Transcript U.S. ATLAS Computing - University of Hawaii

U.S. ATLAS Upgrade Detector R&D
(as an example of university relevance)
Howard Gordon
U.S. ATLAS Construction Project Manager
U.S. ATLAS Research Program Deputy Manager (to Mike
Tuts)
BNL
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Points to be covered
 High Energy Physics – Excitement NOW
 ATLAS Upgrade R&D Program
 Based on an increase by a factor of 10 in luminosity to
extend the physic reach
 How the U.S. participates


How universities fit in



Our view of the priority of this work
There is a large spectrum of abilities in different universities –
probably that is good
What sets the scale for the participation
How infrastructure is critical for success
2
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
My Personal View
 High Energy Physics in my career has never been as
exciting as now
 There are big discoveries on the horizon
 Electroweak symmetry breaking: Higgs? SUSY?



Tevatron?
If not: hopefully at the LHC if not with
ILC needed to make the detailed measurements
Dark Matter?
 Dark Energy???
 CP Violation in the neutrino sector?
 Extra Dimensions?
 However, the funding for our field is close to flat-flat and
everyone is struggling – New York Times: Jan. 8, 2007

3
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Future Upgrade: “Super LHC”

Although we expect to make discoveries and a lot of measurements at the LHC,
plans have started for upgrading LHC
 Higher energy difficult without major R&D development
 Higher luminosity (1035 cm-2 s-1) seems feasible

Some studies have been done to evaluate increased physics potential:
PROCESS
LHC
SLHC
14 TeV
14 TeV
28 TeV
-1
-1
100 fb
1000 fb
100 fb-1
Squarks
Z’
Extra-dim (=2)
q*
compositeness
TGC ()



2.5
5
9
6.5
30
0.0014
3
6
12
7.5
40
0.0006
4
8
15
9.5
40
0.0008
Very prelim. studies also suggest it is possible with 3000 fb-1 per experiment to make
the first measurement of the Higgs self-coupling via HH production
Detector R&D is getting underway, to be ready for ~ 2010-2014 Construction Period
For ATLAS the entire Inner Detector would be replaced as well as the Liquid Argon
on-detector electronics
4
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
LHC Upgrade Parameters are NOT Set
 The 12.5 ns scenario seems to have left the
scene (for how long?)
 The 75 ns scenario pushed backwards
 Two new scenarios appears in the front
 50 ns long bunch 340 events/bunch crossing
(at start of fill) - likely
 25 ns high ß 223-296 evt/bc
Keep doors open and remember that we do not know
(yet) tot at LHC .
(some theoreticians say anywhere between 100 and 150 mbarn!)
5
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Important Milestones - ID
 Ready for beam:
1/1/2016
 Beam off – start decommissioning 7/1/2014 (18 month for installation)
 Straw man Layout 12/31/2006
 (Modification/changes to be made in
term of performance /Risk/Cost etc.)
 TDR Feb/2010
 Cooling PRR
April/2010
 Mechanical Support Design complete Oct/2010
 Sensor PRR
July/2010
 FE-electronics
Sept/2010
 Surface Assembly
March/2012
 Ready for Installation
August/2014
 Barrel Installation
Feb/2015
 B-layer/beam pipe
August/2015
TDR: Technical Design Report; PRR: Production
6
Readiness Review
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
Conceptual
Design R&D
Prototypes
Pre-series
Production
Assembly&
Installation
January 8, 2007 SLAC
4+3+2 (Pixel, SS, LS) Strawman
7
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
ATLAS Upgrade Organization
Executive Board
Technical
Coordination
Upgrade Steering
Group
Main Efforts now are:
Establish working groups
to coordinate the R&D
Upgrade Project Office
8
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
ATLAS Wide Upgrade Steering Group
ID
Giovanni Darbo, Abe Seiden
LAr
Francesco Lanni 
Tiles
Dominique Pallin
Muons
Sandro Palestini, Tatsuo Kawamoto
TDAQ
Stefan Tapprogge
EC
Phillipe Farthouat
Shielding/Radiation
Vincent Hedberg
TCn
David Lissauer 
Machine Link
Per Grafstrom
Physics
Giacomo Polesello
Nigel Hessey (Chair of Steering Group)
ATLAS management, ex-officio
Francesco Lanni has taken the lead in defining and developing cost estimates for the U.S. LAr
Upgrade program
9

U.S. people
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Upgrade Project Office Composition
 ATLAS Management (Ex-officio)
S. Stapnes, F. Gianotti, P Jenni
 ATLAS Management and TC:
M. Nessi
 Steering Group Chair:
N. Hessey
 POL:
:
D. Lissauer
 PO Deputy/Reviews :
M. Tyndel
 Electronics Coordinator:
P. Farthouat ( 2-3 Electronics and DAQ)
 Radiation and Shielding:
V. Hedberg (Acting)
 Machine Interface
:
P. Grafstrom
 Cooling
:
G. Viehhauser
 Sensors
:
N. Unno
 Integration/Installation :
H. Pernegger (Starting early next year)
 Module Integration
:
P. Allport
 Mechanical Structures :
(Under discussions)
 LAr
:
F. Lanni (Acting)
 Trigger
:
S. Tapprogge
 B-Layer Upgrade
:
G. Darbo
Additional persons invited for special discussions.
Some permanent members still missing. (Tile, Muons, Trigger)
10
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
The ATLAS Process for Upgrade R&D
 There are proposals submitted to the whole collaboration
with the aim of eliminating duplication and including every
institution which wants to join. An example:
11
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
There are often International
Collaborations
Evaluation of Silicon-Germanium (SiGe) Bipolar
Technologies for Use in an Upgraded ATLAS
Detector
ATLAS Upgrade Document No:
France
Spain
USA
Institute Document No.
Created: 15-Jun-06
Page: 1 of 10
Modified:
Rev. No.: 0.00
IN2P3
CNM Barcelona
BNL
UC Santa Cruz
C. De La Taille
M. Ullan
S. Rescia
A.A. Grillo
U of Pennsylvania
M. Newcomer
12
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
WBS 4.1.1.1 Innermost Pixel Detector
13
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
WBS 4.1.1.1 Detectors – 3D is Rad Hard!
14
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
WBS 4.1.1.2 Strip Detectors
Beginning to develop a detailed understanding of the behavior of n-on-p
detectors. Curve is a summary of some measurements, symbols are
predictions from paper by Bruzzi, Sadrozinski, and Seiden. Unlike p-on-n
detectors, charge collection does not require very large voltages at large
fluences. Region of good charge collection matches well our plan to keep
the strip detectors at radii larger than 25 cm.
15
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Sample of Interesting Results

Development of 1m and 2m long staves has started. This includes detailed engineering studies as well knowledge
gained from the measurements of noise for ATLAS style modules mounted on the CDF stave.
Coolant inlet and exit
Strip detector
Port card
Support and alignment pins,
two at each end
Hybrid and chips
Solid model rendering of a stave constructed using an 8mm diameter
aluminum tube that has been reformed to enhance thermal transport area.
View of overall stave depicting strip detectors, hybrids and chips.
The assembly comprises 15 strip detectors with a length of 993.5mm.
16
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
WBS 4.3 Liquid Argon R&D
Current LAr calorimeter
architecture structure
Proposed baseline
architecture for the
LAr calorimeter
readout upgrade
17
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
WBS 4.3.2.3 Work so far in FY07
18
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
WBS 4.3.2.4 Link-on-Chip
Flip-chip
bonding
PLL and
clock generator
REFclock
encoder
serializer
Parallel
Data
Laser
Driver
Laser
TX
transmitter Module
Flip-chip
bonding
Photonic
Parallel Data
Decoder
Optical
data
Deserializer
TIA/LA
PIN
Clock/Data
recovery
REFclock
Receiver Module

Improve performance



Reduce power consumption



No off-chip high speed lines
Flip-chip bonding reduces capacitance and inductance
No 50-Ohm transmission lines between chips
Designed and Implemented in Silicon-on-Sapphire technology
Targeting speed:>2.5Gbps
19
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Dec. 4th ATLAS LAr Calorimeter Upgrade
Workshop at CERN
 Express of Interest (EOI) of ROD R&D finalized
 Participating Institutions
 U.S.A.




France


Brookhaven National Laboratory
– Hucheng Chen, Joe Mead, Francesco Lanni
University of Arizona
– Ken Jones, Joel Steinberg
Stony Brook University
– Dean Schamberger
LAPP, Annecy
– Jacques Colas, Guy Perrot
Italy

INFN, Milan
– Mauro Citterio
20
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
U.S. ATLAS has put Priority on Upgrade
R&D




We still need to complete the construction, commissioning, and preoperations of ATLAS
 We have several items on the critical path and need to focus resources to
accomplish our goals
However, we believe that the U.S. can make seminal intellectual contributions
to the Upgrade R&D and need to do work in order to establish this
Key technical personnel may be finished with their work on construction,
commissioning and pre-operations and the Upgrade R&D provides a way to
engage them so they do not drift on to other projects
 We hope this support will continue through the Upgrade Construction.
This work is a partnership between the U.S. National Laboratories and the
universities.
 Each provides crucial contributions
 The Labs typically have more of a critical mass of technical people to
address issues in a more system-wide manner
 Example of the Low Voltage Liquid Argon Power Supplies
 Universities, besides providing intellectual input, also have students and
postdocs who can carry out a focused part of the R&D
21
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Funding Targets
 Original targets based on bottoms up estimates, out years evaluated
NSF Guidance Note:
yearly
The NSF funding numbers above
are shown on a fiscal year monthly
spending plan. NSF funding
 AY M$
breakdown: 8/1/04 = 3.5M; 5/1/05
= 5.25M;
2/1/06 = 6.75M; 11/1/06 = 9M;
11/1/07 = 9M
(AY M$)
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
Software & Computing
15.1
16.5
17.4
19.0
17.9
M&O
17.7
10.1
10.1
10.3
10.5
Upgrade R&D
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
Management Reserve
2.1
3.8
3.8
4.0
5.9
DOE guidance
22.6
24.6
25.5
27.5
28.5
NSF guidance
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
Carryover/unobligated
6.4
33.6
34.5
36.5
37.5
Total
38.0
22
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
U.S. ATLAS Upgrade R&D FY07 Budget
FY07 Budget for U.S. ATLAS Upgrade R&D
900
800
700
600
Average of
the
12
Series1
university
budgets
~$125k
(k$)
500
400
300
200
100
N
ev
is
oo
k
Br
iz
on
a
St
on
y
hi
o
O
Ar
St
at
e
L
LB
N
L
BN
at
e
a
St
a
O
kl
ah
om
kl
ah
om
ai
i
O
aw
M
ew
N
H
ex
ic
o
U
SM
Pe
nn
am
H
U
C
SC
pt
on
0
Institution
23
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
U.S. ATLAS Upgrade R&D Personnel
(FY07)
EE
Tech
Designers
Assemblers
Students
Total
Laboratories
2.499
5.762
1.032
0.776
-
10.068
Universities
3.833
5.133
-
-
1.822
10.788
Total
6.332
10.895
1.032
0.776
1.822
20.856
Currently 12 university groups are working on
the Upgrade R&D. We expect several more to
join in the next year and most of the 37
university groups to contribute to Upgrade
24
Construction.
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Location of U.S. ATLAS Personnel (FTEs
in FY07)
M&O
Upgrade R&D
Scientific
Non-Scientific
At CERN
68.55
24.4
Not at CERN
19.03
27.8
Total
87.58
52.2
At CERN
1.3
1.7
Not at CERN
7.05
19.1
Total
8.35
20.8
Note these are universities plus labs – but % is probably
similar in both. The Core Research Program is CRUCIAL
for M&O and Upgrade R&D
25
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Upgrade Construction Planning in ATLAS
 The entire tracker must be replaced
 Technologies which now work at inner radii will
work at outer radii – but new technologies must
be developed for the inner radii
 For example, 3-D pixels
 Cost estimates for a new pixel layer are
expected to be ~34 MCHF
 New silicon strip layers ~105 MCHF (130 m2)
 Calorimetry ~15-32 MCHF
 Muon System and Trigger/DAQ 20-30 MCHF
 An Upgrade Project Office has been established
to insure that R&D work is coherent and services
are considered from the beginning.
26
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Upgrade Construction Given to P5 in
March 2006



ATLAS has made an estimate for the cost of the upgraded detectors
We have calculated the U.S. share based on the current $/CHF ratio, the
experience with CERN cost estimates and U.S. accounting, plus some
escalation
There are larger error bars on these numbers but they were presented to P5
and (hopefully will be included) in agency planning
Fiscal Year
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals
U.S. ATLAS Upgrade Estimate (M$)
9.3 19.2
39.7 41.1
10.6 119.9
27
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
ILC Detector R&D
 I chaired the DOE/NSF Panel for ILC Detector R&D for a couple of
years.
 It was a great learning experience for the committee
 However, I believe the amount of money available was not enough
to carry out serious detector R&D

Even though the committee had discretion to recommend what it
wanted and although the committee chose the most relevant and time
critical topics, generally there was a request and a recommendation
for some M&S, a grad student and perhaps a post doc
 In contrast, with about $3M/year, the U.S. ATLAS choice of funding
Upgrade R&D at that level has already produced some good results
 As far as the synergy of ILC and LHC R&D, some groups will try to
find the synergy but it does not have to follow logically
28
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Conclusions



We have not dealt with the real issues which need to be addressed in the future:
 How many university groups need to be supported in HEP
 How much support should they get to be effective
 What is the role of the university group and the national labs – (we hope a
partnership)
Rather we have described a collaborative system built on needs and capabilities –
market driven by the needs of the ATLAS upgrade and the capabilities of the group
 The ATLAS upgrade is moving ahead with Upgrade R&D
 U.S. university groups are contributing to this by participating and often leading
R&D proposals where they can make a unique contribution
 Based on their contribution, the U.S. ATLAS Research Program offers some
support of infrastructure
 Even in the Physics Analysis, it is difficult for a single university group to have a
mastery of all the software and data bases needed for analysis.
Still there is a WIDE variation in the capabilities of various university groups
 In the past, a lot of infrastructure support was in the Core Research Program
 Most groups are asked to choose between technical infrastructure and a post doc
or student and we know how they choose
 Some have sufficient resources to tackle state of the art problems


Univ. X has a state of the art silicon production facility; univ. Y has good electrical
engineers
Others are in the model of a professor with a good idea and students
29
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC
Critical Issues from Mike Tuts at your
September 2006 meeting (still critical!)






What are the critical issues threatening the achievements of the project goals?
Funding
 Currently ~flat in the out years – some relief in profile starting in 2008 promised in Oct. 2006!
 P5 quote “The level of support for this program should not be allowed to erode through
inflation”
 Travel/COLA costs are higher for CERN
 Fall 2005 US ATLAS survey indicates ~x2 over domestic program
 ~ $2M/yr problem for Core program
 Upgrade funding (not just R&D) needs to be in US planning efforts
 Has been presented to P5, so may be in there now
Infrastructure
 How do we preserve the technical infrastructure for the upgrade?
 Upgrade R&D RP can help, but year-to-year funding makes it difficult to plan
 Is it enough?
Collaborative tools
 Not yet taken seriously at CERN
 Even good audio is a problem
 Have a plan (see RTAG 12 report for example), but no funding
 Experiments are trying to help
 We have a couple of well outfitted rooms, but need more
Office space
 Rapidly becoming an issue
Not a threat, but we need to gain experience with our physics analysis support model – good so
30
far!
DOE and NSF High Energy Physics University Grant Program Subpanel (UGPS)
January 8, 2007 SLAC