1. May 2016 Testbeam LHCb Upstream Tracker S. Blusk, Syracuse University On behalf of the UT group With tremendous appreciation to the SPS crew, especially Nikos and Lau !! May 19, 2016

2. Upstream tracker Sensor ABCD Pitch (  m) 19095 Length (mm) 100 50 #Strips/sensor 5121024 Number 8884816 Key Design requirements  Radiation tolerant, up to 5x10 14 n eq /cm 2.  Good S/N, up to L int =50 fb -1.  To be installed in 2019 2 Key questions for TB activities  S/N performance, up to max fluence  Test of 2 embedded pitch-adapting schemes on sensor  decide on baseline.  Qualify topside biasing, compare against backside biasing of sensor.  Efficiency near circular cutout of Type D sensor 2015 UT testbeams: n-in-p technology tests D-Type: Excellent S/N, no issue near cutout. Converged on baseline embedded PA for Type A No issues seen with topside biasing For May 2016: (mostly p-in-n technology tests)  Systematic comparison of topside vs backside bias of sensors.  Detailed studies of efficiency in embedded PA region for mini and full size sensors, and both PA schemes.

3. Snapshots.. (Mini-s, early May) 3 FanIN style PA Mini sensors (~18 x 12 mm) FanUP style PA

4. Snapshots.. (~full size, now!) 4 FanUp PA FanIn PA

5. Example performance on mini-sensors, early May 2016 5 Signal / Noise vs Bias voltage Excellent S/N of 26 – 28, depending on irradiation level M1, FanIn, TopSide bias M1, FanUp, TopSide bias

6. Summary.. Early May TB: testing mini sensors Data being analyzed as we speak. This week: Full size sensors to be tested. Critical milestones: Production readiness review for UT sensors, June 17 th RFQ for pre-production sensors to be submitted in early summer This testbeam is critical for us to meet our tight schedule 6

7. Backup 7

8. Type D preliminary findings 7 x 10 14 n eq /cm 2 4  5 x 10 14 n eq /cm 2 2 x 10 14 n eq /cm 2 1 x 10 14 n eq /cm 2 Normal incidence Sector 4 Normal incidence Sector 2 Normal incidence Sector 3 SectorFluence (10 14 n eq /cm 2 ) Signal / Noise 3~ 017.1 2 ~ 1  2 15 4~ 7*12 * ~40% higher than max expected dose  Bias scan of sector 4 (~40% larger fluence than max expected dose)  Full depletion (200 um) at ~ 350V  For 250 um, V dep  500 V  Spec: < 500 V 8

9. More detailed investigation..  X-ray of position of missing DUT hits Sector 1 Sector 3 NOTCONNNOTCONN 4231 Unirradiated 12 3 45 6 Irradiated Define 2 regions:  Adaptor: In region of PA  Control: Below PA region Efficiency vs Interstrip position 9 Strip N center Midpoint between strip N & N-1 Midpoint between N & N+1

10. 1/2A - FanUp NOTCONNNOTCONN 4231 Unirradiated 12 3 45 6 Irradiated Top edge of sensor  No issues near top edge of sensor  Larger inactive area at top of sensor.  Sufficient overlap so still no gaps in acceptance. SectorFluence (10 13 n eq /cm 2 ) Signal / Noise 1~ 2-37.7 2 0.2 - 0.57.5 3~ 08.0 Normal incidence Sector 1 Normal incidence Sector 2 Normal incidence Sector 3 10  No big diff in CCE w/ this level of fluence  Bias scan results in progress.  Lower S/N than D-type (expected), but:  200 um  320 um: 60% more signal.

11. Expected irradiation Integral over 50 fb -1  Sensor closest to beam: ~ 40 MRad, or ~ 5x10 14 n eq /cm 2 fluence.  Sensor cooled to –5  C, bias voltage up to 500 V.  Closest readout ASIC: ~ 20 MRad. A-type sensors B,C,D sensors Type D – 5x10 14 n eq /cm 2 11