Jin Huang MIT SoLID Collaboration Meeting June 03, 2011, Jefferson Lab.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Zhiwen Zhao 2011/12/09. Outline  Configuration  Requirements  Calorimeter design  Beam Test plan  Help we need 1.
Advertisements

CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)
Particle identification in ECAL Alexander Artamonov, Yuri Kharlov IHEP, Protvino CBM collaboration meeting
1 ALICE EMCal Electronics Outline: PHOS Electronics review Design Specifications –Why PHOS readout is suitable –Necessary differences from PHOS Shaping.
SBS Hadron and Electron Calorimeters Mark Jones 1 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AAA A.
LC Calorimeter Testbeam Requirements Sufficient data for Energy Flow algorithm development Provide data for calorimeter tracking algorithms  Help setting.
Quartz Plate Calorimeter Prototype Ugur Akgun The University of Iowa APS April 2006 Meeting Dallas, Texas.
Jin Huang Los Alamos National Lab.  Cited from March collaboration Meeting EC group Internal Communication Jin Huang 2 Preshower ID power drop significantly.
SoLID EC Design for IHEP 2012/10. Basic Features of Preliminary Design Based on COMPASS Shashlyk module design. 0.5mm lead/0.12mm air gap/1.5mm scintillator/0.12mm.
INTRODUCTION TO e/ ɣ IN ATLAS In order to acquire the full physics potential of the LHC, the ATLAS electromagnetic calorimeter must be able to identify.
Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?
ALICE EMCal Physics and Functional Requirements Overview.
SiD Cal R. Frey1 Some EGS Studies… Compare with Geant4  Questions of range/cutoff parameters EM Resolution understood? Moliere radius – readout gap relation.
1 EMCal design MICE collaboration meeting Fermilab Rikard Sandström.
Update on the Gas Ring Imaging Cherenkov (GRINCH) Detector for A 1 n using BigBite Todd Averett Department of Physics The College of William and Mary Williamsburg,
LBNE R&D Briefing May 12, 2014 LBNE R&D Briefing May 12, 2014 LArIAT and LBNE Jim Stewart LArIAT EPAG Chair BNL LBNE LARIAT-EPAG J. Stewart BNL T. Junk.
The PEPPo e - & e + polarization measurements E. Fanchini On behalf of the PEPPo collaboration POSIPOL 2012 Zeuthen 4-6 September E. Fanchini -Posipol.
SoLID EC Update Zhiwen Zhao 2012/05/22. Beam test update Coverage for PVDIS Road map.
Shashlik type calorimeter for SHIP experiment
Calorimeter Group. SoLID Collaboration Meeting 2.
R&D on W-SciFi Calorimeters for EIC at Brookhaven E.Kistenev, S.Stoll, A.Sukhanov, C.Woody PHENIX Group E.Aschenauer and S.Fazio Spin and EIC Group Physics.
Shower Containment and the Size of a Test Calorimeter Adam Para, September 6, 2006.
Study of Sampling Fractions Shin-Shan Yu, A P, Hans Wenzel, October 18, 2006.
Scintillation hodoscope with SiPM readout for the CLAS detector S. Stepanyan (JLAB) IEEE conference, Dresden, October 21, 2008.
The Tungsten-Scintillating Fiber Accordion Electromagnetic Calorimeter for the sPHENIX Detector Craig Woody, for the PHENIX Collaboration Physics Department,
Jin Huang Los Alamos National Lab.  Calorimeter defines the inner-R edge of large- angle acceptance  The proposal assumed a 2.5 degree polar angle gap.
Electromagnetic Calorimeter for the CLAS12 Forward Detector S. Stepanyan (JLAB) Collaborating institutions: Yerevan Physics Institute (Armenia) James Madison.
Overview of SIDIS Xin Qian Caltech SoLID Collaboration Meeting1.
Shashlyk FE-DAQ requirements Pavel Semenov IHEP, Protvino on behalf of the IHEP PANDA group PANDA FE-DAQ workshop, Bodenmais April 2009.
The Electromagnetic Calorimeter – 2005 Operation J. Sowinski for the Collaboration and the Builders Indiana Univ. Michigan State Univ. ANL MIT BNL Penn.
Apollo Go, NCU Taiwan BES III Luminosity Monitor Apollo Go National Central University, Taiwan September 16, 2002.
ECAL PID1 Particle identification in ECAL Yuri Kharlov, Alexander Artamonov IHEP, Protvino CBM collaboration meeting
Feasibility Study of Forward Calorimeter in ALICE experiment Sanjib Muhuri Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre Kolkata.
Results from particle beam tests of the ATLAS liquid argon endcap calorimeters Beam test setup Signal reconstruction Response to electrons  Electromagnetic.
Jefferson Laboratory Hall A SuperBigBite Spectrometer Data Acquisition System Alexandre Camsonne APS DNP 2013 October 24 th 2013 Hall A Jefferson Laboratory.
Calorimetry for Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering in Hall A Alexandre Camsonne Hall A Jefferson Laboratory Workshop on General Purpose High Resolution.
Optics, Tracking, and TOF Status/Update/Roadmap Xin Qian KRL Caltech.
FSC Status and Plans Pavel Semenov IHEP, Protvino on behalf of the IHEP PANDA group PANDA Russia workshop, ITEP 27 April 2010.
first results from EMCal test beam
J-C Brient-DESY meeting -Jan/ The 2 detector options today …. SiD vs TDR [ * ] [ * ] J.Jaros at ALCPG-SLAC04 ECAL ECAL tungsten-silicon both optionsHCAL.
Performance of Shower Maximum Detectors Saori Itoh (Shinshu Univ.) GLC calorimeter group (KEK,Kobe,Konan,Niigata,Shinshu,Tsukuba) Introduction Detector.
Study of SoLID Baffle, Background and Trigger Zhiwen Zhao UVa, ODU&JLab 2014/07/09 1.
SoLID DAQ A.Camsonne SoLID collaboration meeting November 8 th 2013.
SPHENIX EMCAL R&D Craig Woody BNL sPHENIX Design Study Meeting September 7, 2011.
Geant4 Tutorial, Oct28 th 2003V. Daniel Elvira Geant4 Simulation of the CMS 2002 Hcal Test Beam V. Daniel Elvira Geant4 Tutorial.
SoLID Background Update Zhiwen Zhao UVa 2013/11/08 1.
Progress Report on GEANT Study of Containerized Detectors R. Ray 7/11/03 What’s New Since Last Time?  More detailed container description in GEANT o Slightly.
Test Beam Results on the ATLAS Electromagnetic Calorimeters Lucia Di Ciaccio – LAPP Annecy (on behalf of the ATLAS LAr Group) OUTLINE Description of the.
1 Plannar Active Absorber Calorimeter Adam Para, Niki Saoulidou, Hans Wenzel, Shin-Shan Yu Fermialb Tianchi Zhao University of Washington ACFA Meeting.
LHC Symposium 2003 Fermilab 01/05/2003 Ph. Schwemling, LPNHE-Paris for the ATLAS collaboration Electromagnetic Calorimetry and Electron/Photon performance.
SoLID Simulation Update Zhiwen Zhao University of Virginia SoLID Collaboration Meeting 2011/10/14 Introduction GEMC Update Simulation Study Summary Introduction.
Simulation and reconstruction of CLAS12 Electromagnetic Calorimeter in GSIM12 S. Stepanyan (JLAB), N. Dashyan (YerPhI) CLAS12 Detector workshop, February.
Update on EM Calorimeters Calorimeter Group. Overview SoLID Collaboration Meeting 2.
Update on EM Calorimeters Calorimeter Group. SoLID Collaboration Meeting 2 SoLID EM Calorimeter Overview PVDIS forward angle SIDIS forward angle SIDIS.
1 SoLID Collaboration Meeting, July 9-10, 2014 Electromagnetic Calorimeters (EC) for SoLID The SoLID EC Working Group SoLID Collaboration Meeting July.
Update on EM Calorimeters
for SoLID Collaboration
The Electromagnetic Calorimetry of the PANDA Detector at FAIR
FSC status and plans Pavel Semenov IHEP, Protvino
NRC Kurchatov Institute, ITEP I. Korolko, M.Prokudin, Yu.Zaitsev
IHEP group Shashlyk activity towards TDR
Jin Huang Los Alamos National Lab
Simulation Updates on PVDIS EC
Detector Configuration for Simulation (i)
Sergey Abrahamyan Yerevan Physics Institute APEX collaboration
Special Considerations for SIDIS
Detector Optimization using Particle Flow Algorithm
Update on EM Calorimeters
LC Calorimeter Testbeam Requirements
Zhiwen Zhao,UVa for EC group
Presentation transcript:

Jin Huang MIT SoLID Collaboration Meeting June 03, 2011, Jefferson Lab

Concept Goal General Features Choice of Calorimeter SciFi Cal. (W based/Pb Based) Shashlyk Calorimeter Rough cost esitmation Shashlyk Tuning General Performance Pb thickness/layer Total Shower Thickness Preshower Thickness Transverse Size Choices of Light Read Out Outside Readout APD Discussions SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 2

SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 3 Plot by Z.W. Zhao Large Angle Cal.

SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 4 → 22º 13º  Purpose ◦ Provide trigger ◦ e/ π separation  π:e <1.5  General features ◦ Coverage  13~22 degree  ~4m 2 coverage  3~7GeV ◦ 120kHz (high p)/11kHz (e - ) ◦ In ~1.5T field  Mostly along track ◦ Radiation hard  ~10Gy for high p part Large Angle Cal.

 Two main choices ◦ High resolution, radiation hardness, 100ps timing  SciFi ECal ◦ Simulation shown in last meeting  W-Ecal resolution is not enough  Pb-Ecal (with >50% SciFi ratio) works ◦ Require large area light readout ◦ Not cheap (See Zhiwen’s talk)  Shashlik Type ◦ Pickup/Readout photon with wave-length shifting fiber, small light read out area ◦ More simulation this talk SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 5 Typical Pb SciFi Hertzog, NIM, 1990 Typical Shashlik Polyakov, COMPASS Talk, 2010

ExperimentCOMPASSPANDAKIPIO Pb Thick/ Layer (mm) Sci Thick/ Layer (mm)1.5 Energy Res. a/sqrt(E)6.5%~3% Rad. Length, X 0 (mm) Total Rad. Length (X 0 ) Moliere radius (mm) Typical Detecting Energy10 1 ~10 2 GeV?<10GeV<1GeV Trans. Size (cm)~4x411x11 Active depth(cm) SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 6 W/ new spiral technique to improve uniformity not crucial for us (with large indenting angle) W/ new spiral technique to improve uniformity not crucial for us (with large indenting angle) Similar in energy range as ours For us: What’s best Pb thickness? What’s best rad length? How to setup preshower? What’s the Trans. size

 If PVDIS calo. is not full-backplane coverage (likely), then there will not be enough PVDIS modules to be reconfigured for both calorimeters of SIDIS. Need to order new module for large angle cal.  Detector ◦ Assuming Shashlik calorimeter, 8x8cm modules ◦ Cost ~ ($0.7k/modules ) x (600 modules) + $50kUSD (1 set mold) ~ $500k  Photon detector ◦ Assuming radiation-hard APD, including cabling/electronics: ◦ Cost ~ ($1.25k/Chan) x (2 Chan/module [PS/SH]) x (600 modules) ~ $1.5M  DAQ - FADC type wave form digitalizer ◦ Cost ~ ($0.2k/Chan) x (2 Chan/module [PS/SH]) x (600 modules) ~ $240k  Support structure : cost ~ 100k SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 7

 Rough Cost ~ ($3.6k/modules ) x (600 modules) + $150k ~ $2.3M ◦ Dominated by photon detector costs, similar cost for choices of FM-PMT (moved to a weaker field location) ◦ Can look for options of using PMT in an even lower field location, which will pay for light transportation.  Manpower (More rough), assuming purchased module ◦ Engineer  designing support structure  ~ 0.5 Man*year? ◦ Technician  Assembly and heavy lifting  ~ 1 Man*year? ◦ PhD Student & Post Doc  Assembly, Testing and Calibration  ~ 5 Man*year? SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 8

 Tuning ◦ Thickness for Pb/layer ◦ Total Shower Thickness ◦ Pre-shower Thickness ◦ Transverse Size  Tools ◦ Geant4 code improved from CaloSIM (CaloSIM was used in last talk) ◦ No simulation on photon transportation yet ◦ Phase space (position, angle) Generated by Z. Zhao w/SIMC  Figure of Merit ◦ Pion rejection with 97% electron eff. SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 9 Example plot w/ 20 layer electron

1. Make cut on normalized preshower & E/p 2. Fix electron effciency ~ 97%, look for pion rejection 3. Average Pion rejection in acceptance -> FOM SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 10 ~3σ Cut ~2σ Cut electronPion E/p Normalized preshower P (GeV)

 Thinner Pb layer: ◦ more sampling fraction & better energy resolution ◦ Thicker module for same rad length ◦ More costly SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang mm Pb/layer ΔE~4%/sqrt(E) 0.8mm Pb/layer ΔE~5%/sqrt(E) 1.0 mm Pb/layer ΔE~6%/sqrt(E) Thinner Pb, better sampling, better resolution

 Reach 100:1 pion rejection w/ Pb =0.6mm/Layer  Single point source simulated SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 12 p (GeV) Electron Efficiency1/(Pion rejection) 97% 1/100 Rejection Active: 3~7 GeV Active: 3~7 GeV

SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 13 1/ (Pi rejection) Minimal is best 1/ (Pi rejection) Minimal is best Electron Efficiency Reach Best ~20 rad length Total rad length Tested w/ Pb = 0.8mm/Layer 0.6mmPb w/ 20 rad length -> 180Layer 420cm Default depth~ 0.5m Can not contain EM shower More hadron shower

SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 14 1/ (Pi rejection) Minimal is best 1/ (Pi rejection) Minimal is best Electron Efficiency Reach Best 3~5rad length Total rad length No preshower separation Tested w/ Pb = 0.6mm/Layer

 More difficult to arrange wavelength shifting fiber (WSF) for preshower  Options ◦ Curve fiber from front, example (ZEUS) below ◦ Run fiber through shower part within light-protected tube  R & D needed ◦ Run preshower fiber (separately) to outside magnetic field SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 15 ZEUS forward Cal. Bamberger, NIM, 2000

 Larger Transverse Size means ◦ Less position resolution, position become discrete ◦ More background ◦ Less Cost SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 16 Illustration w/ 2x2cm model (intrinsic res.) Energy deposition weighted position average Integrated over working momentum range R (cm)-1(cm)ΔR (cm) - Electron Track Projection - Reconstructed Reconstructed – (Track projection) σ(ΔR)~0.7cm

SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 17 - Electron Track Projection - Reconstructed Difference R (cm)-1(cm)ΔR (cm) - Electron Track Projection - Reconstructed Difference R (cm)-1(cm)ΔR (cm) 10x10 cm block size Noticeably discrete σ(ΔR)~1.0cm 10x10 cm block size Noticeably discrete σ(ΔR)~1.0cm 20x20 cm block size Discrete effect dominant σ(ΔR)~3.0cm 20x20 cm block size Discrete effect dominant σ(ΔR)~3.0cm

SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 18 block Size (cm) w/ 50ns ADC gate

 Pattern: Square shape or Hexagon shape (below)  In sectors: need more molds SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 19

 In field (1.5T) readout ◦ Avalanche Photo Diode (APD) ◦ used by KIPIO with Shashlik ◦ More rad resistant than SciPM But test needed ◦ GEMs read out?  Out field readout ◦ Next two slides SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 20

 No field, use PMT  Fiber/light guild read out: 3m in CDF design SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 21 → 22º 13º PMT Read out

 small field, use gap in  Fiber/light guild read out: 1m in CDF design SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 22 → 22º 13º PMT Read out

 Shashlik calorimeter is appealing ◦ Less area to readout light ◦ Established technology ◦ Need further study to finalize setup ◦ Looks good: 0.6mm Pb/layer, 20X 0 (Totoal Shower)/4X 0 (preshower)  Readout technique is still challenging ◦ Need test on APD, exploring out-field readouts  Total cost ~ a few M$ ◦ Dominated by readout detector SoLID Collaboration Meeting Jin Huang 23