1 / 25

Status of PNPI R&D for choice of the MUCH tracking base detector

Status of PNPI R&D for choice of the MUCH tracking base detector (this work is supported by INTAS) ■ Introduction ■ MICROMEGAS ■ GEM ■ MICROMEGAS+GEM ■ Future plans. Introduction CBM requirements : ● rate up to 10 7 1/cm 2 ∙s events

ryann
Download Presentation

Status of PNPI R&D for choice of the MUCH tracking base detector

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. Status of PNPI R&D for choice of the MUCH tracking base detector (this work is supported by INTAS) ■ Introduction ■ MICROMEGAS ■ GEM ■ MICROMEGAS+GEM ■ Future plans

  2. Introduction CBM requirements : ● rate up to 107 1/cm2∙s events • in time <100 ns detector should be ready for next event • high occupancy – thin granularity (especially in central region) ●not too high spatial resolution – σ~500μ ● low discharge probability ● radiation resistance As candidates to fulfill CBM requirements are considered MM/GEM base tracking detectors. Both types of detectors are working well in real experiments.

  3. Main goals of R&D: • getting some experience in working with MM/GEM • finding practical technological solutions and requirements in building the detectors based on MM/GEM • choosing the working gas • estimating the descharge probability • estimating the efficiency • estimating the radiation rigidity • getting a competence for designing the prototypes for beam test

  4. MICROMEGAS cathode First steps in MICROMEGAS study were made for 200μand 100μ mesh-PCB gap. There was not pillars and mesh before gluing to the frame was strained. Results of that were shown at last CBM workshop. Main reason to move to the gap of 75μ was time width of the signal - full width was ~650 ns for 200μ gap and ~300 ns for 100μ (in Ar/CO2 gas mixture), and have working regime at lower HV (lower energy in discharge). Following work was made with gap of 75μ. 3 mm mesh 75μ PCB (5x5 cm2) PA Pillars made by chemical etching from photo-resistant layer 4mm between pillars, diameter of each pillar - 300μ, height - 75μ

  5. Metallic mesh Stainless steel woven mesh (wire - 30μ, cell - 50μ) taken from CERN was rolled and placed on the pillarswithout any stretch Ar/CO2 (90%/10%), 55Fe Gas gain vs. voltage applied to the mesh, cathode voltage is constant =50V Estimated energy resolution ~ 15% Gas gain calculated with MAGBOLTZ

  6. Combined metallic-plastic mesh Ar/CO2 (90%/10%) Woven mesh (stainless steel/nylonwire– 30 μ,cell - 50 μ) taken from CERN did not have any stretch Gas gain vs. cathode voltage, mesh voltage is constant =500V Exampleof the spectrum (Fe55 ) Energy resolution ~18% Gas gain vs. mesh voltage, cathode voltage is constant =1000 V

  7. GEM GEM (5x5 cm2)was produced by CERN Example of the spectrum (55Fe) Ar/CO2 (90%/10%) Gas gain vs. voltageapplied toGEM, cathode voltage is constant =1000V Energy resolution~ 12%

  8. Combined GEM+MICROMEGAS (metallic mesh) Ar/CO2 (90%/10%) 2) Uc=1200 V, Ub=500 V, Um=400 V, Ut –Ub - variable • Uc=1200V, Ut=900 V, Ub=500 V, • Um - variable 3) Uc=1200 V, Ut – Ub=450 V, Um - variable

  9. From CERN Combined GEM+MICROMEGAS (metallic/plastic mesh) Spectra (55Fe) for two different voltages at the mesh Ar/CO2 (90%/10%) Gas gain vs. voltage applied to the GEM, Umesh= 450 V, Ucathode=1550 V

  10. α- source 241Am (5.5 MeV) response (gas gain ~ 6∙104) At the following stage for Micromegas we used rolled mesh of Russian production – stainless steel (wire - 32 μ in diameter and cell - 64μ). We saw the difference in gas gain of ~4 times for the same voltage applied in comparing to previous case (wire - 30 μ in diameter and cell – 50 μ). Qualitatively it looks reasonable. But quantitative estimations we will get later in special measurements for set of different mesh dimensions. Ar/CO2 (90%/10%)

  11. MM+GEM, low voltage at MM (350 V) Ar/CO2 (90%/10%) MM+GEM Gas Gainvs. voltage applied to GEM MM Voltage is low (350 V) Note, GG at 440 V at GEM in case of MM+GEM is 40 times more then for single GEM GEM alone

  12. Ar/CO2 (90%/10%) GG vs. Voltage applied to the cathode. The modest GG Value (Um=350 V, Ugem=390 V) The same as previous but variable Voltage between GEM and Mesh Working points

  13. He/CO2 (90%/10%) gas mixture

  14. Comparison between Ar/CO2 and He/CO2 Signals (55Fe) measured by the scope Full width (Ar/CO2) ~ 180 ns Full width (He/CO2) ~ 100 ns Changing distance between GEM and MICROMEGAS to 1-1.5 mm and using HE/CF4 should decrease the collecting time to ~ 50 ns

  15. Comparison between Ar/CO2 and He/CO2

  16. He/CO2 (90%/10%) Gas gain vs. voltage in the mesh-gem region Working point Gas gain vs. voltage in the gem-cathode region Working point

  17. He/CO2 (90%/10%) Example of the spectra (55Fe) Gas gain vs. voltage applied to the mesh Voltages at the cathode and both side of the Gem were equal

  18. Spectra in HE/CO2 mixture Parameters of interaction X-Ray Fe55 (E=5.9 keV) He comparative Ar Ar Photoabsorption cross section σph =280.2 cm^2/g Compton cross section σc =0.0688 cm^2/g K1 =3.206 keV Mean Energy for ion pair production wi=26 eV He Photoabsorption cross section σph =0.1498 cm^2/g Compton cross section σc =0.1246 cm^2/g K1=24.6 eV Mean Energy for ion pair production wi=41 eV So for He compton scattering probability is comparable with that for photoionisation and full absorption peak is not so pronounced as in Ar.

  19. He/CO2 (90%/10%) Example of the spectra (55Fe) Gas gain vs. voltage applied to the Gem. Voltages at the mesh was equal 400 V

  20. Gas gain is not a problem and we can have it as high as we want. Use of 3 component gas mixture with small portion (~ 5%) of isobutane gives about two order for gas gain in He at the same voltage. Using isobutane in working gas mixture should considerably put down working voltage to make lower discharge energy

  21. Scheme for work with β-source (90Sr) Plastic scintillators 200 μ of FR4 +18 μ of Cu 400 μ of FR4 Stainless steel mesh of 60 μcell And 30 μ wire Result of GEANT simulation

  22. Efficiency estimation Real value of efficiency will be received with beam test

  23. Discharge probability estimation He/CO2 (90%/10%) 55Fe (5∙103 counts/s) + β-source 90Sr (3∙104 counts/s) Spark probability was estimated as ratio of spark number ( count of the signals laying above some high threshold) to number of total counts

  24. Summary ●It was assembled prototypes of MICROMEGAS, GEM, and MICROMEGAS+GEM detectors ● Prototypes were tested with radioactive sources 55Fe and 90Sr using Ar/CO2 and He/CO2 gas mixtures ● Gas gain, efficiency and discharge probability estimations were obtained ●From our point combined MICROMEGAS+GEM version is good candidate for MUCH base detector ● Some practical technological requirements and approaches for designing and assembling the beam test prototypes were found

  25. Plans for next year ● Variety of mesh geometry ● Three component gas mixture ● Designing and assembling two prototypes for beam test – MICROMEGAS only, MICROMEGAS+GEM ● Preparing to the beam test

More Related