LHC and ATLAS Overview

John Huth

DOE Site Visit

News from the LHC machine

First full LHC cell (~ 120 m long) : 6 dipoles + 4 quadrupoles; successful tests at nominal current (12 kA)

More than half of the 1232 dipoles are produced

8.4 Tesla

QuadrupolesDipoles

The magnet production proceeds very well and is on schedule, also the quality of the magnets is very good

On the critical path for the first collisions in Summer 2007 is the installation of the LHC in the tunnel, in particular due to delays in the cryogenic services lines (QRL) which in 2004had problems, and for which a recovery plan was implemented successfully

Dipole installation in the tunnel

Dipoles ready for installation

Cryogenics (QRL) in the tunnel

LHC construction and installation

Lowering of the first dipoleinto the tunnel (March 2005)

Installation of dipoles in theLHC ring has started

Interconnection of the dipolesand connection to the cryolineare the real challenges now inthe installation process

A nice view of the tunnel….

Inner triplet containing US and Japanese magnets

1.8 K reached during commissioning of the cryogenics plant at Point 8

Other components of the LHC machine come along as well, two examples:

ATLAS Detector

ATLAS Collaboration

34 Countries151 Institutions1770 Scientific Authors

We can be pleased that new groups have initiated the procedure to join:

McGill Montreal (decision at this CB)Bologna (EoI submitted for this CB)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350Au

stria

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Italy

Neth

erla

nds

Norw

ay

Pola

nd

Portu

gal

Slov

ak R

epub

lic Spai

n

Swed

en

Switz

erla

nd

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

CERN

Arm

enia

Aust

ralia

Azer

baija

n Re

publ

ic

Repu

blic

of B

elar

us Braz

il

Cana

da

Chin

a PR

Geo

rgia

Isra

el

Japa

n

Mor

occo

Rom

ania

Russ

ia

JINR

Dub

na

Slov

enia

Taiw

an

Turk

ey

Unite

d St

ates

Blue = Scientific Authors (all)Pink = Institutions

Speakers age distribution

02468

101214

Age (years)

Entri

es /

2 ye

ars

99 entries (21 F plus 78 M)

441 registered participants

Rome Physics Workshop

Inner Detector: highlights and concerns

• Progress in detector construction is generally satisfactory,

• Concerns:– TRT

• Fuses– SCT

• Low Mass Tapes (LMT) and EndCap schedule– Pixel

• Modules and MCC potting • Stave delamination and fix

TRT• Barrel integration ok (~3/4 of electronics boards

installed) and ¼ cooling&active gas manifold received this week Barrel ready by end-August. In Sept/Oct. tests with the final back-end electronics. Available for integration with SCT from November.

• Integration of EndCapC proceeds well and projected to end by November

• Integration of ECA should follow and be ready for SCT integration in April 06. Still 1/3 of the wheels are not at CERN (to be delivered in Sept.)

B-wheels ECC

LAr END-CAP A FINAL INTEGRATION

LAr End-Cap A before closure

FCAL A insertion

LAr End-Cap A: Integration is finished, and cool down for acceptance test started.

CTB Barrel Resolution

Mean energy and resolution:

OFC,3x3 cluster

No corrections

Run 2102478Ebeam=180 GeV = 0.3

Same level as inprevious testbeam

<E>

(GeV)

E/<E>

(%)

171.36 0.83

Liquid Argon Calorimter Status

• End-cap C cold test successfully completed. ECC detectors accepted by LAr system.

• End-cap A integration completed, cold test started.

• Front-end electronics production progressing well except

– FEB 6 months delay due to timing problems, trying to recover.

– LV DC/DC power supplies still unpredictable delivery to CERN.

• Back-end electronics production in full swing, installation in USA15 starting with 2 months delay.

• HV PS system improved, but still not stable. Task force to evaluate.

• Barrel FE infrastructure installation well advanced.

• Electronics installation driven by hardware availability. Critical.

• Phase 3 Commissioning organization established.

First Events in the LHC!

Hadronic Tile Cal – on track

Muon SpectrometerMuon Spectrometer

• Trigger System

- Resistive Plate

Chambers (RPC)

- Thin Gap

Chambers (TGC)

• Precision System

- Monitored Drift

Tubes (MDT)

- Cathode Strip

Chambers (CSC)

• Magnet System

- Barrel Toroid (BT)

- Endcap Toroids (ECT)

BTECT

RPCTGC

MDT

CSC

Barrel Toroid installation status

All nearly in

Position!

Barrel Toroid installation

ECT ReorganizationBoth Vacuum vessels at CERN since 2002

Since then we waited

for the Cold mass.............

Company was sold,

2 years delay in production

finally did not qualify production

In May 04 contract was descoped

to coil manufacturing only,

to rescue the project the integration work moved to CERN

In Oct 04 integration work re-started in H191

In April 05 the company completed the coilwinding and all coil units were delivered to CERN

New Cold Mass integration

All bare coils & boxes delivered

New scope in H191:

Repairs on boxes

All Al cooling lines welding

All ss cooling line manifolds

Fix all missing parts

Cold mass survey, shimming

Building up cold mass

Work shows good progress

For CM-C all coils and boxes now ready, lines completed,

assembly of cold mass started

Magnet Schedule

ECT-C

Cold mass ready by Aug 05

Cryostat integrated by Dec 05

80K test in Jan 06 – Mar 06

Transport, installation and test in Apr-Sep 06

ECT-A

Cold mass ready by Jan 06

Cryostat integrated by Apr 06

8K test in May-Jul 06

Transport, installation and test in Sep-Dec 06

BT +2ECT test in Jan-Apr 07

Muon ReconstructionMuon Reconstruction

Aim: ▪ Muon Identification ▪ Precise measurement of muon 3-momentum

(pT)/pT = 10% at pT = 1 TeV/c for most range

requires ~50 m position precision

Basic principleBasic principle

( Physics):

Selection of events with high-pT muons

( Trigger):

Identification of candidate muon tracks coming from the interaction vertex within a pT range.

( Algorithm):

Demand a coincidence of hits in different RPCs chamber within geometrical road.

Similar approach with TGC in endcap

Muon Level 1 Trigger (barrel)Muon Level 1 Trigger (barrel)

Prepare Look Up Tables (LUT) as a set of relations between values of s and pT for different , regions (s = f ( , , pT)).

Barrel, Muon Layout Q

Sagitta distributionSmall

30 x 60 ( , ) tables for each detector octant.

Muon High Level TriggerMuon High Level Trigger

Moore and

Muonboy able

to reconstruct

tracks

Plan to interface

with dedicated

pattern recogn.

cosmics algorithm

Mooretrack

Cosmics!

LVL1 Trigger Overview

Calorimeter trigger Muon trigger

Central Trigger Processor (CTP)

Timing, Trigger, Control (TTC)

Germany, Sweden, UK

Italy Japan, Israel

Cluster Processor (e/, /h)

Pre-Processor (analogue ET)

Jet / Energy-Sum Processor

CERN

Muon Barrel Trigger

Muon End-cap Trigger

Muon-CTP Interface

(MUCTPI)

~7200 calorimeter trigger towers O(1M) RPC/TGC channels

LVL1 Endcap Muon Trigger• A critical item at the start of this

year was the “SLB” ASIC– Two revised versions of ASIC

evaluated and both work fully– Mass production is in progress

with delivery of packaged devices expected in July

• On-detector electronics using prototype ASICs is available for tests of the 1/12 assemblies– General-purpose boards

Schedule is tight

Trigger Status

• Much progress in all areas of LVL1, HLT and DAQ

• Schedule very tight and particularly critical for the on-detector electronics of the LVL1 muon trigger

– Need to avoid any delays in production, testing, etc.

• Difficult to keep software releases coherent & synchronized, and serving needs both of development & analysis/tuning

– Overall integration and testing is complex and time consuming

• Shortage of effort in a number of areas is a concern

– Some positive recent developments with new people and groups getting involved

Computing

• “Standard model” of computing– Single computing center– Analysis framework– Data management

• Grid computing– Hierarchy of sites

• Tier 0 – CERN – first pass reconstruction• Tier 1 – Regional Centers (BNL = US ATLAS)• Tier 2 – Major clusters

Challenges at the LHC

For each experiment (4 total):

10’s of Petabytes/year of data logged

2000 + Collaborators

40 Countries

160 Institutions (Universities, National Laboratories)

CPU intensive

Global distribution of data

Test with « Data Challenges »

CPU v. Collab.

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Collaboration Size

CPU CPU v. Collab.

Earth Simulator

Atmospheric Chemistry Group

LHC Exp.

Astronomy

Grav. Wave

Nuclear Exp.

Current accelerator Exp.

CPU vs. Collaboration Size

Image courtesy Harvey Newman, Caltech

Grids for High Energy Physics

Tier2 Centre ~1 TIPS

Online System

Offline Processor Farm

~20 TIPS

CERN Computer Centre

FermiLab ~4 TIPSFrance Regional Centre

Italy Regional Centre

Germany Regional Centre

InstituteInstituteInstituteInstitute ~0.25TIPS

Physicist workstations

~100 MBytes/sec

~100 MBytes/sec

~622 Mbits/sec

~1 MBytes/sec

There is a “bunch crossing” every 25 nsecs.

There are 100 “triggers” per second

Each triggered event is ~1 MByte in size

Physicists work on analysis “channels”.

Each institute will have ~10 physicists working on one or more channels; data for these channels should be cached by the institute server

Physics data cache

~PBytes/sec

~622 Mbits/sec

Tier2 Centre ~1 TIPS

Tier2 Centre ~1 TIPS

Tier2 Centre ~1 TIPS

Caltech ~1 TIPS

~622 Mbits/sec

Tier 0Tier 0

Tier 1Tier 1

Tier 2Tier 2

Tier 4Tier 4

1 TIPS is approximately 25,000

SpecInt95 equivalents

Resource Summary

•Table 1: The projected total resources required at the start of 2008 for the case when 20% of the data rate is fully simulated.

Grid3

virtual data grid laboratory

virtual data research

end-to-end HENPapplications

CERN LHC: US ATLAStestbeds & data challenges

CERN LHC: USCMStestbeds & data challenges

Grid3

Scaling and the Future

• Need to reduce amount of human intervention• Establishment of an economic model for the grid

– What are the real prices of services?– Get beyond “good-will” stage

• Open Science Grid– Next step beyond Grid3

• Security• Data storage and access• Quality of service

• Interoperability among grids– Standards

Massive productions on 3 Grids

Massive productions on 3 Grids

• July-September 2004: DC2 Geant-4 simulation (long jobs)

– 40% on LCG/EGEE Grid, 30% on Grid3 and 30% on NorduGrid

• October-December 2004: DC2 digitization and reconstruction (short jobs)

• February-May 2005: Rome production (mix of jobs as digitization and reconstruction was started as soon as samples had been simulated)

– 70% on LCG/EGEE Grid, 25% on Grid3, 5% on NorduGrid

Rome Grid Production: Successful Job Count at 83 ATLAS sites

Southwest T2 BNL T1

Boston T2

Midwest T2

U.S. Grid Production (Rome/DC2 combined)

20 different sites used in the U.S.

ATLAS Tier 2’s played dominant role

BNL T122%

Boston T220%

UM3%

UBuf2%

PSU3%

Southwest T224%

FNAL4%

PDSF4%

Midwest T213%

Other US sites (7)4%

UCSD1%

(3 sites)

(2 sites)

US ATLAS Domination on Grid3

<Capone Jobs/day> = 350

Max # jobs/day = 1020

US ATLAS dominated all other VOs in use of Grid3

2004 2005

What is the Open Science Grid?

Consortium Architecture

What is the Open Science Grid?

• Open

– A new sort of multidisciplinary cyberinfrastructure community

– An experiment in governance, incentives, architecture

– Part of a larger whole, with TeraGrid, EGEE, LCG, etc.

• Science

– Driven by demanding scientific goals and projects who need results today (or yesterday)

– Also a computer science experimental platform

• Grid

– Standardized protocols and interfaces

– Software implementing infrastructure, services, applications

– Physical infrastructure—computing, storage, networks

• People who know & understand these things!

US ATLAS Roles in Cyberinfrastructure

• US ATLAS played leadership roles in Grid3 – Overall project coordination, led monitoring and metrics group, led operations,

deployed the iGOC and iVDGL prototype Tier2 centers, led the deployment of Grid3 infrastructure and services overall

– Largest user of Grid3 resources 2004, 2005• Leadership roles in the Open Science Grid

– Integration (UC and IU lead), Deployment (BNL co-chairs), Interoperability with LCG/EGEE and TeraGrid (IU co-chairs), Operations (IU co-chairs), OSG GOC (IU hosting), Consortium architecture and Governance (BNL, BU, HU, UC)

– US ATLAS is heavily involved in defining the set of US LHC baseline services required for the OSG

• Leadership roles in the international ATLAS grid production system– Windmill Supervisor: ATLAS interoperating with Grid3, LCG, and NorduGrid– Pacman, software environment manager: used by ATLAS, VDT, Grid3, OSG,

LCG, Green Grid, CMS/DPE, SRM, the French Ministry of Education, LIGO, being evaluated by TeraGrid, STAR, and others

– Capone, workload management system for Grid3

Summary

• Accelerator and ATLAS are on schedule for 2007– Not to say that things aren’t very tight– Small problems

• First cosmic rays seen in partly assembled detector.

• Major work on muon subsystem – installation, reconstruction, computing grids (next talks).