PIXEL Slow Simulation Status Report

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
LC Calorimeter Testbeam Requirements Sufficient data for Energy Flow algorithm development Provide data for calorimeter tracking algorithms  Help setting.
Advertisements

Background effect to Vertex Detector and Impact parameter resolution T. Fujikawa(Tohoku Univ.) Feb LC Detector Meeting.
1 RTS effect on fake hit rate in Mimostar3 Xiangming Sun L. Greiner, M. Szelezniak H. Matis T. Stezelberger C. Vu H. Wieman Lawrence Berkeley National.
Simulation Studies of a (DEPFET) Vertex Detector for SuperBelle Ariane Frey, Max-Planck-Institut für Physik München Contents: Software framework Simulation.
Jaap Velthuis, University of Bristol SPiDeR SPiDeR (Silicon Pixel Detector Research) at EUDET Telescope Sensor overview with lab results –TPAC –FORTIS.
Status report on Light Simulator Claudia Cecchi Francesca Marcucci Monica Pepe Software meeting Udine January
1 CALICE simulation results G.Villani 06 Cell size: 50 x 50  m 2 21 hits simulated, 5  m pitch 121 extrapolated hits / pixel 961 extrapolated hits /
G.Villani jan. 071 CALICE pixel Deep P-Well results Nwell 16 μm x 16 μm P-well 17 μm x 17 μm Collecting diodes 3.6 μm x 3.6 μm Bias: NWell 3.5V Diodes:
G.Villani march 071 CALICE pixel Deep P-Well results Nwells P-well 3μm guard ring Diodes [3.6,1.8,0.9] x[3.6,1.8,0.9]μm 2 Bias: NWell 1.8/1V Diodes: 1.5V.
November 30th, 2006MAPS meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - Imperial College London 1 MAPS simulation Application of charge diffusion on Geant4 simulation and.
1 Experimental Approximation of Mercury Drop Velocity Using Uniform Random Probability in Jet Geometry.
Measure Tracks decay from heavy flavor mesons. Primary tracks From D0 decays.
STS Simulations Anna Kotynia 15 th CBM Collaboration Meeting April , 2010, GSI 1.
SPiDeR  First beam test results of the FORTIS sensor FORTIS 4T MAPS Deep PWell Testbeam results CHERWELL Summary J.J. Velthuis.
The LiC Detector Toy M. Valentan, M. Regler, R. Frühwirth Austrian Academy of Sciences Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna InputSimulation ReconstructionOutput.
PERFORMANCE OF THE MACRO LIMITED STREAMER TUBES IN DRIFT MODE FOR MEASUREMENTS OF MUON ENERGY - Use of the MACRO limited streamer tubes in drift mode -Use.
Monte Carlo Comparison of RPCs and Liquid Scintillator R. Ray 5/14/04  RPCs with 1-dimensional readout (generated by RR) and liquid scintillator with.
SPiDeR  SPIDER DECAL SPIDER Digital calorimetry TPAC –Deep Pwell DECAL Future beam tests Wishlist J.J. Velthuis for the.
Optimising Cuts for HLT George Talbot Supervisor: Stewart Martin-Haugh.
Charmonium feasibility study F. Guber, E. Karpechev, A.Kurepin, A. Maevskaia Institute for Nuclear Research RAS, Moscow CBM collaboration meeting 11 February.
Simulations Report E. García, UIC. Run 1 Geometry Radiator (water) 1cm x 2cm x 2cm with optical properties Sensitive Volume (hit collector) acrylic (with.
Technology Overview or Challenges of Future High Energy Particle Detection Tomasz Hemperek
PIXEL Slow Simulation Xin Li 3/16/2008. CMOS Active Pixel Sensor (APS) Epitaxy is a kind of interface between a thin film and a substrate. The term epitaxy.
Goddard February 2003 R.Bellazzini - INFN Pisa A new X-Ray Polarimeter based on the photoelectric effect for Black Holes and Neutron Stars Astrophysics.
1 Nick Sinev, ALCPG March 2011, Eugene, Oregon Investigation into Vertex Detector Resolution N. B. Sinev University of Oregon, Eugene.
T. Lari – INFN Milan Status of ATLAS Pixel Test beam simulation Status of the validation studies with test-beam data of the Geant4 simulation and Pixel.
-1-CERN (11/24/2010)P. Valerio Noise performances of MAPS and Hybrid Detector technology Pierpaolo Valerio.
G.Kurevlev - Daresbury meeting Collimators Material Damage Study Previous results In our group - Adriana Bungau’s thesis - heat deposition on.
meeting, Oct. 1 st 2015 meeting, Oct. 1 st Gas Pixel: TRD + Tracker.
Hadron production in C+C at 1 and 2 A GeV analysis of data from experiments NOV02 and AUG04 for high resolution tracking (Runge-Kutta tracks) Pavel Tlustý,
18 Sep 2008Paul Dauncey 1 DECAL: Motivation Hence, number of charged particles is an intrinsically better measure than the energy deposited Clearest with.
10/25/2007Nick Sinev, ALCPG07, FNAL, October Simulation of charge collection in chronopixel device Nick Sinev, University of Oregon.
G.Kurevlev - Manchester meeting1 Collimators Material Damage Study Previous results In our group - Adriana Bungau’s thesis - heat deposition on.
H.-G. Moser Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik DEPFET Meeting Heidelberg Sept DEPFET Geometry for SuperBelle Sensor Geometry Pixel Pitch Constant/variable.
1 The Scintillation Tile Hodoscope (SciTil) ● Motivation ● Event timing/ event building/ software trigger ● Conversion detection ● Charged particle TOF.
SPiDeR  Status of SPIDER Status/Funding Sensor overview with first results –TPAC –FORTIS –CHERWELL Beam test 09 Future.
IPHC, Strasbourg / GSI, Darmstadt
An update on ECAL simulations
Simulation of the Time Response of a VPT
PixSim package to simulate pixel detectors digitization
Design and Characterization of a Novel, Radiation-Resistant Active Pixel Sensor in a Standard 0.25 m CMOS Technology P.P. Allport, G. Casse, A. Evans,
Min FU (co-PhD student of IPHC, Strasbourg, France
Status Report Fenfen An
Sep th Hiroshima Xi’an Test-beam evaluation of newly developed n+-in-p planar pixel sensors aiming for use in high radiation environment.
STT pattern recognition improvements since last December meeting and
Huagen Xu IKP: T. Randriamalala, J. Ritman and T. Stockmanns
Muon stopping target optimization
Bonn Test Station data analysis with PandaRoot
VTX tracking issues Y. Akiba.
Integration and alignment of ATLAS SCT
Introduction Goal: Can we reconstruct the energy depositions of the proton in the brain if we are able to reconstruct the photons produced during this.
N. Stoffle University of Houston
Pixel-strip-EMC tracker and DC option
The reconstruction method for GLD PFA
Simulation on the Response of the STAR HFT Pixel Detector
Status of ECAL Optimization Study
Outline Analysis of some real data taken with the GLAST minitower (cosmic rays only). Offline analysis software used. Full Monte Carlo simulation using.
How to proceed with MC for STAR forward upgrades?
From a presentation by Jimmy Huff Modified by Josiah Yoder
Study of dE/dx Performance in TPC at CEPC
Measure Tracks decay from heavy flavor mesons
Backgrounds using v7 Mask in 9 Si Layers at a Muon Higgs Factory
Simulation on the Response of the STAR HFT Pixel Detector
Beam Test Results for the CMS Forward Pixel Detector
Enhanced Lateral Drift (ELAD) sensors
Gas Pixel TRD/Tracker With the support of the TRT collaboration
LC Calorimeter Testbeam Requirements
Clustering-based Studies on the upgraded ITS of the Alice Experiment
Presentation transcript:

PIXEL Slow Simulation Status Report Xin Li 8/30/2008

Simulation Process Input: Momentum (GeV), sumE, direction, path length (cm) PIXEL Geometry: A ladder: 640 x6400 pixel array Output: Sum of electrons collected PIXEL response : Diffusion, recombination and reflection at boundaries Reference: “Modeling, Design, and Analysis of Monolithic Charged particle Image Sensors” by Shengdong Li, Univ. of California, Irvine

PIXEL Geometry Model: a chip of 640(x)x640(z) PIXEL array PIXEL size: 30um(x) x 50um(y) x 30um(z) Diode size: 4.5um x 2um x 4.5um 30um 50um x z y Readout electronics layer: 6um Diode layer: 2um Epi layer: 14um Sub layer: 28um

Simulation Result After Update Incident angle 45 Incident angle 0 In the sum of collected electrons: Contribution from sub: 21% Contribution from epi: 68% Contribution from diode: 11% ( much larger contribution from sub (21%) compared to the previous result (1%) due the correction of the step length). 45 0 y z

Comparison with Experimental and Simulation Result Reference: “Modeling, Design, and Analysis of Monolithic Charged particle Image Sensors” by Shengdong Li, Univ. of California, Irvine Shendong’s experiment and MC comparison STAR test result, from Howard Matis

Simplified Slow Simulator Every ionized electron from any track are independent of each other. One can map out the probability of one electron being collected by different pixels when it is generated at a specific location in the PIXEL, and deduce the distribution of collected electron generated along a track. This map is a function of (x, y, z, theta, phi) , where x, y, z is the origin of the electron where it is generated, theta, phi are the direction of the first step of random walk during electron diffusion. Since the step length is very small (10-9m) and direction at every step is totally random in space, the direction of the first step has little effect on the map. Then the map can be only a function of x, y, z. This map is produced using the real slow simulator mentioned in previous slides.

Further Simplification First we can ignore electrons generated in the diode layer (2um), since electrons will be collected by nwell or absorbed by pwell in this layer. Second, according to the simulation result, we can ignore electrons generated 19um deep in the sub layer. So in total 50um thickness (y axis) of a pixel, only need to make samples in 33um (19um sub + 14um epi). If one sample per 1um along x, y, z axis, totally there are 30x30x33=29700 samples. Layer thickness (cm) epi sub 19um deep 30um Sampling region (33um) epi sub 50um z y 30um x

Result Comparison between Original and Simplified Slow Simulator Result along x axis Pixel ID Result along z axis

Ultimate Simulator Simplified Slow Simulator is still not fast enough to fit in STAR software. We use it to Build another lookup table of collected electron distribution for 640 x 640 pixel array with track hit on central pixel, make samples as function with parameters r(0~15um), (0~90), (0~360). Here r is the distance from track incident position to the origin (center of the PIXEL), ,  are the incident angle of the track. The ultimate slow simulator will be 3-D histograms which should be fast enough to be plugged in STAR software. r

Assume the simulation result of a track is only dependent on its entering and exiting positions. In this case, if two tracks has symmetric entering and exiting positions relative to x or z axis, their collected electron distribution in the PIXEL array will also be symmetric to the axis. For example, results of track 1 and 2 is symmetric relative to x axis, while results of track 2 and 3 is symmetric relative to z axis. So we only need to make samples in one quarter region (x>0, z>0) in the total PIXEL array. p1 - 1 2 3 4 x z

Symmetric Distributions Track1 Track2 Symmetric relative to x axis Track3 Track2 Symmetric relative to z axis

Result Comparison between Original and Ultimate Simulator Result along x axis Result along z axis

Thank you