H. Pernegger Stave Material Budget

23. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 23 TDR Structure 1.Introduction 2.Overview 3.Modules 4.Staves 5.Integration 6.Installation 7.Off-detector 8.Prototyping, Testing 9.Critical Integration 10.Commissioning 11.Management Overview Chapters: Basic description of full project, including history and issues that have shaped the IBL concept. Because the IBL is so tightly integrated with the present ATLAS detector, useful to develop context in more detail, understand development of IBL concept Core chapters covering the design: They cover the four major deliverable-oriented boxes in the IBL organization. These chapters will be edited by the corresponding coordinators of these activities. Summary Chapters: They cover prototyping/testing issues, integration issues, commissioning issues, and the overall management and organization.

24. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 24 FEI4 drives the schedule for modules -getting the next FEI4 asap is crucial for module qualification Stave 0 plays a crucial to qualify the IBL system (mechanics, staves and off detector electronics) Service installation happens in shutdowns - need definition & procurement of services (USA15->PP2) early on to use shutdown time efficiently Commissioning as part of Pixel system

25. IBL Project Status G. Darbo – INFN / Genova AW, 9 October 2009 25 Interim-MoU – Project Funding M&O-A: To cover common costs. Spending is needed from 2010 Items might be covered in kind M&O-B/New project Deliverables Central orders (FE-I4, Sensors, Bump-bonding, etc)