ePIC AC-LGAD TOF DSC Weekly Meeting Wednesday (10:30AM)

Wednesday 1 Oct 2025, 10:30 → 13:38 US/Eastern

https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1 (zoom link)

Zhangbu Xu (Kent State University), Satoshi Yano

eic-projdet-tofpid-l@lists.bnl.gov

zoom link

10:30 → 10:50 October 13 internal project review for TOF ACLGAD sensors

Dear TOF DSC and DSTCs,

We are planning on organizing Internal Project Review on TOF ACLGAD sensors during the week of October 13, 2025. The review will focus on three objectives

Strip and pixel ACLGAD status
Assembly plan/design for TOF modules
Path to BTOF and FTOF demonstrator

It will be probably 2-3 hours of review and will be online. Please let us know suitable day for the week of October 13 or later. Rolf and Elke can add additional details if I am missing something.

cheers,
Sourav

Dear all,

Just to make it clear, even if we call this an internal project review it is more a sitting together of a few people such that we can discuss issues and align plans and remove uncertainty as possible.

It can also help towards the later formal preliminary design review that we will invite and get reviewers lined up for, with a guessed date of the week of Dec. 1, pending the reviewers availability.

Best regards, Rolf

10:50 → 11:10 Beam Test at Jlab and DESY and Japan updates?

JLab and DESY beam tests go well

data-taking completed last week (08/17)
need 2-3 weeks to analyze the data for preliminary results.

proposal for beam test at DESY in December (goals and plan from Zhenyu):

A. Module size 3.2x2.0 cm^2 strip sensors with variant pitches (500 um, 750 um, 1000 um), electrode metal width (40 um, 50 um) and thickness (30um, 50um)
=> previously we studied 0.5x1.0 cm^2 strip sensors with 500 um pitch, 50 um electrode and 20 or 50 um thickness [1]
B. Module size 1.6x1.6 cm^2 pixel sensors with variant pitches (500 um, 750 um, 1000 um), electrode metal width (50 um, 100 um) and thickness (20um, 30um)
=> previously we studied 0.2x0.2 cm^2 pixel sensor with 500 um pitch, >=150 um electrode and 20 or 50 um thickness [1]

For strip sensors, the focus would be
1. assess the sensor performance at different incident angles (all the previous beam tests were conducted with 0 degree incident angle)
2. study regions that were not covered (1000 um pitch) or less well covered (750 um pitch) in JLab beam test to see whether or not BTOF can use larger pitch strips than the default design (500 um pitch)
3. Identify optimal strip sensor design (pitch, electrode width, thickness) for barrel TOF

For pixel sensors, the deliverable would be
1. First measurements of module-size pixel sensor performance,
2. Verify if the smaller electrode width (50 or 100um) can indeed improve the spatial resolution under the electrode (For previous sensors with 150 um electrodes, we achieved ~20 um resolution between electrodes and ~60um resolution under the electrodes)
3. Identify optimal pixel sensor design (pitch, electrode width, thickness) for forward TOF and far-forward detectors

[1] NIMA (2025) 170224 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2025.170224

P.S. Participation to the DESY beam test from other groups are welcome, but not required if the total budget is a concern.

11:10 → 11:30 December review (PDR)

December 4-5?

charges:
1. Are the technical performance requirements appropriately defined and
complete for this stage of the project?
2. Are the plans for achieving detector performance and construction sufficiently
developed and documented for the present phase of the project?
3. Are the current designs and plans for detector and electronics readout likely to
achieve the performance requirements with a low risk of cost increases,
schedule delays, and technical problems?
4. Are the fabrication and assembly plans for subsystem consistent with the
overall project and detector schedule?
5. Are the plans for detector subsystem integration in the EIC detector
appropriately developed for the present phase of the project?
6. Have ES&H and QA considerations been adequately incorporated into the
designs at their present stage?
7. Have the recommendations from previous reviews been adequately addressed?

preliminary Agenda:

Day 1:
1. Closed session - 20 min
2. Welcome & Introduction (Rolf / Elke) - 20 min
3. TOF System Overview & Requirement (Sourav/Beni) - 20 min
4. TOF integration status (Rahul or Dan) – 20 min
(focus on TOF installation/integration+ services)
5. TOF mechanical & support design (Sushrut /Andy) - 20 min
(focus on support structure and mechanical design of TOF)
6. BTOF (Simone / Satoshi) - 30 min
7. FTOF (Mathieu) - 30 min
8. TOF common system (Satoshi) - 30 min (focus on cooling, assembling modules on support structure, alignment system)
9. Closed session

Day 2:
1. Q&A : BTOF, FTOF, CTOF – 30 min
2. Sensors BTOF (Simone) – 30 min
3. Sensors FTOF (Mathieu) – 30 min
4. ASICS BTOF & FTOF (Wei/ Tonko?) – 30 min
5. DAQ streaming readout overview (Jeff/David) – 30 min
6. Closed session
7. Closeout

11:30 → 11:50 PED 2026

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_7CQUjbQNwc8BXJRIVZw9mbGGia9fScGteqx8tj-w5o/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0#heading=h.n3rl7f6hkly1

TOF group has to now start focussing on first engineering test article as per P6 plan and so it is expected that the PED request will be geared towards assembling first engineering test article.

Speakers: Simone Mazza (University of California - Santa Cruz), Simone Michele Mazza

11:50 → 12:10 update to P6 for CD2

Dear Detector DSL and DSTC,

in preparation for CD2 the project will be reviewed about the status of the project P6 cost and schedule
in the week of November 12th.
This review will focus solely on cost and schedule and assess where we are in preparation for the DOE CD2
review some time next year. This review will not look at the technical aspects of the detector but solely
focuses on cost and schedule. One important focus will be on BOEs (Basis of estimates) for each activity in P6.

I know some of you are now working on concrete design specs and cost estimates.
The following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/s7aiemva9kicqd0dylmuk/AAf0Ds6F3Yj_RpbPRj1H1aQ?rlkey=w8ak75x2dt6w9r1xn21tyw7sr&st=8wwmdeqt&dl=0
contains all the current information we have about each of the PID detectors upon which the P6 project cost and schedule is based.
The directory also contains a recent snapshot of the P6 project cost and schedule.

If you have new information about cost estimates and quotes for parts of the detectors please let us know and send us this information so that
we can updated our records in preparation for this review.

thank you for all your help,
Beni

12:10 → 12:30 mechanic design updates?

Dear All,

it is now a while already we decided that we go to 12 segments for the ToF and that each segment couples the TOF and MicroMega sector.
We asked quite some time ago about the orientation of the staves, do you still want them at an angle if yes what angle will the staves have or do you want to have them more flat, like following the layout of the micromega sectors.

I was wondering you have dedicated any resources/thoughts to resolve this question.

It would be really nice to get an answer soon as we want to move forward on the ePIC design and this type of questions need to be resolved.

We are happy to discuss this in more detail, just let us know.
Cheers Elke

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

We discussed this at the workfest.
It seems that there is no a preference on what should be.
In terms of mechanic stability and heat dispersion, Andy seems to think that either way there is no advantage.
Since we have segments of 12, probably should make it with 0 angle.

Summary of the features of each configuration (offset flat, or angle):
staves with an angle:
every stave geometry is the same, same amount of material (by the other stave) in the front of the stave. heat radiation from the other stave to this one is the same, some low-pt particles (say positive) have incident angle closer to 90 degree while the opposite charge may go through the gap without hitting sensors.

stave with flat offset:
two levels of staves, lower-level staves have less material in front while the second-level staves have more material from the lower-level staves. low-pt particles have larger incident angle, but positive/negative acceptance is symmetric. It could be designed that every stave is perpendicular to the radial direction.