1 / 24

CSC Trigger Primitives Test Beam Studies

CSC Trigger Primitives Test Beam Studies. Main Test Beam 2003 Goals: Verify the peripheral crate electronics (mainly DMB/TMB) are ready for production. Complete a trigger electronic chain test from CSCs all the way to the Track-Finder trigger. Subsidiary Goals:

geneva
Download Presentation

CSC Trigger Primitives Test Beam Studies

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. CSC Trigger Primitives Test Beam Studies • Main Test Beam 2003 Goals: • Verify the peripheral crate electronics (mainly DMB/TMB) are ready for production. • Complete a trigger electronic chain test from CSCs all the way to the Track-Finder trigger. • Subsidiary Goals: • Find and fix hardware/firmware bugs and annoyances. • Find and fix software bugs and annoyances. • (Re-)demonstrate proper triggering and DAQ readout. • Shake out new OO software package.

  2. Beam Test Setup TTC crate Trigger primitives DAQ Data PC Peripheral Crate 2 DMB, 2 TMB 1 CCB, 1 MPC FED crate 1 DDU Track finder Crate TRIDAS beam S1 S3 S2 CSC 2 CSC 1

  3. 2 CSC’s, all on-chamber boards Peripheral crate Track Finder CMS readout board Up to 80K events read out in 2.6s spill / From front end cards CCB + TTCRx MPC 2 TMBs and DMBs Beam Test Setup

  4. Typical Muon Event (CSC1 tilted)

  5. 2003 Test Beam Chronology • Phase I – structured beam • May 23-June 1 • ALCT timing tests • CLCT and TMB studies • High-rate tests • Phase II – unstructured beam • June 13-28 • CLCT and TMB studies • Low-rate and high-rate tests • Phase III – additional structured beam • September 18-22 • Trigger optical link data transmission tests (MPC to SRSP)

  6. Phase I Results • Optimal timing found • Fairly high efficiency (~98-99%) achieved • Peripheral crate system basically working as desired • Chamber angle, HV, threshold scans

  7. 1.2 ms 23 ms SPS orbit period 2003 Synchronous Beam Structure 48 bunches 25 ns bunch spacing bunch width 3-5 ns Structure repeats during 2.6 s spill length

  8. Bunch Structure, ALCT Delay Tuning • BX efficiency vs. ALCT delay setting 0-31 ns • Expect muons in 48 out of 924 bx verified by CLCT bxn from data Chamber 1 Chamber 2

  9. BX Distributions With Optimal Anode Delays • Note logarithmic scale • Cathodes: • Data mostly in 3 bx (no fine time-adjustment possible) • Anodes: • Data 98.7% in 1 bx (after fine time-adjustment) • Chamber 1 • Chamber 2

  10. CLCT Positions • Relative position of key half strip from CLCTs from chamber 2 vs. Chamber 1 • Note: Chamber 1 is vertically higher than Chamber 2 (thus the offset in position). • Zoom

  11. LCT Efficiency vs. Comp. Thresh. • HV=3600v

  12. LCT Efficiency vs. HV

  13. Chamber #1 CLCT 2,000 1,500 CLCT Rate (KHz) 1,000 data consistent with dead-time = 225 ns 500 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Beam Intensity (KHz) Expected LCT rate at LHC < 25 KHz (ME1/1) Trigger Rate Tests SLHC (10xLHC) SLHC (10xLHC)

  14. Number of LCTs (Run 529) • Cathodes show ~4% 0-LCT events • Early run, before timing tuned • Anodes show ~10% 2-LCT events

  15. Look at 2-ALCT events • Differences: • Bunch crossing counter • Wire group

  16. An Event w/ 2 Chamber 1 ALCTs • Anode hits satisfy 6-hit requirement in 2 adjacent key wire groups

  17. x___ x___ xx__ _x__ _xx_ __x_ pattern 1 _x__ _x__ _x__ _x__ __x_ __x_ pattern 2 x___ x___ xx__ _x__ _x__ _x__ pattern 3 _x__ _x__ _x__ _x__ _x__ _x__ pattern 4 __x_ __x_ _xx_ _x__ _x__ _x__ pattern 5 _x__ _x__ _x__ _x__ x___ x___ pattern 6 __x_ ly 0 __x_ ly 1 _xx_ ly 2 _x__ ly 3 xx__ ly 4 x___ ly 5 pattern 7 TMB Patterns Patterns and Quality in ALCT and TMB Logic • Patterns: xxx__ ly 0 _xx__ ly 1 __x__ ly 2 __xx_ ly 3 __xxx ly 4 __xxx ly 5 ALCT Pattern • Qualities for ALCT and CLCT: • Quality=3 6 layers in pattern • Quality=2 5 layers in pattern • Quality=1 4 layers in pattern • Quality=0 <=3 layers in pattern

  18. Half-/Di-Strip CLCT Patterns • Nominally phi_b=0, but small tilts, esp. chamber 2

  19. CLCT Quality, Pattern vs. Phi_b • Phi_b (tilt) • Quality (layers) • Pattern

  20. Test Beam Periods 2&3 • Timing-in procedures improved & documented • Very high efficiencies achieved • Highest trigger efficiency of 99.9% required low rate (few kHz) • 2-chamber “excellent event” (CFEB, CLCT, ALCT) efficiency limited to 99% due to CFEB timing • Improved scans taken: • Angle scan • HV scan • Comparator threshold scan • Pattern requirements scan • Logic scope read out on most data • True time history of LCTs read by SR/SP input FIFO (see Darin/Alexei talks).

  21. CLCT Pattern Requirements • Example – “excellent event” (2xCFEB, 2xCLCT, 2xALCT) percentages:

  22. Digital Comparisons LCTs vs. Simulation • Simulation “DIGIs” start from raw hit data • ORCA classes used • Added modifications to reflect test beam TMB firmware (due to FPGA limitations) • In principle, tests ALCT, CLCT, and TMB logic. • So far, mainly a good debugging tool for simulation • Present level of ALCT disagreement: • ALCT Wire Group: 1.75%/1.99% • ALCT Quality: 0.15%/0.41% • CLCT disagreement ~10% (see plots on right)

  23. Comparison of LCTs to Simulation • ORCA simulation has some shortcomings and needs updating: • Pretrigger # of layers is still hardcoded. • Was varied during test beam data-taking • No drift delay in ORCA after pretrigger – just uses any hits within 4 bx of some reference bx. • ORCA logic selects highest quality only, doesn’t prefer half-strip patters to di-strip patterns as per hardware. • Simplification for test beam TMB allows only 1 CLCT per CFEB • These are being addressed right now.

  24. Comments on Results • Timing in the system takes effort but getting easier (~2 weeks -> 1 week -> 2 days) • Almost everything can be done remotely with software. • Procedures must really be streamlined to deal with 468 chambers… • When timed in and experts are present: • Electronics hardware is reliable (nothing flaky). • Data quality is terrific, esp. compared to other CMS subsystems… • Trigger and readout efficiencies are very good. • It will be hard work to streamline for 468 chamber operation…

More Related