1 / 29

The ATLAS IBL Project

The ATLAS IBL Project. The 5 th "Trento" Workshop on Advanced Silicon Radiation Detectors Manchester, 24-26 February 2010 G. Darbo - INFN / Genova Conference Site: http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/Radiation-Detectors2010/agenda.html. ATLAS Pixel Detector. ATLAS Pixel Detector

dixie
Télécharger la présentation

The ATLAS IBL Project

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. The ATLAS IBL Project The 5th "Trento" Workshop on Advanced Silicon Radiation Detectors Manchester, 24-26 February 2010 G. Darbo - INFN / Genova Conference Site: http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/Radiation-Detectors2010/agenda.html

  2. ATLAS Pixel Detector ATLAS Pixel Detector • 3 Barrel + 3 Forward/Backward disks • 112 staves and 48 sectors • 1744 modules • 80 million channels

  3. The ATLAS Pixel Module ATLAS Pixel Module • 16-frontend chips (FE-I3) modules with a module controller chip (MCC) • 47232 pixels (46080 R/O channels), 50 x 400 µm2 (50 x 600 µm2 for edge pixel columns between neighbour FE-I3 chips) • Planar n-on-n DOFZ silicon sensors, 250 µm thick • Designed for 1 x 1015 1MeV fluence and 50 Mrad • Opto link R/O: 40÷80 Mb/link

  4. Pixel Integration and Installation

  5. IBL: Project History • The ATLAS Pixel B-Layer initially designed for replacement • September 2007 B-Layer replacement Workshop outcome: replacement not possible in 1 year shutdown. • January 2008: ATLAS Task Force (A. Clark & G. Mornacchi) Report July 2008 (Bern): preferred (only) option Insertable B-Layer (IBL) • February 2009: project approved by ATLAS May 2009 IBL management organization in place. • Now: design fast advancing, IBL Technical Design Report (TDR) draft, interim Memorandum of Understanding (i-MoU) in discussion. • Mission impossible… fit an additional layer in between Pixel and beam-pipe: • Reduce beam-pipe by 4 mm in radius… and make it possible! IouriiGusakov Existing B-Layer IBL

  6. Motivation for IBL • The existing B-Layer cannot be replaced in a long LHC shutdown (8-months): • This was a major finding of the B-Layer task force. Many reasons make it very difficult: • Extraction, moving to surface and opening the whole Pixel Detector package. • Work on an activated material. • Risk of damage (many last moment operations made the process “irreversible” in the final phase of the detector integration). Reasons for an IBL to back-up existing B-Layer: • Radiation damage • Sensor and electronics degradation of the existing B-Layer reduce detector efficiency after 300÷400 fb-1 (last forecast of LHC integrated luminosity move it more far away) • Insurance for hard failures in the Pixel B-Layer • The Pixel Detector cannot be repaired in case of cooling, opto-links, module hard failure. Inefficiencies of the B-layer have high impact on many Physics channels. • Improve existing B-Layer Physics performance • A low mass detector (~50% of existing B-Layer) improves Physics performance.

  7. 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. • Layout parameters: • IBL envelope: 9 mm in R • 14 staves. • <R> = 33 mm. • Z = 60 cm (active length). • η = 2.5 coverage.

  8. BP Extraction & IBL+BP Insertion Ref.: Y.Gusakov, N.Hartman, R.Vuillermet • Material from Raphael/Neal • The present 7m long section of the beam-pipe will be cut (flange too big to pass inside the existing pixel) and extracted in situ: • The new beam-pipe with the IBL will be inserted at its place: • A carbon tube (IST) is inserted before the IBL: to support the new detector and to simplify the insertion procedure. PP1 Collar Sealing service ring Alignment wirers IST IBL Support Tube Stave Stave Insert To fix to support, survey reference

  9. B-Layer Scenarios Physics performance studies ongoing for the IBL TDR (ATHENA/GEANT4). Preliminary studies (ATLSIM/GEANT3) show improved performance with the addition of IBL (see low mass Higgs b-jet tagging plot on the right). Performance improvement due to low mass and smaller radius: Aggressive reduction of material budget is a must! WH(120 Gev) SV1 εb=60% Light jets rejection SV1 εb=70% 2-layers R=3.5 cm and 8 cm 2-old layers ATLAS b-inserted as 4-layer R=3.5 cm b-replaced (*) Material budget used in the simulation Ref.: A. Rozanov

  10. Requirements for Sensors/Electronics • Requirements for IBL • IBL design peak luminosity = 3x1034 cm-2s-1  FE-I4 architecture & R/O bandwidth: must be understood after Chamonix • Integrated luminosity seen by IBL = 550 fb-1 Survive to sLHC phase II • Design sensor/electronics for total dose: • NIEL dose = 3.3 x 1015 ± (“safety factors”) ≥ 5 x 1015 neq/cm2 • Ionizing dose ≥ 250 Mrad • Fit made for 2 < r < 20 cm for L=550fb-1 • Gives for IBL @ 3.2 cm (550 fb-1): • Φ1MeV=3.3x1015 neq/cm2 (1.6 MGy) • Safety factors not included in the computation (σppevent generator: 30%, damage factor for 1 MeVfluences: 50%) Ref.: Ian Dawson

  11. FE-I4 Architecture: Obvious Solution to Bottleneck • >99% or hits will not leave the chip (not triggered) • So don’t move them around inside the chip! (this will also save digital power!) • This requires local storage and processing in the pixel array • Possible with smaller feature size technology (130 nm) • Large chip - design methodology: • Custom digital layout substituted by automatic place & route of synthesized design. • Chip verification is the challenge: analog/digital and mix-mode test bench simulation. FE-I3 @ R = 5 cm Ref.: M. Barbero et al.

  12. FE-I3  FE-I4 FE-I4 Collaboration: Bonn: D. Arutinov, M. Barbero, T. Hemperek, A. Kruth, M. Karagounis. CPPM: D. Fougeron, M. Menouni. Genova: R. Beccherle, G. Darbo. LBNL: S. Dube, D. Elledge, M. Garcia- Sciveres, D. Gnani, A. Mekkaoui. Nikhef: V. Gromov, R. Kluit, J.D. Schipper The first version of full FE-I4 chip will be submitted by end of March 2010 ~70 million transistors, 0.13 µm CMOS technology 6 Cu and 2 Al routing layers. 20.2mm ~200μm 7.6mm ~19 mm active IBM reticule 16.8mm 8mm active 2.8mm ~2mm Chartered reticule (24 x 32) FE-I3 74% FE-I4 ~89%

  13. The Way to FE-I4: Test Chips FE-I4-P1 3mm SEU test IC LDORegulator 61x14 array Control Block ShuLDO+trist LVDS/LDO/10b-DAC ChargePump 4-LVDS Rx/Tx CapacitanceMeasurement low power discriminator CLKGEN proto: PLL core + PRBS + 8b10b coder + LVDS driv 4mm DACs CurrentReference

  14. FE-I4 4-pixel region analog 1-pixel pixel array 336×80 pixels digital4-pixel region periphery

  15. FE-I4: Sensor Related Specs

  16. FE-I4: Discriminator & R/O Specs

  17. FE-I4: The Pixel Cell Ref.: A. Mekkaoui 2-stage architecture optimized for low power, low noise, fast rise time. • regular cascode preamp. NMOS input. • folded cascode 2nd stage PMOS input. • Additional gain, Cc/Cf2 ~6. • 2nd stage decoupled from leakage related DC voltage shift. • Cf1 ~17 fF (~4 MIPs dynamic range). 150 µm 13-bit memory/pixel: 4 FDAC, 5 TDAC, 2 cap, 1 HitEN, 1 HitOR

  18. Noise and Radiation Results ENC @ Low Current (10µA) • ENC on “Collaboration Proto 1” before and after irradiation (200 Mrad) • Measured ENC for pixels with and without Cload • Simulated ENC and time-walk @ 10 µA/pixel (preamp + amp2 + comparator) 200Mrad, Cload~400fF a) ENC[e-] c) ENC=160e- @ Cd=0.4pF & IL=100nA 150 (10 µA) tLE[s] IL=100 nA 20n b) 100 IL = 0 nA 60 100f 200f 300f Cd[F] 10n (loaded ~400 fF) 20 ns timewalk for2 ke- < Qin < 52 ke-& threshold @ 1.5 ke- <ENC> ~ 90 e <ENC> ~ 65 e 0 Qin[C] 20k 30k 40k 10k

  19. Module Design: Sensor Technology Independent • Decision onsensors after TDR • Need module prototypes with FE-I4 (second half 2010) • Common sensor baseline for engineering and system purposes • 3D / Diamond sensors – single chip modules / Planar sensors – 2 chip modules • Sensor/module prototypes for ~10% of the detector in 2010 • Stave prototype tested with modules and cooling Single chip module: Edge < 325 µm Double chip module: Edge < 450 µm Credits: M.Garcia-Sciveres – F. Hügging

  20. Sensors • 3 sensor technologies considered for IBL • Planar, 3D and Diamonds • Full scale prototypes with FE-I4 – Decision on spring 2010 • Some specifications agreed: • Max fluence > 5 x 1015 1MeV neutrons / cm2 • Max power after full life dose < 200 mW/cm2 • Low dead area in Z: slim or active edge • Maximum bias voltage (system issue) : 1000 V • Sensor R&D and prototype work for IBL are presented in many talks in the Workshop…

  21. Bump Bonding • Large volume bump-bonding experience from Pixel Detector (see table): • PbSn and Indium bumps: PbSnAgSn • Program to qualify for the larger FE-I4 and different sensor technologies. • Setting up with mechanical/electrical dummies, but finally real parts needed: thermo-mechanical process strongly dependent on actual metal layers of electronic chip and sensor. • Goal to go below 190 µm of the Pixel Detector: target to 90 µm. “dummy – sensor” (monitor wafer) Prototype test of advanced AgSn bumping with 90µm FE-I4 size dummies. ATLAS Pixel bump-bonding production – Ref: Jinst 3 P07007 (2008)

  22. Thermal Figure of Merit and Thermal Run-away Thermal runaway happens in sensors if not adequately cooled • Leakage current shows exponential behavior. Stave thermal figure of merit (Γ=[ΔT•cm2/W]) main parameter for thermal performance. Power design requirements for IBL: Sensor Power 200 mW/cm2 @ -15 C FE power 400 mW/cm2 Stave prototype qualification program: Titanium / carbon fiber pipes (D = 2÷3 mm) Cooling CO2 and C3F8 Carbon foam density: 025÷0.5 g/cm3 Radiation length: 0.36÷0.66 %X/X0 Pipe + stave structure + coolant Thermal Runaway Plot Evaporation T = -40 ºC = 30.0 C•cm2/W = 18.5 C•cm2/W = 3.2 C•cm2/W IBL including safety Ref.: D Giugni, H. Pernegger, M. Gilchriese

  23. Stave Structure Stave structure made of carbon foam + cooling pipe (carbon fiber or titanium boiling channel) • The stiffness is provided by a carbon fiber laminate: Fiber YS-80A; resin EX-1515; lay-up (0/60/-60)S2 • Carbon foam diffuses the heat from the module to the cooling pipe Poco Foam r=0.55g/cm3; K=135/45 W/mKOR KopersKFOAM L1-250 r=0.245g/cm3; K=30 W/mK Module (sensor + bumps + FE-I4) Carbon foam Omega CF laminate Ti or CF pipe

  24. Stave Prototype Options • Additional technical requirements (prototype work) • Max pressure of cooling pipe: 100 bar. • Develop pipe joints and fittings. • Gravitational / thermal deformation < 150 µm. • Isolation of the carbon foam from sensor high voltage. • Mock-up for thermal measurements. Module parameters • Sensor thickness = 250 µm • FE-I4 thickness = 90 µm • Flex Hybrid (η = 0) = 0.18 % of X0 Carbon Foam 0.25g/cm3

  25. When IBL in ATLAS? • IBL plans to be ready for installation by end of 2014. • Cannot be much before without compromising performance • A shut down of the machine of 8 month needed (4 to open/close ATLAS) • LHC plans after Chamonix are not clear: how peak and integrated luminosity increase and when machine shutdown will be scheduled: • Only plans up to 2012 are known. • Many LHC upgrades need shutdowns: • Linac4, Collimators phase II, new interaction region quadrupole triplets, etc. • Probably in one year from now we will know next 5 years plans. • Chamonix Agenda: • http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=67839 • Summary of the Chamonix Workshop at Cern: • http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=83135 IBL

  26. Conclusions • IBL will improve physics performance of ATLAS and it is a “safety insurance” for present B-Layer • 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: • FE-I4, light supports, cooling, but mainly… SENSORS !!!

  27. Backup slides

  28. Installation Scenarios R. Vuillermet • 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. • 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. C-side A-side Started to setup a 1:1 mock-up of Pixel/beampipe/PP1 in Bat 180

  29. IBL Organisation Structure • Membership • IBL Project Leader: G. Darbo • IBL Technical Coordinator: H. Pernegger • “Module” WG (2 Physicists): F. Hügging & M. Garcia-Sciveres • “Stave” WG (1 Phy. + 1 M.E.): O. Rohne + D. Giugni • “IBL Assembly & Installation” WG (2 M.E. initially, a Phy. Later): N. Hartman + R. Vuillermet • “Off-detector” WG (1 Phy. + 1 E.E.): T. Flick + S. Débieux • “Extra” members: • Ex officio: Upgrade Coordinator (N. Hessey), PO Chair (M. Nessi), Pixel PL (B. Di Girolamo), ID PL (P. Wells), Pixel Chair (C. Gößling) • Offline “liaison” Pixel Off-line coordinator: A. Andreazza • TDR editor (temporary): K. Einsweiler • Whole project divided into 4 working groups • IBL Management Board has 10 members, plus “extra” and ex-officio members. • Frequent meetings (every ~14 days) in this phase of the project. • IBL Management Board • Membership: • IBL PL + IBL TC • 2 coordinators from each WG • Plus “extra” members • Module WG • (2 coordinators) • FE-I4 • Sensors • Bump-Bonding • Modules • Test & QC • Irradiation • Stave WG • (1 Phys + 1 Eng.) • Staves • Cooling Design & Stave Thermal Management • HDI • Internal Services • Loaded Stave • Test & QC • IBL Integr.-Install. • (2 Eng.) • Stave Integration • Global Sup. • Beam Pipe (BP) • Ext.services inst. • IBL+BP Installation • Cooling Plant • Test & QC • Off-detector • (1 Phys + 1 E.Eng.) • Power • DCS • ROD • Opto-link • Ext.serv.design/proc. • Test Beam • System Test

More Related