1 / 8

SCT Simulation for CTB2004

SCT Simulation for CTB2004. Zdenka Broklova, Peter Kodys, Carlos Escobar. S tatus and results are summarized on http://ific.uv.es/~cescobar/simulation.html.

martin-trevino
Download Presentation

SCT Simulation for CTB2004

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. SCT Simulation for CTB2004 Zdenka Broklova, Peter Kodys, Carlos Escobar Status and results are summarized onhttp://ific.uv.es/~cescobar/simulation.html Special thanks to Thijs Cornelissen, Grant Gorfine, Pavel Nevski, Pavel Reznicek, Sasha Rozanov, Manuel Gallas, Vakho Tsulaia and many others for their help.

  2. Overview SCT layout for CTB and explanation of coordinate systems Implementation in Athena • SCT_TestBemDetDescr package • latest SCT settings (in NOVA 8.3.0) • position and/or position corrections can come from external file

  3. Checking geometry I. • comparison with Peter Kodys ROOT-based macro • modulein the center of SCT box and particle beam (along x axe) was perpendicular to module • using Gauss profile source of 5000 pions (180GeV), width 80 mm  • 15 points on strips for both sides of each module=5 strips using 3 points on each of them (10%, 50% and 90% of effective strip length), all ends of these strips were checked as well Example: Outer module, top side, strip 192, 50% of length

  4. Checking geometry II. • strip values are converted into mm using average pitch value 80 mm • bigger error occurs for strip ends, where the statistics is lower because about half of number of particle was not detected by strips and the position of strip ends is known less precise (gartering ring influence, edge effects, … not included in Peter’s macro)  • all checked strips are in proper position(with precision about 1 mm) Histograms of differencies between expected and found strip positions

  5. Checking geometry III. • particles were shot along the strip line with step 5 mm, • the precision including error from line equation calculation is about 10 mm along the strip and 5 mm in direction perpendicular to the strips • insensitive margin around sensor as well as gap between both sensors has correct size

  6. Strip numbering Front electronics strip numbering follows these rules: • sum of strip numbers which are crossed by perpendicular particals should be always near 767 • on both module sides, master chip is always positioned on left side of the hybrid (if you look from hybrid to sensors, in pictures there is a small arrow labelling it) and there is the strip number 0 on this edge of the sensor Offline software strip numbering follow these rules: • strip numbers increase with j coordinate (on all types of modules and both sensors) • top side of module (with connectors in hybrid) is marked 1, back side is side 0 • there is no difference between top and bottom side of modules in offline software • sometimes offline and electronics numbering of the strips on the same module side is inverted by formula StrNo_offline = 767 – StrNo_electronics • byte convertor provides the conversion from front electronics strip numbering to offline conventions

  7. Energy losses • average energy losses of 50 GeV mions • outer module + 10 cm of air

  8. Future plans

More Related