F Richard LALOrsay PAC Eugene October 2010 1 Introduction The Joint working group on CLICILC general detector issues up to now mostly informative since collaborations takes place in a spontaneous fashion has identified areas which need improvements ID: 383343
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "CLIC-ILC collaborations on detectors" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
CLIC-ILC collaborations on detectors
F. Richard LAL/Orsay
PAC Eugene October 2010
1Slide2
Introduction
The Joint working group on CLIC/ILC general detector issues, up to now mostly informative since collaborations takes place in a spontaneous fashion, has identified areas which need improvements
Since last PAC, the CLIC-ILC panel has had 2 phone meetings where large areas of ongoing collaborations were identified and I will review themThe IWLC2010 workshop organized at CERN under ECFA in October has given the opportunity to have a global view of the two efforts illustrating intense collaborations
Politically, CERN management is encouraging the creation of a common project CLIC-ILC to facilitate the overall strategy driven by LHC/TeVatron results
PAC Eugene October 20102Slide3
A major event: the ECFA study meeting at CERN in October
The ECFA study meeting had ~500 registered from 25 countries at CERN with ILC+CLIC participation for physics, detectors and machine (up to 16 // sessions !)
Was jointly organized by CLIC & ILC representatives from physics and detectors + two non EU co-chairs of the WWC-OC
Large attendance for a regional meeting, ~25% of non-Europeans
The LC community is asked to provide a global scenario to respond to LHC/Tevatron (cf. the CPDG initiative) Physics and technology (not politics) should drive the ultimate choice with early discoveries favoring ILC
This was largely advocated by all parties (in particular CERN management)
PAC Eugene October 2010
3Slide4
Joint working group on CLIC/ILC general detector issues
S. Yamada (RD, chair), L.
Linssen (CLIC/CERN co-chair), M.
Demarteau (R&D panel, SiD), F. Richard (RD EC & ILD), F.
Sefkow (CALICE/ILD nominated by CLIC), M. Stanitzki (SiD), M. Thomson (ILD)
Bimonthly phone meetings : 30/3/2010, 14/6/2010, 13/8/2010Excel file worked out by Lucie
Linssen (Appendix) and agreed upon by ILC representativesSome examples are given below
PAC Eugene October 2010
4Slide5
Ongoing collaborations
Core software development: Frameworks, geometry description, tracking, PFA, event overlays, GRID tools
Beam-induced background studiesDetector performance studies and detector
optimisation for high energies (3 TeV, 1 TeV) e.g. for
PFLOW and tracking Event generation and physics benchmarking
Engineering studies and cost assessmentSolenoid studies and conductor R&D (CMS expertise)Electronics developments (CERN expertise)HCAL beam tests (W absorbers)
PAC Eugene October 2010
5Slide6
In detail
Software workshops
: Following the May 2009 workshop, a follow-up workshop is planned for July 5th 2010 at DESY. Contacts: F. Gaede
, N. Graf, D. Schlatter, A. Miyamoto. Monte Carlo generators: Two members of the CLIC study have recently joined the ILC common data sample subgroup. Ongoing cooperation, no new initiative from this WG is required.
Contacts: Barklow, M. Berggren, A. Miyamoto, B. Battaglia, S.
PossPower delivery (power pulsing, and also DC-DC and/or serial powering) with some level of synergy with sLHC and other projects: Representatives from ILD, SiD and CLIC in this working group are requested to submit suggestions for contact persons related to a new initiative on power deliveryExtended ILC-CLIC collaboration on push-pull and experimental hall:
In this area many informal contacts exist already Cost-effective ECAL sensors:
In this area the influence of CERN to discuss with possible vendors could be helpful
PAC Eugene October 2010
6Slide7
Large participation of ILC experts to the CLIC CDR
The ILC participation comes from the 2 concepts and from the R&D collaborations
Three out of the four main editors come from ILCMore than 50% of the chapter editors (~30) come from ILC
This means that a large fraction of the ILC detector strength is going into the CDR which is good but requires a ‘juste retour’ mechanism when the CDR is completed
PAC Eugene October 2010
7Slide8
Costing issues
Should we build from the start detectors CLIC compatible ?
Note that SiD
’ & ILD’ are more costly (larger sizes, use of W for the HCAL absorber) Cost containment could be an issue recalling that ILD reaches ~400 MILCU + manpower and that ILD’ will be more costly (
SiD ?) Discussions for the CLIC CDR costing are currently taking place with experts from machine and detector as well as representatives from ILD and
SiD CDR cost could be a minimal scaling from the ILD/SiD LoI’s taking into account the CLIC-specific detector modificationsOne should try to have the same rules for CLIC & ILC costing group SID and ILD to agree on common methods then CLIC to be invited then experts invited (started by RD)
PAC Eugene
October 2010
8Slide9
Issue of a well balanced collaboration
So far CLIC is benefitting from ILC part for the preparation of its CDR which is welcomed by both parties but it weakens our effort towards the DBD
IDAG has identified the problem: ‘ some shift of resources into CLIC detector design: expectation that
help in the other direction will occur after CLIC CDR for DBD work’ Both SiD
and ILD (where students and postdocs migrate to LHC and CLIC) are suffering from reduction of manpower
It is understood that after completing the CDR in August 2011, CLIC could provide specific help for the DBD e.g. by providing inputs for a realistic study of the high energy response of our detectors (this is already happening) and by studying in common well chosen reference reactionsFor this to happen, it is essential that the software compatibility be maintained
This issue has to be discussed directly between the relevant partners and our panel hopes to hear from this soon
PAC Eugene October 2010
9Slide10
European Strategy update in 2012
Quoting Rolf at IWLC10 : 2012 could be a decisive year for LC
Priorities defined in 2006 will be re-discussed:Full exploitation of LHC
R&D for the energy & luminosity frontier, in particular CLICwell-coordinated European activity, including CERN, through the Global Design Effort, for its design and technical preparation towards the construction decision, to be ready for a new assessment by Council around 2010
What happens in case of LHC discovery ? Which inputs to European Strategy from ILC Detectors & Physics ?We should be able to eventually exploit a ‘magic moment of discovery’ (M.
Peskin) Will there be coordination of the two projects for these discussions ? PAC Eugene October 2010
10Slide11
Conclusions
Many areas of fruitful collaborations for mutual benefits
This is happening so far in a spontaneous manner and does not seem to need managerial monitoringIt will however be necessary to insure for the ILC side (which suffers from insufficient resources ) a ‘
juste retour’This should happen when the CLIC CDR is completed, hopefully no later than August 2011
At a later stage, an agreement for a specific participation of CLIC to the DBD of ILD and SiD should be discussed
IWLC2010 has further boosted ILC-CLIC cooperation From now on, the LCWS workshops (once per year, next one in Granada September 2011) will be organized with the participation of CLIC representatives but we also hope for CLIC participation in regional meetings (ALCPG11 in Eugene)
PAC Eugene October 2010
11Slide12
PAC Eugene October 2010
12
BACK UP SLIDESSlide13
Improvement of PFLOW
At IWLC2010 M. Thomson
PAC Eugene October 2010
13
Slide14
PAC Eugene October 2010
14Slide15
SiD’ & ILD’
PAC Eugene October 2010
15Slide16
6620
5500
ILD
SiD
7755
6200
16
F. Richard 11/27/09Slide17
Common
CLIC/ILC challenges and synergies
Driving costs are EM calorimetry
(mostly ECAL) and the coil R&D on coil (meetings Oct 2009 year, next
on 18 May) is being discussed at CERN Help is asked from CERN on negotiations with industry for Si sensors for the ECAL
PAC Eugene October 2010
17Slide18
PAC Eugene October 2010
18Slide19
ILD LoI Cost
PAC Eugene October 2010
19Slide20
SiD LoI
cost
PAC Eugene October 201020Slide21
PAC Eugene October 2010
21