1 / 15

EMC SuperModule Cosmic Calibration, VHMPiD R&D status, and

EMC SuperModule Cosmic Calibration, VHMPiD R&D status, and A High Pt Charged Particle Trigger. N. Smirnov Physics Department, Yale University, Oct, 06. ALICE-USA collaboration meeting at Yale U.

Download Presentation

EMC SuperModule Cosmic Calibration, VHMPiD R&D status, and

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. EMC SuperModule Cosmic Calibration, VHMPiD R&D status, and A High Pt Charged Particle Trigger. N. Smirnov Physics Department, Yale University, Oct, 06. ALICE-USA collaboration meeting at Yale U.

  2. EMC SM cosmic calibration; possible set-up. • We need a simple set-up to select a “single MIP through a tower” • Must be: compact, easy to move ( many strips), reliable (low rate). ~ 10 cm ~ 0.1 s-1 rate  ~10000 tracks / 24 hours / Module  ~ 1 Month / SuperModule

  3. One EMC Module ( top view ) Triple GEM Detector (“active” surface ) 10 cm 12 cm 4 read-out pads to cover each tower 10 cm 12 cm Possible Set-up 4 Scintillation Counters ( ~ 75x14 cm2 ) 4 + 2 x { 12 x 4 } = 100 Read-out channels / EMC strip 10 cm 12 triple GEM detectors with pad read-out

  4. Triple GEM Detector • Simple in construction ( NO: strong frame, wires, high precision parts ) • Reliable (discharge-free, but high gain in “all” gas mixtures ) • Efficient as a track detector 98% mip efficiency, ~20 ns response COMPASS experience • R&D, test and “production” Lab at Yale “Tech-Etch” (MA) mass-production ~ 1 cm One EMC Module ( top view ) Triple GEM Detector (“active” surface ) 10 cm 12 cm 4 read-out pads to cover each tower It needs: 2 x 12 x 3 = 72 GEM foils 2 x 12 x 4 = 96 FEE channels 10 cm 12 cm

  5. VHMPiD R&D and Simulation Status • Group inside of ALICE ( >10 people) • CERN, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, USA (Yale U, BNL(?)) first HI collision ? start of LHC yesterday HMPID 3σ p/K limit HMPID TDR ALICE Club - May 2, 2005 Paolo Martinengo

  6. GEANT Simulation Double sided Read-out plane Triple GEM foils with CsI UV Mirror, spherical shape in ZY AeroGel, 10cm 50 cm CF4 gas Detector response: GEANT hits(π+, Pt~10. GeV/c; local coordinate system, cm) Y 50 cm UV photoelectrons from “CF4 + Mirror” side C4F10 gas X Z R position: ~450 cm. Bz: 0.5 T CaF2 Window Particle track & UV photons MIP For all materials; n, transmission, absorption, reflection, Qw.Eff, - F(E = 5.5 – 11. eV) UV photoelectrons from “C4F10 + Window” side

  7. Simulation for high Pt π+ Flat mirror Spherical mirror AeroGel, 10cm UV Mirror, spherical shape in ZY Double sided Read-out plane Triple GEM foils with CsI CF4 gas CaF2 Window C4F10 gas R Z In saturation: <N ph.e.>  25. (C4F10); 30. (CF4)

  8. Detector response: GEANT hits(π+, Pt~10. GeV/c; local coordinate system, cm) UV photoelectrons from CF4 + Mirror MIP z x UV photoelectrons from C4F10 + Window

  9. PiD table • Radiators: thickness L, refractive index n, angle θc, UV-light threshold AeroGel C4F10 CF4 L 10 50 50 cm n 1.008 1.0014 1.0005 θc ~100. 53. 32. mrad π 1.2 2.6 4.4 GeV/c K 4.2 9.3 15.6 GeV/c p 8.3 19.5 31.3 GeV/c P, GeV/c π/μ/e K p 5. – 9.3 ArG Y YN Ch1 YN N Ch2 YN N 9.3 - 15.6 ArG Y Y Y Ch1 Y Y N Ch2 YN N 15.6 – 20. ArG Y Y Y Ch1 Y Y N Ch2 Y Y N >20. ArG Y Y Y Ch1 Y Y Y Ch2 Y YN UV photoelectrons ring for CF4 + Mirror,Circle Fit, Nhits > 5. R, cm π K π/K PiD – ring radius P, GeV/c

  10. ~ 2m ALICE Club - May 2, 2005 Paolo Martinengo

  11. One detector response on “standard central ALICE event”. X - MIP position - Track “reflection” from mirror; “circle center” - Photo-electrons from “bottom” gas UV light + window. Red circle – track has hits in TPC - Photo-electrons from “top” gas UV light + mirror green means Sc. Light from CF4

  12. GEANT Simulation, ALICE set-up VBHC Realistic material budget and position for: Si Vertex, TPC*, TRD, ToF + 100 modules of HMPiD (100 x 100 x 100 cm3 ) GEM D. AeroGel, 10cm UV Mirror, spherical shape in ZY CF4 gas Double sided Read-out plane Triple GEM foils with CsI CaF2 Window C4F10 gas *For TPC all “read-out” stuff is as realistic as possible to simulate dE/dX performance GEM D. 30 x 30 cm2 COMPAS read-out strip structure R Z

  13. High Pt trigger using “fast” tracking data (?!) “R2D” Does not need primary Vertex position Sigma (cm): 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.9 “ALICE” Needs primary Vertex with ~n cm resolution ~1 m ToF hit R fit, DCA to Vertex in XY SLFtoBLine Straight Line Fit in RZ “Z” DCA to Vertex cut ~4 m Y Y SLDtoV X X

  14. Track finding and selection for HMPiD only(plus Primary Vertex) SLDtoV, cm With cuts selected: (~ > 6. GeV/c ) I. 32 π+ /event; Pt = (8. – 10.) GeV/c  80% efficiency II. 32 π+ & Central PbPb HJ event ( ~ 2200 particles / rapidity)  70% efficiency (the SAME tracks that were found in step I ) III. “Standard Central ALICE” event ( ~ 8000 particles / rapidity )  1 track was found, Pt = 5.6 GeV/c Pt, GeV/c This “high Pt trigger approach” can be checked / tested with “available” equipments and in reasonable short period of time

  15. ALICE TPC: 159 pad-rows; 63x (0.75x0.4) + 64x(1.x0.6) + 32x(1.5x0.6)Ne+CO2 (10%), B=0.5 T, Dl = Dt = 220 μm/cm-1Drift <= 250 cm. Vdr = 2.84 cm/μs (88 μs max) Simulation approach:N inter./cm; N el. / cluster; For each e- : (Ekin, range, Drift, wire position, timing, gas amplification, charge on pads); FEE shaping and noise; Hit position and Q reconstruction. dE/dX dE/dX Cluster efficiency – 85%, Truncated – 60% π, K, p P, Gev/c P, Gev/c “Perfect” in simulation: gas amplification calibration, P – reconstruction, one particle / event, |η| < 0.9; No “tail subtraction” problem; FADC approach.

More Related