Yellow Report Detector Tracking-VTX

From eicug
Jump to: navigation, search

Greetings!

This is wiki page for the Central Tracking Working Group that documents the tracking detector technologies studies leading to the EIC Yellow Report

Tracking WG Meeting Links and Other Useful Information

Introduction to EIC Central Tracking Detectors

Simulation Studies

Currently ongoing activities and available results

Ongoing simulation activities:

  • working on the following main deliverables:
    • evaluate all-silicon vs hybrid (silicon & gaseous) trackers
    • compare realistic alternatives (TPC, MPGD options) for gaseous detectors, barrel and forward
  • preliminary performance studies (mainly EicRoot-based simulations) available
    • central region Si-vertex + TPC + Fast MPGD Layersüendcap region GEM (MPGD) trackers
    • all-silicon (barrel) tracker + forward/backward silicon disks
    • comparisons all-silicon vs BeAST (Si-vertex + TPC + MPGDs) concepts
  • effort on Fun4All and ESCalate frameworks started:
    • first implementations of all-silicon tracker in Fun4All and G4E
    • plan to implement realistic material and services for all the tracking detectors

Available results:

  • relative momentum and pointing resolutions (in different configurations and options)
  • angular resolutions at DIRC (Si-vertex + TPC + Fast MPGDs different options)

Central Tracking

"All Silicon" Option

A short presentation describing the "all Silicon" option for EIC tracking may be found in the presentation by Ernst Sichtermann at the Pavia Workshop https://indico.bnl.gov/event/8231/contributions/37776/attachments/28208/43596/Pavia.OpenMIC.Contributions.pdf

"Hybrid Silicon & Gaseous" Option

Si forward studies

The Los Alamos National Laboratory EIC team has been working on a proposed forward silicon tracker design. Details of the tracking simulation in fast and full simulation (EICROOT and Fun4All frameworks) are summarized in arXiv: 2009.02888. Detector requirements are discussed by the proposed heavy flavor and jet measurements as well.

Silicon Technologies & Sensors

Status Table

  ITS3 Specification ALPIDE MALTA
Vertexing Layers
Pixel size 10 x 10 µm2. 
X/X0 per layer is estimated at 0.05%. 


Pixel size is larger than desired at 27 x 29 µm2 
Just meets X/X0 requirement


Current version's pixel size at 36.4 x 36.4 µm2 
Meet the X/X0 requirements.

Detector R&D work is ongoging. Currently MALTA2-3 in development.



Barrel Layers
Pixel size 10 x 10 µm2. 
X/X0 per layer is estimated at 0.55%. 


Pixel size is larger than desired at 27 x 29 µm2 
Can probably meet X/X0 with targeted R&D. ITS2 staves do not.


Overall design is optimized for rad-hard, fast readout ATLAS at HL-LHC. Would need significant modification/re-design to meet EIC requirements for central detector region. 


Discs (Hadron) Pixel size 10 x 10 µm2.
X/X0 per layer is estimated at 0.24%.
Pixel size is larger than desired at 27 x 29 µm2
Just meets X/X0 requirement for disc r ≤ 30 cm
Have been implemented in the LANL FST design. The MALTA technology serves for the most forward planes to provide time stamping.For forward tracking this may be an interesting option with the included timing (sigma of <2ns).
Pixel size 10 x 10 µm2.
X/X0 per layer is estimated at 0.24%.
see above see above


Technology selection

The only suitable existing silicon technology that meets the requirements for EIC tracking (at the time of writing) are Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors. This chiice is explained in the presentation by Laura Gonella in the Temple EICUG YR Workshop - https://indico.bnl.gov/event/7449/contributions/35954/attachments/27180/41558/20200319-EIC-YR-SiTech-v2.pdf

The use of MAPS type as a function of their location in the central tracking detector can be found in the presentation - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Il15wkWjRLUeUYHAq8JEJyRXqdb37z51/view?usp=sharing

Note - Since this presentation some progress has been made in AC coupled LGAD technology. A development roadmap showing that this technology may potentially develop improved spatial resolution suggest that this technology should be monitored as this effort moves forward for new development. A summary may be found at - https://indico.cern.ch/event/915984/

ITS2 & ITS3

The ITS2 sensor is named ALPIDE in usage at the ALICE experiment at CERN. In the simulations one will see reference to ITS2 or ALPIDE "like" sensors used. These refer to a non-existent sensor that has ALPIDE stave (0.3% X/X0 for inner stave and 0.8% for outer stave) properties with a pixel size of 20 um x 20 um (ALPIDE is 27 um x 29 um). The ALPIDE sensor is a MAPS specially designed for the conditions in the ALICE experiment. More information can be found at -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900215011122

The ITS3 sensor refers to a current CERN based R&D project to develop a next generation MAPS sensor to replace the inner 3 layers of the ALICE ITS2 detector during Long Shutdown 3. This sensor is envisioned to use stitching, have very low power consumption and other very desirable properties. A presentation on the ITS3 sensor goals from the EICUG YR Temple Workshop gives more information - https://indico.bnl.gov/event/7449/contributions/35955/attachments/27131/41358/2020_03_18_EIC_ITS3_tech.pdf

MALTA

EIC Silicon Consortium

In order to produce a new sensor design that meets the EIC requirements, a consortium of EIC groups are joining the ongoing ITS3 sensor development effort at CERN. There are contingency plans for modification of existing sensor designs to meet EIC requirements should this CERN effort be unsuccessful. There is general consensus that this is the most promising path to pursue to deliver an EIC sensor in the given timeframe.For more information please contact eic-silicon-consortium@


Discs (Hadron)

Gaseous Detector Technologies

Status Table

  TPC with Fast MPGD Layer Multi-Layer Cyl. MPGDs Tracker Planar MPGDs Ancillary MPGD Layers Drift Chambers / Straw Tubes Small TGCs
Barrel Tracker
Pros:
  • Momentum resolution
  • PID via dE/dx
  • Low cost
  • Low Material budget
Cons:
  • Material budget in end caps
  • Space charge distortion correction required
Pros:
  • Space point and angular resolution
  • Fast signal technology (few ns time resolution)
  • Low material budget in end cap regions
  • Low cost & robust technologies
Cons:
  • Momentum resolution
  • Material budget in barrel region
  • Large area & low mass cyl MPGDs will be challenging
Pros:
  • Polygon shape arrangement - Alternative to Cyl. layers
  • Large area & low mass less challenging
  • same Pros and Cons than Cyl. layers
Cons:
  • Momentum resolution
  • Material budget
  • space availability
Fast MPGD Layers: 
  • Cyl. µRWELL / Micromegas trackers
  • Fast signal for slow TPC and MAPS i.e. few ns timing resolution
  • High angular resolution for barrel DIRC
  • Calibration for TPC space charge distortion
  • Additional tracking
Pros:
  • Momentum resolution
  • PID via dE/dx
  • Low cost
  • Low Material budget
Cons:
  • Material budget in end caps
  • Calibration required
  • Issues with instabilities
N/A
Hadron End Cap Tracker N/A N/A
Pros:
  • Momentum & angular resolution
  • Low material budget
  • Low cost for large area
  • Robust technologies
Cons:
  • None
 MPGD-based Transition Radiation Detectors (TRDs):
  • GEMs. µRWELL or Micromegas
  • PID: e/π separation
  • angular resolution for RICH detectors
  • additional tracking
Cons:
  • Space availability (radiator size)
Pros:
  • Momentum & angular resolution
  • PID via dE/dx;
  • Low cost
Cons:
  • Material budget
  • Calibration
  • Stability issues
Pros:
  • Momentum & angular resolution
  • Low cost
  • Robust technology
Cons:
  • Material budget
Electron End Cap Tracker N/A N/A
Pros:
  • Momentum & angular resolution
  • Low material budget
  • Low cost for large area
  • Robust technologies
Cons:
  • None
MPGD-TRDs:
  • GEMs, µRWELL or Micromegas
  • PID: e/π separation
  • Tracking
Cons:
  • Space availability (radiator size)
N/A N/A


Micro Pattern Gaseous Detectors (MPGDs)

Time Projection Chambers (TPC)

Central Drift Chambers & Straw Tubes detectors

Small Thin Gap detectors (sTGCs)

Material Budget Studies

Services (power, signal, configuration, cooling, etc.) are expected to be a dominant part of the material in the large acceptance of the EIC central detector region. In the example of the silicon detector sensors, the services load can be scaled with reasonable accuracy to the silicon surface area. The parameters of this then method can then be adjusted to different sensor technologies showing performance differences from the services load standpoint. The physical volumes required at the end of staves/discs can also be added to the simulation models to allow for more realistic geometries.

An example of a method for doing the parameterization of services can be found in a presentation in the Temple workshop given by Leo Greiner - https://indico.bnl.gov/event/7449/contributions/36038/attachments/27241/41529/2020_03_20_EIC_Si_services_parametrization_for_sim.pptx

This method was extended to provide service loads for different sensors/service load configurations as well as being extended to produce a simple first model of the support structures. The goal of this effort is to develop a incomplete but realistic model for the services and support structures to be used in simulation so that the effects of this dead material on the physics of interest can be quantified. This should allow for the identification of areas where targeted R&D may be necessary to overcome identified issues. This presentation was given in the Pavia workshop by Leo Greiner - https://indico.bnl.gov/event/8231/contributions/37955/attachments/28329/43586/2020_05_15_EIC_Si_material_projections.pptx

An additional attribute of the sensors and services is the amount of power dissipated in the detector volume. This has been estimated for the sensors of interest in a presentation that may be found at - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MIwnDL3v0vXR6nJDON4x_dxNMWHbV6jP/view?usp=sharing

Complementarity

Current plans

Plan towards 3rd EIC YR Workshop (agreed with DWG conveners):

  • continue evaluation and performance studies of different technologies
  • evaluate material budget
  • implement realistic material for the services for all tracking technologies
  • estimate power generated by the readout for all tracking technologies

Outline of the YR contribution for the Central Tracking:

  1. Introduction
  2. Main requirements and acceptance coverage
    1. Barrel Tracking
    2. Forward and Backward Tracking
  3. Technology survey
    1. Silicon Detectors
    2. Gaseous Detectors
    3. Compared issues (cost, power, material budget etc)
  4. Detector Concepts and performance studies
    1. All-Silicon Tracking System (Barrel + End Caps)
    2. Hybrid Tracking System
      1. Barrel: Silicon Vertex + TPC
      2. Barrel: Silicon Vertex + Drift Chambers
      3. Barrel: Silicon Vertex + Cylindrical MPGDs
      4. Hadron & Electron End Cap: MPGDs, sTGCs etc
    3. Fast Tracking layers & Additional Tracking and PID detectors
      1. Fast signal and high resolution MPGDs: for DIRC in the barrel region
      2. GEM-TRD for Electron End Cap or behind RICH in Hadron End Cap
    4. Integration issues
    5. References


Progress Report section