1 / 18

TMB Upgrade Considerations

TMB Upgrade Considerations. Jason Gilmore Vadim Khotilovich Alexei Safonov Indara Suarez. Muon Electronics Upgrade Workshop The Ohio State University April 23-24, 2010. Outline. Improvements to the CSC local trigger performance Motivation for early TMB Upgrade

shiela
Télécharger la présentation

TMB Upgrade Considerations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TMB Upgrade Considerations Jason Gilmore Vadim Khotilovich Alexei Safonov Indara Suarez Muon Electronics Upgrade Workshop The Ohio State University April 23-24, 2010

  2. Outline • Improvements to the CSC local trigger performance • Motivation for early TMB Upgrade • Limitations of the current TMB • Efficiencies and rates • Performance at the very high luminosity regime (Phase II) • Efficiencies and rates • Conclusion

  3. Motivation for TMB Upgrade • Maximizing physics output at 14 TeV is a high priority: • Lack of m triggering in 2.1<h<2.4 would havemajor impact on physics • Turning on ME1/a with current TMB will not work for long (more later) • Constraints in upgrade situation: • Machine schedule changes (shutdowns 2012 and 2015) • DCFEBs most likely not ready by 2012 • Have to deal with ganged ME1/a strips longer • Possible strain due to limited spares to equip ME4/2 • TMB (+CSCTF) upgrade is still a good solution PU100: large neutron and beam BG not in simulation yet Old CFEBs: ganged ME1/a ME1/3 ME1/2 ME1/1b ME1/1a

  4. Limitations of Current TMB • Estimates for Phase Iluminosities • x2 PU factor (missing BGsin simulation & safety margin) • Turn ME1/a completely off: • No triggering in2.1<h<2.5 • Eff. ~93% in ME1/b • Include ME1a: • 85% efficiency across the whole ME1/1 • No proof that current CSC TF can handle it • Might expect significant additional TF inefficiency in ME1/a • Larger ME1/a LCT rates might be a problem for TF at higher luminosities • Both scenarios are not acceptable! PU100: large neutron and beam BG not in simulation yet Old CFEBs: ganged ME1/a Similar for PU50 and PU25: in backup

  5. Proposed Solution: Upgraded TMB 95% • Large improvement in performance even before DCFEB installation • Robust ME1/a triggering • Two-chamber solution resolves current TMB’s ME1/a problem • Higher efficiency • Main contribution comes from reduced TMB dead time • Improved geometrical and time matching for ALCT&CLCT • More details in backup… • Upgraded TMB is designed to operate at luminosities up to and including Phase II • Do all TMB hardware modifications in 2012 • Eventual DCFEB installation needs only firmware changes in TMB 97% PU100: large neutron and beam BG not in simulation yet Old CFEBs: ganged ME1/a Similar for PU50 and PU25: in backup

  6. ME1 60o Sector Rates • Rates on TF input • No cut at MPC • If additional rate control at high L needed:restrict CLCT bend to, e.g., only two straightest patterns • Little effect on efficiency of pT>5 muons • Even slightly higher efficiency for pT>10 • However, needs for low pT triggers have to be taken into account PU100: large neutron and beam BG not in simulation yet Old CFEBs: ganged ME1/a

  7. ME1 60o Sector Rates • Rate plot from the previous page in log scale to see the tails better • This is minbias only • Signal muons would be present on top of that PU100: large neutron and beam BG not in simulation yet Old CFEBs: ganged ME1/a

  8. MPC Sector Rates • Rates on input toMPC • All except the black line • No bend restriction • When considering a cut on max MPC one needs to keep in mind: • There are physics processes with two close muons • E.g., dark matter lepton jets or NMSSM higgs searches • Probabilities of #LCTs per ME1 30o subsector per BX: • ≥0 : 6.2%, ≥1 : 0.7%, ≥2 : 0.06%, ≥3 : 0.02% PU100: large neutron and beam BG not in simulation yet Old CFEBs: ganged ME1/a

  9. Ultimate SLHC Luminosities • New DCFEBs are necessary to handle high rates from strips • Much higher occupancy at TMB level • Pulls the efficiency down • Rates might become much more of a concern • Unganged strips in ME1/a: • Good for LCT efficiency • Good for TF • Phase II estimates use PU400 simulations: • Hopefully a reasonable approximation for PU~200 as simulation does not include neutron or beam backgrounds + important margin of safety!

  10. Efficiency at PU400 • For PU400 we can reach : • ME1/b: 96% • ME1/a: 93% • Note ~5% improvement from unganging • TF efficiency and resolution should also greatly benefit from unganging • TF needs further studies

  11. Rates for #LCT per sector • Important numbers for estimation of input to • MPC • TF (assuming no cut on max #LCTs at MPC) • Rates for various numbers of LCT per sector • Instantaneous rates between beam gaps • After all algorithm improvements • With bend restriction • Reminder: • signal muons would be present on top of that • Probabilities of #LCTs from MinBias per ME1 30o subsector per BX: • ≥0 : 15%, ≥1 : 2.9%, ≥2 : 0.25%, ≥3 : 0.03%

  12. Conclusions Strong benefits from building a new TMB early Can provide significant improvements even before the DCFEBs are installed Robust and reliable triggering in the forward region without efficiency loss in 1.6<h<2.1 Relieves the stress with spares (old ME1/1 TMBs will go to ME4/2) and can be installed without a long shutdown Is in line with the concept of introducing Phase I upgrades in adiabatic fashion Forward/backward compatibility with old and new CFEBs Only one upgrade, prototype is being built, studies in progress LTP simulation for upgrades is rather mature and provides valuable estimates: Important to-do: add neutron and beam backgrounds Will port the new CSC TF emulation when available

  13. Backup

  14. Efficiency at PU50 Efficiency at PU50 96-97% with new TMB 90-92% with old TMB if ME1/a is in PU50: large neutron and beam BG not in simulation yet Old CFEBs: ganged ME1/a • Nominal LHC luminosity has PU25at 2808 BX orbit fill • We should design for at least PU50 • Safety factor • Some backgrounds in sumulation are not accounted for

  15. Efficiency at PU25 Efficiency at PU25 Over 97% with new TMB 93-95% with old TMB if ME1/a is in PU25: large neutron and beam BG not in simulation yet Old CFEBs: ganged ME1/a • Noticeable improvementeven for such lowluminosity case

  16. Improving LCT Efficiency for SLHC Improved emulator algorithm: Add un-ganged ME1/1a into trigger as separate chamber CLCT: localized deadtime, restricting pattern bend, median timing resolution ALCT: narrow pattern in R=1, median timing, other minor adjustments LCT: match all possible A&CLTC combinations in |DBX|≤1 #LCT ≤ 2 in whole ME1/1(a+b) Minor effect on efficiency Allows to avoid many problems restores efficiencies in ME1/1 to at least 95% level in PU400 • ME1 is the most important for TF and ME1/1 is the most affected by high PU ME1/3 ME1/2 ME1/1b ME1/1a • PU400 is used for safety • as a number of factor is not accounted for, e.g., neutron or halo BG 16

  17. ME1/a on/off: matching inefficiency • Current TMB with ME1/a: • Current TMB with ME1/a off: • Conclusion: inefficiency of LCT matching is ~5% higher with ME1/a

  18. ALCT & CLCT rates: 2002 vs. 2010 • Current predictions are ~2 times lower, especially for CLCTs • A numbers of factors may contribute: differences in algorithms, minbias generation, simulation… • Is it worth investigating? • Probably not. Rates look sensible enough. • To compare rates per chamber type to the old results: • Use no algorithm improvements except addition if ME1/a into trigger • Linearly scale rates Old results from 2002/007:

More Related