ATLAS: SCT detector alignment and B field map. Steve Snow New Year 2005 This title describes work that has been growing from low priority at the start.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
M AGNETIC F IELD M APPING V. Blackmore CM37 November 7 th, /21.
Advertisements

Results of the ATLAS Solenoid Magnetic Field Map
Beam energy calibration: systematic uncertainties M. Koratzinos FCC-ee (TLEP) Physics Workshop (TLEP8) 28 October 2014.
Stephen Gibson, ATLAS Offline Alignment, 2 nd July Incorporating FSI with the Offline Alignment Overview ATLAS Group, University of Oxford Stephen.
S. M. Gibson, IWAA7 November ATLAS Group, University of Oxford, UK S. M. Gibson, P. A. Coe, A. Mitra, D. F. Howell, R. B. Nickerson Geodetic Grids.
CM-18 June The Measurement and Monitoring of the Field from the MICE Magnets Michael A Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, USA Frank Filthaut.
Pair Spectrometer Design Optimization Pair Spectrometer Design Optimization A. Somov, Jefferson Lab GlueX Collaboration Meeting September
HERMES tracking for OLYMPUS. Part #1. Detector survey. A.Kiselev OLYMPUS Collaboration Meeting DESY, Hamburg,
X-Ray Survey of The ATLAS SCT. The ATLAS Semi-Conductor Tracker.
Warsaw University LiCAS Linear Collider Alignment & Survey IWAA08, G. Moss 1 The LiCAS LSM System First measurements from the Laser Straightness.
Realistic Model of the Solenoid Magnetic Field Paul S Miyagawa, Steve Snow University of Manchester Objectives Closed-loop model Field calculation corrections.
S. M. Gibson, P. A. Coe, Photon02, 5 th September Coordinate Measurement in 2-D and 3-D Geometries using FSI Overview ATLAS Group, University of.
X-Ray Survey of The ATLAS SCT. The ATLAS Semi-Conductor Tracker.
S. Gibson FSI Offline Analysis 9 th October FSI Alignment: Offline Analysis Overview ATLAS Group, University of Oxford Stephen Gibson, Danny Hindson,
Solenoid Magnetic Field Mapping Paul S Miyagawa University of Manchester Objectives Mapper machine Mapper software Simulation Corrections Fitting Future.
Solenoid Magnetic Field Mapping Paul S Miyagawa University of Manchester Introduction Mapper machine Mapper software - Simulation - Corrections - Fitting.
Page 1 Christian Grefe, DESY FLC Status of PCMAG fieldmapping analysis Annual EUDET Meeting Paris, Status of PCMAG fieldmapping analysis Christian.
Angular orientation reconstruction of the Hall sensor calibration setup By Zdenko van Kesteren Supervisor: prof. dr. Frank Linde.
A year of ATLAS preparation. Steve Snow New Year 2006 The resolution of tracks reconstructed in ATLAS ID should be: Good enough for some physics from the.
Offline Data Analysis Software Steve Snow, Paul S Miyagawa (University of Manchester) John Hart (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) Objectives + requirements.
Offline Data Analysis Software Steve Snow, Paul S Miyagawa (University of Manchester) John Hart (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) Objectives + requirements.
The barrel reference system1 THE BARREL REFERENCE SYSTEM C.Guyot (Saclay) Goal: Provide a geometrical survey of the whole barrel muon spectrometer.
Pixel Support Tube Requirements and Interfaces M.Olcese PST CDR: CERN Oct. 17th 2001.
14 August Magnetic Field in the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer Masahiro Morii for the ATLAS Group Harvard University Laboratory for Particle Physics and.
ATLAS EXPERIMENT INTEGRATION TASK: SPACE MANAGEMENT Tatiana Klioutchnikova 05/06/
ATLAS Pixel Detector Discussion of Tolerances November 12, 1998 Pixel Mechanics D. Bintinger, LBNL E. Anderssen, LBNL/CERN.
SCT Endcap Module Initial Alignments Using Survey Data Paul S Miyagawa University of Manchester.
ATLAS Inner Detector Magnetic Field I am responsible for providing the magnetic field map for the ATLAS Inner Detector.  6m long x 2m diameter cylindrical.
5 September 2006 John Hart RAL ATLAS physics meeting 1 Preliminary Report on Solenoid Mapping Field mapping completed in first week of August Aim to measure.
Drilling a Double Cosine-Theta Coil Hunter Blanton, Spencer L. Kirn, Christopher Crawford University of Kentucky Abstract: A double cosine theta coil is.
Optimising Cuts for HLT George Talbot Supervisor: Stewart Martin-Haugh.
Forum March 2003H.Taureg1 Magnetic Fields in ALICE Mapping and Monitoring.
Muon-raying the ATLAS Detector
LHCb VErtex LOcator & Displaced Vertex Trigger
1 ATLAS SCT Endcap C Efficiency Measurement Nicholas Austin IoP Conference April 2009.
TPC ExB distortion at LHC-ALICE experiment Yasuto Hori for the ALICE-TPC collaboration Center for Nuclear Study, University of Tokyo 1.
LM Feb SSD status and Plans for Year 5 Lilian Martin - SUBATECH STAR Collaboration Meeting BNL - February 2005.
3.The residual B r on the cylindrical surface is represented by multipole terms The results from the combined geometrical + general Maxwell fit show that.
(Some thoughts/reminders on) Calibration/alignment scenarios for ILD/ILC Jan Timmermans – NIKHEF Amsterdam 07 Sep 2014ILD meeting Oshu1.
1 Stellarator Core Metrology issues NCSX WBS-1 Meeting April 2, 2003 What are we measuring? When? How do we take the measurements? How do we correlate.
The Detector Performance Study for the Barrel Section of the ATLAS Semiconductor Tracker (SCT) with Cosmic Rays Yoshikazu Nagai (Univ. of Tsukuba) For.
3.The residual B r on the cylindrical surface is represented by multipole terms The results from the combined geometrical + general Maxwell fit show that.
Printing: This poster is 48” wide by 36” high. It’s designed to be printed on a large-format printer. Customizing the Content: The placeholders in this.
CLAS12 Torus Magnetic Field Mapping Torus Magnetic Field - qualitative look at the field distribution How well do we need to know the B-field? - momentum.
Mapping the Magnetic Field of the ATLAS Solenoid Paul S Miyagawa University of Manchester ATLAS experiment + solenoid Objectives Field mapping machine.
VELO Integr - Jan06Jean-Christophe GAYDE TS/SU EDMS n° SURVEY FOR VELO INSTALLATION 1.SURVEY AT GROUND FLOOR - FIDUCIALISATION 2.SURVEY FOR INSTALLATION.
1) News on the long scale length calibration 2) Results of the two surveys performed on plane 7 Set 1: morning of 12/11/2004 Set 2: morning of 19/11/2004.
Spectrometer Solenoid Field Mapping: Thoughts on Mapping Analysis & Results Major caveat: Everything in this talk is highly preliminary Data arrived on.
Physics requirements  mapping spec’s Strategy: analyze measurements to get field Mapping plan: where/how to map Engineering design: sensor, fixtures,
Physics Requirements Sensitivity to Manufacturing Imperfections Strategy  where to map field  measure deviation from ideal model  fit to error tables.
1 D *+ production Alexandr Kozlinskiy Thomas Bauer Vanya Belyaev
FIELD MAPPING V. Blackmore CM38 23rd February /70.
Final Results for the Solenoid Magnetic Field Map CERN mapping project team Martin Aleksa, Felix Bergsma, Laurent Chevalier, Pierre-Ange Giudici, Antoine.
Iterative local  2 alignment algorithm for the ATLAS Pixel detector Tobias Göttfert IMPRS young scientists workshop 17 th July 2006.
NIPHAD meeting 16 September 2005, T. Cornelissen 1 Tracking results in the testbeam Thijs Cornelissen.
Detector Alignment with Tracks Wouter Hulsbergen (Nikhef, BFYS)
Re-mapping the Residual B-Field in NA62
Magnetic Field Mapping
Why do we need to know the fields / map the magnets?
CLAS12 Torus Magnetic Field Mapping
Beam Gas Vertex – Beam monitor
Anti-did and B-field for ILD
Analysis Test Beam Pixel TPC
Integration and alignment of ATLAS SCT
Validating Magnets Using Beam
Magnets for the ESRF upgrade phase II
STAR Geometry and Detectors
Status of Transfer Line Reconstruction University of Wisconsin-Madison
Bringing the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer to Life with Cosmic Rays
SCT Wafer Distortions (Bowing)
Presentation transcript:

ATLAS: SCT detector alignment and B field map. Steve Snow New Year 2005 This title describes work that has been growing from low priority at the start of 2004 to become my main activity by mid The overall aim is that parameter (P T, I.P.) resolution of tracks reconstructed in ATLAS Inner Detector should be: Good enough for some physics from the first collisions Rapidly improved by using track-based alignment tools Eventually good enough that track systematic errors do not dominate the measurement m W to ~15 MeV

Initial Alignment I have been promoting the idea making an initial SCT alignment based on conventional surveys. This is a backup / alternative to the Oxford plan for an X-ray survey combined with FSI monitoring. The accuracy of the SCT endcap as built, and as surveyed is now becoming clear Intrinsic resolution of SCT detector; 22  m (just under pitch/  12). Detector positions in module; build 4  m, survey 1  m (Joe's talk). Location holes in module; build 10  m, survey 3  m. Module mounting pins on disc; build 100  m, survey 10  m. Discs in support cylinder; build 200  m, survey 100  m. Hole to pin clearance; <10  m. Stability of mounting pins on disc;  m. (temperature, moisture,bending ) If we can improve on disc-to-disc alignment (FSI or tracks) and the stability is at the better end of the range, then we could make a good alignment, similar to intrinsic detector resolution, from surveys on day 1.

Alignment - To do Collect and understand all module survey data ( 2000 modules) Already going into SCT database. Joe knows how to extract it. Module surveys done at several assembly sites; find and remove site-specific biases. Some already known. Collect and understand all disc survey data. ( 18 discs x 264 pins ) Sent to me from Liverpool and NIKHEF. So far discs 9c and 8c. Better understand disc stability, if there is an opportunity. Find/adapt/write software to make optimal use of multiple, over- constrained surveys. SIMULGEO ?

Module survey biases Correlation between Manchester and Liverpool surveys of the same module.

Disc survey data Displacement of pins from their nominal positions, Outer and Middle rings, Primary and Secondary pins.

Magnetic field map Aim to make a map that is accurate to 1 part in Map error will contribute to track momentum scale error. Important for m W. Method is to combine: Simulation with TOSCA (Bergsma), Mermaid (Voroijtsov), FlexPDE. Mapping of field shape with Hall probes by Bergsma et al at CERN. Monitoring of field strength with NMR probes throughout lifetime of Atlas. Fitting with functions that obey Maxwell and use minimum number of parameters.

Toroid and Solenoid This picture shows the field strength in a slice of Atlas at Z=0. We are only interested in the solenoid; the small red spot at R<1m. Influence of the toroid through the TileCal is small not zero.

Coil Field shape. The field is very non-uniform at the ends of the coil; the Z component drops off and the R component rises sharply at z=2.65 m. Also plotted is the bending power per unit of radial travel for straight tracks from the origin; B z -B R.Z/R. 95% of the field is directly due to the current in the coil

Magnetisation field shape The field due to the magnetised iron is only 5% of the total. It is a slowly changing function of Z because the iron TileCal is relatively far from the Inner Detector.

Field fit approach Build up fit from sum of basis fields: 1.Long-thin coil in vacuum (5mm longer, 5mm thinner than best estimate of real coil). 2.Short-fat coil in vacuum (5mm shorter, 5mm fatter). Use a mixture of these two, with scale factors for length and field strength to fit the field due to the real coil. Allow the real coil to be offset and tilted with respect to the coordinate system of the mapping machine. Use same offset and tilt for both. 3.Few terms of Fourier-Bessel series to represent magnetisation field. Also allow this to have tilt and offset, maybe different from coil fields ? 4.Few non-cylindrical terms, not chosen yet. May represent non- circular coil, offset of coil from TileCal,... John Hart investigating.

Test of aspect ratio fit. MINUIT fit. Three parameters; B_scale, L_scale, AR_mix. Dummy data is a field due to coil only with exactly the expected dimensions. Minimise |B fit - B data |, summed over all grid points within the tracker active volume. Result is B_scale = , L_scale= , AR_mix= r.m.s. residual is 0.16 gauss. As usual the only difficulty is near the coil end. Error could be reduced by generating new basis field which bracket the fit value more closely.

Mapper specification The specification that we arrive at depends on assumptions about how the machine will work. We assumed a structure like this: Typical positioning accuracies required are 0.3 mm for X, Y and Z survey of machine relative to tracker. (Presumably the sum of two surveys, mapper-to-rails and tracker-to-rails.) Rail sag and radial position of probes on arm require similar 0.2 mm accuracy. Typical angular accuracies required are 0.25 milliradians for rail tilt, axle tilt relative to Z axis, probes tilt relative to axle. Typical Hall probe accuracies required are 1 part in scale calibration, 4 parts in linearity.

Fourier Bessel fit I have has no success in getting a good fit to the coil field with the Fourier Bessel series. However the magnetisation field can be fitted well with only a few terms:

NMR PROBES INSTALLED AT PHI=45,135,235, 315 DEGRES. IP CABLES ARE ROUTED AT Z=0 TO SECTOR 8A FOR THE TWO PROBES ABOVE THE RAILS AND 9A FOR THE TWO PROBES BELOW THE RAILS. ATLAS SIDE A 8A 9A RAILS NMR probe locations

B field - To do Purchase rad hard NMR probes and cables. Jan/Feb 05. Find best QA tests of NMR system in absence of B field. Demonstrate that it works with chosen cables. April 05. Install NMR system. Aug/Sept 05. Modify field fit software to include - more Fourier-Bessel terms, non-regular grid, other mapping machine geometries, NMR probes in fit. Iterate on mapping machine specifications with Bergsma. Field map (solenoid on, all iron present, toroids may be off). Jan 06.

Effort Self; 40% increasing to 70%, Soon-to-be-appointed e-science RA; 70% (other 30% on track quality monitoring) Some technical support on NMR (electronics) and possibly on mapping machine (mechanics/control). Finally The end is in sight. By the end of this year the cavern will be crammed with detector and there will be nothing to watch on this webcam.