1. HFT Project Overview CD0 Review H.G. Ritter LBNL

2. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 2 Project In the first part we have shown –Compelling science –Proposed detector can do necessary measurements In the second part we will show –Properties of detector –How we build it –We have the team and the organization to build it

3. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 3 Overview STAR Tracking Upgrade to identify mid-rapidity Charm and Bottom hadrons through direct reconstruction and measurement of the displaced vertex

4. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 4 HFT Project Time line: –February 2008 (CD-0) – June 2013 (CD-4) Budget –Previous (proposal):$15.1M-16M –Present estimated cost range:$11.1M- 14.7M Updates to Design Contingency

5. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 5 PIXEL 2 layers of 30x30  m pixels at 2.5 and 8 cm radius Very low material budget to limit multiple scattering Rapid insertion and removal Precision positioning Air cooling Data reduction and formatting on chip

6. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 6 PIXEL

7. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 7 Engineering Prototype

8. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 8 IST One layer of single sided silicon pads at a radius of 14 cm ~23 ladders 11 units (modules) per ladder Conventional and proven technology MIT expertise

9. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 9 Optimal technology Pixel: New technology –Resolution –Low material budget IST: Proven strip-pad technology –Experience –Cost effective

10. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 10 SSD Existing detector Needs upgrade to cope with DAQ1000 –(order of 350k$)

11. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 11 Collaboration BNL: C. Chasman, D. Beavis, R. Debbe, J.H. Lee, M.J. Levine, F. Videbaek, Z. Xu UCLA: R. Cendejas, H. Huang, S. Sakai, G. Wang, C. Whitten Kent State: J. Joseph, D. Keane, S. Margetis, V. Rykov, W.M. Zhang Prague: M. Bystersky, J. Kapitan, V. Kushpil, M. Sumbera Strasbourg: J. Baudot, C. Hu-Guo, A. Shabetai, M. Szelezniak, M. Winter MIT: J. Balewski, D. Hasell, J. Kelsey, R. Milner, M. Plesko, R. Redwine, B. Surrow, G. Van Nieuwenhuizen LBNL: E. Anderssen, X. Dong, L. Greiner, H.S. Matis, S. Morgan, H.G. Ritter, A. Rose, E. Sichtermann, R.P. Singh, T. Stezelberger, X. Sun, J.H. Thomas, V. Tram, C. Vu, H.H. Wieman, N. Xu Purdue: A.S. Hirsch, X. Li, B. Srivastava, F. Wang, Q. Wang, W. Xie

12. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 12 STAR - HFT Collaboration LBNL, MIT and BNL are main institutes for construction –Excellent track record –Experience Strasbourg/LBNL - active pixel sensor development Kent State, Purdue, Prague, UCLA, LBNL play lead role in simulation, analysis software and calibration Entire STAR collaboration will analyze data –Excellent track record –Experience

13. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 13 Management Structure HFT Project Management Contract Project Manager: HG Ritter (acting) LBNL Deputy, Contract Project Manager: RP Singh LBNL Deputy, Contract Project Manager: F. Videbaek BNL PIXEL Wieman LBNL Anderssen LBNL IST B. Surrow MIT J. Kelsey MIT Integration F. Videbaek BNL J. Kelsey MIT Software S. Margetis KSU SSD Liaison J. Thomas LBNL Safety Coordinator TBD DOE J. Simon-Gillo Budget Control S. Morgan LBNL STAR Spokesperson: T. Hallman Upgrade coord: R. Majka BNL LBNL

14. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 14 HFT Technical Committee Ritter - Project Manager Singh - Deputy Project Manager Morgan - Budget Videbaek - Integration Wieman - Pixel Anderssen - Pixel, Integration Surrow - IST Kelsey - IST, Integration Thomas - SSD Liaison Margetis - Software Hallman - STAR Majka - STAR Weekly meetings, management control

15. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 15 Risk Management APS Sensors depending on Strasbourg pace of development –Early prototypes, involved in testing and design Kinematic mount, low mass ladder, alignment challenging –Solve problem in the R+D phase SSD is essential –Involved in upgrade and running of SSD, design redundancy into IST

16. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 16 Performance Requirements Thickness of beam pipe + first Pixel layer < 0.5% radiation length Pixel integration time < 200  s Read-out compatible with DAQ 1000 Internal alignment and stability better than 20  m for Pixel and better than 300  m for IST Detector hit efficiency of Pixel > 95%

17. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 17 Projected Run Plan 1) First run with HFT: 200 GeV Au+Au  v 2 and R CP with 500M M.B. collisions 2) Second run with HFT: 200 GeV p+p  R AA 3) Third run with HFT: 200 GeV Au+Au  Centrality dependence of v 2 and R AA  Charm background and first attempt for electron pair measurements   C baryon with sufficient statistics

18. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 18 Milestones ◊CD-0 February 2008 ◊CD-1 October 2008 ◊CD-2/3 August 2009 ◊CD-4 June 2013 ◊Modified East Cone with West Cone in for Summer ’09 – June 2009 ◊Installation of Engineering Prototype – September 2010 ◊Engineering Prototype in Beam – January 2011 ◊Ultimate Installed – September 2011 ◊Ultimate In Beam – January 2012 ◊IST Installed – July 2012

19. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 19 Estimated Cost Range WB STask Name Cost in $K Cont. in % Cont. in $K Lower Range in $K (Est. TPC) Upper Range in $K 1.1 Research and Development 1,46100 1.2Pixel1,985461,1253,1104,354 1.3Strip Detector2,345368783,2234,351 1.4Integration1,665419462,6113,656 1.5Software00000 1.6Project Management73200 878 Total8,188292,94911,13814,701 Appropriate labor rates Escalated Risk based contingency

20. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 20 Summary Compelling science for the RHIC II era A detector –That can deliver the science –Built on the strength of STAR Coverage and particle identification –Uses innovative technology to get superior resolution A team and an organization –That can build the detector –That will extract the science in a timely fashion Meets the charges

21. Back-up

22. HFT CD0 Review, February 25 and 26, 2008 22 Technology Driven Schedule