# Presentation: 170369

## SiD R&D

- Schedules, Milestones, Technology Choices

- Andy White
- University of Texas at Arlington
- October 26, 2006

##       - DCR - Detector Concept Report 

-           – contributions for subsystems descriptions and R&D should 	have been be submitted!
-             Detector Performance -> John Jaros
-             Detector Hardware -> Editor (e.g. W. Lohmann for Cal.)
-                                                     - copy to Chris Damerell
-                (circulate to all SiD!  -  Harry)
- 	Last chance to review contributions at this meeting.
-             Editing/reviewing at ECFA/Valencia
-          - CDR – Conceptual Design Report
- 	Approximate goal: mid-2008.
-            Two detector concepts 	only by then?? Or four concepts to be 	reduced to two??
-  	Much depends on formation of mergers/alliances in next 18 	months... are there strategic R&D allianced SiD should pursue 	now?

- Timescales relevant to SiD R&D.
- (DCR, CDR, TDR,...)

## 	CDR – Conceptual Design Report (continued)

- 	-  Concern over need for definitive answers on e.g. digital 	hadron calorimetry (first beam tests of RPC/GEM in  early 	2008)
-            - From the standpoint of R&D, how should we best position 	ourselves for the expected reduction in number of 	concepts? Narrow technology focus/choices soon?
-            - Are we missing any R&D opportunity that would give us a 	competitive edge in the CDR reduction/evaluation process?
-            - What is the role of R&D alliances/collaborations (CALICE, 	SILC,...) in the 	merging process?

- Timescales relevant to SiD R&D.
- (DCR, CDR, TDR,...)

## Scope of SiD Detector R&D

-     Questions for SiD Subsystems:
-     - what is still “generic”?
-       - what is directly focused on a subsystem technology choice?
-       - to what extent is our current profile of R&D leading to a 	complete set of results from which we can define a fully 	functional ILC detector with performance meeting the 	required physics goals?  Wider view – beyond CDR -> TDR?
-       - with (still) limited manpower/support, are we focused on the 	correct priorities (e.g. simulations)?
-       - how should we approach the task of technology selections 	for SiD subsystems?

## Funding for SiD R&D

- (see also tallk by Jim Brau)
- - Expect O($3M) for detector R&D in 2007
- ~$1M is “priority advance support” for time critical projects.
- - ~$2M for enhanced regular LCDRD in 2007.
-  how will the advanced funding for high priority R&D and the 2007 regular LCDRD support affect continuation/completion of SiD R&D projects?
-  Expect priority funding to be available in Spring 2007
-  Regular LCDRD funding proposals ~late 2006

## Technology Choices for SiD

- General considerations
- A coherent set of technology choices for SiD subsystems in two scenarios:
-  Case of four CDR’s – makes SiD look stronger as a completely specified, integrated design, BUT we will not have ALL the test results in hand to fully support the choices – rely on simulations.
-  Case of two CDR’s – makes SiD an attractive collaboration to join, BUT leaving some(?) technology choices open may give us more flexibility in merger negotiations.
-  Potential gain/loss of people to SiD as a result of choices?

## Technology Choices for SiD

- Elements of technology choices:
- Performance vs. physics goals
- Cost
- Status of development/R&D
- Results from prototypes
- Results from simulations
- Compatibility with overall SiD design
- Previous experience with technology in other experiments
- Maturity of technology, risk vs. gain

## The SiD Detector

## Electromagnetic Calorimetry (R. Frey, D. Strom) Main technology:  Si/W Pix chip. 

- Main vertex detector technology(s):  Many competing technologies. Aiming for thin devices.
**Tracking system (M. DeMarteau, R. Partridge)**
- Main technology(s): Monolithic pixels; Long and short ladder Si-strips; long shaping time/thin design.
**Electromagnetic Calorimetry (R. Frey, D. Strom)** Main technology:  Si/W Pix chip.
**Hadronic Calorimetry (H.Weerts, G. Blazey, A.White)**
- Main technology(s):  Digital GEM- and RPC-based with steel or tungsten, ASIC’s. Scintillator tiles/SiPM’s, Scintillator/SiPM TCMT?
**Forward Calorimetry** **(Bill Morse)**  Beam Cal, Lumi Cal, GamCal.
**Muon system and tail catcher (H.E. Fisk, H. Band)** Main technology:   Scintillator planes or RPC’s.
**Electronics (M. Breidenbach) **KPix,...
**Magnet (?)**Main technology:  CMS-style superconductor
**Machine Detector Interface (P. Burrows) **

- SiD R&D Areas

## Examples of technology choices/issues

- All SiD subsystems will continue to evolve.
- A final SiD detector may well have very different, configurations and/or technology(s) than we imagine in 2006 due to advances in electronics, materials, clever ideas, etc.
- However, for the period through mergers/CDR’s we must make the best choices.
- SiD’s approach is to make a definite choice for a baseline technology for each subsystem, understand how the overall detector design works with these choices and to study the overall physics performance for this configuration. Then allow alternative technologies and study impact on performance.

## Examples of technology choices/issues

- For some subsystems the choice seems clear e.g. the main tracker using silicon strips, Si/W ECal.
- For others there is ongoing R&D that will take extended periods to “complete”.
- Two examples for:
- The Vertex Detector sensor technology.
-  The HCal active layer technology.

## Vertex Detector

- 5-layer pixel barrel: z = ±62.5 mm; 14 mm < R < 61 mm
- 4 pixel disks per end: Z = ± 72, ± 92, ± 123, ± 172 mm; R < 71 mm

## Vertex Detector

- Silicon on Insulator

- Sensor technology development

- Materials R&D

## SLAC/Oregon/Yale – “Chronopixel” 

- - Each pixel has its own electronics under it, but both the sensitive layer and the electronics are made of one piece of silicon (monolithic CMOS) which can be thinned to a total thickness of 50 to 100 μ m, with no need for indium bump bond.
- - The time of the hit is stored in each pixel, up to a total of four different hit times per pixel, with sufficient precision to assign each hit to a particular beam crossing.
- - Occupancy of ~1% reduced to ~10-5 with time stamping.

- SLAC/Oregon/Yale – “Chronopixel”

## Vertex Detector – Sensor Technology

-  Demonstration of a viable sensor technology could be 2-3 years away ( vs. CDR timescale? )
-  Chronopixel – aggressive design with v. small (60nm) feature sizes -> long development time?
-  Column parallel CCD’s – looks viable, under active development at RAL.
-  SOI, device submitted, first results end of 2007...
-  MAPS – working device?

## Tim Nelson/VLCW06

- Technology choice – a multi-dimensional challenge:

## Hadron Calorimeter Technologies

- - Digital RPC or GEM    (+new ideas on Micromegas)
-  Analog Scintillator/SiPM’s
-      Status of R&D, beam tests, schedules,...

## Hadron Calorimeter – digital RPC

- (2) Resistive Plate Chamber-based DHCAL

- Signal Pad

- Mylar sheet

- Mylar sheet

- Aluminum foil

- 1.1mm Glass sheet

- 1.1mm Glass sheet

- Resistive paint

- Resistive paint

- 1.2mm gas gap

- -HV

- GND

- Charged particles

## Hadron Calorimeter – digital RPC

- AIR4

- Goal: Test beam at Fermilab 2007-8

- Fermilab Feb ’06 test beam results

## Hadron Calorimeter – digital GEM

- 500 channel/5-layer test 30x30cm2 foils

- Details of new 30cm x 30cm foils from 3M

- Gas Electron Multiplier (GEM) – based DHCAL

## Hadron Calorimeter – digital GEM

- Goal: Test beam at Fermilab 2008

## Hadron Calorimeter - Scintillator

- SiPM

- Full 1m3 prototype stack – with SiPM readout. Goal is for CERN/Fermilab test beams exposure in Fall 2006/Spring 2007. 2/3 depth-layer stack now at CERN!

## Scintillator/SiPM HCal

-  and
-  TCMT

## AHCAL(CALICE)/TCMT – full depth (39 layers) module in test beam at CERN -> data/comparison with simulations in 2007.

- DHCAL/RPC/GEM –
- Individual chamber test done – devices well characterized. Slice Test in 2007 (mainly electronics test), full 1m3 stacks in 2008: how long to understand digital calorimeter performance vs. simulation?
- Full set of results and simulation comparison probably not available for CDR??

## HCal simulations – e.g. neutral hadron response (Ron Cassell/SLAC) interesting comparisons of active layer/absorber – but can we make a technology choice without a full set of prototype beam tests and fully developed PFA’s to understand the impact on resolution and physics?

## Possible timeline for SiD R&D -> TDR

- 2004

- 2005

- 2006

- 2007

- 2008

- 2009

- 2010

- TRK

- Prototype beam tests

- Sim

- VXD

- ECal

- HCal

- Muon

- FWD

- Generic R&D (GEM/RPC)

- Prototype beam tests

- Combinations

- Subsys sim

- “Combined/PFA”

- Full detector  sim

- Compare beam test results

- Sensor technology development

- Sensor selection - testing

- Mechanical design – structure testing

- Full prototype – beam tests

- Tech. select

- TDR?

- Silicon strip/readout development

- Sensor mechanical design/layout

- Si fab

- Prototype section

- Beam tests

- Tracker/vxd prototype tests?
- TDR Design

- TDR Physics simulations

- TDR Cal system design

- RPC – Glass /bakelite prototypes – aging studies

- Scintillator – extrusions/SiPM tests

- Tech. select

- TDR  design

- Si sensor and KPix readoutdevelopment

- Mechanical design, analysis and testing

- CDR?

- GamCal conceptual design

- Eng. design

- Prototype/tests

- BeamCal - Material radiation studies

- Prototype section - tests

- LumCal - development

- Tests

## SiD R&D Conclusions

-  DCR contributions converging.
-  CDR goal ~ mid-2008. Number of CDR’s not yet clear.
-  Some technology choices before CDR may be possible.
-  Some choices will be made using simulation – but verification may take much longer -> tDR?
-  Some areas of SiD R&D are on long timescales – some down-select may be possible before CDR, but not unique choice.
-  Expecting raised funding level for LCDRD in FY07 – together with the priority funding, this will help accelerate R&D.
-  Must keep up the momentum on R&D and simulations!