Studies of the effect of the LHC cycle on

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Vacuum Phototriodes for the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter Endcap
Advertisements

Notes on EE activation, shielding and removal Dave Cockerill
CMS-UK Oversight Committee 17/5/04 D.J.A. Cockerill - RAL 1 The CMS ECAL Endcaps Crystal ECAL Endcap Calorimeter (EE) Preshower EE EE crystals.
Simulations with ‘Realistic’ Photon Spectra Mike Jenkins Lancaster University and The Cockcroft Institute.
CMS ECAL Laser Monitoring System Toyoko J. Orimoto, California Institute of Technology, on behalf of the CMS ECAL Group 10th ICATPP Conference on Astroparticle,
CMS ECAL Laser Monitoring System Toyoko J. Orimoto, California Institute of Technology, on behalf of the CMS ECAL Group High-resolution, high-granularity.
CMS ECAL Laser Monitoring System Toyoko J. Orimoto, California Institute of Technology On behalf othe CMS ECAL Collaboration High-resolution, high-granularity.
Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?
1 Chapter 27 Current and Resistance. 2 Electric Current Electric current is the rate of flow of charge through some region of space The SI unit of current.
Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments.
ECAL Testbeam Meeting, Rome 28 March 2007 Toyoko Orimoto Adolf Bornheim, Chris Rogan, Yong Yang California Institute of Technology Lastest Results from.
Assigning Numbers to the Arrows Parameterizing a Gene Regulation Network by using Accurate Expression Kinetics.
At the position d max of maximum energy loss of radiation, the number of secondary ionizations products peaks which in turn maximizes the dose at that.
B W Kennedy, CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory VPTs for the CMS experiment B W Kennedy CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory St Petersburg, 26 April.
US CMS Collaboration Meeting, May 19, PWO Crystal ECAL Ren-yuan Zhu California Institute of Technology May 19 th 2001.
CMS Week, CERN, 2002 R M Brown - RAL 1 Performance Characteristics of Production VPTs R M Brown, B W Kennedy, P R Hobson (with crucial input from D J A.
The Number of Light Neutrino Families ● Physics motivation for measurement ● Direct / indirect searches for ● Analysis methodology for ● Single photon.
Radiation Damage in the CMS Strips Tracker Christian Barth on behalf of the CMS Tracker Collaboration.
JT: 1 The Berkeley Lab STAR TPC Distortions in the Transverse Plane: An Update Jim Thomas.
Average Lifetime Atoms stay in an excited level only for a short time (about 10-8 [sec]), and then they return to a lower energy level by spontaneous emission.
CMS SLHC workshop, D.J.A. Cockerill (RAL)1 CMS SLHC Workshop The CMS ECAL Detector at SLHC D Cockerill RAL
Optimising Cuts for HLT George Talbot Supervisor: Stewart Martin-Haugh.
Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with first LHC data
CMS ECAL Laser Monitoring System Christopher S. Rogan, California Institute of Technology, on behalf of the CMS ECAL Group High-resolution, high-granularity.
B W Kennedy, CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Vacuum Phototriodes for the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter Endcaps K.W.Bell, R.M.Brown, D.J.A.Cockerill,
August 99 E.Auffray CMS/ECAL STATUS on PWO crystals from Bogoroditsk after one year of preproduction for CMS-ECAL Etiennette Auffray SCINT 99, 16 August.
PHOTON RECONSTRUCTION IN CMS APPLICATION TO H   PHOTON RECONSTRUCTION IN CMS APPLICATION TO H   Elizabeth Locci SPP/DAPNIA, Saclay, France Prague.
Slide 1 5th LHC RADIATION WORKSHOP, CERN, , Jochen Kuhnhenn, Fraunhofer INT Radiation tolerant fibres for LHC controls and communications.
26 Apr 2009Paul Dauncey1 Digital ECAL: Lecture 3 Paul Dauncey, Imperial College London.
1 P.Rebecchi (CERN) “Monitoring of radiation damage of PbWO 4 crystals under strong Cs 137  irradiation in GIF-ECAL” “Advanced Technology and Particle.
Remembering PWO Radiation hardness studies at IHEP, Protvino Y. Kubota.
Peter Hobson - Brunel University, UK3 July 2003 VPT faceplate testing  Samples of faceplate glass are irradiated to approximately 20 kGy gamma ray dose.
S.Baccaro, A.Cecilia INFN Rome DPG 6/9/05 July 2005 irradiation test results of SIC & BTCP crystals I.Dafinei, M.Diemoz ENEA-Casaccia & INFN Rome.
Georgios Daskalakis On behalf of the CMS Collaboration ECAL group CALOR 2006 – Chicago,USA June 5-9, 2006 CMS ECAL Calibration Strategy.
Longitudinal shower profile - CERN electron runs Valeria Bartsch University College London.
Concept of NA62 IRC based on PWO scintillation crystals A.Fedorov, M. Korjik, A. Lobko Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus A. Kourilin JINR,
Calibration of energies at the photon collider Valery Telnov Budker INP, Novosibirsk TILC09, Tsukuba April 18, 2009.
SLHC Working Group - Nadia Pastrone1 CMS ECAL Detector at SLHC SLHC high radiation environment  consequences on ECAL Bunch crossing period:
Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with LHC collision data Maria Margherita Obertino on behalf of the CMS Collaboration Introduction The.
WACH4 26/11/2002Julien Cogan CERN/EP/CMA-1- THERMAL STEPS ANALYSIS Goals & Means : –apply a “step function” on the cooling water –look at : APD response.
PbWO 4 crystals Calorimeter Liping Gan University of North Carolina Wilmington.
Planck’s law  Very early in the twentieth century, Max Karl Ernest Ludwig Planck put forth the idea of the quantum theory of radiation.  It basically.
CMS ELECTROMAGNETIC CALORIMETER Jean-Pierre Ernenwein OVERVIEW 6th international conference on advanced technology and particle physics Villa Olmo, Como,
Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with LHC collision data Maria Margherita Obertino on behalf of the CMS Collaboration Introduction The.
ECAL performance evolution plots Contact: 1.
Heating and radiological
Update: EMC R&D David Hitlin SuperB R&D Meeting September 25, 2008.
Calibration of the Electromagnetic Calorimeter of the CMS detector
Ultra fast SF57 based SAC M. Raggi Sapienza Università di Roma
Properties of Recent SIC Crystals
An Automated calibration method from shower data
Benchmarking MAD, SAD and PLACET Characterization and performance of the CLIC Beam Delivery System with MAD, SAD and PLACET T. Asaka† and J. Resta López‡
Resolution Studies of the CMS ECAL in the 2003 Test Beam
A.Smirnov, A.Sidorin, D.Krestnikov
R. Kersevan, TE-VSC-VSM 30/06/2016
Panagiotis Kokkas Univ. of Ioannina
Parameterization for ATLAS EMEC
of secondary light ion beams
Studies of the effect of charged hadrons on Lead Tungstate crystals
CMS ECAL Calibration and Test Beam Results
Studies of the effect of the LHC cycle on
Update on TB 2007 Xtal Irradiation Studies at H4
CMS ECAL Endcaps: Fluence/Dose (500 fb-1)
Scintillator tile- SiPM systems R&D
The pros and cons of in-situ testing – going beyond the test standards
Radiation tolerant fibres for LHC controls and communications
Slope measurements from test-beam irradiations
Data NIMA 545 Table 3 and Fig.18 NIMA 564 Fig 3 (top)
Beam-Beam Effects in High-Energy Colliders:
ELECTROMAGNETIC CALORIMETER
Presentation transcript:

Studies of the effect of the LHC cycle on crystals - update D Cockerill ECAL Week CERN, 10 July, 2002 D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Radiation Hardness Specification for EE The radiation hardness specification was initially set for the outer ring of EE crystals and was set to be the same as for barrel crystals. Specification :   Induced absorption for full saturation of the crystal transmission damage 0  m  1.5 m-1 at 420 nm lateral 60Co irradiation, dose 3 krad, dose rate 5-15 krad/h at 18°C m = 1.5 m-1 is equivalent to a 55% light yield loss for a path length of 53.6 cm. (At  = 2.6, dose rate = 0.6 krad/h (6 Gy/h) at L = 1034 cm-2 s-1) Is the present radiation hardness specification suitable or adequate for the EE ? D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Radiation Hardness Specification for EE Evaluate the consequences of the current specification: Model behavior of crystals at  = 0, 1.48, 1.6, 2.0, 2.5 and 2.9 Track crystal light yield response as a function of time during LHC running. Evaluate whether the monitoring system can adequately track the changes in light yield. D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Crystal Dynamics Usually data not available for the dynamics of each trap type. Approximate by assuming a single trap type to describe an average behaviour for the creation and annihilation of colour centres. In this case the colour centre density with time is Equation (1) where a and b are average values for the crystal, and (a+bR)-1 is the characteristic response time for the system. The equilibrium is given by Equation (2) D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Density of colour centres, Dall Front irradiation, 0.15 Gy/h. Mean loss 2.5%. But very far from LHC conditions in Endcap Can’t get Dall from these data. Can get characteristic time Constants. Dose rate at shower max, LHC 1034 cm-2 sec-1 . 14 Gy/h 0.15 Gy/h D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Induced Absorption versus Light Yield Loss Induced absorption and light yield loss measured after dose rate of 200 Gy/h, for 2h. (14x dose rate at η=3), E. Auffray, DPG, 5.3.02 EE crystals 2370 2383 2385 2406 2407 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 where α is the measured induced absorption Fit data to find effective path length for light absorption, x Fit gives effective path length of x = 53.6 cm D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Density of colour centres, Dall , from very high dose rates Use 53.6 cm path length of light in crystals to re-plot induced absorption as % Light Loss. <Dall> = 31.6% Light Loss Simulate 31.6% ± 1, Dall ~ 20% and 40% Catania, June 2001 Induced absorption, 240 Gy/h, 2h x-axis from 0 to 3.0 m-1 mean ~ 0.75 m-1 % light loss D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Crystal Dynamics - coefficients a, b More recent data on time constants from GIF (P Rebecchi, TCG 19.2.2002) Barrel crystal, 4005 irradiation = 3.96 h = (a+ bR)-1 recovery = 18.55 h = a-1 h a = 0.054 h-1, b = 1.32 Gy-1 R=0.15 Gy/h Crystal 4005 2133 2162 recovery (h) 18.55 5.9 3.7 Characteristic time constant (a+bR)-1 at 0.15 Gy/h (h) 3.96 4.1 2.4 a (h-1) 0.054 0.17  0.04 0.27  0.04 b (Gy-1) 1.32 0.50  0.09 0.98  0.15 D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Crystal light loss behaviour at LHC Get net crystal light yield in real time at LHC by folding in : 1) Crystal dynamics. 2) LHC luminosity profile with time. 3) Dose rate profile with time. 4) Dose rate profile along crystal, 1 cm sections. 5) Light loss in each of 22 1cm long sections along the crystal. Since the dose rate is not constant at LHC, Equation (1) rewritten with R(t) : Equation (4) Equation (4) evaluated independently for each 1 cm section along the crystal. D(t) is the time varying colour centre concentration for the section. R(t) is the time varying LHC dose rate for the section. a, b, Dall are inputs to the model D, D0 and Dall in units of % light loss. D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Crystal light loss behaviour at LHC It is difficult to find an analytic solution for equation (4): Instead, evaluate in one hour steps. Use D(t) as input value for D0 in the next step at t = t+1. Evaluate for every hour, over 3 LHC cycles, 60 fills each cycle. 4800 hours, including 10 days off between each cycle. Can choose input time constants for the crystal dynamics. For this simulation, choose a recently measured crystal, crystal 4005. a (h-1) = 0.054, 18.55 hours recovery b (Gy-1) = 1.32 3.96 hours, characteristic time at 0.15 Gy/h Dall for values 10, 20, 31.6, 40, 50% Calculate loss at = 0, 1.48, 1.6, 2.0, 2.5 and 2.9 D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Dose, and dose rate, profiles in crystals Simulation of crystal response carried out at six values of  : 0, 1.48, 1.6, 2.0, 2.5 and 2.9 Dose profiles at each  taken from ECAL TDR, Figs A4 and A5, normalized to dose at shower max. At LHC know dose rates at shower max, from ECAL TDR, Fig 2.7. Use dose profile to get corresponding dose rates along crystal. D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

LHC Luminosity LHC luminosity (CERN AT/94-04) D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Crystal light yield behaviour at LHC, Dall=31.6% Low luminosity, 0.2.1034 max High luminosity, 1034 max = 0 = 0 Annealing = 2.5 = 2.5 = 2.5 x 1034 cm-2 s-1 D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Crystal light yield behaviour at LHC, Dall=31.6% Low luminosity High luminosity D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Light yield loss distributions, over time, at LHC for beam on periods only, Dall=31.6% Low luminosity High luminosity D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Average light yield at LHC, versus Eta Starting luminosity, 1033 100% 80% r.m.s. variation in light yield D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Average light yield at LHC, versus Eta Starting luminosity, 1033 Low luminosity High luminosity 100% 80% 40% D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Monitoring capability The monitoring is used to follow the change in scintillation signal response. This has been shown to be directly proportional to the change in the monitoring signal. R = particle/ monitoring R is the spread in the value of R, believed to exist from one crystal to another The error on measuring the correct particle energy is Set a limit on the energy measurement error, say  : (%) The maximum light yield swing that can be followed by the monitoring is : From GIF, has a general value of 16%, and 6% for a few crystals. The target for  is that it should be smaller than other fractional energy measurement errors. For this simulation appraise consequences with,  set to 0.3% and R/ R of 16% and 6% D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Monitoring capability, for E/E = 0. 3% r. m. s Monitoring capability, for E/E = 0.3% r.m.s. light yield/<light yield> (%) versus Eta Starting Luminosity, 1033 0.5% D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Monitoring capability, for E/E = 0. 3% r. m. s Monitoring capability, for E/E = 0.3% r.m.s. light yield/<light yield> (%) versus Eta Starting luminosity Low luminosity High luminosity D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Starting luminosity Light yield loss 18% at  = 2.5, for average crystal with Dall=31.6% % Light Yield variation Only barrel within 0.5% at startup D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Low Luminosity % Light Yield variation Maximum variation at  = 2.5 2.9% for crystal with Dall=31.6% Light yield loss 22% at  = 2.5, for average crystal with Dall=31.6% D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

High Luminosity Light yield loss 29% at  = 2.5, for average crystal with Dall=31.6% % Light Yield variation Maximum variation at  = 2.0 2.9% for crystal with Dall=31.6% D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Conclusions (1 of 3) The radiation specifications for Endcap crystals are not ideal. Improved radiation tolerance would be of benefit. From barrel crystal data, the average number of potential colour centres in a crystal corresponds to a light yield loss of 31.6%. The distribution is wide (r.m.s. ~ 30%). The average light yield loss at starting luminosity is 18% at  = 2.5. The average light yield loss at low luminosity is 22% at  = 2.5. The average light yield loss at high luminosity is 29% at  = 2.5. D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Conclusions (2 of 3) The low luminosity light loss of <22%> will increase the noise by 22%. Implies initial noise level target of ~ 120 MeV/ch, to ensure 150 MeV/ch when running at low luminosity. Need to sort crystals for radiation tolerance. Need data for each crystal for induced absorption measured using the top/bottom boule cuts to enable sorting. May need to match VPTs to crystals (low radiation tolerance to higher gain VPT) since VPT yield distribution is also wide. D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Conclusions (3 of 3) The fractional light yield change at startup is <0.5% in the barrel only. The fractional light yield change at starting luminosity is 2.7% at  = 2.5. The fractional light yield change at low luminosity is 2.9% at  = 2.5. The fractional light yield change at high luminosity is 1.8% at  = 2.5 but 2.9% at  = 2.0 . Variations in light yield for crystals with saturation values up to 40% can be monitored satisfactorily if R/R < 6%. Variations in light yield for crystals with saturation values up to only 20% can be monitored satisfactorily if R/R < 16%. D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18

Further work What variations in the dynamics of colour formation, crystal to crystal ? GIF is an excellent facility to measure characteristic time constants a, b. Need ETH-Z/Cantonal hospital equilibrium data, for Dall. Need data on more crystals for damage and recovery time constants. The LHC, the ‘ultimate’ GIF, could allow Dall , a, b to be established for all crystals, using both monitoring/particle/LHC on/off data. In-situ crystal characterisation could complement the monitoring system and reduce the dependence on knowing R. D Cockerill, RAL ECAL Week 4-Dec-18