From: SMTP%"tyndel@v2.rl.ac.uk" 15-JAN-1997 02:40:50.10 To: @[TYNDEL.DIS]SCT_INST,@[TYNDEL.DIS]SCT_STEER CC: TYNDEL Subj: Minutes SCT Institute Meeting (17/1296) + Reviewers assessment Minutes SCT Institute Meetings CERN 17/12/96 - 20/12/96 _______________________________________________________ [Please distribute to your group] Copies of the transparencies presented during the SCT working week are are available from the ATLAS secretariat. (SCT-TR-35? - SCT-TR-36?) A copy of the Assessment of the SCT Decision Process by the reviewers, Matteo Cavalli-Sforza, Klaus Pretzl and Torsten Akesson is attached. Present : _______ Representatives from the following institutes : Bergen,Birmingham,Cambridge,CERN,Cracow(INP),Cracow(FPNT),Dortmund, Freiburg,Geneva,Glasgow,Hiroshima,KEK,Lancaster,Liverpool, LBL,Ljubljana,Manchester,MPI(Munich),Nikhef,Oslo,Oxford, Prague(FZU),QMW(London),RAL,Sheffield,UCI(Irvine),UCL(London),UCSC, Uppsala,Wisconsin,Valencia + P. Jenni, A. Parker (ex-officio) + T. Akesson, K. Pretzl, M. Cavalli-Sforza (invited) 1)Institute Meeting (17/12/96) ______________________________ 1.1)Conclusion of the module session ____________________________________ The proposal from the module convenors was discussed ie - The barrel module should have centre-tap topology and use a heat spreader (TPG or another C based material) to allow 1 cooling contact per module. This was unanimously agreed. - The forward community should investigate the centre-tap design and decide on it's viability in the forward region. The 'length' of the modules should remain unaltered ie ~12cm (outer ring), ~12cm (central ring) ~6cm (inner ring) The Geneva group did not support this recommendation; the Cambridge and MPI groups wished to abstain Neil Jackson will convene a meeting of groups working on forward modules to consider the proposal and report back. 1.2)Results of the detector price enquiry __________________________________________ M. Tyndel reported on the results of the detector price enquiry. Copies of the replies had been sent to G Lutz, P Allport and N Unno. Replies had been received from 9 companies (AEA Tech., Silicon Sensor, VTT, CSEM, MICRON, Eurysis, Canberra, Hamamatsu, Sintef). MICRON did not supply quotations for reach-through designs. Hamamatsu did not quote for double-sided or single-sided reach-through. The companies were divided into 2 categories ("proven" = "having supplied >100 microstrip detectors" and "unproven"). Finally, the same procedure was used as for the 1994 Market survey, to estimate the cost to ATLAS of an option ie - the 2nd lowest price estimate (for the full order) was taken. Where this was not from a "proven" supplier, the lowest estimate from a proven supplier was taken. Conclusions of price enquiry : ============================== Cost of baseline (V1) consistent with CORE estimate Cost of MPI "fall-forward" (V2) approx 0.9 * CORE estimate (ie reach-through, double-sided) This result is somewhat surprising as the average of the cost ratio (v2/v1) from companies quoting for both options was 0.67. The cost of double-sided detectors with polysilicon biasing was not requested in this market survey. One company, which did not quote for the reach-through biasing gave a low price estimate ( ~ 0.8*CORE). However , the results of the 1994 market survey showed that averaging over the companies one would expect a ratio of (v2/v1) ~ 1.0. The cost of single-sided p+(n) detectors with polysilicon biasing was also not requested in this price enquiry. There are indications that this could offer cost-savings compared to the baseline and this will be followed up (see below). THE RESULTS OF THE COST-ENQUIRY NEED TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL! ___________________________________________________________________ 1.3)AOB _______ A Carter raised the question on the mandate of the ID project leader. A number of groups felt that the deadline for nominations proposed was too short and would not allow proper consultation and discussion. P. Jenni suggested extending the deadline until 13/1/97. This was much appreciated and allowed the meeting to close in time for a (late) dinner. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2)Institute Meeting (18/12/96) ______________________________ 2.1)Conclusion of the detector session ______________________________________ As the information had been presented and discussed in the open meeting, the session began by each institute representative summarizing the situation, as they saw it. A clear majority supported the single-sided n+(n) remaining as baseline. Although the double-sided, as proposed did not meet the ATLAS requirements, the progress made on the high voltage operation should be incorporated into the optimization of the baseline. Furthermore, the community should rapidly evaluate the potential of single-sided p+(n) detectors. It was also stressed that all future work should continue in the framework of a single unified ATLAS project Based on the statements, M Tyndel drew the following conclusions (the last had a final iteration in the institute meeting of the 20/12/96) : 1) Single-sided n+(n) remains the baseline and will be the detector option which is worked up into a detailed technical design 2) The optimization of the detector will be the subject of a working meeting in January, involving the whole community. The institute meeting will give a guideline on the number of detectors which are required and can be afforded (~6 batches ; see below) 3) The SCT community should rapidly make a study on the use of single-sided p+(n) detectors. M Tyndel will take responsibility for this together with the steering group. It was agreed that these conclusions, reflected the views of the SCT community and would form the basis of a recommendation to ATLAS. There was unanimous support for the recommendation from the GaAs community - - As the provision of GaAs detectors with the required performance cannot be guaranteed, it is proposed to adopt the same silicon detector technology over the whole eta range. Further work is needed to understand the ultimate lifetime of silicon detectors and how best to provide precision measurements over the full 10 year period. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3)Institute Meeting (20/12/96) ______________________________ 3.1)Scope of the 1997 detector orders _____________________________________ A discussion was held to try and understand how many detectors would be needed and could be afforded by ATLAS in 1997. The requirements are - - to have sufficient detectors to build modules - >120 barrel detectors - >120 (=3x40) forward detectors - to get detectors from as many potential suppliers as possible (3?) - to irradiate >10detectors of each batch An example of a specific scenario : Company A - 2 x 50 barrel detectors - 2 x 50 forward detectors Company B - 1 x 50 barrel detectors Company C - 1 x 50 forward (inner ring) detectors There was an initial discussion of who would fund these detectors Aust - ? CERN - >0 Germ. - ? Japan - 1batch (B/?) Nikhef - ? Norway - 1batch (B/120) Russia - ? Geneva - >0 UK - 2batches (B,F/100) Uppsala- ? Valencia ? It was concluded that it would be reasonable to ask the detector working group to plan on the above model ie 6 batches of detectors 3.2)Conclusion of the engineering session _________________________________________ The engineering meeting had reached agreement on the basic concept of the support structure and cooling and we are now in a position to start detailed work for the technical design. A first meeting will be arranged in January to organize this work. This will include the following - Centre-tap module design - TPG study - Tooling for module construction - Design cooling pipes & mounting on structure - Design local supports - Study on zero cte cooling tubes - Study on integrated cooling - Design of CF cylinder, Spaceframe and disks - Services - Cabling model - Attack material budget - Surface areas for assembly and installation 3.3)Summary of dates of meetings planned for early 1997 ________________________________________________________ TDR : ==== 20/1/97 TDR outline to be circulated/made available on www by the editors Carl Haber, Allan Clark, Richard Nickerson Mon 27/1/97pm TDR editors meeting if required (to be arranged by editors) Fri 31/1/97 TDR working meeting - detailed outline; allocate work (TDR editors+steering group+...) Working meetings - follow-up to review week : =========================================== The following working meetings are planned to prepare detailed designs, plan future work and prepare for the TDR. The agendas and rooms will be arranged by the organizers of the meetings : Mon 27/1/97 Forward module concept - reaction to the suggestion to adopt the centre-tap as baseline;future plans ( N Jackson) (possibly continuing to Tuesday) Tue 28/1/97 Barrel module - definition of the ATLAS barrel module - future plans( A Carter, N Unno) (possibly continuing to wednesday) Wed 29/1/97 Module construction (C Haber) (joint barrel and forward) Thu 30/1/97 Engineering - Baseline concept;future plans(E Perrin, G Tappern) Fri 31/1/97 Detectors - Detailed design meeting (P Allport) (possibly continuing to Saturday) Mon 2/2/97 Irradiation planning and future organisation (R Wunstorf) main emphasis on detectors, but to include ASICs and other module components KEK Testbeam ============ 10/2/97 Start of testbeam 20/2/97 End of testbeam SCT Working Week ================ 24/2/97 SCT week starts 28/2/97 SCT week ends This will be a working week where new results can be shown and discussed The main emphasis of the meeting will be to agree on the technical design and prepare a first draft of the TDR 3.4)Minutes of previous Meeting (CERN-13/9/96) and actions arising __________________________________________________________________ The action to clarify the role of the IDSG had now been overtaken by events Alex Grillo had consulted with collaborating institutes and they have agreed that A Lankford co-ordinate the offdetector work; P Malecki coordinate the power supplies and cables. M Tyndel had discussed P Weilhammer on the situation with the CERN/ Central cluster. The situation was not yet resolved and the action remains. M Tyndel had received confirmation from P Schmid that the Russian contribution to CORE was 1.3MSFr. M Tyndel had received confirmation from P Schmid that the German contribution to the SCT had been reduced to 4.9MSFr Carl Haber has received little feedback on his proposal for module construction and the action remains. Bob van Eijk was not present to present on system tests and the action remains. M Tyndel circulated a first draft of agreed SCT projects. 3.5)SCT Project plan (v1.5) ___________________________ M Tyndel distributed an updated project plan (v1.5). This had been updated to match the SCT cost-ceiling of 43.8MSFr (excl contingency) as defined by A Parker and agreed at the ID working meeting. The changes made since v1.4 are noted on the project plan. This will form the basis of the next CORE release unless new information is received from the groups Manpower estimates will be required..all groups to respond to M. Tyndel 3.6)SCT Agreed Projects _______________________ M Tyndel distributed an a first draft of agreed SCT projects (ie non-CORE activities). This needs to be updated urgently 3.7) AOB ======== Actions (17/12/96) _________________ *-Neil Jackson to convene a meeting of groups working on forward modules. *-Phil Allport to convene a meeting to finalize SCT baseline detector design *-Mike Tyndel + steering group to prepare a study on p+(n) *-M Tyndel asked to discuss with P Weilhammer and the CERN ATLAS group to clarify the status of the CERn/Central cluster *-Carl Haber was asked to prepare the draft proposal for module construction for presentation and discussion during a meeting in January. *-Bob van Eijk asked to present ideas on system tests at the next Institute meeting *-M Tyndel to update and circulate a draft of SCT projects. *-H Sadrozinski proposed to see if an SCT working meeting can be scheduled at UCSC in mid July Appendix : Assessment of SCT Reviewers (M.Cavalli-Sforza,K.Pretzl, T. Akesson) ============================================================================== Assessment of the SCT Decision Process ************************************** In the SCT review week of the 16-20th of December, the SCT community had to decide between a double sided and single sided microstrip detector design, and make plans regarding the technologies to be prototyped in the chosen option. The community has decided to recommend to retain the single sided n-on-n (baseline) option and to drop the double sided (fall forward) option. The decision was based on the facts acquired in the one year test program including irradiations and measurements of static and S/N characteristics before and after irradiation; the results of the cost inquiry with nine manufacturers (including all the major ones) and a study of the differential cost of one solution with respect to the other were also used to reach a decision. This process involved a large effort. Thanks to this effort all the crucial facts were available to the whole collaboration. The reviews and discussions of the results appeared to represent a very satisfactory understanding of the situation; this is remarkable considering that part of the results became available only days before the meeting. Special thanks are due to those who made this possible. The decision was taken without a formal vote, but from the carefully expressed assessment of each institute. A very clear consensus emerged for only retaining the n-on-n single sided option for ATLAS. On this detector will be based the technical design report, the next round of prototypes to be built, and the ongoing engineering effort. No institute expressed disagreement with this course of action. From the cost enquiry a single sided p-on-n detector appeared to be an option that might be financially attractive. The community has committed itself to study this within no more than two months. The institute board agreed that this study is organised by the SCT project leader. It is hoped that the community, having reached consensus on the baseline, will work towards building a detector with the active involvement of all institutes. Geneva, 1997.01.06 Matteo Cavalli-Sforza, Klaus Pretzl and Torsten Akesson