Review of the ADC for the LAr trigger upgrade Introduction

Mandate To recommend the use of one of the three possible ADCs being currently considered The selection criteria should take into account the following points: – Measured performances of (at least) a 2-channel ADC (ENOB, INL and DNL, power consumption, latency budget,...) compared to the requirements – Measured performances with radiation (TID, NIEL, SEU) and their impact on the installed system – Procurement schedule for the total quantity (this includes design time if needed) – QA process for guarantying the radiation hardness of the production – Interface to the serialiser (i.e. what is needed in between the ADC and the serialiser) – Costs and resources (costs - production+packaging for ASICs/production+single-lot premium for COTS, manpower resources for design/manuf./testing) – Maintenance requirements (spares, etc.) – Possible impact on Phase-2 upgrade

Review Committee Reviewers: – Francis Anghinolfi (CERN) – Ian Brawn (RAL) – Paul Hanke (Heidelberg) – Walter Snoeys (CERN) – Philippe Farthouat (CERN, Chair) Ex-officio: – Martin Aleksa, LAr PL – Bill Cleland, LAr upgrade FE electronics coordinator – Beniamino Di Girolamo, TC – Ariella Cattai, TC – Luis Hervas, Phase I Upgrade coordinator – Francesco Lanni, Phase I Upgrade coordinator

Agenda and Documentation Each proposed solution team has got a 1-hour slot – To be freely organised Documentation has been available enough time in advance – Thanks

Requirements Sampling rate Dynamic range ENOBINLDNLPowerRadiation Qualification ≥ 40 Ms/s12 b≥ 11 b≤ 1 LSB ≤ 145 mWTID: ~100 kRad NIEL: neutrons.cm -2 SEE: hadrons. cm -2 Additional constraints – A lot of channels on a board in the front-end crate Multichannel device – TID and NIEL not expected to be huge problem but SEE might be

Procedure Today we’ll hear the three proposals A number of people on Vidyo – Do not speak without a microphone Closed session at the end of the meeting Decision and report might take a bit of time but should be within 2 weeks