1 / 49

Detector status Pisa activities Analysis Laboratory tests

TileCal Status report (ATLAS-Pisa). Detector status Pisa activities Analysis Laboratory tests. TileCal Installation. Barrel at interaction point. EBC. EBA. The three TileCal cylinders are fully installed in the ATLAS cavern. Barrel: finished December 2004

kira
Download Presentation

Detector status Pisa activities Analysis Laboratory tests

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TileCal Status report(ATLAS-Pisa) Detector status Pisa activities Analysis Laboratory tests Commissione I

  2. TileCal Installation Barrel at interaction point EBC EBA The three TileCal cylinders are fully installed in the ATLAS cavern • Barrel: finished December 2004 • Extended Barrel C: finished February 2006 • Extended Barrel A: finished May 2006 Commissione I

  3. EBA installation 23 March:First 18 modules lowered 20 April: LAr cryostat lowered 24 May: EBA finished (Done in 8.5 weeks!) Commissione I

  4. Gap, crack, MBT scintillators • Installation status: gap, cryostat, and minimum bias trigger scintillators completely installed on both extended barrels • Fiber cabling and light sealing finished, currently being tested Minimum bias trigger scintillators (8) Cryostat (crack) scintillators (64) Gap scintillators (64) Commissione I

  5. Cesium system status UX15 level 0 • Interconnection/piping of cesium tubes done for 3 cylinders • Local equipment (garages, electronics boxes) installed for 3 cylinders • September: install hydraulic system in UX15 racks • October: connect to the drive, wet test using dummy source • November: start calibrations in barrel using 137Cs source Commissione I

  6. Status of drawers • Barrel: insertion and certification finished • Waiting for access to repair 1 drawer • Extended barrel: • Insertion finished • Recertification ongoing after transport to pit and cylinder assembly • So far 31/128 drawers tested • Waiting for access to repair faults found Commissione I

  7. LVPS: Introduction • Finger low voltage power supply (fLVPS) • Fits in finger • 8 voltage outputs from 8 bricks • Bricks controlled by PCB in box called ELMB_MB • Problems found after first attempts at commissioning with LVPS • Safety: damage to drawers caused by overvoltage • Noise: higher noise in integrator and digital readouts associated with power supplies • DCS: LVPS control improving • These problems have been studied and solutions have been found • Dealing with these problems has severely impacted deployment and commissioning Commissione I

  8. LVPS: Schedule • Boxes currently being installed are assembled with bricks and ELMB_MB modified for safety by hand • ~50% already installed in barrel (not final version) • 4 with final ELMB_MB ready for commissioning (1 week) • Final version of LVPS (guarantee performance/stability) under test Commissione I

  9. ROD System • Status of production: • ROD Production COMPLETED: All 32 RODs needed (8 per partition) already produced. • 24 RODs + related boards (75% of the total) installed in USA15 for LBA, LBC and EBC. • Firmware upgraded to avoid busy signals in case of front-end failures. ROD commissioning in progress: already used for combined cosmic runs Commissione I

  10. E. Feng, S. Rosati, S. Veneziano and many more in the Tile and Muon groups • Combined Tile+RPC+ MDT run • August 14, 2006

  11. R. Teuscher and many more in the Tile and LAr groups • Combined Tile+LAr run • 3 weeks ago

  12. Pisa responsibilities We are well represented in all these activities. Iacopo Vivarelli tile performance (test commiss.) Chiara Roda co-convener of JetEtMiss group Andrea Dotti online monitoring (presenter) Nino Del Prete TileCal IB chair Commissione I

  13. Activities at CERN (2006/2007)in which we are directly involved • trigger cabling LB (Sept-Dec) (techs) • Test all LB (LVPS, HV tests, FE) (Jan-Dec 2007) (Iacopo, Francesca, Maria) • Barrel timing with laser (Sept./dec) (Iacopo, Paolo) • DAQ/Monitor (Sept./Aug.). (Chiara, Andrea,Danilo) • Cosmics Run (standalone, with MDT/RPC Lar) • fall 2006-2007 (all) • Installation/commisioning EBC, EBA (The same amount of work as for LB) (know how from LB) • Make it work! (2006/2007) (all) Commissione I

  14. Other activities in Pisa Physics studies: VBF Higgs : Httbar Top quark physics Jet calibration Comparison G4/CTB Low energy pions in CTB Laboratory measurements: (PMT/Fibres response stability) Commissione I

  15. A.Dotti Commissione I

  16. Very Low Energy CTB (M. Canneri, V. Cavasinni, F. Sarri, I. Vivarelli) • CTB has collected data at low energy (3-9 Gev/c) • It is important to measure the calorimeters response to a low energy pion (a jet = many low energy pions) • It is difficult for many experimental problems: • particle identification (e, pion, mu) • the beam has a parasitic high energy muon component • energy calibration is still not properly understood • The work is still in progress. Commissione I

  17. CTB set up for VLE MDT/RPC Our aim: obtain the purest pion sample from VLE data. The VLE beam is made of electrons, pions and muons (μat the same η of the run and off axis). Electrons are easy to separate. ALL sub-detector are exploited for the muon selection Commissione I

  18. DATA MC LE Muon identification in TileCal (likelihood) (Pi(E) energy distr. in Tile layer i) Pions Pions The shape of L allows a rejection of muons. MC do not quite reproduce data Commissione I

  19. Event selection – off axis muon ID with timining Tile channel 18 η = 0.35 φ = 0 On-axis event • We want to identify off-axis muons with an unbiased calorimeter selection we cannot use the position of the energy deposits • Hypothesis: the presence of the off-axis muon is uncorrelated with the trigger. Consequence: the timing of the off-axis muon should be randomly distributed in the acquisition window. • That is the case. Powerfull way to reject the off-axis muons • An event is rejected if both the channels of 1 cell have the reconstructed time outside a 35 ns large window. ns Off-axis event Tile channel 14 η = 0.15 φ = 0 ns Commissione I

  20. PMTs STABILITY Francesca Sarri, Giulio Usai We have measured in our lab the gain, QE, noise etc of 24 PMT (the same used in TileCal), illuminated with continuous light simulating LHC at L=1034 cm-2s-1. Led light yield monitored by two photodiodes. Surprisingly the gain of all PMT increased with time at a rate ofabout 0.5-0.7 % per month. No instrumental effect was found. Moreover the precise Cs calibration in different CTB periods confirms the effect also quantitatively. In 2007 we will follow up this effect. Commissione I

  21. Backup slides Commissione I

  22. Composizione del gruppo ATLAS-Pisa • V.Cavasinni PO 0.8 • D. Cimino Bors 0.8 • T. Del Prete INFN 1. • Dotti Dott 1. • V. Flaminio PO 0.2 • Lupi AR 1. • C. Roda RU 0.8 • F. Sarri Dott 1. • I. Vivarelli AR 1. • Totale 7.6 FTE Commissione I

  23. Richieste 2007 MI: metabolismo: 1 kE*FTE = 7.6 kE Riunioni Tier2 (2 sett), Monitor (3 sett) Workshops (ATLAS/CMS ed ATLAS) (8 sett) = 13 Sett TOTALE 7.6 kE+... ME: metabolismo: 1.5 mu*FTE = 11.4 mu 4 coordinamenti = 4 mu A. Dotti, Monitor e DAQ per TileCal, I. Vivarelli, Online-Daq e commissioning (WP4) C. Roda, co-cordinatriced del gruppo JetEtMiss N. Del Prete, Chair dell’ Institute Board di TileCal commissioning: tecnici (7 mu) (cablatura, riparazioni...) fisici (16 mu): due fisici devono essere permanenti al CERN durante il 2007 per la messa a punto dell’apparato. TOTALE 38 mu Commissione I

  24. th ET miss HVBF(120 GeV)  tt hhnn V.Cavasinni, F.Sarri, I. Vivarelli VBF H  = 300 fb BR (tau  hadrons) : 65% ; BR(tthh) : 42.25 % Signal signature : - 2 high pt forward jets , - 2 central tau jet , - ETmiss 4 jets& ETmiss Backgrounds: QCD (~9 mb), Z/*+jets (1700 pb) , ttbar (550 pb) Crucial the tau identification: collaboration with Milano, Freiburg, Toronto Commissione I

  25. SUMMARY ATLFAST 30 fb-1 In progress Validation with full simulation started Commissione I

  26. COMPARISON ON ETMISS AND NUMBER OF JETS QCD SIGNAL red : full AODs, black fast AODs. Commissione I

  27. Jet calibration The H1 method : jet energy is the sum of weighted cell energy. QCD 2 jets events has been used to compute weights using “topoclusters” and cone algorithm (R=0.7). The method/weights prooved to be good also for calibrating jets with different cones (R=0.4) and different samples (t-tbar) and seems to work well also for CTB data. This algorithm is robust and stable and is implemented in ATHENA. Commissione I

  28. Similar good results using the same weghts obtained with a Cone0.4, ttbar events, and CTB data Commissione I

  29. Monitor and Presenter • Presentations on the progress of the monitoring working group presented at CHEP06 by A.Dotti and W.Vandelli. Commissione I

  30. RPC We use the RPC in order to try to understand the fake by MDT on electron events (many events have more than 13 hits in MDT). They could be muons that are outside Tile calorimeter acceptance. RPC Commissione I

  31. RPC geometry Zone of inefficiency for muons by Tile Only the bottom half of the RPC (negative y) is working in the runs Commissione I

  32. Energyε for μ off axisε for μ by likelihoodμ-contamination e-contamination (GeV) (%) (%) |likelihood|<30 (%)[μ(1-εmulik)] /π(%) /π 9 92.4 ± 0.6 89.7 ± 1.0 15.0 0.6 7 85.8 ± 0.8 99.3 ± 0.1 2.7 0 5 94.0 ± 0.7 99.48 ± 0.07 10.2 0.3 3 83.6 ± 2.2 99.83 ± 0.03 11.1 0.6 Efficiencies and contamination Electrons are easily identified by beam Cerenkov. Muons can be identified using L or by MDT etc. In progress Commissione I

  33. A CTB “TAU jet” • 3 pion of 7 GeV superimposed in LaR TILE Commissione I

  34. Test beam data, Energy deposit: G4 vs EXP, muons (1), the em scale(V.Kazanine) Lar+Tile Lar+Tile Energy deposition in the calorimeters (log and lin scales) MOP value EXP: 3340±60 MC : 3399±6 Commissione I

  35. Energy deposit: G4 vs EXP, pions (1) • All cells in TileCal are used while in LAr only the cells within ±0.2 eta and ±0.2 phi LAr window (eta = 0.25, phi = 0) are used; • The cut on the energy at cells is Ecell > 2 sigma noise; • Energy deposition in the calorimeter is the sum over selected cells; • The energy deposition at Cryo is approximated as : Lar+Tile Total energy deposit. The correction on energy deposition at Cryo is included. Commissione I

  36. Energy Distributions for pions Pions : sADC_Cherenkov2<620 && N hits in TRT <4 && not μ (mouns: signal in MDT or MuonWall or MuonTag) E Tile in the cone 0.19< η <0.61, all φ; E Lar in the cone 0.19 < η <0.61, -0.1< φ < 0.1 Pions at 9 GeV Commissione I

  37. In progress: -Validate ATLFAST with full simulation -New parametrization for tau-ID (with the Toronto Group) QCD SIGNAL red : full AODs, black fast AODs. Commissione I

  38. Same weights applied also to the ttbar events, Rome sample Commissione I

  39. The same weights (determined in QCD MC events) work well for different cone definitions, for different samples and also (preliminary) on Combined Test Beam data. This method seems more robust than the “standard” ATLAS jet calibration Commissione I

  40. First steps on CTB comparison: G4 vs EXP Vassili Kazanine (Budker Institute Novosibirsk, a former (and future) FAI in Pisa) • The simulation of calorimeters in G4 has been the subject of previous studies (Anna, Andrea) using TileCal standalone (TB vs G4). • Now G4 simulation of CTB is available and Vassili has taken up the issue of comparing data and MC. • The energy scale seems to be under control and the total energy deposition in Tile+Lar is well reproduced, but: • the energy in Lar is predicted too large and in tile too small • once more we have the problem of the longitudinal shower shape not correctly predicted by G4. Commissione I

  41. Vnom:= Gain(Vnom) = 105 Gain(V) ~ Vb Statusup to 2006 Almost 14 months (April05-May06) Labo: DVn/Vn = -.41±0.13 (3mnts estimate) (measured untill Jan’06) Cs Calibration (at theCTB): DVn/Vn = -.36±0.04 (3mnts) Light source changed, because of LED and LED driver broken at the end of Jan’06. Commissione I

  42. Summary: NOV’05-JAN’06 mean : - 0.36 % rms : 0.22 % mean : 1.6 % rms : 0.8 % NomVol drop (%) PMT/PhD (%) Average slope of 15 PMTs, NomVol drop estimate in 3 months Average slope of 15 PMTs, PMT/PHD rise estimate in 3 months. Commissione I

  43. The curved fibre ageing N. Del Prete, Francesca Sarri 50 cm Commissione I

  44. Step motor PMT Shutter Fibre ageing At each step, the PMT current is measured. Then the wheel is positioned in the different locations for more precise measurements. The precision in the ratio Fibra1/Fibra2 is about 6 10-4 sistematics under study Commissione I

  45. Richieste: ME Stato delle spese ad oggi: ME: assegnato 109 k€ speso ad oggi 55K€ (51%) manca ancora il contributo tecnici per commissioning (7 mu) E’ richiesta la presenza continua al CERN di Vivarelli e Dotti. Questo non e’ compatibile col finanziamento attuale. Abbiamo richiesto una integrazione di 6 mu per arrivare a fine anno. Commissione I

  46. DAQ A new, friendly, DAQ system was built using a CAEN Brigde (V1792) which interface VME to a PC where the DAQ system runs through ROOT. A student (Marco Raglianti) from the Computer Science Department has designed this nice and simple system as part of his “tesi di tirocinio”. The Bridge has become a powerful development system. C++ programs can be fully tested, in ROOT, and then compiled and run on single board PC in VME. What is missing are VME units (ADC etc.): we use old CAMAC units that we have interfaced to VME. Often these units are faulty... Commissione I

  47. 10-3 Preliminary.The precision of the method is OK. The problem is the mechanical stability (LED position, optical couplings etc.). Time (h) rms = 6 10-4 Commissione I

  48. Commissione I

  49. Commissione I

More Related