1 / 16

Update on Phase 2 forward muon upgrades

Update on Phase 2 forward muon upgrades. Tracker upgrades – well advanced, costed Calorimeter upgrades – various possibilities Endcap replacement contemplated Trigger and DAQ upgrades - several design options Track Trigger and Tracker closely linked

fran
Download Presentation

Update on Phase 2 forward muon upgrades

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. Update on Phase 2 forward muon upgrades • Tracker upgrades – well advanced, costed • Calorimeter upgrades – various possibilities • Endcap replacement contemplated • Trigger and DAQ upgrades - several design options • Track Trigger and Tracker closely linked • L1A latency and rate relate to ECAL and CSC electronics particularly • Muon upgrades – many possibilities • GE1/1 well advanced • Other possibilities at a very early stage… Help Wanted!

  2. Context • Discussion forums: • General Muon Meetings (GMM) on Mondays at 5 p.m. in 40-R-B10 • Forward detector working group (FDWG), Rusack and Mannelli • Upgrade Project Office (UPO) meetings biweekly Friday afternoons • Building on DESY Upgrades Week, June 3-7 https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceOtherViews.py?confId=236161&view=standard • Upgrade ideas were summarized 19-June in the weekly CSC meeting: https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=258486 • Muon upgrades: a first costing exercise for UPO on 28-June: • See https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=259774but costing slides removed due to “sensitivity” (have not been reviewed)

  3. Phase 2 forward muon cost summary: • X.xMChF for GE1/1 (x.x~10%) and GE2/1 (x.x~20%) • X.xMChF for RE3/1 and RE4/1 (~40% accuracy) • X.xMChF for small ME0 muon tagger (~40% accuracy) • These total xx.xMChF(+-x.xMChF linear addition) • Option for forward muon iron toroidsxx.xMChF(+-x.xMChF) • NB economies of scale can reduce costs of chambers and electronics 2-3x if same technology used in HE replacement • NB justification from simulations urgently needed for RE3/1, RE4/1, and toroids • And more detailed justification for the design of GE2/1, ME0 tagger • More details on following slides…

  4. Text description of forward muon upgrade costing Baseline forward muon upgrades: • GE1/1:  2 layers of GEMs in the eta range 1.55-2.2; most salient motivation is for the muon trigger: lower muon Pt threshold from ~25 to ~15 GeV.  Obviously well costed & reviewed already. • GE2/1:  2 layers of GEMs in the eta range 1.65-2.4, adds redundancy to 2nd station, most salient motivation is to provide acceptable single muon trigger rate in rapidity region 2.1-2.4 with threshold of ~25 GeV. Base the cost estimate on having similar segmentation to GE1/1, extrapolate production (not R&D) costs from GE1/1. • RE3/1 and/or RE4/1:  1 layer of multi-gap GRPCs covering eta 1.8-2.4, motivated primarily by fine timing to identify muon vertex and to provide a good handle on slow particles.  The proponents claim this technology is inexpensive, and these would be single chambers, so 1 or two stations could optimistically be 0.5x or 1.0x the cost of GE1/1, respectively (some R&D for TDCs and CMS compatible readout probably required). ImadLaktineh has cost estimates in his DESY Upgrades Week talk. • ME0 small front tagger: covers rapidity 2.2-4.0, to be costed assuming 6 layers of GEMs, 2x finer segmentation than GE1/1.  Note that it is possible to reduce cost per area for chambers and cost per channel electronics up to a factor of 3 over GE1/1 if HE is rebuilt with this basic technology, since economies of scale that are thought to be possible will be needed for that.  We may need to add some cost item that represents additional shielding and iron to improve field strength within the space of the present eta=3 cone. Iron toroids option: motivation is triggering capability at high rapidity (assume coverage 2.4-4.0), overlap with rapidity range of LHCb, ability to capture a large rate of dimuons from e.g. B0s→mm.  Currently thought unlikely, since HF needs to be relocated and the current HF may withstand 3000 fb-1.  Also forward tracker needs to achieve decent (<4%) momentum resolution to resolve B0s and B0d peaks.  Very well costed already for the basic iron, magnet, support structure, and need to add cost of 3 or 4 stations of double-layer detectors, by scaling up from the GE1/1 cost estimate. Other options that have been discussed but not to be costed now: • Large ME0: diminishes the case for GE1/1, only possible if calorimeter rebuilt, and requires negative arguments that CSC station ME1/1 is insufficient for rapidity 1.5-2.1. • Back tagger: thought far inferior to front tagger: long lever arm for matching with forward pixel upgrade, much iron contributing multiple scattering, and larger so more costly.

  5. Elements of the costing • GE1/1 and GE2/1 for trigger, covering eta 1.55-2.4 • Assume 2 layers of GEM detectors • RE3/1 and RE4/1 for fine timing, covering eta 1.8-2.4 • Assume 1 layer each of GRPC multigap detectors • Small ME0 front tagger, part of new HE, cover eta 2.2-4.0 • Assume 6 layers of GEM technology assumed • Iron toroids option covering eta 2.3-4.0 • Assume 3 iron disks, 4 station each of GEM detectors

  6. NB: options not included in cost estimate • Large ME0 as part of rebuilt HE • Diminishes the case for GE1/1, requires negative arguments about CSC capability or longevity • Back tagger behind HF: seems inferior to front tagger • Long lever arm for matching with forward pixel upgrade • Lots of iron in the path, so more multiple scattering • Larger, so more costly

  7. GE1/1 and GE2/1 • Add redundancy to trigger where badly needed

  8. 1. GE1/1 and GE2/1 covering eta 1.55-2.4 • GE1/1 and GE2/1 covering eta 1.55-2.4 • Assume 2 layers of GEM detectors in each station • GE1/1 covers 1.55-2.2, motivated by L1 trigger threshold and rate • GE2/1 covers 1.65-2.4, motivated by L1 trigger, esp. 2.1-2.4 region • GE1/1 well costed already: x.xMChF (~10% accuracy) • X.xMChF chambers for 72 m2 of GEMs (36 m2superchambers) • X.xMChF electronics for 553K channels (4.5 ChF/channel) • X.xMChF for services (some already installed for RE1/1) • GE2/1 cost est. x.xMChF (~20% accuracy) • X.xMChF chambers scaling from GE1/1 by area 116 m2 • X.xMChF electronics assuming same 553K channels as GE1/1 (finer on bottom, coarser on top) • X.xMChF for services (more needed than GE1/1)

  9. RE3/1 and RE4/1 • Multigap RPCs can achieve very fine timing • Would provide very fine handle on slow particles • Can non-collision backgrounds be eliminated or muons from different vertices be separated by timing?

  10. 2. RE3/1 and RE4/1 for fine timing, covering eta 1.8-2.4 • Assume 1 layer each of GRPC multigap detectors for costing • Use cost estimate from Lakhtineh talk at DESY muon upgrade parallel session https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=254443 • 18480 ChF/m2 includes electronics • X.xMChF for chambers and electronics • 58 m2 per station x 2 stations gives x.xMChF • NB not sure about full inclusion of CMS-compatible readout (FEDs) • X.xMChF for services • Total x.xMChF (~40% accuracy)

  11. ME0 small and large muon taggers at back of a new HE • Coverage options: • In red: small ME0 ring (top), large ME0 ring (bottom) • {1.5, 2.4} < |h| < 3.5 or so • Best region for muons (more bending and less multiple scattering) • Inner radius shielding needed • Will limit maximum h • New technology allows >>1 MHz/cm2 • “Integrated” option • Build all of HE with GEM technology, for example New HE m ME0 Additional EE/HE coverage m ME0

  12. 3. Small ME0 front tagger, part of new HE • Covers eta 2.2-4.0 • On the low side, dovetails with GE1/1 and overlaps aligned ME1/1 • On the high side, depends on shielding but optimal to match forward pixel tracking • Costing assumes 6 layers of GEM technology • Standalone, so need excellent rejection of neutrons, etc. • X.xMChF for chambers: 52.8 m2 scaled a la GE1/1 • Only 4.4 m2 per layer x 6 layers x 2 ends • X.xMChF for electronics: • For this high rapidity assume twice as many channels as GE1/1 (1106K, 0.48 cm2/channel) • X.xMChF for shielding and iron to shape B field • X.xMChF for services • Total x.xMChF

  13. A specific design of iron core toroids SlavaKlyukhin • Coverage |h| 2.39-4.0 • Magnetic field: 1.72-2.17 T depending on radius • Path length: 3 disks x 0.78 m • Bending 4.0-5.1 Tm! • Momentum resolution ~14% up to ~TeV • Steel costs x.xMChF, 382 tons on each end • Other (copper, support, cooling) costs x.xMChF • Electricity 270 kW, annual cost ~xxx.xkChF • Detailed magnetic field maps, forces have been calculated

  14. 4. Iron toroids option covering eta 2.3-4.0 • Iron toroids option covering eta 2.3-4.0 • Assume 3 iron disks, 4 station each of GEM detectors • Assume 2 layers of GEM technology for costing • X.xMChF – 3 iron absorber discs, magnets, power, support structure (~10% accuracy) • SlavaKlyukhin, private communication and presentations (e.g. TC Workshop) • X.xMChF chambers (~20% accuracy) • Use GE1/1 cost per area for 508 m2 • X.xMChF electronics (~50% accuracy) • Simply multiply GE1/1 electronics cost by 4 stations •  Real channel count depends on trigger threshold required, multiple scattering between the iron disks – need a simulation! •  Economies of scale? • X.xMChF services (~30% accuracy) • Total cost xx.xMChF (~29% accuracy)

  15. Muon back tagger behind HF • Behind HF, fits and can tag muons in h 2.4 to 3.5 or beyond • Collar and shielding need replacement anyway for Phase 2 LHC • Can install one station for tagging, or several with EM shower absorber between them h=2.4

  16. Forward muon upgrades - conclusions • A plausible scenario has been defined for Phase 2 forward muon upgrades • Refinements are needed <October RRB • Understanding future DCFEB installations • Plan for verifying longevity of the CSCs at GIF, GIF++, etc. • Working out details of new detectors to improve capabilities • Working out details of new detectors to extend eta • Building the physics justifications (except GE1/1) • Cost estimates need review • Internal first, later external • At request of UPO, the cost values will be excised from these Indico slides by tonight…

More Related