1 / 7

Burkhard Schmidt May 11, 2012

Muon detector requirements at upgrade luminosities Again some general reflections about the Muon system upgrade; a follow up of my presentation of March 26, 2012. Burkhard Schmidt May 11, 2012. Detector Requirements. Purpose of the Muon Detector:

rolf
Download Presentation

Burkhard Schmidt May 11, 2012

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. Muon detector requirements at upgrade luminositiesAgain some general reflections about the Muon system upgrade; a follow up of my presentation of March 26, 2012 Burkhard Schmidt May 11, 2012

  2. Detector Requirements • Purpose of the Muon Detector: The main purpose for the Muon system remains the same for the upgraded detector as for the present detector: • Provide a PT selective muon trigger • Provide high quality Muon ID offline • Muon ID offline: • The performance requirements for Muon ID remain in 1st order unchanged. It seems they can be maintained even with higher pileup. See talk Fatima Soomro on March 26, 2012

  3. Detector Requirements (cont.) • PT selective muon trigger: • Since M1 will not be there, the PT –resolution (based on the M2-M3 track segment) will be worse. • With the present granularity the PT –resolution would deteriorate from ~21% to ~34%. • This should be ok, as the LLT muon trigger output rate will be anyhow larger than the present L0 muon trigger output rate (LLT: 10MHz vs. L0: 1MHz). • The impact on physics has to be understood if the granularity of M2R1/R2 gets worse. Reminder: • One should keep in mind that about 12% of the interactions contain a muon. • With an average pile-up of 4 at L = 2x1033/cm2/s this becomes nearly 50%, hence the requirement for a PT selective trigger. • The fraction of muons in R1 with a PT above threshold is 15%.

  4. Work plan for the coming year • We will get a Technical student for 1 year, starting in July, to study the muon system granularity for the inner part of M2/M3 (where the rate is a problem at high lumi) for the upgrade. • The student will also investigate how much background rejection can be obtained with improved beam-plugs under the Calorimeters and improved shielding.

  5. Possible scenario • The outcome of simulations is crucial to define the layout for M2R1 and maybe other inner regions. • A muon detector where M2R1 is replaced by shielding • Implies a non PT-selective muon trigger for R1.  Looks unrealistic for the LLT. • A ‘minimal solution’: • Keep the same (or very similar) number of FE-channels for M2/M3 R1, but change wire-readout channels to cathode readout channels. • It worsens the granularity in x by a factor 3 and hence the PT resolution significantly.  Is it enough for the LLT ? • Keep the same CARDIAC FE-boards. No new board design. • Keep the same gas-system, hence the same chamber technology. • A real upgrade: • Increase the number of FE-channels to maintain the same granularity as we have at present: • Increase the number of logical channels from 112 to 384 per chamber. • This implies the design of a new CARDIAC board housing more FE-chips.  See presentation of Paolo C. et al. and BS at the meeting we had on March 26, 2012.  It would be a safe solution for the LLT, but has huge implications in terms of modifications to the system – and cost/manpower.

  6. Comments • In the present cost estimate for the upgrade, as put in the FTDR, only a ‘minimal solution’ can be accommodated. • Any more ambitious upgrade will immediately blow up the cost: • New FE-boards, new chambers, partial re-cabling, cooling • Using GEM technology requires significant modifications to the gas system. • Designing a new FE-chip has the cost overhead for the development (MPWs), engineering run, production and testing, etc. • A more ambitious upgrade needs first of all to be well motivated / justified by a significantly improved muon detector performance, which is not easy! • It requires in-depth studies, for which the time is short (we have only 1 year). • A more ambitious upgrade might therefore be rather considered for a later time (LS3).

  7. An option for minimal solution • Re-build MWPCs with wire only cathode readout for M2R1 and the same number of FE-boards. • 12 (16 including spares) chambers cost <50kCHF • For M2R2 (26 chambers) the cost is already about twice as high • Keep in mind that we have anyhow to build some additional MWPCs to have more spares, in particular for M5R2, so a production side has to be re-activated. • Discussion on the construction of new/spare chambers have started with our PNPI colleagues and will be pursued. Reminder: • Space-charge is not the concern for MWPCs in the inner part of M2/M3 (up to particle densities of nearly 1MHz/cm2) • Ageing effects are not seen so far and are being monitored.

More Related