04.02.2015V.Duk, INFN Perugia1 CHOD TDAQ status and rates Viacheslav Duk, INFN Perugia On behalf of the CHOD working group.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
R.Shanidze, B. Herold, Th. Seitz ECAP, University of Erlangen (for the KM3NeT consortium) 15 October 2009 Athens, Greece Study of data filtering algorithms.
Advertisements

LAV trigger primitives Francesco Gonnella Photon-Veto Working Group CERN – 09/12/2014.
6 Mar 2002Readout electronics1 Back to the drawing board Paul Dauncey Imperial College Outline: Real system New VFE chip A simple system Some questions.
1Domenico Di Filippo CHANTI Update and High rate effects Fabio Ambrosino, Tiziana Capussela, Michele Corvino (B.Sc.), Domenico Di Filippo, Paolo Massarotti,
LAV firmware status Francesco Gonnella Mauro Raggi 10 th October 2012 TDAQ Working Group Meeting.
LAV contribution to the NA62 trigger Mauro Raggi, LNF ONLINE WG CERN 9/2/2011.
SPD commissioning Ricci, Míriam, Daniel, Edu, Hugo et al. from 1.
February 8 th, 2001 Status Report: SciFi for MICE Edward McKigney Imperial College London.
Y. Karadzhov MICE MICO First EMR Plots 1.EMR detector has been successfully incorporated in the MICE DAQ system. 2.First 3 days of data taking in MICE.
Sept 30 th 2004Iacopo Vivarelli – INFN Pisa FTK meeting Z  bb measurement in ATLAS Iacopo Vivarelli, Alberto Annovi Scuola Normale Superiore,University.
M. Ellis - 11th February 2004 Sci Fi Cosmic Light Yield 2 views 3 views.
Y. Karadzhov MICE Video Conference Thu April 9 Slide 1 Absolute Time Calibration Method General description of the TOF DAQ setup For the TOF Data Acquisition.
Octal ASD Certification Tests at Michigan J. Chapman, Tiesheng Dai, & Tuan Bui August 30, CERN.
DAQ WS03 Sept 2006Jean-Sébastien GraulichSlide 1 DDAQ Trigger o Reminder: DAQ Trigger vs Particle Trigger o DAQ Trigger o Particle Trigger 1) Possible.
RICH Data Flow Jianchun Wang. 2 HPD Readout Electronics 944 HPDs 163 channels / HPD 1 FE Hybrid / HPD ~160 FEMs 6 FE Hybrids / FEM 1-13 Cables / FEM 20.
SPD spill-over and the subtractor Míriam Calvo 23 June 2010.
UM PPS Lab Activities - HV Readout Long Run - Single Source Saturation Test PPS meeting April 30, 2012.
Vladimir Frolov for Torino group. Experimental activities: The system for testing the MRPC in the Torino INFN laboratory has been fully mounted and checked;
Jornadas LIP 2008 – Pedro Ramalhete. 17 m hadron absorber vertex region 8 MWPCs 4 trigger hodoscopes toroidal magnet dipole magnet hadron absorber targets.
PicoTDC Features of the picoTDC (operating at 1280 MHz with 64 delay cells) Focus of the unit on very small time bins, 12ps basic, 3ps interpolation Interpolation.
Spasimir Balev /CERN/ mrad 3 LKr simulation: – very slow, so only events with interesting topology are fully simulated: –  + with.
1 “Fast FPGA-based trigger and data acquisition system for the CERN experiment NA62: architecture and algorithms” Authors G. Collazuol(a), S. Galeotti(b),
Leo Greiner TC_Int1 Sensor and Readout Status of the PIXEL Detector.
Preliminary analysis of p-Pb data update n. 6 Lorenzo Bonechi LHCf Catania meeting – 19 December 2013.
NA62 Trigger Algorithm Trigger and DAQ meeting, 8th September 2011 Cristiano Santoni Mauro Piccini (INFN – Sezione di Perugia) NA62 collaboration meeting,
Objectives Determine Detector offsets in hall B reference frame and thus absolute beam position at Hycal Examine Flux calculation and see if beam trips.
Hit rate at high luminosity logical channels - ghosts – efficiency Toy Monte Carlo : # I have assumed a uniform particle distribution inside the TS # I.
TELL-1 and TDC board: present status and future plans B. Angelucci, A. Burato, S. Venditti.
Mitglied der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Calibration of the COSY-TOF STT & pp Elastic Analysis Sedigheh Jowzaee IKP Group Talk 11 July 2013.
TDCB Status report Bruno Angelucci, Stefano Venditti NA62 meeting, 14/12/2011.
Overview, remarks, lamentations, hope and despair M. Sozzi TDAQ WG meeting CERN - 4 June 2013 Introduction, news and appetizer.
A. Meneguzzo Padova University & INFN Validation and Performance of the CMS Barrel Muon Drift Chambers with Cosmic Rays A. Meneguzzo Padova University.
Jefferson Laboratory Hall A SuperBigBite Spectrometer Data Acquisition System Alexandre Camsonne APS DNP 2013 October 24 th 2013 Hall A Jefferson Laboratory.
Possible solutions for the future CHOD Mauro Raggi LNF MUV and CHOD CERN 13/07/
1 Calorimeters LED control LHCb CALO meeting Anatoli Konoplyannikov /ITEP/ Status of the calorimeters LV power supply and ECS control Status of.
TEL62 AND TDCB UPDATE JACOPO PINZINO ROBERTO PIANDANI CERN ON BEHALF OF PISA GROUP 14/10/2015.
Search for High-Mass Resonances in e + e - Jia Liu Madelyne Greene, Lana Muniz, Jane Nachtman Goal for the summer Searching for new particle Z’ --- a massive.
1 M2-M5 Efficiency and Timing checks on 7TeV beam data Alessia, Roberta R.Santacesaria, April 23 rd, Muon Operation
ALICE Offline Week October 4 th 2006 Silvia Arcelli & Chiara Zampolli TOF Online Calibration - Strategy - TOF Detector Algorithm - TOF Preprocessor.
NewCHOD Firmware Chris Parkinson, University of Birmingham 16 th December
Straw readout status Status and plans in Prague compared with situation now Choke and error Conclusions and plans.
Comparison of different chamber configurations for the high luminosity upgrade of M2R2 G. Martellotti - LNF - 13/03/2015 Roma1 + Alessia.
LAV efficiency studies with photons T. Spadaro* *Frascati National Laboratory of INFN.
TOF status and LS1 plansTOF status and LS1 plans 27/06/2012.
TELL1 readout in RICH test: status report Gianluca Lamanna on behalf of TDAQ Pisa Group (B.Angelucci, C.Avanzini, G.Collazuol, S.Galeotti, G.L., G.Magazzu’,
DAQ Speed and Run2 Estimates April 3, Summary of FADC Development for Faster Performance NameReadoutTrigger ScalersScaler S1 (helicity gated), S2.
L0 trigger update Bruno Angelucci INFN & University of Pisa.
Many LAV stations in digital trigger Francesco Gonnella Photon-Veto Working Group CERN – 03/02/2015.
Status of LAV electronics commissioning Mauro Raggi, Francesco Gonnella Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati 1 Mauro Raggi - Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati4.
Software and TDAQ Peter Lichard, Vito Palladino NA62 Collaboration Meeting, Sept Ferrara.
LAV electronics status report Mauro Raggi and Francesco Gonnella TDAQ meeting NA62 Collboration Meeting 1-5 September 2014 Ferrara.
V.Duk, INFN Perugia1 CHOD/NHOD status Viacheslav Duk, INFN Perugia Ferrara,
INFN - PadovaBeauty Measurements in pp with the Central Detector 1 Beauty Measurements in p-p with the Central Detector F. Antinori, C. Bombonati, A. Dainese,
DAQ and Trigger for HPS run Sergey Boyarinov JLAB July 11, Requirements and available test results 2. DAQ status 3. Trigger system status and upgrades.
Gianluca Lamanna TDAQ WG meeting. CHOD crossing point two slabs The CHOD offline time resolution can be obtained online exploiting hit position.
Straw readout status Run 2016 Cover FW SRB FW.
Update on Trigger simulation
DCH FEE STATUS Level 1 Triggered Data Flow FEE Implementation &
Level-zero trigger status
G.Lamanna (CERN) NA62 Collaboration Meeting TDAQ-WG
Claudio Cerri, Riccardo Fantechi, Luigi Di Lella
TDCB status Jacopo Pinzino, Stefano Venditti
L0 processor for NA62 Marian Krivda 1) , Cristina Lazzeroni 1) , Roman Lietava 1)2) 1) University of Birmingham, UK 2) Comenius University, Bratislava,
SAC/IRC data analysis Venelin Kozhuharov for the photon veto working group NA62 photon veto meeting
Run experience Cover FW SRB FW DAQ and monitoring
Sergey Abrahamyan Yerevan Physics Institute APEX collaboration
High Rate Photon Irradiation Test with an 8-Plane TRT Sector Prototype
The LHCb Level 1 trigger LHC Symposium, October 27, 2001
Resistive Plate Chambers performance with Cosmic Rays
ETD parallel session March 18th 2010
Presentation transcript:

V.Duk, INFN Perugia1 CHOD TDAQ status and rates Viacheslav Duk, INFN Perugia On behalf of the CHOD working group

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Outlook 2 1.Data used for the analysis 2.Detector rates 3.Rates per slab 4.Conclusions

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Data used for the analysis 3 Software: NA62Reconstruction r400 NA62Analysis r400 Data: Run 1348, 26 bursts (first file produced by Monica) Beam intensity ~6% of the nominal Trigger: πνν + Q1/1000 (CHOD always included) Total event number: N events = Selection criteria: Hits with at least leading (leading only or leading+trailing) Signal region: 1600ns < hit_time < 1700ns (100ns interval out of 400ns)

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Time distribution 4  Gap on the left: probably dead time of the PM+FE system  Maximum at ~1640ns  Reasonable time window: 100ns (4 time frames)  Selected region for signal studies: 1600 – 1700 ns (signal region)  Region for halo/pile-up studies: 1850 – 1950 ns (off-peak region) zoom for the signal region

V.Duk, INFN Perugia N hits distribution 5 Before cut on time: Mean ~6.3 Signal region: Mean ~4.6 Off-peak region: Mean ~0.6 Off-peak region: ~1M events with 0 hits ~0.2M events with >0 hits ~ Mean * 1.2 / 0.2 ~ 3.6 Hit rate contributions Signal region: Signal Pile-up + halo Off-peak region: Pile-up + halo Signal: 4.0 hits/event Pile-up + halo: 0.6 hits/event NB Hits from decays are always called pile-up Pile-up and halo contribute as additional hits

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Detector rates (low I) 6 Strategy:  Estimate hit number per event for signal and halo for low intensity  Estimate hit rates for signal, pile-up, halo for low intensity  Estimate hit rates for the nominal intensity Signal: 4.0 hits per event (see the previous slide) Pile-up: Intensity: 6% * I 0 (I 0 - nominal intensity) Event rate: ~ 0.06 * 10 MHz = 0.6 MHz Average event number in 100ns interval: λ = 0.6MHz * 100ns = 0.06 Probability to have one event in a 100ns interval (Poisson): P = exp(- λ) * λ ~ Pile-up contribution (hit number normalized on N events ) to any 100ns region: 4.0 * = (~ 37% wrt 0.6) Halo contribution (hit number normalized on N events ) to any 100ns region: 0.6 – = (~73% wrt 0.6)

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Detector rates (low I) 7 Off-peak region average hit number per event: ~ 3.6 (see slide 5) = 0.37 * * ~4.0 (the same as for the signal) 3.6 = 0.37 * * ~ 2.9

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Detector rates (low I) 8 Pile-up contribution wrt signal (in terms of hit number): Halo contribution wrt signal (in terms of hit number): / 4.0 ~ Pile-up contribution wrt the total hit rate (in terms of hit number): / 4.6 ~ Halo contribution wrt the total hit rate (in terms of hit number): / 4.6 ~ 0.082

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Detector rates (low I) 9 Detector rates in 2014 (run 1348): Signal event rate = 0.06 * 10MHz = 0.6MHz Signal hit rate (in the 100ns time interval) = 4.0 * 0.6MHz = 2.4 MHz Pile-up hit rate (in the 100ns time interval) = * 2.4 MHz ~ 0.13 MHz Halo hit rate (in the 100ns time interval) = * 2.4 MHz ~ 0.23 MHz Total hit rate (in the 100ns time interval) = 2.4MHz MHz MHz = 2.76 MHz NB At low rate pile-up contributes only as one extra particle, at the nominal intensity also two (or more) pile-up particles should be taken into account

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Detector rates (nominal I) 10 Strategy: Calculate rates for different readout windows: 50ns, 75ns, 100ns Even with dt=50ns we take all leadings and almost all trailings

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Detector rates (nominal I) 11 Extrapolation to the nominal intensity (100ns time window): Average event number in 100ns interval: λ = 10MHz * 100ns = 1 Suppose that halo contribution is the same (0.094 of the signal in terms of hit rate) Probability to have one pile-up event in a 100ns interval (Poisson): P = exp(- λ) * λ ~ 0.37 Probability to have 2 pile-up events in a 100ns interval (Poisson): P = exp(- λ) * λ 2 / 2 ~ Probability to have 3 pile-up events in a 100ns interval (Poisson): P = exp(- λ) * λ 3 / 3! ~ Total pile-up hit contribution: * *3 = 0.92 Signal hit rate (in the 100ns time interval) = 4.0 * 10MHz = 40 MHz Pile-up hit rate (in the 100ns time interval) = 0.92 * 40MHz = 36.8 MHz Halo hit rate (in the 100ns time interval) = * 40MHz ~ 3.8 MHz Total hit rate (in the 100ns time interval) = 40MHz MHz + 3.8MHz = 80.6 MHz 100 ns time window

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Detector rates (nominal I) 12 Extrapolation to the nominal intensity (75ns time window): Average event number in 75ns interval: λ = 10MHz * 75ns = 0.75 Suppose that halo contribution is the same (0.094*0.75 ~ 0.07 of the signal in terms of hit rate) Probability to have one pile-up event in a 75ns interval (Poisson): P = exp(- λ) * λ ~ 0.35 Probability to have 2 pile-up events in a 75ns interval (Poisson): P = exp(- λ) * λ 2 / 2 ~ Probability to have 3 pile-up events in a 75ns interval (Poisson): P = exp(- λ) * λ 3 / 3! ~ Total pile-up hit contribution: * *3 = 0.66 Signal hit rate (in the 75ns time interval) = 4.0 * 10MHz = 40 MHz Pile-up hit rate (in the 75ns time interval) = 0.66 * 40MHz = 26.4 MHz Halo hit rate (in the 75ns time interval) = 0.07 * 40MHz ~ 2.8 MHz Total hit rate (in the 75ns time interval) = 40MHz MHz + 2.8MHz = 69.2 MHz 75 ns time window

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Detector rates (nominal I) 13 Extrapolation to the nominal intensity (50ns time window): Average event number in 50ns interval: λ = 10MHz * 50ns = 0.5 Suppose that halo contribution is the same (0.094*0.5 = of the signal in terms of hit rate) Probability to have one pile-up event in a 50ns interval (Poisson): P = exp(- λ) * λ ~ 0.30 Probability to have 2 pile-up events in a 50ns interval (Poisson): P = exp(- λ) * λ 2 / 2 ~ Probability to have 3 pile-up events in a 50ns interval (Poisson): P = exp(- λ) * λ 3 / 3! ~ Total pile-up hit contribution: * *3 = 0.49 Signal hit rate (in the 75ns time interval) = 4.0 * 10MHz = 40 MHz Pile-up hit rate (in the 75ns time interval) = 0.49 * 40MHz = 19.6 MHz Halo hit rate (in the 75ns time interval) = * 40MHz ~ 1.9 MHz Total hit rate (in the 75ns time interval) = 40MHz MHz + 1.9MHz = 61.5 MHz 50 ns time window

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Detector rates: limits 14 Current CHOD TDAQ configuration:  Both leading and trailing are written (1 hit = 2 words = 8 byte)  Two thresholds are used (see next slide)  1 TEL62, 2 TDCBs (2 PPs)  One timestamp per event First limit: data rate 1 GB/s * 80% [efficiency] * 2 cables / 8 [B/byte] = 200 Mbyte/s Second limit: raw hit rate (rate per L1_buffer/TDC/PP) 20MHz per L1 buffer, 20MHz per TDC, 80MHz per PP (NB: this rate does not depend on the trigger and roughly corresponds to 6.4μs readout window) NB For limits see the talk by Marco Sozzi at the weekly meeting on

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Two FE thresholds 15  LAV FEE: 2 thresholds  We need only low threshold (60mV)  High threshold can be set to maximal value (~280mV) to reduce the rate Pics from my talk on (slide 22): At least factor of 3 reduction between iteration 1 (145mV) and 30 (290mV) Total hit rate will be ~1.3 wrt hit rate at low threshold

V.Duk, INFN Perugia (Data rate) limit 16 Time window50ns75ns100ns Hits/ev8911 Words/ev Bytes/ev Data rate, Mbyte/s Data rate limit, Mbyte/s 200 Hits/ev = hit_rate / ev_rate * 1.3 (two thresholds) Words/ev = Hits/ev * 2 (leading+trailing) + 1 (timestamp) Bytes/ev = words/ev * 4 Data rate = bytes/ev * 1MHz (L0 trigger rate) Limits are respected for all time windows

V.Duk, INFN Perugia (Rate per PP/TDC) limit 17 Max rate per PP/TDC = EOB rate * 1.3/2 (two thresholds) * 8 (intensity) = 5.2 * EOB rate Time windowPPTDC Max rate, MHz Limit on the rate, MHz 8020 We are close to the limit, splitting is necessary EOB counts from Jacopo Pinzino: NB Rate per PP can be lowered by simple recabling

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Rates per slab 18 V-plane H-plane CHOD slab numbering x y

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Multiplicity per slab 19  Most events have 1 hit per slab  Pile-up contribution at nominal intensity: even for 1 pile-up particle per event the probability to hit the same slab is low: ~ 1/64 (1.6%)

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Rates per slab 20 Strategy:  Draw hit occupancy  Estimate max hit number per slab (max bin content)  Normalize on the event number (1.2M)  Estimate max hit rate using calculated event rate (0.6 MHz)  Recalculate for nominal intensity: factor = 1 / 0.06 ~ 16.7

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Rates per slab 21 Max data rate (dt=100ns): 120k / 1.2M * 0.6MHz ~ 60 kHz At nominal intensity: ~1.0 MHz

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Rates per L1 buffer 22  L1 buffer contains 8 channels (4 slabs x two thresholds)  4 consecutive slabs have < 110k (ID ~ ) event per slab in average  16 consecutive slabs (TDC) have ~55k event per slab (in average)  Factor ~2 for the hottest L1 buffer wrt average  Max rate ~18.7MHz (per TDC) * 1/4 * 2 (factor for hot L1 buffers) ~ 9.4MHz  The limit is ~20MHz (256 words/6.4μs or 20MHz for leading+trailing) Limits are respected

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Rate limits: summary 23 Max rate, MHzLimit, MHz L1 buffer9.420 TDC PP data92200 Plan A for CHOD TDAQ:  1 TEL62 fully dedicated for the CHOD  Splitting board to reduce rate per TDC  Increase high FE thresholds to maximal value  Reduce readout window to ns Plan B:  Kill high thresholds  Do not write trailings

V.Duk, INFN Perugia Conclusions 24  Hit rates are estimated for CHOD slabs and the whole detector in 2014 Run (Run 1348, 26 bursts, dt = 100 ns)  Hit rates are estimated for the nominal intensity (dt=100ns, dt=75ns, dt=50ns)  For detector rates contributions from pile-up and halo particles are analyzed  Limits on data and raw hit rates are analyzed  1 TEL62 dedicated to the old CHOD needed (and seems to be enough)  Another TEL62 needed for NHOD, NewCHOD, MUV0  Splitting board is needed to reduce rate per TDC  High FE threshold should be maximal to reduce a hit rate  Time window can be from 50ns to 100ns Analysis summary: TDAQ for the full intensity:

V.Duk, INFN Perugia conclusions 25 Hit rate, MHz2014 Run (dt=100ns) Full intensity (dt=100ns) Full intensity (dt=75ns) Full intensity (dt=50ns) Signal Pile-up0.13 (4.9%)36.8 (45.7%)26.4 (38.2%)19.6 (31.9%) Halo0.23 (8.2%)3.8 (4.7%)2.8 (4.0%)1.9 (3.1%) total Per slab < < 1.0