Trigger session report ByungGu Cheon Hanyang University 19 March, 2009 2nd Open Meeting of the Super KEKB Collaboration

sBelle calorimeter trigger S. Ryu Feature : Much simpler electronics chain (2 steps) than Belle More flexible trigger algorithm design than Belle 1st step (FAM) : 10MHz/12bit FADC + FPGA 2nd step (TMM) : cascade/partitioning FPGAs Bulky copper cables  52 optical fibers Simple monitoring scheme Simultaneous handling of CsI(Tl) and pure-CsI signals Current status : We now investigate fast shaping signal from new Shaper. FAM core firmware algorithm has been tested. TSIM MC study has been performed w/ g4superb. Plan : FAM/TMM prototypes will be ready by June. Basic test of Shaper/FAM/TMM readout chain Under real environment before Belle shutdown Belle sBelle

Test bench for Shaper board S. Ryu New Shaper Board

Undershoot tail has been corrected with pole-zero cancelation → okay S. Ryu Gain Test for fast shaping output : 6 bits are reserved for the gain adjustment. → enough Undershoot tail has been corrected with pole-zero cancelation → okay

Noise level test with cosmic data → okay S. Ryu Noise level test with cosmic data → okay 26 ch for 160 MeV pedestal (mean value) ch ch peak RMS =1.58 ~ 10 MeV 6 ch ch

Problem in g4superb(?) Logarithm scale Y. Unno Single tracks( / e- / - / - / K+) are checked for gsim and g4superb. Generate p=5GeV/c single track in CM isotrapically. Without beam background Check only Barrel region Logarithm scale hadron interaction effect in g4superb-ecl is strange??? January 1, 2019 7 Y.Unno

Effect of beam bkg Y. Unno Check tsim response for signal MC with “beam background”. “beam background”(addbg) is real random-triggered data. Used here is exp.51 data: 2006/04-06(peak L =~ 16x1033/cm2/sec) January 1, 2019 8 Y.Unno

Effect of beam bkg Random triggered event under x20 bkg will be all Y. Unno Random triggered event under x20 bkg will be all triggered as physics event?! January 1, 2019 9 Y.Unno

APV25, Clock and Trigger APV25 M. Friedl APV25 Schematics of one channel Please refer to my December 2008 meeting slides for details about APV25 (SVD session) In Nov/Dec 2008 beam test, we confirmed that APV works perfectly fine with both 42.4 MHz clock (=RF/12)  3.5 µs max L1 latency 31.8 MHz clock (=RF/16)  4.7 µs max L1 latency We can make the APV25 clock switchable

Summary APV25 has trigger limitations due to M. Friedl Summary APV25 has trigger limitations due to (1) Minimum L1 distance of 6 APV clocks (2) Maximum pipeline filling APV25 trigger simulation was performed to estimate dead time. In case of no external limitation, we get @ 30kHZ L1: 0.87% for 42.4MHz clock, 3.43% at 31.8MHz (see December slides for more detail) With 500ns time jitter as estimated by CDC trigger we get 0.42% for 42.4MHz clock, 2.7% at 31.8MHz Conclusion: With 500ns CDC trigger jitter, both frequencies are fine according to Nakao-san‘s wish of <3% APV25 dead time @ L1=30kHz

E. Won

E. Won

Y. Iwasaki

Y. Iwasaki

Y. Iwasaki

Y. Iwasaki

Backup

Tsim-ecl with Belle and sBelle Y. Unno B Kp / Bp0p0 / Br0g / Btn /　tmg / eeX(214)(mm)g Without beam background gsim g4superb Super-Belle geant3 geant4 Belle tsim-ecl sBelle tsim-ecl Belle ecl performance sBelle ecl performance January 1, 2019 19 Y.Unno

Check with single track Comparison between w/ and w/o inner detector Note that there is no difference between w/ and w/o inner detector for gsim too.

Effect of beam bkg