1. 25-Oct-2013 Upgrades Week “Muon plans for the Phase 2 TP” J. Hauser, UCLA  Phase 2 muon plans (presented at ECFA),  What’s new since Upgrade Week  New upgrade management (presented today at MB)  Organizing to write the muon section of the Phase 2 TP 1

2. 25-Oct-2013 Upgrades Week “Muon plans for the Phase 2 TP” J. Hauser, UCLA Three main aspects: 1. Aging studies, replacement  GIF++ tests for CSC and RPC chamber aging, DT components  Freon replacement for RPC gas after LS3  DT minicrate replacement 2. Forward muon trigger and redundancy  GE1/1 and GE2/1 based on improved L1 trigger, redundancy in the most intense region  RE3/1 and R4/1: timing for background rejection and PU mitigation 3. Forward muon tagging extension (ME 0 )  Large eta coverage (~2.1-4.0) for big acceptance, S/N boosts in modes with muon  Hermeticity for modes excluding muons

3. 25-Oct-2013 Upgrades Week “Muon plans for the Phase 2 TP” J. Hauser, UCLA  Proposed at ECFA workshop

4. 25-Oct-2013 Upgrades Week “Muon plans for the Phase 2 TP” J. Hauser, UCLA  If endcap calor not replaced, propose GE1/1 as envisioned in LS2  Endcap calor replacement: now in detailed engineering discussions  Space will likely be available for ME0  Is it the “ME0” we are used to? (eta>2.1 for muon tagging, ~6 layers)  Or is it “ME0/1” and “ME0/2” where the latter covers 1.6<eta<2.4 and has more lever arm to ME1/1 than GE1/1?

5. 25-Oct-2013 Upgrades Week “Muon plans for the Phase 2 TP” J. Hauser, UCLA  Pros:  More trigger lever arm than GE1/1, could be more than 2 layers  Could match precisely to eta=2.4 boundary of ME1/1  Can seek an “integrated” solution, more cost-effective?  Cons:  No opportunity to install in LS2  Could suffer neutron “leakage” from higher eta or higher punch- through from jets than GE1/1

6. 23-Oct-2013 Upgrades Week “Towards the muon part of the Phase 2 TP” J. Hauser, UCLA 6  The leading motivation is to improve muon triggering in this region  Rate reduction from bending angle and increased efficiency from added redundancy

7. 23-Oct-2013 Upgrades Week “Towards the muon part of the Phase 2 TP” J. Hauser, UCLA 7  “Close” chambers have worse separation, still pretty good  Bending angle works well in ME 0 to reduce trigger rate close far Tools used: fast simulation with CSC sim hits — propagate CSC sim to GEM layer — emulate detector channel resolution — compute bending angle New simulation results (Krutelyov)

8. 23-Oct-2013 Upgrades Week “Towards the muon part of the Phase 2 TP” J. Hauser, UCLA  Presented today at MB  There is a muon phase 2 “box” in the organization chart  Responsible to upgrade management  IMO, should also be responsible to muon IB  This is not a permanent structure, it is intended for converging on the TP plans and document (to be submitted to the RRB in Fall 2014)  Longer-term muon management structure, including the Phase 2 upgrade:  Subject of discussion, SP-elect does not want to jeopardize LS1 upgrade and subsequent commissioning  Will discuss this at the muon IB in December with the SP-elect

9. 23-Oct-2013 Upgrades Week “Towards the muon part of the Phase 2 TP” J. Hauser, UCLA  From MB176 https://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=14&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=282923 today: https://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=14&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=282923

10. 25-Oct-2013 Upgrades Week “Muon plans for the Phase 2 TP” J. Hauser, UCLA  Muon responsible(s?) in the upgrade organization need to be selected, and form a sub-organization  Should coordinate with muon PMs and IB  Participate in TC meetings – endcap replacement discussions  Engineering studies – define muon endcap “envelope”  Internal costing review(s)  Decisions on which muon items to be proposed  All will be carefully reviewed by LHCC - need excellent motivation  Drafting the TP muon section (first draft due by Mar. 31)