UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser1 Since last week Technical Coordination workshop Gave talk on CSC upgrades New 2013 timeline – ME4/2 seems okay, ME1/1 is tight, see next page TMB rates Evaldas measuring rates for restricted TMB patterns

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser CSC Major Tasks

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser3 23-Nov-2012 Update CSC Gantt Chart from Martin

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser4 Selected Milestones, early 2013 A tentative & partial list of what seems “reasonable” to allow the work to proceed smoothly: Dec: Junction Box prototype finished, design verified TBD (Dec-Jan): PRR for DCFEB Feb: Patch panel prototype verified Feb: ESR (Electronics Status) and MPR (Manuf. Progress) reviews Mar: ODMB revised pre-production board w/Cu interface Associated software needs to be written in advance Mar: Software migrated from ME4/2 to ME1/1 FAST testing Apr: SX5 area ready to receive ME1/1 chambers May: production of half of the DCFEB, LVDB7, LVMB7 May: pre-production of 12 ODMB, OTMB for test setups Work on a more detailed CSC-specific schedule is ongoing

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser5 TMB Pattern Narrowing Test – draft talk TMB trigger patterns (LCTs) are “broad” for every chamber This gives maximum efficiency at lowest muon momentum (P~5 GeV) Inner chamber patterns could be narrowed with small efficiency loss – P is larger (for given P T ), and magnetic bending is less Rates are highest on the inner chambers (ME1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4/1) Want to request special run(s) to investigate the effect of narrowing TMB patterns During low-luminosity collisions following Machine Development In the shadow of 5 hrs requested by Pixel detector to understand their radiation damage

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser6 Goals of the Pattern Narrowing Test Reduce CSC event size By reducing the number of CFEB and TMB readouts per event (especially out-of-time) Currently marginal, will improve with elimination of DCC bottleneck, but event growth could be non-linear Input to HL-LHC trigger studies Decide if replacement of all CFEBs is necessary ($6-8M) Change L1A latency (3.2  6, 10, or 20  s) and L1A rate (100  1000 kHz)? Critical issue is the use of the 96 buffers in the Switched Capacitor Array (SCA) ASIC used on CFEBs Storage of analog charge in 50 ns “buckets” Affected by CLCT “pretrigger” rate

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser7 CSC Readout Fragment Sizes FED753FED750 Affected by pile-up (soft muons, neutron hits, etc.) FED753 (ME4/2) anomalous due to ME4/2 No shielding wall, so many back-scattered particles So ME4/2 chambers were split between FEDs With and without ALCT zero-suppression FED753 ~2.7  2.0 kB, more typical FED 2.0  1.7 kB -15% reduction, typically

Stan Durkin CMS Upgrade Week 8 16 Cap Delay Cap Storage (Poisson)Cap Digization (Queue) Beam CrossingLCTL1A·LCT 0.8  sec2.2  sec 26  sec Transfer to DMB Complete Caps can be used for storage when all others in use For SLHC this is the main capacitor usage Data Bottlenecks in CSC DAQ at SLHC CFEB ’ s 96 Capacitors/channel is main DAQ rate limiter DCC ’ s SLINK-64 is second DAQ rate limiter (configurable) Simple Model CFEB Capacitor Storage

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser9 CFEB Readout Inefficiency may beacceptable, 0.01 is bad

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser10 Rate Plots Vadim – sim - rates integrated over rings Bug fix factor of 2 applied 19E6 Hz at 8E34 L i.e. 11.9E6 Hz at 5E34 L ME2/1 has 36 chambers, so 330 KHz/chamber at 5E34 L Misha – data – rates per chamber 30E3 Hz at 4.1E33 L i.e. 365 kHz/chamber at 5E34 L

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser11 Rates for LCTs in ME2/1 at 5E34 Which estimate Type of LCTME2/1 Rate Energy (TeV) DataMatched365 kHz Stan / Cousins et al. CLCT*525 kHz Khotilovich Matched, tightened** 330 kHz14 Rates per chamber at 5E34 luminosity Data/sim comparisons are “reasonable” Rates are likely to be a little higher than “data”… Pretrigger requires 3 layers, not 4 (LCT) Unknown increase from 8 to 13 TeV (Rate per CFEB: nominally divide by 5, but there is an edge overlap factor ~ not included) *CLCT vs. matched makes little difference. NB this was for an earlier version of TMB patterns that were wider. **TMB patterns 8-10 only, “skinny ALCT pattern”, factor of 2 for both endcaps applied

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser12 TMB Pattern Test Thus Far B904 ME2/1 cosmic rays Rate dropped 12  4 Hz with TMB pattern >=8 (TMB::CLCT_PID_THRESH_PRETRIG=8) P5 cosmic rays ME4/2 see 3  2 Hz Writing flash (new patterns) on ME2/1, 3/1, 4/1 took 21-27s per crate, so whole inner system ~13-14 min estimated Pattern distributions in CSCTF data Show plot from old Anna presentation for low-Pt muons … rather even by pattern #

UCLA meeting, 2012 Hauser13 TMB Pattern Test Plan With Collisions Use low-luminosity collisions after MD In shadow of 5-hour pixel radiation damage test Change patterns on inner (ME1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4/1) chambers and ME4/2 Will affect most but not all FEDs, so can see event size difference with/without ME4/2 contribution ME4/2 a bit strange because outer chamber, and might suffer more efficiency loss Tighten + endcap (w ME4/2) to patterns 8-10 only Leave the other endcap alone as a reference Then loosen to patterns 6-10 only