Phase 2 muon plenary, 11-Feb-2015 Jay Hauser  Based on three main arguments:  Age/reliability  Radiation tolerance  Maintainability  Bonus: L1 trigger rate capability improved to Phase 2 specs  Current system was designed for 100 kHz but loses data rapidly beyond L1A rate of 300 kHz  New system can go to 1 MHz or beyond with no data loss  When the current system stops working or loses efficiency, we lose our best physics (central muon events) 2

Target LS3. (~25 years old electronics). We will not have time to design and build the system if we wait until it starts to wear out. If not replaced, cost and access time will be also high in LS3. (106/250 Minicrates intervened in LS1). Staging, i.e. delaying until LS4: this means that in Run 4 the central muon trigger and reconstruction, our highest-quality data, is at risk. We will accumulate in one year after LS3 ~= LHC...

Timeline DT new Electronics R&D & prototyping Final validation test in LS Construction Ready for LS LS2

UXCUSCValidation MiC2 RO PCBCIEMAT, PD DT ControlsAA MiC2 linksTO USC system “TRI-ROS” and FWCIEMAT, BO MiC2 mechanics and infrastructureAA TDC FWPD Hit detection + Pattern recognition FWBO, CIEMAT, PD Simulation MiC2 & “TRI-ROS” online SWPDPD, CIEMAT, BO, AA Test system & test interfacesAA, BO, TO Integration-installation Agreed provisional sharing + Malaysia, Estonia, Hungary WORKPACKAGES

6 C. F. BedoyaCMS Upgrade Week – February, 2015 We should repeat radiation tests on the Minicrate electronics to understand up to which levels they will survive. Btw, this note: Altera EPM7064 and EPM7192 PLD are members of the MAX7000 family died at 7.66 Gy under a 63 MeV proton beam at the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at the University of California, Davis (UCD) But, if we are asked to run up to LS4 (2029) we should not compromise the spares we have. Should we use a testing board? We need to decide: WHEN (should be this year...) WHAT (testing board with a Altera chip?) WHERE (Legnaro?)

9 C. F. BedoyaCMS Upgrade Week – February, 2015 MiC2 It looks to me unlikely we can do it without removing the RPC cables. We need to remove the covers (plus the rest) Where to attach the MiC2? Rebuild FE splitter? I would change the cables (TP, FE power, etc)

12 C. F. BedoyaCMS Upgrade Week – February, R&D plan  major milestones and steps to achieve validation of components and systems up to construction - overall expected cost (w/o breakdown) - potential issues, aspects needing more attention/coverage… DT, 10% of the cost in R&D

13 C. F. BedoyaCMS Upgrade Week – February, 2015

14 C. F. BedoyaCMS Upgrade Week – February, 2015

15 C. F. BedoyaCMS Upgrade Week – February, 2015

Upgrade well defined: Clear motivation: Aging and reliability of present electronics. Delaying the replacement, beyond the date we can realistically build it (LS3), is a serious risk to the overall CMS performance that the DT detector is not willing to take. Cost well established and approved by CMS reviewers (5.8 MCHF) R&D plan outlined: Sharing of the activity in the work packages is mostly agreed within participating institutes, although not final. Sharing of financial cost of the upgrade and of the R&D being discussed. February 5 th,

17 C. F. BedoyaCMS Upgrade Week – February, 2015

18 C. F. BedoyaCMS Upgrade Week – February, 2015

19 C. F. BedoyaCMS Upgrade Week – February, 2015

Remember that it is important at high P t

DT Upgrade, aka MiC2 FOREWORD The DT upgrade is NOT linked to the Lv1 trigger upgrade Although the minicrates are well behaving now, 2/5 already required maintenance in LS1 and are prone to become less reliable as they age. Given the difficulty in their access and maintenance, they could become a very significant source of data loss for CMS. Delaying the replacement, beyond the date we can realistically build it, is a serious risk to the overall CMS performance that the DT detector is not willing to take. The earliest possible is LS3. Since we redo it, we design it for a larger band width as needed by the lv1 trigger upgrade

DT MiC2 project Second CMS-muonDT phase2-upgrade held in Madrid (CIEMAT) on Nov Upgrade well defined; cost well established and approved by CMS reviewers (cost-book in back- up slides) R&D plan outlined, both for schedule and for subdivision in work packages Sharing of the activity in the work packages is mostly agreed, although not final Sharing of financial cost of the upgrade and of the R&D being discussed

Timeline R&D & prototyping Final validation test in LS Construction Ready for LS (R&D plan details in back-up slides)

Activities: basic workpackages System HW architecture – MiC2 RO PCB – DT Controls – MiC2 links – USC system “TRI-ROS” and FW MiC2 mechanics and infrastructure TDC FW Hit detection + Pattern recognition FW Simulation MiC2 & “TRI-ROS” online SW Test system & test interfaces Integration-installation

UXCUSCValidation MiC2 RO PCBCIEMAT, PD DT ControlsAA MiC2 linksTO USC system “TRI-ROS” and FWCIEMAT, BO MiC2 mechanics and infrastructureAA TDC FWPD Hit detection + Pattern recognition FWBO, CIEMAT, PD Simulation MiC2 & “TRI-ROS” online SWPDPD, CIEMAT, BO, AA Test system & test interfacesAA, BO, TO Integration-installation Agreed provisional sharing + Malaysia, Estonia, Hungary

Back-up slides

R&D + validation plan : transverse workpackages