Atlas detectors for luminosity measurement and monitoring letter of intent
Download
1 / 25

ATLAS Detectors for Luminosity Measurement and Monitoring Letter of Intent - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 66 Views
  • Uploaded on

ATLAS Detectors for Luminosity Measurement and Monitoring Letter of Intent. Contributors to this Letter of Intent:

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' ATLAS Detectors for Luminosity Measurement and Monitoring Letter of Intent' - francine-richard


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
Atlas detectors for luminosity measurement and monitoring letter of intent

ATLAS Detectors for Luminosity Measurement and MonitoringLetter of Intent

Contributors to this Letter of Intent:

Andrew Brandt, Bryan Caron, Brian Cox, Jaroslav Cvach, Ilias Efthymiopoulos, Angeles Faus-Golfe, Per Grafström, Maurice Haguenauer, Vincent Hedberg, Christian Joram, Jerry Lamsa, Milos Lokajicek, Michael Moll, Stanislav Nemecek, Jim Pinfold, Jan Soukup, Stefan Tapprogge, Valery Telnov, Sebastian White

Thanks for assistance from LHC Machine experts:

Ralph Assman, Bernard Jeanneret, André Verdier

Thanks to TOTEM Colleagues for information on the Roman Pot Stations

Topics:

Baseline Method and Requirements

Optics Solution and Machine Conditions

Roman Pot Detectors

Luminosity Monitor LUCID

Other Luminosity Methods

Costs and Participants


Luminosity measurement

Relative precision on the measurement of HBR for various channels, as function of mH, at Ldt = 300 fb–1. The dominant uncertainty is from Luminosity: 10% (open symbols), 5% (solid symbols).

(ATL-TDR-15, May 1999)

Luminosity Measurement

  • Goal:

    • Measure L with ≲2% accuracy

  • Luminosity needed for:

    • Precision comparison with theory:

      • bb, tt, W/Z, jet, …, H, SUSY, …

      • Cross sections gives additional info;will help disentangle SUSY scenarios

    • Precision comparison with other expt’s

  • Luminosity from:

    • LHC Machine parameters (~5-10%)

    • Optical theorem: forward elastic rate + total inelastic rate: needs ~full |η| coverage

    • Rates of well-calculable processes:e.g. QED, QCD,

  • need DEDICATED Luminosity monitor


L from the optical theorem

Need to reach tmin0.01 GeV2

L from the Optical Theorem

  • Luminosity from the machine: accuracy goal 5%, probably limited by:

    • extrapolation of x , y (or , x , y) from measurements of beam profiles elsewhere to IP

    • beam-beam effects at IP, effect of crossing angle at IP, …

    • Van der Meer scans à la ISR? Cross checks with HI running?

  • Using the Optical Theorem and the total inelastic rate: (Method pursued by TOTEM/CMS)

    • ATLAS does NOT have sufficient forward coverage to measure Ninel well enough…


  • Luminosity from coulomb scattering
    Luminosity from Coulomb Scattering

    • Elastic scattering at micro-radian angles:

    • Required reach in t:tmin-t(|fC|=| fN|)  8EM/tot  6×10–4 GeV2 θmin 3.5 μrad

      • Requires:

        • small intrinsic beam angular spread at IP  small emittance

        • detectors close to the beam, at large distance from IP

        • parallel-to-point optics, insensitive to transverse vertex smearing and with large effective lever arm Leff


    Experimental technique
    Experimental Technique

    • independence of vertex position:

      • parallel-to-point focusing:ydet = M11,yy* +M12,y y*with:M11,y = (/*) [cosy *siny] ( ψ(s) ≡0∫sds/β(s) )M12,y = (*) siny(* = value at IP)optimum:M11= 0, M12 large:sit aty(s) = (n  ½), n=0,1,2,… and make * 0, * largethen:ydet = M12 y* = (*) y* = Leff,yy*

    • limit on minimum |t|min:

      *min = dmin/Leff, tmin = (*min pb)2 , with dmin = nσy = nσ(N/γ)tminpb2nσ2(N/γ) /*

      Thus: maximize *; minimize nσ and N

    parallel-to-point focusing

    ydet

    y*

    y*

    s

    IP

    Leff


    Beam halo limit on n

    (RA LHC MAC 13/3/03)

    nσ-reach?

    Beam Halo: limit on nσ

    • Beam halo is a serious concern for Roman Pot operation

      • determines the distance of closest approach dminof (sensitive part of) detector: nσ = dmin/σbeam:9 ≤ nσ≤ 15

      • expected halo rate(43 bunches, Np=1010, εN = 1.0 μm, nσ=10): 6 kHz


    Emittance
    Emittance

    • Emittance can be reduced to 1.0×10–6 m (std: 3.75×10–6 m)

      • Recent LHC information: emittance εN, number of protons/bunch Np, and collimator opening nσ,coll(in units of σ) are related via a resistive (collimator) wall instability limit criterion:

      • Thus: εN ≥ 1.5×10–6 m (for Np=1010, nσ,coll=6 )

      • For nσ=10: if tmin= pb2nσ2ε/β*≤ 4×10–4then: β*≳ 2500 m

    • beam size at detector: d = √(βdεN/γ) ,

      • Beam safety: kσd≳ 1.0-1.5 mm then: βd≳ 100 m


    2625 m optics a faus golfe et al
    2625 m Optics (A. Faus-Golfe et al.)

    • Smooth path to injection optics exists

    • All Quads are within limits

    • Q4 is inverted w.r.t. standard optics!

    β [m]

    D [m]

    }Leff


    Roman pot locations
    Roman Pot Locations

    TOTEM Pot

    240 m


    Requirements for roman pot detectors
    Requirements for Roman Pot Detectors

    • “Dead space” d0 at detector’s edge near the beam the beam: d0≲ 200 m (full/flat efficiency away from edge)

    • Detector resolution: d = 30 m

    • Same d = 30 m relative position accuracy between opposite detectors (e.g. partially overlapping detectors, …)

    • Radiation hardness: 100 Gy/yr

    • Operate with the induced EM pulse from circulating bunches (shielding, …)

    • Rate capability: O(Mhz) (40 MHz); time resolution t = O(1 ns)

    • Readout and trigger compatible with DAQ

    • Other:

      • Simplicity, Cost

      • extent of R&D needed, time scale, manpower, …

      • issues of LHC safety and controls


    Roman pot detectors
    Roman Pot Detectors

    • Square scintillator strips

      • Kuraray 0.5 mm× 0.5 mm

      • 10 layers per coordinate

      • 50 μm offset between layers

    • Readout:

      • MultiAnode PMT, or

      • Avalanche Photodiodes

    • Trigger:

      • scintillator panes (possibly subdivided?)

      • Trigger latency: MARGINAL! p from IP  RP: 800 ns signal RP  CTP: 1000 ns trigger formation: 100 ns TOTAL: 1900 ns > 1.8μsremains to be sorted out…

    halo inter calibration planes (well away from beam)


    Detector performance simulations
    Detector Performance Simulations

    • first simulation results:

      • strip positioning σfiber ≈ 20 μm

      • light and photo-electron yield:Npe = <dE/dx> dfiber (dnγ/dE) εAεTεCgRεQεd≈ 5 p.e. marginal !


    Tracking simulation multiplexing

    Track traversing the fiber planes. The detection efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30 multiplexed fibers give a signal.

    The hits of the 10 planes are projected in a histogram. The real hits can clearly be distinguished from the randomly distri-buted multiplexed hits.

    Tracking Simulation (multiplexing)

    • normal incidence tracks; assume:

      • fiber readout multiplexing (4/1)

      • fiber position smearing: 20 μm

      • fiber efficiency 85-95%

    Spatial resolution of a fiber plane for a detection efficiency per fiberof 85%. On average 8.2 fibers are hit (plus 24.6 multiplexed fibers). The Gaussian fit indicates a resolution of 25.4 mm.


    Proof of principle m haguenauer et al
    Proof of Principle (M. Haguenauer et al.) efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30

    • Test beam hodoscope for CMS:

      • 1x1 mm2

      • multiplexed MAPMT readout

    Fibres KURARAY

    amoy=0,5 mm

    ± 0,06 mm

    bmoy=0,05 mm

    ± 0,01 mm

    a

    b

    a

    b


    Luminosity performance simulations
    Luminosity Performance Simulations efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30

    • Baseline optics, with baseline detector resolutions

    • smearing of hits on the detector plane caused by

      • detector resolution (30 μm) – negligible contribution

      • beam angular spread (σθ* = 0.23 μrad)

      • transverse vertex smearing (σ* = 0.42 mm),

    • vertical coordinate: σ(y) = 0.23 μrad× 563 m = 127 μmvertical smearing reduces acceptance near the detector edge

    • horizontal coordinate: σ(x) = 0.23 μrad× 143 m0.42 mm × 0.168= 32 μm71 μm= 87 μmNote: taking the combination of left and right arms, the vertex smearing drops out (there is no detector edge in x!)


    Simulated elastic scattering
    Simulated Elastic Scattering efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30

    • Inner ring: t = -0.0007 GeV2

    • Outer ring: t = -0.0010 GeV2

    • Reconstruct θ*:


    Simulated dn el dt and na ve fit
    Simulated dN efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30 el/dt and Naïve Fit

    • 10 M evts with±45° fiducial cut on φ*

    • NO systematics on beam optics!

    • Only 1 station/arm

    5M events Generated

    ~90 hr at L=1027 cm-2s-1

    Fit Results (χ2/NDF=1442/1467):σtot = 98.7±0.8 mb (100)ρ = 0.148±0.007 (0.15)B = 17.90±0.12 GeV-2(18)L = (1.11±1.6%) 1027cm-2s-1 (1.09×1027)

    Range for fitting: 0.00056 <|t|<0.030 GeV2↖ (pθmincos45º)2

    ~4M events ‘Measured’ dN/d|t|


    Luminosity monitoring
    Luminosity Monitoring efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30

    • LUCID: (Jim Pinfold et XVI al.: Alberta, Lund, Montreal, Regina, Saclay)

      • Dedicated detector:

        • bundle of projective Cerenkov cones: 5 layers of 40 tubes each

        • low mass (6 kg), rad hard (C4F10 gas?), quartz fiber readout

      • 40 MHz capability:

        • linearity required over 2x10-4 – 20 interactions/crossing

        • Cross-Calibration at low L = 1027:

          • non-beam-beam backgrounds, e.g. beam-gas, can be important at low L!!

      • Counts primary particles (only Č-photon statistics)

        • Mostly insensitive to non-primary particles

      • total signal  #charged prim’s  interactions/crossing  L

      • LUCID should operate at start-up (machine diagnostics)

        • can be calibrated absolutely later…

      • may be used in rapidity-gap vetoing (under study), etc…

    • proof of principle: CLC at CDF! (e.g. S. Klimenko et al., NIM A441 (2000) 266)

    • Preliminary approval by ATLAS EB last year (EB mtg, June 2002)


    Atlas luminosity monitor j pinfold et al
    ATLAS – Luminosity Monitor efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30 (J. Pinfold et al.)

    To

    UXA

    Services

    In/Out

    PMTs

    LUCID

    ~17< |z| <~18.5 m

    5.4< || <6.1

    Inner radius of LUCID ~8 cm, outer radius ~16cm


    Lucid simulation
    LUCID - Simulation efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30

    Geant4 Simulation:Variation of #photons vs. muon incidence angle (measured at the tube centre)

    ~2 cmØ,1.5m tubes

    Front

    (J. Pinfold et al.)

    Rear – Showing

    Winston Cones

    #photons/20 GeV μ at photo-detector: 70(1.5 m Č) x0.8(Cone acc.) x0.6(Fiber acc.) x0.4(att. 20 m fiber) = 15

    prototypes Aug’03


    Lucid performance simulations
    Lucid Performance Simulations efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30

    • PYTHIA-6(MSEL=2, MSUB995)=1, MSTP(82)=0) events generated with increasing numbers of pileup

    • Perfect linearity, with little sensitivity for secondaries

    • Proof of Principle: the CDF CLC device

    Number of Axi-Linear Tracks/Crossing/Arm

    single track/tube peak

    Number of Interactions/Crossing


    Cross calibration
    Cross Calibration efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30

    • CNI calibration: L = 1028 cm–2s–1 (~2×10–4 evts/crossing)

    • Standard runs: L = 1033-34 cm–2s–1

    • LUCID resolves bunches:  calibration must be transferred from 2×10–4 to about 20 evts/crossing

    • Thus: non-beam-beam background rejection must be excellent at low L; note: beam-gas Np; beam-beam Np2

    • Remains to be studied in detail!


    L from other physics signals
    L efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30 from other Physics Signals

    Use well-calculable QED/QCD signals as Physics Monitors:L  2-4%

    • QED: pp  (p+*)+(p+*)p+()+p(A.Shamov & V.Telnov, hep-ex/0207095)

      • Signal: (μμ)-pair with |η(μ)|<2.5, pT(μ)≳ 5-6 GeV, pT(μμ) ≃ 0

        • small rate ~1pb (~0.01 Hz at L=1034)  off-line: preliminary estimate δL ≃ 2% for 10 fb–1

        • Clean: backgrounds from DY, b,c-decays: handled by appropriate offline cuts.

        • uncertainties: μ trigger acceptance & efficiency, …

      • Full simulation studies in progress (Alberta, SACLAY)

    • QCD: W/Zleptons(Dittmar, Pauss, Zurcher, PRD56 (1997) 7284)

      • High rate:Wlν : ~60 Hz at L=1034 (ε=20%)

      • Gives relevant parton luminosity directly…

      • Current “theory” systematics: σW/Zc 4%(V. Khoze et al., hep-ph/0010163)

      • Detection systematics:

        • Trigger/Selection eff’s, Backgrounds (and L-dependence) seem manageable

      • Detailed study for ATLAS detector needed (Alberta, SACLAY)

        Both processes will be used – at very least as cross checks…


    Cost estimates participants
    Cost Estimates & Participants efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30

    • LUCID:

      • tubes: 70 KCHF

      • Fibers and readout: 130 KCHF

      • Infrastructure: 130 KCHF

      • R&D: 60 KCHF

      • TOTAL: ~400 KCHF

    • Roman Pots:

      • RP Units: 220 KCHF

      • Q4 Polarity inverter: 30 KCHF

      • Scintillating Fiber Dets: 180 KCHF

      • Readout and controls: 280 KCHF

      • Materials: 80 KCHF

      • R&D: 100 KCHF

      • TOTAL: ~900 KCHF

    • Institutions:

      Alberta, Arlington, CERN, Manchester, Montreal, Paris: Ecole Polytechnique, Prague, Stony Brook,Toronto, Montreal,


    Summary
    Summary efficiency/fiber is 95%. All 10 hit fibers and the 30

    • ATLAS aims to determine absolute L in special high-β* runs measuring Coulomb scattering

      • The CNI normalization is verychallenging but seems attainable in principle – critically dependent on control of the beam and backgrounds

      • Roman Pot detectors: no show stoppers

    • This normalizes a dedicated L-monitor: the Č-detector LUCID

      • LUCID prototyping is well underway: no show stoppers

    • Other processes will be employed as well:

      • W/Z production,

      • double-photon exchange di-muon production,

      • machine L measurements, aided by HI experience…

  • Time Table:

    • LoI draft available, LHCC submission in a few weeks

    • LHCC presentation in May

  • Experience with RPs will help us prepare expansion of the ATLAS program with Central and Forward Diffraction…