anti 2 test beam n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
ANTI-2 Test Beam PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
ANTI-2 Test Beam

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 40

ANTI-2 Test Beam - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

ANTI-2 Test Beam. Paolo Valente on behalf of the LAV team. Test beam objectives. Validate final version of front-end electronics plus modifications of voltage divider: Time-over-threshold vs. charge calibration curves Efficiency vs. threshold for electrons, hadrons and muons

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'ANTI-2 Test Beam' - april-hamilton

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
anti 2 test beam

ANTI-2 Test Beam

Paolo Valente

on behalf of the LAV team

test beam objectives
Test beam objectives
  • Validate final version of front-end electronics plus modifications of voltage divider:
    • Time-over-threshold vs. charge calibration curves
    • Efficiency vs. threshold for electrons, hadrons and muons
  • Test new FEE with TELL1 readout

All that on a full, final ANTI ring, and thus also checking:

  • construction techniques
  • cabling and connectors
  • new DB37 signal flanges
  • new ground feed-through on HV flange
signal and hv flanges
Signal and HV flanges

Read half of the channels:

- 16 out of 32 channels for each of the 5 layers (5/10 DB37 connectors)

HV supplied to all 160 ch’s

(Luckily the gain equalization done in Frascati was fine and we had not to change the HV settings)

readout map
Readout map

Side B

Side A (powered, but not read-out)

Channel 10

Channel 1 (17, 33, 49, 65)

readout configurations
Readout configurations

We have used three different configurations:

  • Phase 1: readout by 5 FE boards as in 2009 test:
    • 5×16 input ch’s Threshold  5×16 out LVDS  TDC
    • 5×16 input ch’s5×16 analog out  delays  QDC
  • Phase 2: insert prototype of final FE board:
    • 8 input ch’s2 Thresholds  2×8 out LVDS  TDC
    • 8 input ch’s 2 Analogue 4-fold sum  delays  QDC
  • Phase 3: back to old FE boards
    • efficiency studies
    • final FE prototype connected to TELL1 for readout tests
setup 1
Setup (1)



  • 2 scintillators(cross) in “front” of the ANTI-2, defining a 6×6 cm2 area (AND)
  • 1 scintillatoron the “back”
  • generally NOT used as veto, but only for checking longitudinal containment


setup 2
Setup (2)

2 beam Cerenkov counters (TDC & QDC):

  • Operated at two different pressures to have, in a given momentum range:
    • Cerenkov A: threshold between e and m
    • Cerenkov B: threshold between m and p
setup 3
Setup (3)

Wire chamber

Trigger scintillators

Beam scintillator

Focus at wire chamber + 2m



most hit crystals map
Most hit crystals map





























online counts tdc
Online counts (TDC)

Layer 1

Layer 2

Layer 3

Layer 4

Layer 5

Scintillators & coincidence

New front-end board

(double threshold)


tdc hit map
TDC hit-map

# of hits

channel #

charge vs tot
Charge vs. ToT

QDC (pC)

ToT (ns)

Run 627, Threshold=4 mV

Run 638, Threshold=8 mV

charge vs tot1
Charge vs. ToT

QDC (pC)

ToT (ns)

Run 627, Threshold=4 mV

Run 638, Threshold=8 mV

Threshold not changed (broken test point)

new fe board
New FE board

8 channels × thresholds:

Channel 10, 11

Channel 26, 27

Channel 41, 42

Channel 58

Channel 74

Analog sum 1

Analog sum 2


QDC (pC)

Old FE board

QDC is fed with individual channel analog signal (channel 41)

Run 178

New FE board

QDC is fed with 4-fold analog sum (channels 41+42+58+74)

In final configuration, this will be the sum of the four crystals in one “banana”

ToT (ns)

Run 202

total charge with tot vs qdc
Total charge with ToT vs. QDC

0.3 GeV run

4th order polynomial parametrizationof charge vs. ToT curve

Compare charge from QDC with charge from ToT

muon selection
Muon selection

Scintillator 2 (pC)

Scintillator 2 (pC)

Scintillator 1 (pC)

Scintillator 1 (pC)

+ ask for hit crystal in previous and following layer

+ isolation cut (allowed only additional hit in the nearby crystal)

fe threshold
FE threshold

Threshold = 8 mV


Make the ratio,

Fit the threshold profile

Charge (pC)

Charge (pC)

Black: all events

Red: with TDC hit

Profiting of the only muon runs…

(Lau configuration: 8 GeV hadrons + beam stopper,

fully open collimators)

threshold calibration
Threshold calibration

From known threshold,

extract mVpC conversion

Threshold (pC)

Threshold (mV)

muon efficiency
Muon efficiency


Muon runs

Layer 5

Layer 4

Layer 3

Layer 2

Layer 1

Threshold (mV)

muon efficiency vs threshold
Muon efficiency vs. threshold


Muon runs

… but a lot of work is needed in order to have a better understanding of data,

Just one example: what is the effect of the mis-tagging of the scintillators trigger?

Monte Carlo (K. Massri)

Layer 1 data

Threshold (pC)

muon efficiency vs threshold1
Muon efficiency vs. threshold


Muon runs

… moreover, the horizontal scale depends on the photo-electron to pC conversion factor (and thus on the exact gain)

Monte Carlo (K. Massri)

Layer 2 data

Threshold (pC)

considerations on efficiency studies
Considerations on efficiency studies

We should consider that this will not be the way photons will hit our veto stations

comparison with monte carlo
Comparison with Monte Carlo

Fraction of energy in veto station (E0=0.5 GeV) vs. azimuthal and polar angles (and projections)

D. Di Filippo


We have tried to perform an horizontal scan (+10 cm, +20 cm towards the center of the ring) by moving our trigger scintillators, in order to check the impact of the lateral “cracks”.

Since we did not move the ANTI-2, one should take into account also the angle.

Analysis is ongoing…

cerenkov counters
Cerenkov counters

Cerenkov 2 (pC)

Cerenkov 1 (pC)

electron selection
Electron selection

0.5 GeV

1 GeV

Run 663

Run 656

Total Energy (pC)



Scintillators + Cerenkov

electron selection1
Electron selection

3.5 GeV

2 GeV

Run 548

Run 647

Total Energy (pC)



Scintillators + Cerenkov

new fe tell1 test
New FE + TELL1 test
  • 4 crystals on layer 1 and 4 crystals on layer 2 on opposite hemisphere with respect to beam impact point (only muon halo events)
  • fed to new FE board
  • readout by TDCB on TELL1
to do list
To do list
  • To do:
    • Data quality:
      • Selection of good runs, check all channels, hardware changes, etc.
    • Time resolution
    • Electron efficiency vs. energy:
      • In order to do this, we have to improve on the tagging of the incoming particle, e.g. we can ask for a deposit in the crystal in the first
    • Linearity, containment vs. impact point, etc.
  • All in all, the ANTI-2 test was positive from the point of view of:
    • Signal and HV flanges modifications
    • New FE board functionality (both for ToT discriminator and for analog sum circuit)
    • Basic test of FE board/TELL1 + TDC board matching
  • We collected a lot of useful data (still to be analyzed…):
    • We had runs at 0.3, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 GeV (with steeply decreasing fraction of electrons/muons+pions) and also dedicated purely muons runs
  • We have performed threshold scans and a threshold vs. energy calibration, demonstrating that in a good noise (grounding) situation we can work at a fraction of MIP (1/3 maybe even 1/4)
useful info
Useful info


Data repository

special acknowledgements
Special acknowledgements

In addition to all the members of the LAV team:

  • Horst Brueker, PS & SPS coordinator
  • Lau Gatignon, for continuous support with the beam
  • AntoninoSergi, “special guest” of the entire test, putting his hands in almost everything
  • GianlucaLamanna, Bruno Angelucci, TELL1 gurus