Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA 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!

Update on Phase 2 forward muon upgrades

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

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=259774 but

costing slides removed due to “sensitivity” (have not been reviewed)

Context

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

X.x MChF for GE1/1 (x.x ~10%) and GE2/1 (x.x ~20%) X.x MChF for RE3/1 and RE4/1 (~40% accuracy) X.x MChF for small ME0 muon tagger (~40% accuracy)

These total xx.x MChF (+-x.x MChF linear addition) Option for forward muon iron toroids xx.x MChF (+-x.x

MChF)

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…

Phase 2 forward muon cost summary:

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

Baseline forward muon upgrades:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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). Imad Laktineh has cost estimates in his DESY Upgrades Week talk.

4. 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. B0

s→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 B0

s 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.

Text description of forward muon upgrade costing

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

1. GE1/1 and GE2/1 for trigger, covering eta 1.55-2.4

Assume 2 layers of GEM detectors

2. RE3/1 and RE4/1 for fine timing, covering eta 1.8-2.4

Assume 1 layer each of GRPC multigap detectors

3. Small ME0 front tagger, part of new HE, cover eta 2.2-4.0

Assume 6 layers of GEM technology assumed

4. Iron toroids option covering eta 2.3-4.0 Assume 3 iron disks, 4 station each of GEM detectors

Elements of the costing

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA 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

NB: options not included in cost estimate

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

Add redundancy to trigger where badly needed

GE1/1 and GE2/1

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

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.x MChF (~10% accuracy)

X.x MChF chambers for 72 m2 of GEMs (36 m2 superchambers)

X.x MChF electronics for 553K channels (4.5 ChF/channel)

X.x MChF for services (some already installed for RE1/1)

GE2/1 cost est. x.x MChF (~20% accuracy) X.x MChF chambers scaling from GE1/1 by area 116

m2 X.x MChF electronics assuming same 553K channels

as GE1/1 (finer on bottom, coarser on top) X.x MChF for services (more needed than GE1/1)

1. GE1/1 and GE2/1 covering eta 1.55-2.4

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

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?

RE3/1 and RE4/1

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

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.x MChF for chambers and electronics 58 m2 per station x 2 stations gives x.x MChF NB not sure about full inclusion of CMS-compatible

readout (FEDs) X.x MChF for services Total x.x MChF (~40% accuracy)

2. RE3/1 and RE4/1 for fine timing, covering eta 1.8-2.4

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA 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

ME0 small and large muon taggers at back of a new HE

NewHE

m0ME

m0ME

Additional EE/HE coverage

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

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.x MChF for chambers: 52.8 m2 scaled a la GE1/1

Only 4.4 m2 per layer x 6 layers x 2 ends X.x MChF for electronics:

For this high rapidity assume twice as many channels as GE1/1 (1106K, 0.48 cm2/channel)

X.x MChF for shielding and iron to shape B field X.x MChF for services Total x.x MChF

3. Small ME0 front tagger, part of new HE

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

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.x MChF, 382 tons on each end

Other (copper, support, cooling) costs x.x MChF

Electricity 270 kW, annual cost ~xxx.x kChF

Detailed magnetic field maps, forces have been calculated

A specific design of iron core toroids

Slava Klyukhin

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

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.x MChF – 3 iron absorber discs, magnets, power, support structure (~10% accuracy)

Slava Klyukhin, private communication and presentations (e.g. TC Workshop)

X.x MChF chambers (~20% accuracy) Use GE1/1 cost per area for 508 m2

X.x MChF 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.x MChF services (~30% accuracy) Total cost xx.x MChF (~29% accuracy)

4. Iron toroids option covering eta 2.3-4.0

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

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

Muon back tagger behind HF

h=2.4

Gen

era

l Mu

on

Mee

ting

1

5-J

uly

-201

3

“P

hase

2 fo

rwar

d m

uo

n u

pgra

des

”

J.

Ha

use

r, U

CLA

A plausible scenario has been defined for Phase 2 forward muon upgrades

Refinements are needed <October RRB1. Understanding future DCFEB installations2. Plan for verifying longevity of the CSCs at GIF, GIF++,

etc.3. Working out details of new detectors to improve

capabilities4. Working out details of new detectors to extend eta5. 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…

Forward muon upgrades - conclusions