status of the international linear collider...

31 October 2005 Mark Oreglia, EFI HEPsem 1

Status of the International Linear Collider Project

Mark Oreglia, University of Chicago

Outline:• Brief Physics Motivation• Acronyms (or what’s happening now)• Accelerator R&D• Detectors• Next Steps (R&D)

Apologies to all the people from whom I stole slides!


ILC means Precision Measurements

These plots from:

Precision of ILC:• pins down models• gives virtual window on high-E• polarization adds even more


Higgs Coupling and Extra Dimensions• ILC precisely measures Higgs interaction strength with standard model particles.

• Straight blue line gives the standard model predictions.

• Range of predictions in models with extra dimensions -- yellow band, (at most 30% below the Standard Model

• The models predict that the effect on each particle would be exactly the same size.

• The red error bars indicate the level of precision attainable at the ILC for each particle

• Sufficient to discover extra dimensional physics.


LHC and the ILC

• There has been much discussion on the relationships between the LHC and the ILC

• The success of the LHC will be a big boost to our field and is probably necessary before ILC start

• Question of concurrent running of LHC and ILC:– So far, no gold-plated argument for this…i.e., could info

from ILC motivate change of LHC trigger?• Indeed, a confusing picture of new physics at LHC would

benefit greatly from ILC data, but this could happen well into LHC’s life

• ILC’s energy reach via precision measurements would probably resolve confusion or lack of new physics at LHC … but that won’t convince funding agencies

• Bottom line: we will need a precision machine to get a more complete picture of LHC’s new physics


Current Progress Towards ILC

• 2002: Formation of ILC Steering Committee– ECFA steering group for Europe– ACFA steering group for Asia– “US” LC Steering group for Americas

• 2003: Funding Agencies for LC (FALC)– Ad hoc group of science ministers and agencies– Ray Orbach and Ian Halliday were major forces

• 2004: Technology choice; First ILC workshop– > 200 accelerator experts from 3 regions

• 2005: Formation of Global Design Effort (GDE)– Barry Barish agrees to head GDE– 2nd ILC workshop at Snowmass last August


Global Design Effort

– The Mission of the GDE • Produce a design for the ILC that includes:

– a detailed design concept, – performance assessments, – reliable international costing, – an industrialization plan , – siting analysis,– detector concepts and scope.

• Coordinate worldwide prioritized proposal driven R & D efforts (to demonstrate and improve the performance, reduce the costs, attain the required reliability, etc.)


The GDE Plan and Schedule

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Global Design Effort Project

Baseline configuration

Reference Design

ILC R&D Program

Technical Design

Bids to Host; Site Selection;

International Mgmt

LHCPhysics


GDE – Staffing

• Administrative, Communications, Web staff• Regional Directors (one per region)

– Gerry Dugan: Americas Regional Team (ART)• Accelerator Experts (covering all technical areas)• Senior Costing Engineer (one per region)• Civil/Facilities Engineer (one per region)• Detectors (WWS chairs)• Fill in missing skills (later)

• Total staff size about 20 FTE (2005-2006) about 40 heads.• The internal GDE organization and tasks will be organized

internationally, not regionally


GDE – Near Term Plan

• Schedule– Begin - define Configuration (Snowmass Aug 05) – Baseline Configuration Document (end of 2005)– Baseline under Configuration Control (Jan 06) – Develop Reference Design (end of 2006)– Coordinate the supporting R&D program

• Produce Three volumes –– 1) Reference Design Report; – 2) Shorter glossy version for non-experts and policy makers ; – 3) Detector Concept Report

• Snowmass (Aug 05) first meetings• Frascati (Dec 7-10, 2005) (in conjunction with TESLA

collaboration meeting)• Bangalore, India (March 2006) (in conjunction with LCWS 2006)


New (Snowmass) GDE Groups

• WG1 Parms & layout• WG2 Linac• WG3 Injectors• WG4 Beam Delivery• WG5 High Grad. SCRF• WG6 Communications

• WG1 LET beam dynamics• WG2 Main Linac• WG3a Sources• WG3b Damping Rings• WG4 Beam Delivery• WG5 SCRF Cavity Package• WG6 Communications• GG1 Parameters & Layout• GG2 Instrumentation• GG3 Operations & Reliability• GG4 Cost Engineering• GG5 Conventional Facilities• GG6 Physics Options

Birth of the GDEand Preparation for Snowmass

Introduction of Global Groupstransition workshop → project


Design Approach

• Create a baseline configuration for the machine– Document a concept for ILC machine with a complete

layout, parameters etc. defined by the end of 2005– Make forward looking choices, consistent with attaining

performance goals, and understood well enough to do a conceptual design and reliable costing by end of 2006.

– Technical and cost considerations will be an integral part in making these choices.

– Baseline will be put under “configuration control,” with a defined process for changes to the baseline.

– A reference design will be carried out in 2006. BB proposing to use a “parametic” design and costing approach.

– Technical performance and physics performance will be evaluated for the reference design


Approach to ILC R&D Program

• Proposal-driven R&D in support of the baseline design. – Technical developments, demonstration experiments,

industrialization, etc.• GDE role depends on region; will rank and review

• Proposal-driven R&D in support of alternatives to the baseline– Proposals for potential improvements to the baseline, resources

required, time scale, etc.• Develop a prioritized DETECTOR R&D program aimed at technical

developments needed to reach combined design performance goals– WWS R&D committee will rank, review, and report to GDE– US funding agencies announced they want this input


ILC Siting and Civil Construction

• Civil engineers from all three regions working to develop methods of analyzing the siting issues and comparing sites.

• The current effort is not intended to select a potential site, but rather to understand from the beginning how the features of sites will effect the design, performance and cost

• The design is intimately tied to the features of the site– 1 tunnels or 2 tunnels?– Deep or shallow?– Laser straight linac or follow earth’s curvature in segments?

• GDE ILC Design will be done to samples sites in the three regions – North American sample site will be near Fermilab– Japan and Europe are to determine sample sites by end of 2005


How I spent my summer holiday:

Progress at Snowmass 2005 (GDE’s first footsteps)

>650 participants: Accelerator, Detectors, Physics

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/snowmass05


Snowmass Goals

• To establish a baseline accelerator configuration– And an alternate configuration for future R&D

• To develop the Linear Collider detector studies with precise understanding of the technical details and physics performance of candidate detector concepts, as well as the required future R&D, test beam plans, machine-detector interface and beamlineinstrumentation, cost estimates, and other aspects. – BB has made cost considerations a major priority

• To advance the Linear Collider physics studies, including precision calculations, synergy with the LHC, connections to cosmology andastrophysics, and relationships to the detector design studies.

• To facilitate and strengthen the broad participation of the community in Linear Collider physics, detectors, and accelerators, and engage the greater public in the excitement of this work.


Baseline / Alternative:some definitions

Baseline: a forward looking configuration which we are reasonably confident can achieve the required performance and can be used to give a reasonably accurate cost estimate by mid-end 2006 (→ RDR)

Alternate: A technology or concept which may provide a significant cost reduction, increase in performance (or both), but which will not be mature enough to be considered baseline by mid-end 2006


ILCCommunications

• Launch New ILC Websitewww.linearcollider.org

• “One Stop Shopping”– electronic data management

system (EDMS), news, calendar of events, education and communication


Accelerator R&D:Parameters for the ILC

• Ecm adjustable from 200 – 500 GeV• Luminosity ∫Ldt = 500 fb-1 in 4 years • Ability to scan between 200 and 500 GeV• Energy stability and precision below 0.1%• Electron polarization of at least 80%• Calibrations at Z resonance

• The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV


Configuration Parameter Space


main linacbunchcompressor

dampingring

source

pre-accelerator

collimation

final focus

IP

extraction& dump

KeV

few GeV

few GeVfew GeV

250-500 GeV

Major Accelerator Systems


The Hard Questions

Many questions are interrelated and require input from several WG/GG groups … detector groups too!


Design Choices for Baseline• Design Alternatives

– Gradient / Length (30MV/m?, 35MV/m? Higher?)– Tunnel (single? or double?)– Positron Source (undulator? conventional?)– Damping ring (dogbone? small ring?)– Crossing angle (head-on, small angle, large angle)

• Define detailed configuration– RF layout– Lattice layout– Beam delivery system layout– Klystron / modulators– Cryomodule design

• Evolve these choices through “change control” process


Cost Breakdown by Subsystem

cf31%

structures18%rf

12%

systems_eng8%

installation&test7%

magnets6%

vacuum4%

controls4%

cryo4%

operations4%

instrumentation2%

Civil

SCRF Linac


Gradient


How Costs Scale with Gradient

Relative C

ost

Gradient MV/m

2

0

$ l inc ryo

a GbG Q

≈ +

35MV/m is close to optimum

Japanese are still pushing for 40-45MV/m

30 MV/m would give safety margin

C. Adolphsen (SLAC)


Gradients Obtained(Gmax not the whole story!)

Results from KEK-DESY collaboration

must reduce spread (need more statistics)

single

-cel

l m

easu

rem

ents

(in

nin

e-ce

ll ca

vities

)


Gradient

• Baseline recommendation for cavity is standard TESLA 9-cell– 10-yr old design!

• New alternatives (energy upgrade): – Low-loss,– Re-entrant – superstructure


Improved Cavity Shapes


1 vs 2 Tunnels

• Tunnel must contain– Linac Cryomodule– RF system– Damping Ring Lines

• Save maybe $0.5B

• Issues– Maintenance– Safety– Duty Cycle


Examples of Parameter TradeoffDiscussions

Workshop allowed open discussion of new ideas and proposals

W.


Damping Rings: Three variants- no recommendation yet!

3km

6km

17 km ‘dogbone’

Issues:• electron cloud• emittance• aperture• speed of kickers


Positron Source

• Undulator source– Uses main electron beam (150-250 GeV)– Coupled operation – Efficient source – Relatively low neutron activation – Polarisation

• Laser Compton source– Independent polarised source – Relatively complex source – Multi-laser cavity system required– Damping ring stacking required– Large acceptance ring (for stacking) – Needs R&D

• Conventional Source– Single target solution exists– Close to (at?) limits – Independent source

WG3a recommendation for baseline

Will need ‘keep alive source’ due reliability issues

WG3a recommended alternative.

Strong R&D programme needed

Currently on-hold as a backup solution

Pre-damping ring not required


Beam Delivery, MDI

Strawman solution (BCD recommendation)

Appears to work for nearly all suggested parameter sets:Exceptions:• 1 TeV high-luminosity (new parameter set suggested for 20mrad)• 2 mrad extraction has problems with high disruption sets


Beam Delivery System• Baseline recommendation

– Two IRs (20mrad, 2mrad) + 2 detectors– Longitudinally separated halls

• Alternatives 1– Two IRs (20mrad, 2mrad) + 2 detectors with– No longitudinal separation

• Alternative 2– Single IR with push-pull capability for two detectors (cost

favoured)• 10-12mrad crossing angle also being considered• zero-crossing angle being revisited


Case for Two Complementary Detectors

• Confirmation and Scientific Redundancy• Complementarity, Collider Options• Competition• Efficiency, Reliability, Insurance • Sociology, Scientific Opportunity • Historical lessons

We must continue to develop our understanding of the value of two complementary experiments, and to express it convincingly to our colleagues

http://physics.uoregon.edu/~lc/wwstudy/concepts/draft_1.3.doc

We need to decide NOW whether the site footprint should allow for 2 detectorsThere appears to be a strong historical record in support of this, but at what cost?


Discussions on SCRF Test Facilities

• Regional test facilities are needed to enhance the technology base and enable each region to significantly participate in ILC Main Linac and be a possible host of ILC.

• The three regions are working towards developing collaborations on how to build regional test facilities.– TTF Facility (DESY) established facility, 30% allocated to ILC– ILC Test Facility (Fermilab)– STF (KEK)

• International collaborative activities are progressing on– Cavity fabrication, processing and testing to achieve 35 MV/m

at Q ~0.5-1 e10.– Design and fabrication of ILC Cryomodule– LLRF development for ILC– Development and processing of Couplers– Industrial development of the Main Linac components

Critical R&Dto reduce $$$$


• Typically requires factors of two or more improvements in granularity, resolution, etc. from present generation detectors

• Focused R&D program required to develop the detectors -- end of 2005

• Detector Concepts will be used to determine machine detector interface, simulate performance of reference design vs physics goals next year.

Detector Concepts and Challenges- These are NOT LEP Detectors!!!


3 Archetype Physics Topics

• Light Higgs -- tracker– Best recoil mass resolution in Z-> dileptons

• Strong EWSB -- calorimeter– Important to look at WW scattering– W/Z jet separation crucial

• Some SUSY scenarios -- hermeticity– Cosmology “benchmarks” summarized: – “bulk” -> χχ annihilation -> smuon/selectron– “coannihilation” -> χ−sτau annihil. -> staus– Low angle backgrounds


Momentum Resolution

• e+e- ZH ll X• Golden physics channel!

• δ(1/p) = 7 x 10-5/GeV

• 1/10 LEP !!!

• goal: δMµµ <0.1x ΓΖ • δΜΗ dominated by

beamstrahlung


Impact Parameter• δd= 5 µm ⊕ 10/p(GeV) µm• 1/3 SLD !!! • excellent flavor tagging capabilities for charm and bottom

quarks– Need exceptional tagging for reducing combinatorial background in

multi-jets ... – Charge assignment– Asymmetry measurements– (measurement of Higgs BRs not so sensitive!)

• The big question: inner VTX radius– No simple answer – physics reach gains with lever arm and

background suppresion, esp low momentum particles– … thus, low MS, small radius is essential– Needs more validation, but we are talking 1.5 cm radius!– Instrument lifetime issue


(Jet) Energy Resolution

• δE/E = 0.3/√E(GeV)• <1/2 LEP !!!• ∆MDijet ~ ΓZ/W • separation between

e+e- ννWW ννqqqq and e+e- ννZZ ννqqqq


Particle Flow

• reconstruction of multijet final states

( e+e- H+H- tbtb bqqb bqqb)

• Emphasis on combinedsystems now

• System compataibility means fine granularity in calorimeters (1 cm2 !!!)

• Digital mode possible, if backgrounds controllable


Particle / Energy Flow• The energy in a jet is: 60% charged particles; 30% γ ;10%KL,n

• Reconstruct 4-vectors of individual particles avoiding double counting

Charged particles in tracking chambersPhotons in the ECALNeutral hadrons in the HCAL / ECAL

granularity more important than energy resolution

γ

KL,n

π

e

• need to separate energy deposits from different particles

• Jet energy resolution: σjet2 = σch

2 + σγ2 + σnh

2 + σconfusion2

•small X0 and RMoliere : compact showers

•high lateral granularity D ~ O(RMoliere)

•large inner radius L and strong magnetic field

•Discrimination between EM and hadronic showers

•small X0/λhad; longitudinal segmentation


Hermeticity

• hermetic down to θ = 5 mrad

• Important physics with missing energy topologies (SUSY , extra-dim, Higgs, ...)

• Background issues– Ability to veto low-pT particles– Crossing angle optimization

• Excellent physics motivation: SUSY-stau


IR-Related Issues• Good measurements in the low-angle region

– Need to make pT cuts for physics analyses– Need to mask and reduce occupancies in low angle region– Need convincing? See Bambade’s summary of X-angle mtg

• Beam-beam interaction• broadening of energy distribution (beamstrahlung)• ~5% of power at 500 GeV• backgrounds• e+e- pairs• radiative Bhabhas• low energy tail of disrupted beam• neutron “back-shine” from dump• hadrons from gamma-gamma


The Problem from e-pairs

Hits/bunch train/mm2 in VXD,and photons/train in TPC

pairs


Beam Energy Measurement

• need to know <E>lumi-weighted •• Some analyses require better than 0.1%Some analyses require better than 0.1%• techniques for determining the lumi-weighted

<ECM>:energy spectrometers Bhabha acolinearity

• Other possibilities :γZ, ZZ and WW events; use existing Z and W massutilize Bhabha energies in addition to Bhabha acolµ-pair events; use measured muon momentum

•• 200 200 ppmppm feasible; 50 feasible; 50 ppmppm a difficult challengea difficult challenge

Top-mass: need knowledge of E-spread FWHM to level of ~0.1%


Crossing Angle Impact on

Forward Detector


Time Structure:

Event rates: Luminosity: 3.4x1034 cm-2 s-1 (6000xLEP)e+e- qq,WW,tt,HX 0.1 / train e+e- γγ X:~200 /Train

Background from Beamstrahlung:6x1010 γ/BX 140000 e+e-/BX + secondary particles (n,µ)

950 µs 199 ms 950 µs

2820 bunches

5 Bunch Trains/s ∆tbunch=337ns

But still: 600 hits/BX in Vtx detector6 tracks/BX in TPC E=12GeV/BX in calorimetersE 20TeV/BX in forward cals.

Need Large B field and shielding

High granularity of detectorsand fast readout for stablepattern recognition and event reconstruction

Rates in the Detectors


Summary of MDI Issues• Detector designers need input from MDI experts:

– Minimum VTX radius (smaller than you’d like!)– Masking optimization and best model (MC tool) for backgrounds– Feasibility of crossing angle options

• Detector designers need MDI experts to appreciate:– Need for small on systematic <E>lumi– Need for reduction in low-angle background– Need for diagnostic instrumentation

• This talk continues with a description of current designs– New tools are causing all to be rethought– I’ve completely neglected the special requirements of a detector

optimized for γ−γ or e-γ collisions• Even worse low-angle background problems


Comparison of 3 Concepts(thanks to Y. Sugimoto)

SD TESLA GLD

Main Tracker EM Calorimeter H Calorimeter Cryostat Iron Yoke / Muon System

5 m

•Very large R•Jet chamber or TPC•Scintilator/W-Pb-Fe

•Moderate R•TPC tracker•SiW ECAL

•Si tracking and ECAL•Small R•Smallest granularity


Following the GDE Timeline

machine

end of 2005Baseline Configuration Document

end of 2006Develop Reference Design Rpt

3 volumes: i.) RDR (machine)ii.) Detector Concept Reportiii.) Exec Summary

detectors

R&D ReportDetector Outlines (Mar, 2006)→ Detector Concept Report


Detector Outline Documents• To be completed in Spring 2006 by each detector

concept team, and submitted to WWS.

• Contents– Description of the detector concept– Performance estimates wrt physics

benchmarks– Required R&Ds and their status– Rough costing estimate

• Real detector CDR in 2007

• … and how do we get there? ….


Detector R&D

• WWS has created a Detector R&D Panel – collect information on projects world-wide – strengthen coordination and prioritization

• R&D Panel preparing the R&D report to accompany the GDE machine Baseline Configuration Documentlate this year – supported by concepts and R&D teams

• Test beam planning


University Detector R&D in US

This year was the third year of support for detector R&D from the agencies, organized by the USLCSG and the ALCPG

FY05 LCDRD funding:$700,000 from DOE$117,000 from NSF

Proposal process for FY06 will begin in the fall

24 projects25 universities


Extra Slides: Detectors


Basic TESLA Detector Concept

No hardware trigger, dead time freecontinous readout for complete bunch train (1ms)

Zero suppression, hit recognition and digitisation in FE electronics

Large gaseous centraltracking device (TPC)

High granularitycalorimeters

High precisionmicrovertex detector

All inside magnetic fieldof 4 Tesla


Overview of tracking system

Central region:Pixel vertex detector (VTX)Silicon strip detector (SIT)Time projection chamber (TPC)

Forward region:Silicon disks (FTD) Forward tracking chambers (FCH)(e.g. straw tubes, silicon strips)

• B=4T, RTPC=1.7m: momentum resolution δ(1/p) < 7 x 10-5 /GeV

• American version has larger TPC outer radius (2m), lower B (3T)

• looking at various TPC pad designs and readout


Vertex Detector: Conceptual Design5 Layer Silicon pixel detector

•Small R1: 15 mm (1/2 SLD)

•Pixel Size:20x20µm2 σPoint =3 µm

•Layer Thickness: <0.1%X0 suppression of γ conversions –ID of decay electronsminimize multiple scattering

800 million readout cells

Hit density: 0.03 /mm2 /BX at R=15mm pixel sensors

Read out at both ladder ends in layer 1:frequency 50 MHz, 2500 pixel rows

complete readout in: 50µs ~ 150BX

<1% occupancyno problem for track reconstruction expected

Impact parameter: σd ~R1 σpoint


Calorimeter Conceptual DesignECAL and HCAL inside coil

large inner radius L= 170 cmgood effective granularity

∆x~BL2/(RM ⊕ D) 1/p

∆x distance between charged and neutral particle at ECAL entrance

•ECAL: SiW, •40 layers/24Xo/0.9lhad, 1cm2 lateral segmetation• σE/E = 0.11/√E(GeV) ⊕ 0.01

•HCAL: many options• scintilator tiles, analog or digital• steel-scintillator sandwich


Forward Tracking

FTD: 7 Disks 3 layers of Si-pixels 50x300µm2

4 layers of Si-strips σrφ= 90µm

FCH: 4 LayersStrawtubes or Silicon strips(double sided)

250 GeV µ


Forward Calorimeters

LCAL: Beam diagnostics and fast luminosity (28 to 5 mrad) ~104 e+e— pairs/BX 20 TeV/BX 2MGy/yrNeed radiation hard technology: SiW, Diamond/W Calorimeter or Scintillator Crystals

LAT: Luminosity measurement from Bhabhas (83 to 27 mrad) SiW Sampling Calorimeteraim for ∆L/L ~ 10-4 require ∆θ = 1.4 µrad

TDR version of mask L* = 3 m

Tasks:

Shielding against background

Hermeticity / veto

f

f

e

e


SiD Design Starting Point(Thanks to Marty Breidenbach, John Jaros)

B = 5T Recal = 1.25m Zecal = 1.74m


The SiD Rationale

Premises:particle flow calorimetry will deliver the best possible performance

Si/W is the right technology for the ECAL

Excellent physics performance, constrained costs

Si/W calorimetry for excellent jet resolution

therefore…

• Limit Si/W calorimeter radius and length, to constrain cost

• Boost the B field to recover BR2 for particle flow, improve momentum resolution for tracker, reduce backgrounds for VXD

• Use Si microstrips for precise tracking


Gaseous or Silicon Central Tracking?gaseous silicone e H0 A 0 b b b b

advantages of gaseous tracking: many pointssimple pattern recognitionredundancy

“but be careful with these comparisons!”This is something of an aesthetic argument


ECAL


Si Detector/ Readout ChipReadout ~1k pixels/detectorwith bump-bonded ASIC

Power cycling – only passive cooling required

Dynamic range OK(0.1 - 2500 mip)

Pulse Height and Bunch Label buffered 4 deep to accommodate pulse train


HCAL• Inside the coil• Rin= 1.42m; Rout= 2.44m• 4λ Fe (or W, more compact)

2cm Fe, 1cm gap• Highly segmented

1x1 cm2 – 3x3 cm2

~ 40 samples in depth• Technology?

RPCScint TileGEM

S. Magill (ANL)…many critical questions for the SiD Design Study: thickness? Segmentation? Material? Technology?


VXDTesla SiD

Shorten barrel, add endcaps.Shorten Barrel CCDs to 12.5 cm (vs. 25.0cm)add 300 µm Si self-supporting disk supporting disk endcapsendcaps(multiple (multiple CCDsCCDs per disk)per disk)

This extends 5 layer tracking over max Ω, improves forward pattern recognition.

improve Ω Coverage, improve σimpact param5 CCD layers .97 (vs. .90 TDR VXD)4 CCD layers .98 (vs. .93 TDR VXD)

Readout speed and EMI are big questions.

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4


Global Large Detector

235 280430

425 845

700

450

375350

210205

40 3540

Main Tracker EM Calorimeter H Calorimeter Cryostat Iron Yoke / Muon System

QC1 SX765


Basic design concept• Detector optimized for Particle Flow Algorithm (PFA)

• Large/Huge detector concept

– GLC detector as a starting point– Move inner surface of ECAL outwards to optimize for PFA– Larger tracker to improve δpt/pt

2

– Re-consider the optimum sub-detector technologies based on the recent progresses

• Different approaches

– B Rin2 : SiD

– B Rin2 : TESLA

– B Rin2 : Large/Huge Detector


Merits and demerits of Large/Huge detector

• Merits– Advantage for PFA– Better pt and dE/dx resolution for the main tracker– Higher efficiency for long lived neutral particles (Ks, Λ, and

unknown new particles)• Demerits

– Cost ? – but it can be recovered by• Lower B field of 3T (Less stored energy)• Inexpensive option for ECAL (e.g. scintillator)

– Vertex resolution for low momentum particles• Lower B requires larger Rmin of VTX because of beam background

δ(IP)~5 ⊕ 10/(pβsin3/2θ) µm is still achievable using wafers of ~50µm thick


Parameters compared

9.77.15.7BL2.5

1.2 e-4

220

150

2.0

0.4

1.8

9.86

3.75

3

GLD

1.5e-43.6e-5δpt/pt2

2005Nsample

1507σ(µm)

1.621.25Rmax(m)

0.360.2Rmin (m)Main Tracker

2.31.4Estored(GJ)

9.25.8L(m)

3.02.48Rin(m)

45B(T)Solenoid

TESLASiD


Paramters (cont’d)

(W/Sci)W/SiW/SiType

1.41.31.18t (m)

6.05.25.5λE+HCAL

272421X0

14521311822BZ2/Rmeff

2.82.831.72Z (m)

817462448BRin2/Rm

eff

16.224.418Rmeff (mm)

13.211.38.1BRin2

2.11.681.27Rin (m)ECAL

GLDTESLASiD