1. Trigger session report
ByungGu Cheon
Hanyang University
19 March, 2009
2nd Open Meeting of the Super KEKB Collaboration

3. sBelle calorimeter trigger
S. Ryu
Feature :
Much simpler electronics chain (2 steps) than Belle
More flexible trigger algorithm design than Belle
1st step (FAM) : 10MHz/12bit FADC + FPGA
2nd step (TMM) : cascade/partitioning FPGAs
Bulky copper cables  52 optical fibers
Simple monitoring scheme
Simultaneous handling of CsI(Tl) and pure-CsI signals
Current status :
We now investigate fast shaping signal from new Shaper.
FAM core firmware algorithm has been tested.
TSIM MC study has been performed w/ g4superb.
Plan :
FAM/TMM prototypes will be ready by June.
Basic test of Shaper/FAM/TMM readout chain
Under real environment before Belle shutdown
Belle
sBelle

4. Test bench for Shaper board
S. Ryu
New Shaper Board

5. Undershoot tail has been corrected with pole-zero cancelation → okay
S. Ryu
Gain Test for fast shaping output : 6 bits are reserved for the gain adjustment. → enough
Undershoot tail has been corrected with pole-zero cancelation → okay

6. Noise level test with cosmic data → okay
S. Ryu
Noise level test with cosmic data → okay
26 ch for 160 MeV
pedestal (mean value) ch ch
peak
RMS =1.58
~ 10 MeV 6 ch ch

7. Problem in g4superb(?) Logarithm scale
Y. Unno
Single tracks( / e- / - / - / K+) are checked for gsim and g4superb.
Generate p=5GeV/c single track in CM isotrapically.
Without beam background
Check only Barrel region
Logarithm scale
hadron interaction effect in g4superb-ecl is strange???
January 1, 2019 7
Y.Unno

8. Effect of beam bkg
Y. Unno
Check tsim response for signal MC with “beam background”.
“beam background”(addbg) is real random-triggered data.
Used here is exp.51 data: 2006/04-06(peak L =~ 16x1033/cm2/sec)
January 1, 2019 8
Y.Unno

9. Effect of beam bkg Random triggered event under x20 bkg will be all
Y. Unno
Random triggered event
under x20 bkg will be all
triggered as physics event?!
January 1, 2019 9
Y.Unno

10. APV25, Clock and Trigger APV25
M. Friedl
APV25
Schematics of one channel
Please refer to my December 2008 meeting slides for details about APV25 (SVD session)
In Nov/Dec 2008 beam test, we confirmed that APV works perfectly fine with both
42.4 MHz clock (=RF/12)  3.5 µs max L1 latency
31.8 MHz clock (=RF/16)  4.7 µs max L1 latency
We can make the APV25 clock switchable

11. Summary APV25 has trigger limitations due to
M. Friedl
Summary
APV25 has trigger limitations due to
(1) Minimum L1 distance of 6 APV clocks
(2) Maximum pipeline filling
APV25 trigger simulation was performed to estimate dead time.
In case of no external limitation, we 30kHZ L1:
0.87% for 42.4MHz clock, 3.43% at 31.8MHz (see December slides for more detail)
With 500ns time jitter as estimated by CDC trigger we get
0.42% for 42.4MHz clock, 2.7% at 31.8MHz
Conclusion: With 500ns CDC trigger jitter, both frequencies are fine according to Nakao-san‘s wish of <3% APV25 dead L1=30kHz

12. E. Won

13. E. Won

14. Y. Iwasaki

15. Y. Iwasaki

16. Y. Iwasaki

17. Y. Iwasaki

18. Backup

19. Tsim-ecl with Belle and sBelle
Y. Unno
B Kp / Bp0p0 / Br0g / Btn /　tmg / eeX(214)(mm)g
Without beam background
gsim
g4superb
Super-Belle
geant3
geant4
Belle tsim-ecl
sBelle tsim-ecl
Belle ecl performance
sBelle ecl performance
January 1, 2019 19
Y.Unno

20. Check with single track
Comparison between w/ and w/o inner detector
Note that there is no difference between w/ and w/o inner detector for gsim too.

21. Effect of beam bkg