ECCE Public Announcements

[Or Hen <hen AT mit.edu>]

Thanks James! This is important information to have as we narrow in on the most suitable configuration for ECCE.

Or

--

Or Hen,
Massachusetts institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

www.hen-lab.com

On Jul 31, 2021, at 8:56 AM, James Fast via Ecce-eic-public-l <ecce-eic-public-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Folks,

Attached is a handy speadshet you might find useful for exploring where different layers can get positioned.  There are a few sheets with different asumptions and in general at least two configurations (Hybrid and All Silicon designs).  Also has the ALICE ITS3 as a reference point.

 

On teh EIC... worksheet I have ben looking at a bit of a “common” design whee I have ben tying to incorporat some of the realities of getting the detector suppots in and being able to actually assemble the system.  It features 3 vertex layers in the barrel and a pair of small disks to “vertex” in the forward/backwad direction.  Disk 2 in the All Si design is a real problem for getting supports and services out of the barrel region, IMHO, hence the significant modificaion I made here.  I have this design in CAD now and have ben checking eta coverage (and gaps) with realistic tiling of sensors on disks.  I believe this layou of barrel layers an disks provides enough tracking and vertexing points across all eta.  While it is dificult to get layer 5 and layer 6 closely spaces with large area sensors, this should be rivial if you go to micro-Rwell or similar in those layers. 

 

In general, one adjusts the green highlighted cells an the est updates....

 

Jim

 

James Fast

MOLLER Project Manager

Jefferson Lab

757-230-6833

 

 

From: Ecce-eic-public-l <ecce-eic-public-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Li, Xuan via Ecce-eic-public-l <ecce-eic-public-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Date: Friday, July 30, 2021 at 4:32 PM
To: Lajoie, John G [PHYSA] <lajoie AT iastate.edu>, ecce-eic-ib-l AT lists.bnl.gov <ecce-eic-ib-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, ecce-eic-public-l AT lists.bnl.gov <ecce-eic-public-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Ecce-eic-public-l] [EXTERNAL] Next ECCE Tracking meeting at 10:30AM EST on July 30

Dear John,

          Thanks for your nice suggestions and clear recommendations. We will carry out the following up studies and welcome further inputs and suggestions.

          Thanks.

                                                                           Xuan

---

From: Lajoie, John G [PHYSA] <lajoie AT iastate.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 10:57:12 AM
To: Li, Xuan; ecce-eic-ib-l AT lists.bnl.gov; ecce-eic-public-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [Ecce-eic-public-l] Next ECCE Tracking meeting at 10:30AM EST on July 30

 

Hi Xuan, 

 

Thanks for the excellent notes, and the listing of the baseline detector configuration. This was an excellent discussion!

 

I wanted to make a quick comment about the baseline, along the lines of the comments that Jim Fast was making during the meeting.  It remains to be demonstrated that you can have a good tracking efficiency for tracks with displaced vertices with only two inner vertex layers; the more traditional design uses three.  To distinguish in performance between two and three layers we would need to actually run a proper track finding algorithm to characterize the two configurations.  This is something we can’t do in ECCE just yet, but there is a group of us talking about trying to get ACTS interfaced to the ECCE simulations.

 

I would argue that until we can actually do the pattern recognition to demonstrate that two layers would work, we should use a three-layer configuration in the simulations.

 

John

 

From: Ecce-eic-det-l <ecce-eic-det-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of Li, Xuan via Ecce-eic-det-l
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 10:56 AM
To: ecce-eic-det-l AT lists.bnl.gov; ecce-eic-ib-l AT lists.bnl.gov; ecce-eic-public-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Ecce-eic-det-l] [EXTERNAL] [Ecce-eic-public-l] Next ECCE Tracking meeting at 10:30AM EST on July 30

 

Dear All,

         Please see the minutes for today's meeting below:

 

We discussed about the next steps to optimize the ECCE tracking design and performance:

1, AI developments to optimize the ECCE tracking geometry by Cristiano (MIT)

Work in progress and will report updates in upcoming meetings. In the presentation, will include an outline about the proposed actions for open discussions with the others.

2, group discussions about tracking detector geometry optimization:

Proposed baseline detector studies (in the barrel region) for the next round simulation campaign:

• Inner Si vertex layers based on ITS-3 (number of layers: 2 or 3)
• Middle Si layers based on ITS-3 (or ITS-2)
• Outer tracking layers based on micro-Rwell
• Additional micro-Rwell layers before the DIRC.
• LGAD based ToF placed outside the DIRC.

Please see suggestions from Jim Fast below:

The only counter argument is that the schedule to install the vertex and disks is probably 1 year (or more0 after the barrel layers need to go in.  But I personally think using one technology also reduces risks.  So I would try to push that decision out as much as possible.  But the review process imposes some decision making - or at least clear paths to decision making and when those decisions have to be taken.I can suggest these radii as closest we can get with one ITS3 device size assuming L1 needs to be at 33 mm. L1 33mm, L2 55mm, L3 220mm L4 231mm L5 396mm L6 440mm.  These get a bit crude at outer radii as how staves ae assembled and how much overlap one wants complicates these.  I think my main observation is that it is not so easy to have layers 5 and 6 very closely spaced unless you have really crazy multiplicities of staves (think large prime numbers).  I think this is pretty consistent with your existing radii. If I had to design this tracker, I would put the layers at 33, 44, 55, 220, 330, 440…..to balance track finding, momentum resolution and impact of inefficiencies. Or even consider 7 layers (and still less area than your default) and put them at 33, 44, 55, 198, 220, 330, 440.  I will note a third vertex layer is only 0.1 m^2 of silicon (2 wafers) so not much cost/overhead to add that really.

 

 

         We will meet in two weeks.

         Thanks.

                                                                Xuan

---

From: Ecce-eic-public-l <ecce-eic-public-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Li, Xuan via Ecce-eic-public-l <ecce-eic-public-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:39:55 PM
To: ecce-eic-det-l AT lists.bnl.gov; ecce-eic-ib-l AT lists.bnl.gov; ecce-eic-public-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ecce-eic-public-l] Next ECCE Tracking meeting at 10:30AM EST on July 30

 

Dear All,

         We will have the next ECCE tracking meeting at 10:30AM EST on July 30. Please note the meeting time is 10:30AM to allow more ECCE colleagues to dial in and join the discussions.

 

         The meeting indico page (with phone bridge info) is the following:

             https://indico.bnl.gov/event/12546/

 

         If you would like to present your studies, please let us know. The 2021 EICUG summer meeting will be held next week and we will not meet next week.

 

         Talk to you this Friday.

         Thanks.

                                                                              Nilanga and Xuan

<ITS3 Layout Worksheet.xlsx>_______________________________________________
Ecce-eic-public-l mailing list
Ecce-eic-public-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ecce-eic-public-l