1 / 17

ITk Layout Task Force Report

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

choquette
Download Presentation

ITk Layout Task Force Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ITk Layout Task Force Report Practicalities • Mailing list: atlas-itk-ILTF@cern.ch • Meetings: bi-weekly on Friday 4-6 PM, next on Friday 27th • Web site: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/Atlas/ITkLayoutTaskForce C. Gemme(INFN Genova), A. Salzburger (CERN) Mar 19th2015

  2. Feedback from the ITK week • The Task Force is active since December. • 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. Definition of the baseline Definition of the decosting option(s) Evaluation of the performance for baseline and de-costed options Wrap-up ILTF, Dec 19th Scoping Feb 26 Jan 22 May-June Require-ments document Layouts Projects definitions Evaluation of the performance of the selected layouts Wrap-up Layout ~ ITK week Early winter 2016 March/April

  3. Feedback from the ITK week • The Task Force is active since December. • 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. Scoping document: Having defined the layouts to be considered, the leading role is now to Upgrade Physics and Simulation and Performances WGs. In the ILTF we will have regular reports as the exercize is useful for the layouts definition as well as in the tools and expertize setting up. We want instead to give more time to the discussion of the layouts. Definition of the baseline Definition of the decosting option(s) Evaluation of the performance for baseline and de-costed options Wrap-up ILTF, Dec 19th Scoping Feb 26 Jan 22 May-June Require-ments document Layouts Projects definitions Evaluation of the performance of the selected layouts Wrap-up Layout ~ ITK week Early winter 2016 March/April

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

  5. Some requirements discussed • The detector needs to be able to accumulate a total integrated luminosity of 3000 ifb (no safety factor). • 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). • … • 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. • … • Mechanics updates in Georg’s talk. • For tracking requirements effort to translate the initial requirements in layout specifications.

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

  7. Requirements wrap-up • Proposed time scale: • Fri 20th: include what already discussed and agreed. Update the document. • Fri 27th: Discuss at the meeting open/controversial items, complete the tracking discussion. • Fri 3th: Document on CDS open for comments to ITK collaboration. • Fri 10th: 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.

  8. New layouts FAQs • 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.

  9. New layouts FAQs - I • 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 LoI 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 LoI 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.

  10. New layouts FAQs - II • 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. • 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.

  11. New layouts FAQs - III • 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.

  12. 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) • 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). • However we would appreciate if in the same project solutions are presented for LoI radius, aggressive radius, baseline eta (3.2) and extended (4.0).

  13. 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 ~Aug: preliminary production ~Oct: Full sim production June Workshop: Discussion of the ITK projects to be fully simulated ~July: choose the projects to be fully simulated

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

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

More Related