1 / 23

230 likes | 365 Views

Testbeam results of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter. Alessio Ghezzi on behalf of CMS ECAL Collaboration. Outline. Energy reconstruction technique and performances Impact point reconstruction Intercalibration Irradiation monitoring performances Cooling system. Hodoscopes. Beam.

Download Presentation
## Testbeam results of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter

**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

**Testbeam results of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter**Alessio Ghezzi on behalf of CMS ECAL Collaboration**Outline**• Energy reconstruction technique and performances • Impact point reconstruction • Intercalibration • Irradiation monitoring performances • Cooling system**Hodoscopes**Beam Movable Table Supermodule Experimental setup Laser monitoring system and HV system (for APDS) : final scheme LV system : prototype cooling system: final prototype • moving table • plastic scintillator for trigger • Hodoscopes (s~145 mm) • Laser monitoring system**2003: 2 test periods**SM0SM1 # gains 4 3 SM (# equip. crys.) FPPA (100 chan.) MGPA (50 chan.) period long 1.5 months short 10 days Electron energies(GeV)20, 35, 50, 80, 120, 150, 180, 200 25, 50, 70, 100 Test beams data • 2002 : 100 channels with “old” electronic (FPPA) detailed study of: • Laser monitoring • intercalibration • cooling system****Amplitude SM0/FPPA Tpeak Tmax Time (*25 ns) Energy reconstruction 3 pedestal samples and 11 signal samples 40 MHz Wi determined minimizing Under the constraints**Pedestal run**Sum over 3x3 matrix s: 129 MeV Amplitude (MeV) Energy resolution Electrons incident on a 4x4 mm2 central region Noise term determined from pedestal runs sE/E (%) Ebeam (GeV)**Deposited energy**Two methods: • • Position reconstruction Impact point reconstructed by hodoscopes (s ~ 150 mm) Measure impact position from calorimetric information Xi: position of the i-th crystal**Position reconstruction**S curve is E,h,F dependent Resolution varies with impact position (better resolution close to crystal edges) Y (reco.–true) mm Y (reco.–true) mm Logarithmic weights 1mm =700m G. Daskalakis I. Van Vulpen Y (reco.–true) mm**M**Intercalibration Procedure • Cancel out the dependence of reconstructed energy on impact position by equalizing to the maximum response: IV order polynomial fit selections: e- impacting within a 7 x 7 mm2 central region ( retains ~25% of events ) Channel response: position of peak M, fitted by a Gaussian + exp left tail Relative calibration:**RMS :~0.3%**~1000 triggered events RMS:~0.09% Dintercalib. Dintercalib. Intercalibration Statistical accuracy: compare the intercalibration obtained using only a reduced sample of data w.r.t. to the one with the whole statistic Comparison of intercalibration from different data set Same accuracy as 2002 results An accuracy of ~ 0.1% can be achieved with 1000 triggered events**M**s = 4.05% Containment: ~0.8 @ 120 GeV Electronic gain APD Gain F. Cavallari Intercalibration from laboratory measurements Only few modules will be calibrated on a beam Precalibration starting from Light Yield measurements in laboratory : 60Co source 1.2 MeV**a**a = 1.55 a Electron signal ~5% Laser signal Irradiation Monitoring Irradiation affects only the light transmission Monitoring and correct for the loss in response by the injection of laser light as reference A. Van Lysebetten P. Verrecchia**s/m = 6.3%**a Irradiation Monitoring 2002 and 2003 data: it is possible to use the same a for all the crystal PRELIMINARY 2002 A. Van Lysebetten P. Verrecchia signal amplitude (ADC counts) After the correction for loss in transparency Time (hours)**Thermal step**The APD gain (M) depends on the temperature : Also the LY depends on the temperature The two effects sum up in the overall response (R): a and b measured in a thermal step aT = - 2.44 % / °C Laser runs Electrons runs Average thermistor temperature 1 ºC bT = - 4.1 % / °C**0.1 C**7 days Cooling system Cooling bars PRELIMINARY 1 C PRELIMINARY Cooling system with cooling bar ~1.5 month**Summary**• The new Very Front End cards equipped with MGPA satisfy the target specifications . • The impact point reconstruction shows a resolution better than 1mm for Energy > 35 GeV • A robust intercalibration procedure on e- beam has been developed, and an initial intercalibration at ~4% level is reachable for all the crystals from laboratory measurements of the light yield • The laser monitoring system and the cooling system satisfy the performances required for CMS**pure signal**A f(t) Energy reconstruction**Spread in Time of maximum response**Resolution versus mismatch SM0/FPPA (E)/E (%) Number of events 25 ns Normalised Tmax Tmax mismatch (ns) Energy reconstruction E resolution VS # of pulse samples SM0/FPPA (E)/E (%)**Position reconstruction**uncorrected S-curve corrected S-curve Y (reco.–true) mm E = 120 GeV Reconstructed (Y) mm =620m Resolution versus impact position Y (reco.–true) mm Best resolution: close to crystal edge Worst resolution: max. energy fraction in central crystal**Laboratory measurements**Precalibration starting from LY measurements in laboratory : 60Co source 1.2 MeV**0.5 %**Test beam 2002 LY LY D intercalibration coeff.**6 days**average thermistors temperature 2002 0.06 ºC 2 months Test beam 2002 Cooling Uniformity of temperature within a module 0.04 ºC Stability over a long period

More Related