Worldwide testbeam session summary Felix Sefkow DESY ECFA workshop Durham September 4, 2004

Worldwide testbeam session summary

Felix SefkowDESY

ECFA workshop Durham September 4, 2004

ECFA LC workshop, Durham, Sept 2004

Felix Sefkow, Worldwide testbeam session summary 2

Session goals

• Had half day session at LCWS in Paris on TB needs and facilities

• Situation documented in “Worldwide LC testbeam” report– http://www.linearcollider.ca:8080/lc/vic04/abstracts/detector/

testbeam/wwlctb_working_group.doc

• Here: get an updated overview of planned testbeam efforts

• Launch activity to submit internationally coordinated proposal for testbeams for LC detector R&D

• Prepare statement for ICFA to alarm lab directors of our concern that testbeam supply will not need our demands



Outline

Summary of summaries:

• Demand

• Supply

• Initiatives



Testbeams for calorimeter R&D

5

Geant4 hadronic shower Geant4 hadronic shower models.models. GEANT4 has extensive set of hadronic GEANT4 has extensive set of hadronic

shower models, from which we would like shower models, from which we would like to select.to select. Several experiments have compared Several experiments have compared

testbeam data with Geant4 predictions.testbeam data with Geant4 predictions. However, used to characterize existing However, used to characterize existing

designs, not to design new detectors.designs, not to design new detectors. ““Particle Flow”, or imaging calorimeter, places Particle Flow”, or imaging calorimeter, places

much more stringent requirements on much more stringent requirements on simulation.simulation.

Cottage industry to run all available sets to Cottage industry to run all available sets to demonstrate dispersion.demonstrate dispersion.

See talks in simulation session.See talks in simulation session.

Norman Graf, SLAC



Hadronic shower model dependence

• Remember: need to optimize imaging capability of HCAL

Study by G.Mavromanolakis



Calorimeter testbeam needs

• 108 – 109 events = (10 – 100) days / duty_factor (@ 100 Hz DAQ rate)



CALICE testbeam plans



LCcal beam needs

• Left over:

more hadron data

scan different gains in pad electronics

combined test with Hcal

Calorimeter re-arrangment (including W absorber)

• Beam time: at least one week e/h beam

10-70 GeV

•Problem: time and manpower

•Possible solution: join efforts with other groups

SUMMARY after 2003 runsPaolo Checchia, Padova


Felix Sefkow, Worldwide testbeam session summary

10

ECal R&D in N. America --Test Beam Readiness/Plans

• Silicon-tungstenSLAC, Oregon, Brookhaven (SOB)

• Scintillator tiles – tungstenU. Colorado, Fermilab

• Hybrid silicon/scintillator – tungsten U. Kansas

Ray Frey, Oregon



11

Si/W Status and Plans

• Note that current design is optimized for warm, but could be optimized for cold Would require digital pipeline → this is current focus Would timing still be desirable?

• This year Qualify prototype detectors already in hand Fabricate initial RO chip for technical prototype studies

• Readout limited fraction of a wafer ($) (64 of 1024 chns.)• Chips probably not in hand before Jan 2005

• 2005 Electronics evaluations Bump bonding “Technical” test beam, summer 2005 at earliest

• A few layers with 1st round detectors and chips Plan for a full ECal module (similar to eventual ECal)

• Finalize thermal plans, mechanics• Provide correct front radiator for hadron shower validation in test beam.• Earliest beam test: Summer 2006

Continue to evaluate configuration options• Layering, segmentation

What people often neglect…

Ray Frey



12

Tile ECal (contd.)

(from Uriel Nauenberg)• Will be ready for test beam in 2006 if funding becomes available in

2005 to build a module.

• The big issue is electronics; we have very little help with that.

• The module will consist of 60 layers or 45 layers For 11%/root(E) resolution we need 60 layers of 1/2 X0

Tungsten and 2 mm of scintillator, not 45. For 13%/root(E) then we can go with 45 layers of 3/4 Xo and 3

mm scintillator; (Investigating the spatial resol. deterioration.)

Usual disclaimer

13

ECAL R&D; Tungsten ECAL with both Si and Scintillator sampling

• Concept: physics requires high granularity, reasonable sampling frequency, large BR2, compact RM. => ECAL probably should be W absorber, some Si, some cheaper sampling medium (Scint.).

• All Si is probably best IF it can be cost-effective, IF timing is not important (less so now!), and IF really large R is not dictated by the physics.

• All Scintillator is probably prohibitively expensive due to channel count at sufficient granularity

• Ongoing R&D: mostly simulation based on different design possibilities

– EM energy and angular response studied

– Photon/hadron separation in progress– Critical items

• Does coarse scintilllator granularity work for a hybrid ?

• Gap size (compactness)

• Test-beam Wishes & Goals: – could validate the EM response of hybrid

ECALs with mixed sampling media• Eg. Anti-correlation predicted in Si and Scint.

response

– In collaboration with existing groups encourage that data taking opportunities with large volume HCALs and expensive Si-W ECALS can also be used to explore alternative ECAL designs to Si-W

• Ideally gaps eg. alveoli in the CALICE ECAL could be used to study alternative sampling layers.

• A hanging-file type approach would facilitate understanding the intrinsic response (but not an engineered hermetic solution …)

– Have funds available which can contribute significantly to a prototype ECAL construction and testing on a 2-year time-scale.

• Envisage wanting electron, pion beams in summer 2006

• Concurrent running with HCAL activities

– Exactly how to proceed depends on developing collaborations and results of simulation studies (want to use test-beam time and construction funds wisely)

Graham W. Wilson for Kansas, Kansas State Universities

Ray Frey



Asian plans

• Updates since Paris:– Still expect KEK PS runs in 2005– J-PARC from 2008 onwards– KEK linac 2006 onwards

• Pb Sci TB finished, now new Huge detector design

• New W Sci ECAL with SiPMs• Testbeam 2006 onwards

• Participate with Tsukuba drift chambers in CALICE TB at DESY



Muon and Tail Catcher (V.Zutshi, NIU)

Vigorous R&D for a muon detector which could also serve as a tail-catcher underway in gas and scintillator technologies.

All proponents are working towards exposing their prototypes to a test beam in the 2005-2006 period.

Expecting increased coordination between groups as the test beam becomes a reality.



Tracking / Vertexing (B.Schumm, Santa Cruz)

A: TPCs need B > 0, but 1 - 2 Tesla sufficient for most studies

International tracking group anticipates testbeam needs beginning in late 2004

Very rough guesstimate is 75-100 weeks of facilities timebetween now and beginning of 2006

Need for high-field magnet on test-beam line is an open question. UCSC has addressed this for Si; what about others techonolgies?

Most-requested beam is few GeV hadrons or muons

ECFA ILC Study, Sept. 2004 17M. Woods, SLAC

Outlook on IPBIOutlook on IPBI

IP Beam Instrumentation is a critical aspect of the Machine-DetectorInterface. IPBI should be considered as one of the Detector subsystems –measurements of luminosity, energy, polarization (and electron ID at smallpolar angles for 2-photon veto) are critical for the ILC physics program.

IPBI R&D Efforts are well underway in all 3 regions. There is an identifiedand growing need to develop prototypes, which need access to test beamfacilities.

At SLAC, a Letter-of-Intent for LC Beam Instrumentation Tests in ESA was submitted to SLAC in Fall 2003 and presented to the SLAC EPAC. Response from the EPAC and the SLAC Director was very positive.First 3 Test Beam Requests have been submitted to SLAC and cost estimates have been made. Requesting a run in June 2005. Currently waiting for SLAC response as we go thru evaluation of SLAC’s efforts for

ILC (I expect a positive response)


First IPBI Beam Tests Proposed to SLACFirst IPBI Beam Tests Proposed to SLAC

1. Energy BPMs (T-474 submitted) U. of Notre Dame, UC Berkeley, UC London, U. of Cambridge, SLAC- Mechanical and electrical stability at 100-nm level- BPM triplet at z = 0, 2.5 and 5.0 meter spacing. BPMs 1 and 3 define

straight line. Monitor BPM2 offset over time scales of minutes, hours- 2 adjacent BPMs to test electrical stability, separate from mechanical

2. Synchrotron stripe diagnostics (T-475 submitted)U. of Oregon, SLAC- test chicane scheme with wiggler magnet- characterize detector (quartz fiber / other) performance and capabilities

3. Pair detectors (T-476 submitted) Molecular Biology Consortium, U. of Hawaii, Tohoku U., Brunel U., CERN

- use “spray” beam of ~ 4-GeV electrons to mimic pair background - test speed (at nano-second level) of both 3-d and planar Si- characterize detector response to “pair background”;

can vary spray beam energy and absorber thickness in front of detector plane- use MonteCarlo to superimpose 250 GeV electron to determine electron id

efficiency


Other IPBI Beam Tests Possible in ESAOther IPBI Beam Tests Possible in ESA

1. IP BPMs (necessary for fast inter-train and intra-train feedbacks) - Sensitivity to backgrounds, rf pickup- Mimic LC geometry, including fast signal processing (but no feedback)- Sample drive signal to kickers

2. Tests with short bunches (~100-300 m possible)- EMI for beam instrumentation or Detector electronics- collimator wakefield tests

3. Single Particles (electrons, photons, pions)- 2-25 GeV particles with 1 or less particles/bunch at 10Hz for LC Detector test beams

4. Fixed target to mimic beamsstrahlung and disrupted beam- for synchrotron stripe energy spectrometer- for IP BPM tests

5. IR Mockup- Mimick beamline geometry at IP within +-5 meters in z and

Prospects less clearfor these five

A summary of world-widetest beam facilities

Erik J. Ramberg

FNAL

4 Sept. 2004



21

A list of available facilities with multi-GeV beam

• FNAL - p: 8-120 GeV: available 2004-on• SLAC - e, 1-30 GeV: available 2004-on• DESY – e: 1-7 GeV: available 2004-6• CERN – e,p: (PS) 1-15 GeV: (SPS) 10-200 GeV:

likely available 2006-on• IHEP (Protvino, Russia) – e, p: 1-45 GeV: available

See “Report on WorldWide Linear Collider Test Beam Effort”: http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep_notes/lc/lc_0005.pdf



22

General Impressions of Test Beam Facilities

• DESY: Probably the best place for low energy (< 6 GeV) electrons

• IHEP: Can get to higher energies for electrons. Good general purpose beam. Limited availability during year.

• CERN: excellent all around beams. Limited availability during year. Unknown future.

• SLAC: Excellent for accelerator component testing. Secondary beams for detector testing are good but have low rate.

• FNAL: Good availability with general purpose beam. Probably have to share with other users. Electrons are problematic.

2x 1 month

Could be improved, would need investments



TB StrategyJ. Yu

23

• Competition on facilities from other then LC community is significant

• Funding situation in the regions are not all ideal– European and Asian communities seems to have better

support for detector R&D and TB than North American• Need to coordinate within the LC community to meet

all the TB needs in a most optimal manner• We are in this together so we need to work together

as one entity

Jae Yu:



TB StrategyJ. Yu

24

Strategy and Time scale• For calorimeter there are two facilities that could

meet most the needs– FNAL – MTBF – IHEP, Protvino

• FNAL directorate willing to work with our community• Have our primary contact person at Fermilab (E.

Ramberg)• Let’s shoot for FNAL first

– FNAL Fall PAC meeting: Nov. 12 – 14, 2004

“first” means: will soon be happy to make use of all suitable resources



TB StrategyJ. Yu

25

Strategy and Time scale, cnt’d• Write a world-wide TB proposal ( or MOU if you like) to

Fermilab directorate– Starting with Calorimeters in all regions– Including other detectors that would be ready– We could build this upon existing efforts and expand to

integrate activities world-wide• A workshop for this proposal planned: Sept. 23 and 24 at

ANL– A focused group of people from all regions to write the proposal

• Submit the proposal to Fermiab directorate by Oct. 10 for a possibility of PAC review and endorsement– Request help to our leadership for this

• Turn this into a U.S. NSF MRI proposal for North American TB equipment support



TB StrategyJ. Yu

26

TB One Page Executive Summary • Introduction for TB needs

– LC Physics as detector challenge– Novel technologies and approach to meet this– Technology decision giving momentum and setting time-scale– Detector concept studies and eventual TDR require serious

TB efforts NOW– Many detector R&D are mature for test beam

• Primary goals for TB experiments– Testing of novel technologies and algorithms– Bases for conceptual detector design choices– Simulation verifications and enhancements



TB StrategyJ. Yu

27

TB One Page Executive Summary, cnt’d • Current and anticipated TB programs

– Requirement for facilities Particle species and momentum ranges

– CALICE and other calorimeter efforts– Other detector needs– Total coordinated beam time requests

• Current situation in facilities– Limitations in number of facilities that can meet the needs

• Existing facilities can meet the need in principle – Availability and scheduling

• Recommendations and requests– Request the lab directors to recognize the LC TB effort and

adjust the priority to meet our needs– Request strong resource support from laboratories– Request endorsement for necessary funding



Summary

• Test beam demands are overwhelming, and exceeding availability of facilities

• Program now entering new phase

• Level of coordination, too

• Call for participation in generic LC detector R&D proposal, built on momentum from large calorimeter R&D groups

• executive summary to ICFA and lab directors today

Documents

Worldwide testbeam session summary Felix Sefkow DESY ECFA workshop Durham September 4, 2004