ePIC AC-LGAD TOF DSC Weekly Meeting

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

https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1617546118?pwd=qNzxLqF8Q4Mj3RerAZdVSELzEgEQzV.1

zoom link
Zhangbu Xu (Kent State University), Satoshi Yano
Description

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

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

DSL
Hide

1. Test Beam Updates

 

1.1 Japan Test Beam

• Test beam proposal submitted (pixel-type sensors, mainly for ZDC studies)

• Not directly part of TOF activity, but opportunity exists to include TOF-related measurements

 

⸻

 

1.2 SPS Test Beam (CERN)

 

Schedule:

• July 22–27 (5 days only)

• Shared in parallel with ATLAS HGTD

 

Key Constraints:

• Strong dependence on:

• EICROC0 availability

• Firmware readiness

 

Critical Decision Timeline:

• Mid-May: Go/No-Go decision

• Requires:

• Fully working setup

• Lab validation mimicking SPS conditions

 

Important Points:

• Sensor-only test is not justifiable

• Already sufficient sensor data pending analysis

• Must include:

• ASIC (EICROC)

• Ideally FCFD testing

 

Risk:

• If firmware is not ready → likely cancellation

 

⸻

 

1.3 Telescope Availability

• Requested but not yet confirmed

• HGTD expected to have priority

• Clarification pending from CERN contact (Martin)

 

⸻

 

1.4 Immediate Actions

• Communication with EICROC developers (firmware urgency)

• Simone to provide:

• PCB vendor information (company + contact)

• Needed to proceed with board production

 

⸻

 

2. Simulation Status

• No update (responsible person absent)

• Action:

• Follow-up next week

• John Lajoie to also contact directly

 

⸻

 

3. Recent Test Beam Analysis

• Analysis ongoing (DESY, KEK, RARiS)

• Preliminary results:

• “Looks promising”

• Presentation planned for next meeting

 

⸻

 

4. Belle II Collaboration / Synergy

 

4.1 Review Outcome

• External review strongly supports:

• Intermediate tracking + timing system

• Possible inclusion of AC-LGAD TOF layer

 

4.2 Implications

• Strong encouragement to:

• Continue simulation

• Proceed with TOF development

 

4.3 Collaboration Opportunities

• Joint activities between ePIC and Belle II

• Possible:

• Joint workshop

• Shared detector concepts (geometry similarities noted)

 

4.4 Upcoming

• April 10 meeting (Japan teams + Belle II)

• Possible workshop alignment with:

• EIC Asia meeting

• RRB-related travel

 

⸻

 

5. PED Funding & QA Infrastructure

 

5.1 Funding Availability

• PED funds available, but:

• Must align with project goals (P6 / FDR roadmap)

 

5.2 Key Constraints

• Avoid duplication:

• Example: multiple QC test stations not automatically justified

• Must demonstrate:

• Necessity

• Complementarity

 

⸻

 

5.3 QA Strategy Discussion (Important)

 

Topics raised:

• Required number of QA sites

• Throughput expectations during production

• Available infrastructure across groups

 

Concerns:

• Underestimating production/testing rate (historical examples)

• Personnel limitations (even if hardware exists)

 

Suggested approach:

• Define:

• Required testing rate

• Sensor volume

• Map:

• Existing capabilities

• Gaps

 

⸻

 

5.4 Action Items

• Add QA discussion to next meeting agenda

• Ensure key people (e.g. Mathieu) attend

• Define:

• QC workflow (probe station, TCT scans, etc.)

• Resource distribution

 

⸻

 

6. Sensor Production & Design (FBK)

 

6.1 Status

• New production underway (partially funded)

• ~1 wafer share:

• ~20 pixel sensors

• ~10 strip sensors

 

6.2 Urgent Issue

• Compatibility of pixel geometry with:

• Bump bonding

• EICROC pads

 

Action:

• Urgent confirmation needed from Mathieu

 

⸻

 

6.3 Bump Bonding Strategy

• Interim testing:

• Use 16-channel ASICs

• Full validation:

• Requires EICROC1 (expected in coming months)

 

Risks:

• Limited ASIC availability

• Potential yield issues due to high channel count

 

⸻

 

7. Sensor （4x32=128ch, 20um） Performance Study (Laser Tests)

 

Key Observations

• Strong signal (~70–80 mV) under strip

• Very weak signal (~10–20 mV) between strips

 

→ Poor charge sharing

 

Implications

• Explains weak signal in previous beam test

• Large strip pitch (~1 mm) problematic

 

Additional Observation

• Signal dip at strip center:

• Due to metal blocking IR laser

 

⸻

 

Next Steps

• Repeat measurements (laser focus issue suspected)

• Provide data for reconstruction studies

 

⸻

 

8. Next Meeting Plans

• Presentation:

• Test beam analysis results (Satoshi)

• Possible sensor updates (Simone)

• Dedicated discussion:

• QA/QC strategy

• Simulation update expected

 

⸻

 

Summary of Key Risks

• SPS test beam at risk

• Firmware readiness critical

• ASIC dependency

• Central to future validation

• QA planning insufficiently defined

• Needs immediate coordination

• Sensor design constraints

• Charge sharing and geometry issues

 

⸻

 

Main Action Items

• EICROC firmware readiness (mid-May deadline)

• Provide PCB vendor info (Simone)

• QA strategy discussion (next meeting)

• Confirm pixel geometry compatibility (urgent)

• Follow up simulation update

• Prepare test beam analysis results

There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.