IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 2010o

IBL @ October RRB

Slides for Marzio’s RRB talkCERN, October, 11th 2010

G. Darbo & H. Pernegger

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 20102

Material from Raphael/NealThe Insertable B-Layer (IBL) is a fourth layer added to the present Pixel detector between a new beam pipe and the current inner Pixel layer (B-layer).

ISTIBL Support Tube

Alignment wires

PP1 Collar

IBL Detector

IBL Staves

Sealing service ring

IBL key Specs / Params

• 14 staves, <R> = 33.25 mm• CO2 cooling, T < -15ºC @ 0.2 W/cm2

• X/X0 < 1.5 % (B-layer is 2.7 %)• 50 µm x 250 µm pixels• 1.8º overlap in ϕ, <2% gaps in Z • 32/16 single/double FE-I4 modules

per stave• Radiation tolerance 5x1015 neq/cm2

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 20103

IBL LayoutBeam-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.

Material budget:• IBL Layer (with IST): 1.5 % of X0

• Other Pixel layers: ~2.7 % of X0

Beam-pipe (BP) extracted by cutting the flange on one side and sliding (guiding tube inside).IBL Support Tube (IST) inserted.IBL with smaller BP inserted in the IST

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 20104

IBL Technical Design ReportATLAS TDR includes:

• Overview and motivation for the project• Study of the physics performance • Technical description of the project with

baseline and options for critical issues• Three sensor technologies.• Beam-pipe, extraction/insertion,

installation, ALARA.• Organization of the project and

resources

Editorial team:M. Capeans (technical editor), G. Darbo, K. Einsweiller, M. Elsing, T. Flick,M. Garcia-Sciveres, C. Gemme,H. Pernegger, O. Rohne and R. Vuillermet.

Approved by the ATLAS Collaboration Board (October 2010 ATLAS Week)

• 43 Institutions and 300 people in IBL

CERN-LHCC-2010-13, ATLAS TDR 19

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 20105

Physics Performance

b-tagging performance crucial for:• New Physics (3rd generation !)• observation of H → bb through boosted WH production

Main conclusions of IBL performance Task Force: • performance at 2x1034 with IBL is equal to or better

than present ATLAS without pile-up• w/o IBL and 10% B-layer inefficiency: b-tagging ~ 3

times worse at 2x1034 than today

b-tagging with pile-up & inefficiencies

b-tagging with pile-up 2 jets of 500 GeV event with 2 x 1034 pile-up Same event w/o pile-up

IBL

IBL

Physi

cs &

Perf

orm

ance

Ta

sk F

orc

e –

M.

Els

ing e

t al.

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 20106

The New Front-end Chip (FE-I4)

Reason for a new front-end chip• Increased radiation hard (> 250

Mrad)• New architecture to reduce

inefficiencies (L=2x1034): faster shaping; not move hits from pixel until LVL1 trigger.

• Smaller pixel size 50 x 250 µm2 (achieved by 0.13 µm CMOS with 8 metals)

• Larger fraction of footprint devoted to pixel array (~90%) – little space for IBL envelope.

FE-I4 submitted on July 1st

• More than 2 years of engineering work for a team of >15 Engineers/physicist

• Largest HEP chip ever! 20.2x19.0 mm2, 87 million transistors!

• 60 Known Good Dies (KGD) / 8” wafer.• 16 wafer engineering run – 3 received and

under test.

Money contributions collected following interim-MoU share.

• Engineering run cost > 500kCH

18

160

FE-I3(Pixel) FE-I4

(IBL)

80 columns

336 rows

19

mm

20.2 mm60 KGD / Wafer

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 20107

Sensor Technologies for IBL

Planar sensors (3 producers) • slim edge n-in-n & n-in-p• require the lowest temperature

and high bias voltage.• have very well understood

manufacturing sources, mechanical properties, relatively low cost, and high yield.

ATLAS Pixel FE-I3 diamond module

IBL FE-I4 diamond sensors

Thin n-in-p

Planar Sensor

3D Sensor

450 µm

n-in-n slim edge

IBL layout

3D column

11 µm

3D sensors (3 producers)• Active edge, single/double side• require the lowest bias voltage,

intermediate operating temperature, and achieve the highest acceptance due to active edges.

• their manufacturability with high yield and good uniformity must be demonstrated.

Diamond sensors (2 producers)• polycrystalline CVD (pCVD)• require the least cooling and

have similar bias voltage requirements to planar sensors.

• their manufacturability with high yield, moderate cost, and good uniformity must all be demonstrated.

Selection in summer 2011

Three candidate sensor technologies address the IBL requirements with different trade-offs:• Prototyping with FE-I4 – qualification with irradiation (5x1015 neq/cm2) and test beam – production yield

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 20108

SPARE SLIDES

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 20109

History of IBL Project - Time Line

1998: Pixel TDR • B-layer designed to be substituted every 3 years of nominal LHC (300 fb-1): due

to then available radiation hard sensor and electronic technologies.

2002: B-layer replacement • became part of ATLAS planning and was put into the M&O budget to RRB.

2008: B-layer taskforce• B-layer replacement cannot be done – Engineering changes to fulfil delayed on-

detector electronics (FE-I3, MCC) made it impossible even in a long shut down. • Best (only viable) solution: “make a new smaller radius B-layer insertion using

technology being developed for HL-LHC prototypes”. This became the IBL.

2009: ATLAS started IBL project:• February: endorsed IBL PL and TC• April: IBL organization in place (Endorsed by the ATLAS EB)

2010: TDR and interim-MoU• TDR is under approval in ATLAS• Interim-MoU is collecting last signatures.

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 201010

Interim-MoU - InstitutionsThere are 43 institutions in the IBL project

• Large interest for the sensor (22 Institutions)

• Full effort and funding requirements are covered

300 people have expressed their interest to contribute to the project

• many have already started to work.

• In most cases institutes contribute with money where also there is contribution with manpower.

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 201011

Management Board (MB)

Module WG(2 cordinators)

• FE-I4• Sensors• Bump-Bonding• Modules• Procurement & QC• Irradiation & Test

Beam

Stave WG(1 Phys + 1

Eng.)

• Staves• Cooling Design &

Stave TM• HDI (Flex Hybrid)• Internal services• Loaded stave• Procurement & QC

Integration & Installation WG

(2 Eng.)• Stave Integration• Global Supports• BP procurement• Ext. services inst.• BP extraction• IBL+BP Installation• Cooling Plant

Off-detector(1 Phys + 1 E.Eng.)

• BOC/ROD• Power chain & PP2• DCS & interlocks• Opto-link• Ext. serv

.design/proc.• Procurement & QC• System Test

IBL Management Board (MB)Membership:• IBL PL + IBL TC• 2 cordinators from each WG• Plus “extra” members

MB ad-interim membership

IBL Project Leader: G. DarboIBL 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): F. Cadoux + R. Vuillermet“Off-detector” WG (1 Phy. + 1 E.E.): T. Flick + S. Débieux“Extra” members:IBL/Pixel “liaison”: Off-line SW: A. Andreazza, DAQ: P. Morettini, DCS: S. KerstenEx officio: Upgrade Coordinator (N. Hessey), PO Chair (M. Nessi), Pixel PL (B. Di Girolamo), ID PL (P. Wells), IB Chair (C. Gößling)

IBL @ October RRBG. Darbo & H. Pernegger RRB – October 201012

FE-I4 Table

FE-I3 FE-I4Pixel size [µm2] 50x400 50x250

Pixel array 18x160 80x336

Chip size [mm2] 7.6x10.8 20.2x19.0

No. of transistors [millions] 3.5 87

Active fraction 74% 89%

Analog/digital current [µA/pix] 26 / 17 10 / 10

Digital current [µA/pix] 17 10

Analog/digital voltage [V] 1.6 / 2.0 1.5 / 1.2