Tevatron run issues with higher luminosity

BNL, June 2006 Vaia Papadimitriou

1

Tevatron run issues with higher luminosity

4th International Workshop on Heavy Quarkonia

Vaia Papadimitriou, FermilabBNL, June 27-30 2006


2

OUTLINE

Tevatron performance and projections

CDF data sets and plans for higher luminosity

D0 data sets and plans for higher luminosity

Conclusion


3

The Fermilab Accelerator Complex

√s 1.96 TeV

P

P

CDFCDF D0D0

MAIN INJECTOR: 150 GeVRECYCLER / e-COOLING


4

Tevatron Performance

Tevatron (Run I 1992-96, ∫L dt = 110 pb-1 ): p pbar at s = 1.8 TeV, 3.5 s between collisions

Tevatron (Run II 2002-Present, ∫L dt = ~1.53 fb-1 ): p pbar at s = 1.96 TeV, 396 ns between collisions

Best 1.72 x 1032 cm-1s-1

7.17 pb-1 delivered per experiment in one store, Feb. 12, 2006

~ 1.53 fb-1 delivered per experiment in Run II

FY05

FY05

FY04

FY04

FY03

FY03

FY02

FY02

FY06

FY06

( original plan for 132 ns )


5

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

Eng. Run Run Ia Run Ib Run IIa Run IIb(base)

Run IIb(design)

Inte

grat

ed L

umin

osity

(fb

-1)

Collider Luminosity History (per detector)

1986-1987 Eng. Run I .05 pb-1

1988-1989 Eng. Run II 9.2 pb-1

Run Ia (1992-1993) 32.2 pb-1

Run Ib (1994-1996) 154.7 pb-1

Run IIa (2002-2005) 1200 pb-1

Run IIb (2006-2009) 3,060 – 6,880 pb-1

Run IIa + IIb (2002-2009) 4,260 – 8,080 pb-1

Pro

ject

ed

Pro

ject

ed

Log Scale !


6

Luminosity

The major luminosity limitations areThe number of antiprotons (BNpbar)

The proton beam brightness (Np/p)

Beam-Beam effects

The transverse antiproton emittance Transverse beam optics at the interaction point (*)F<1

p

p

p,pL

p,py,x*

p

pp*

o

1

,,,FNBN

f3L

~30 cm


7



8

Stacking Performance

FY03FY02

FY04

FY06

FY05

Stack size (1010)Zero stack stacking rate


9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

9/29/03 9/29/04 9/30/05 10/1/06 10/2/07 10/2/08 10/3/09

Date

Inte

gra

ted

Lu

min

osi

ty (

fb-1)

30mA/hr

25mA/hr

20mA/hr

15mA/hr

DESIGN

BASE

8.1 fb-1

4.3 fb-

1

Expected Integrated Luminosity

5.3 fb-1

Fermilab Tevatron

30 mA/hr

15 mA/hr

6.7 fb-1


10

Fiscal Year

30 mA/h

(fb-1)

25 mA/h

(fb-1)

20 mA/h

(fb-1)

15 mA/h

(fb-1)

FY03 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33

FY04 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67

FY05 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27

FY06 2.07 1.94 1.91 1.87

FY07 3.84 3.24 2.93 2.63

FY08 5.92 4.88 4.03 3.40

FY09 8.08 6.70 5.28 4.26

Fiscal Year

30 mA/h

(fb-1)

25 mA/h

(fb-1)

20 mA/h

(fb-1)

15 mA/h

(fb-1)

FY03 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33

FY04 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34

FY05 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.60

FY06 0.80 0.67 0.64 0.60

FY07 1.77 1.30 1.01 0.76

FY08 2.08 1.64 1.10 0.77

FY09 2.17 1.82 1.25 0.87

Accumulated Luminosity and Luminosity per fiscal year

Accumulated Luminosity Luminosity per fiscal year


11

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

9/29/03 9/29/04 9/30/05 10/1/06 10/2/07 10/2/08 10/3/09

Date

Pe

ak

Lu

min

osi

ty (

x1030

cm-2

sec-1

)

30mA/hr

25mA/hr

20mA/hr

15mA/hr

Expected Peak Luminosity

30 mA/hr

15 mA/hr


12

Data sets

CDF/D0 have about 10 million J/’s each in 1 fb-1 of Run II data.

1.62 fb-1

1.30 fb-1

1.44 fb-1

1.20 fb-1


13

Trigger rates

Trigger Level Maximum rate CDF

Maximum rate D0

Level 1 30 kHz 1.6 (1.8) kHz

Level 2 0.7 (1.0) kHz

<10% dead time

0.95 (1.05) kHz

<5% (10-15%) dt

Level 3 150 Hz 300 – 400 Hz


14

A Study of Store Lifetime

Collected data for all Tevatron stores of 2004-2005 lasting longer than 24 hours Used 116 stores Fit first 24h of each store with: Fit is typically good to better than ~ 5% Model is easy to integrate/solve Only two parameters (L0, )

Phenomenological study of vs. L0 to extrapolate to higher luminosities

Use results to predict integrated luminosities for low lum tables that “kick-in” only after instantaneous luminosity drops below threshold.

t

L)t(L

1

0


15

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

66%34%0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

64%36%

hours hours

Inst

. Lu

min

os

ity

(E32

)

Inst

. Lu

min

os

ity

(E32

)

Peak Lum = 2E32Peak Lum = 3E32

Typical projected store evolution

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

< 1.5 E32

1.5 – 2.0 E32

2.0 – 2.5 E32

2.5 – 3.0 E32


16

The D0 Detector

Excellent muon and tracking coverage

Tracking up to ||<3

Muons up to ||<2


17

J/ triggers

Central (||<1.6) muon pT requirements are 1.5 GeV/c and 3.0 GeV/c

Forward muons do not have tracking coverage and one cannot apply pT cuts at Level 1. (~1 GeV/c muons can penetrate the iron)

At higher trigger levels one requires either two forward muons with pT

>2 GeV/c or one forward and one central muon with pTs greater than 1 and 3 GeV/c respectively.

Dielectron triggers as well in Run IIA but with roughly a factor of 500 smaller yield. Expect to collect more dielectron J/’s in Run IIB ( ~ 5-10 times smaller yield than dimuon J/’s)

No dynamic prescaling (DPS) used; change prescales every few hours


18

The CDF Detector

Central Outer Tracker: ||<1.0 dE/dx for PID

Silicon: |z|<45 cm, ||<2.0

Central Muon Detectors: ||<1.0

1.3<||<3.5

3.5<||<5.1

ToF counter for K/ separation placed right before the solenoid

Excellent mass resolution Particle ID: dE/dx, TOF Tracking triggers (Hadronic

B’s):L1: Tracks

L2: Secondary vertex


19

J/ triggers

CMU1.5/CMU1.5 <1200, oppQ J/CMUCMU L2 10:1:1

CMU1.5/CMX2 <1200, oppQ J/CMUCMX L2 10:1:1

CMU1.5/CMX2 <1200, oppQ J/CMUCMX L2 PS=2

CMU1.5/CMU1.5 <1200, oppQ J/CMUCMU L2 PS=2

CMU1.5/CMU1.5 auto J/CMUCMU L2 PS=100

CMU1.5/CMX2 auto J/CMUCMX L2 PS=100

CMUP4 auto J/CMUCMU L2 50:10:1

CMUP4 auto J/CMUCMX L2 50:10:1

CMUP4 CMUP8 J/CMUCMU L2 10:1:1

CMUP4 CMUP8 J/CMUCMX L2 10:1:1

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 PrescaleDPS

DPS

DPS

DPS

DPS

DPS

Dielectron triggers as well

Sin

gle

lept

on

Hig

h p

T

polarization

calib

ratio

n


20

Trigger cross section - rate extrapolation

Current XFTUpgraded XFT

As the luminosity increases, higher average number of primary interactions per bunch crossing yield more complex events with higher occupancies and higher trigger rates which cause higher dead time fractions and lower efficiencies.

One example: High Pt CMX Muon

In principle, a physics process trigger cross section, is constant .

In reality, a given trigger crosssection behaves as: = A/L + B + CL + DL2

Confirmation of XFT tracks by stereo layers is expected to yield a substantial reduction of fakes

Use existing data toextrapolate


21

Trigger/DAQ Upgrades for higher luminosity

Goals Increase bandwidth at all levels Improve purity at L1

Status - Complete COT TDC -- readout latency COT Track Trigger (XFT)-- purity Silicon Vertex Trigger (SVT)-- latency L2/L3 trigger -- latency Event builder -- latency Data logger -- throughput

Track trigger installation done, being commissioned

Data logger installation in progress

Add stereo layer info

Proc power: 1THz 2.6THz


22Impact of L2 decision crate & SVT upgrades on L1 bandwidthD

ead

tim

e %

L1A rate (Hz)

BeforeUpgrade

Lumi~20-50E30

AfterUpgrade

Lumi~90E30

18KHz 25KHz

5%

Before: 5% deadtime

with L1A 18KHz

@ ~< 50E30

After: 5% deadtime

with L1A 25KHz

@ ~ 90E30


23

Trigger rate extrapolation – Jet 100 GeV

Primary vertex multiplicity vs inst. luminosity

Trigger cross section vs primary vertex multipl.

Predicted cross section vs inst. luminosity

3rd order poly

2nd order poly

3rd order poly


24

Trigger rate extrapolation – B hadronic two track trigger

Primary vertex multiplicity vs inst. luminosity

Trigger cross section vs primary vertex multipl.

2nd order poly

3rd order poly

Predicted cross section vs inst. luminosity

3rd order poly


25

J/ triggers for higher luminosity

CMU1.5/CMU1.5 <1200, oppQ J/CMUCMU L2 10:1:1

CMU1.5/CMX2 <1200, oppQ J/CMUCMX L2 10:1:1

CMU1.5/CMX2 <1200, oppQ J/CMUCMX L2 PS=25

CMU1.5/CMU1.5 <1200, oppQ J/CMUCMU L2 PS=2 5

CMU1.5/CMU1.5 J/CMUCMU no pres.

CMU1.5/CMX2 J/CMUCMX no pres.

CMUP4 auto J/CMUCMU L2 50:10:1

CMUP4 auto J/CMUCMX L2 50:10:1

CMUP4 CMUP8 J/CMUCMU L2 10:1:1

CMUP4 CMUP8 J/CMUCMX L2 10:1:1

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 PrescaleDPS

DPS

DPS

DPS

DPS

DPS

1.75, 2.5 GeV/c2< mT < 4 GeV


26

Preparation for doing physics at highest luminosity

Dedicated studies to understand evolution of Tracking, Lepton Identification, B-Jet Tagging, Missing Energy Resolution, Jet Corrections, etc.

Strategy: Use Monte Carlo: over-lay additional minimum-bias events to simulate

luminosity up to 3 E32 Use data: in bins of # of interactions/event; makes use of the bunch-to-bunch

luminosity variations to gain a level arm to higher luminosity Data vs MC comparison

PRLdetector

OnlineTrigger/DAQ

Offline computing Analysis/meetings

~100s ns ~ µs to ~ms ~weeks ~ months


27

on Average: 10% (relative) loss in B-tag efficiency

Tracking: High Occupancy Physics

Avgnow

Avg2007-09

Peak (3 E32)2007-09

vs number of z vertices

At highest luminosities: – COT efficiency more significantly impacted–SVX efficiency minimally affected

Top, Higgs,…


28

Tracking: Low Occupancy Physics

1%

o No significant effect on this type of CDF physics program

B, W, …


29

ConclusionsThe Tevatron is running very well (1.53 fb-1 delivered) Many new resultsThe Tevatron is expected to provide 4.3 – 8.1 fb-1 by

October 2009 Typical peak luminosities of the order of 1.5-1.6 x 1032

now and 2.0-3.0 x 1032 expected CDF and D0 have of the order of 107 J/’s each in 1fb-1

of data They expect to retain similar yields up to 2 x 1032 and

80-95% of the yield per fb-1 at higher peak luminosities A lot of answers and surprises awaiting!!


30

Backup


31


Base

Design

FY02

FY05

FY05

FY04

FY03

FY02

FY06

FY06


32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

9/29/03 9/29/04 9/30/05 10/1/06 10/2/07 10/2/08 10/3/09

Date

Inte

gra

ted

Lu

min

osi

ty p

er

We

ek

(pb-1

)

30mA/hr

25mA/hr

20mA/hr

15mA/hr

Expected Weekly Luminosity


33

Data Analysis and physics results turn around time

Data Analysis processing power: 8.2 THz - distributed among 10 Central Analysis Farms (CAFs) 5.8THz on-site (30% from non-FNAL funds), 2.4 THz off-site (for Monte Carlo)

Improvement - use a single entry point for job submission to offsite CAFsexpands CPU resources available for CDF and increases efficiency of their use (world-wide CDF-Grid of CPU clusters)

Physics results turn around time:

recent 1 fb-1 data to 1st physics result ~ 10 weeks

PRLdetector

OnlineTrigger/DAQ

Offline computing Analysis/meetings

~100s ns ~ µs to ~ms ~weeks ~ months


34

Antiproton Parameters

Antiproton ParametersPhase 1 2 3 4 5 6

Zero Stack Stacking Rate 13.0 16.0 18.9 30.2 30.2 30.2 x1010/hour13.0 16.0 16.6 25.2 25.2 25.213.0 16.0 16.6 20.2 20.2 20.213.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0

Average Stacking Rate 6.3 7.4 9.6 21.7 21.7 21.7 x1010/hour6.3 7.4 8.5 14.8 17.4 17.46.3 7.4 8.5 11.3 11.3 13.36.3 7.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 9.7

Stack Size transferred 158.2 163.8 211.5 476.5 476.5 476.5 x1010

158.2 163.8 187.9 324.7 382.5 382.5158.2 163.8 187.9 248.6 248.6 293.5158.2 163.8 181.5 181.5 181.5 214.5

Stack to Low Beta 117.1 124.5 169.2 381.2 381.2 381.2 x1010

117.1 124.5 144.7 253.3 298.3 298.3117.1 124.5 144.7 191.4 191.4 226.0117.1 124.5 138.0 138.0 138.0 163.0

Pbar Production 16.0 15.0 16.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 x10-6

16.0 15.0 15.0 17.5 17.5 17.516.0 15.0 15.0 16.0 16.0 16.016.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

Design (30mA/hr) Fallback (25mA/hr) Fallback (20mA/hr) Base (15mA/hr)

FY

04

Pla

n

Slip

Sta

ck

ing

8/8

/20

05

Re

cy

cle

r E

co

ol

2/2

7/2

00

6

Sta

ck

Ta

il

5/1

4/2

00

7

He

lix

6/3

0/2

00

8

Re

lia

bilit

y

8/3

1/2

00

9


35

Future Pbar Work Lithium Lens (0 – 15%)

Lens Gradient from 760T/m to 1000 T/m

Slip Stacking (7%) Currently at 7.5x1012 on average Design 8.0x1012 on average

AP2 Line (5-30%) Lens Steering AP2 Steer to apertures AP2 Lattice

Debuncher Aperture (13%) Currently at 30-32um Design to 35um

DRF1 Voltage (5%) Currently running on old tubes at

4.0 MEV Need to be a t 5.3 MeV

Accumulator & D/A Aperture (20%) Currently at 2.4 sec Design to 2.0 sec

Stacktail Efficiency Can improve core 4-8 GHz

bandwidth by a factor of 2

Timeline Effects SY120 takes up 7% of the timeline


36

Trigger cross section/rate extrapolation is based on existing data

Confirmation of XFT tracks by stereo layers is expected to yield a substantial reduction of fakes

Current XFTUpgraded XFT

One example: High Pt CMX Muon Main reason for the growth of

trigger cross section is the

increasing # of interactions

per bunch crossing By counting the number of

vertices found offline,

one could estimate

the effective luminosity Variation of bunch to

bunch luminosity due to

anti-proton intensity…

Those information is used for rate extrapolation and cross checks


37#h

its o

n tr

acks

SVX COT

At highest luminosities: – SVX efficiency minimally affected– COT efficiency more significantly impacted

Tracking (SVX & COT): High Occupancy Physics

Number of interactions per event

Tevatron run issues with higher luminosity

Documents

Transcript of Tevatron run issues with higher luminosity