E.Kistenev Large area Electromagnetic Calorimeter for ALICE What EMC can bring to ALICE Physics and engineering constrains One particular implementation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Prototype sPHENIX Calorimeters
Advertisements

CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)
1 ALICE EMCal Electronics Outline: PHOS Electronics review Design Specifications –Why PHOS readout is suitable –Necessary differences from PHOS Shaping.
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.
The performance of Strip-Fiber EM Calorimeter response uniformity, spatial resolution The 7th ACFA Workshop on Physics and Detector at Future Linear Collider.
W. Clarida, HCAL Meeting, Fermilab Oct. 06 Quartz Plate Calorimeter Prototype Geant4 Simulation Progress W. Clarida The University of Iowa.
Testbeam Requirements for LC Calorimetry S. R. Magill for the Calorimetry Working Group Physics/Detector Goals for LC Calorimetry E-flow implications for.
E.Kistenev History lessons Specification Primary options e-RHIC meeting at BNL, Sept 19th, 2002 Hermetic Calorimeter for e-RHIC collider experiments.
30 March Global Mice Particle Identification Steve Kahn 30 March 2004 Mice Collaboration Meeting.
1 Hadronic In-Situ Calibration of the ATLAS Detector N. Davidson The University of Melbourne.
ALICE EMCal Physics and Functional Requirements Overview.
General Trigger Philosophy The definition of ROI’s is what allows, by transferring a moderate amount of information, to concentrate on improvements in.
1 EMCal design MICE collaboration meeting Fermilab Rikard Sandström.
Non-photonic electron production in STAR A. G. Knospe Yale University 9 April 2008.
SQM2006, 03/27/2006Haibin Zhang1 Heavy Flavor Measurements at STAR Haibin Zhang Brookhaven National Laboratory for the STAR Collaboration.
February 19th 2009AlbaNova Instrumentation Seminar1 Christian Bohm Instrumentation Physics, SU Upgrading the ATLAS detector Overview Motivation The current.
Study of a Compensating Calorimeter for a e + e - Linear Collider at Very High Energy 30 Aprile 2007 Vito Di Benedetto.
1 The Study of D and B Meson Semi- leptonic Decay Contributions to the Non-photonic Electrons Xiaoyan Lin CCNU, China/UCLA for the STAR Collaboration 22.
JSPS Research Fellow / University of Tsukuba T. Horaguchi Oct for HAWAII /10/15HAWAII
C.Woody, PHENIX Upgrades, 11/10/00 A TPC for PHENIX ?? No, surely you must mean for STAR…. PHENIX, really …. ??? You must be NUTS !!! Well, wait a minute...
Single Electron Measurements at RHIC-PHENIX T. Hachiya Hiroshima University For the PHENIX Collaboration.
Feb 10, 2005 S. Kahn -- Pid Detectors in G4MicePage 1 Pid Detector Implementation in G4Mice Steve Kahn Brookhaven National Lab 10 Feb 2005.
Jet Studies at CMS and ATLAS 1 Konstantinos Kousouris Fermilab Moriond QCD and High Energy Interactions Wednesday, 18 March 2009 (on behalf of the CMS.
Simulation Calor 2002, March. 27, 2002M. Wielers, TRIUMF1 Performance of Jets and missing ET in ATLAS Monika Wielers TRIUMF, Vancouver on behalf.
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.
The Tungsten-Scintillating Fiber Accordion Electromagnetic Calorimeter for the sPHENIX Detector Craig Woody, for the PHENIX Collaboration Physics Department,
ALICE-USA Collaboration T.M. Cormier Wayne State University for the ALICE – USA Collaboration Jet Physics in ALICE and a Proposed Electromagnetic Calorimeter.
Open charm hadron production via hadronic decays at STAR
EMCal in ALICE Norbert Novitzky 1. Outline How Electro-Magnetic Calorimeters works ? Physics motivation – What can we measure with Emcal ? – Advantages.
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
1 Methods of Experimental Particle Physics Alexei Safonov Lecture #15.
Calorimetry for Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering in Hall A Alexandre Camsonne Hall A Jefferson Laboratory Workshop on General Purpose High Resolution.
Overview of the High-Level Trigger Electron and Photon Selection for the ATLAS Experiment at the LHC Ricardo Gonçalo, Royal Holloway University of London.
Non-photonic electron production in p+p collisions at √s=200 GeV Xiaozhi Bai for the STAR collaboration Central China Normal University University of Illinois.
CALOR April Algorithms for the DØ Calorimeter Sophie Trincaz-Duvoid LPNHE – PARIS VI for the DØ collaboration  Calorimeter short description.
Magnetized hadronic calorimeter and muon veto for the K +   +  experiment L. DiLella, May 25, 2004 Purpose:  Provide pion – muon separation (muon veto)
MAMUD Magnetized hadronic calorimeter and muon veto for the K +   +  experiment L. DiLella, March 29, 2005 Purpose:  Provide pion – muon separation.
Rare decay Opportunities at U-70 Accelerator (IHEP, Protvino) Experiment KLOD Joint Project : IHEP,Protvino JINR,Dubna INR, Moscow, RAS.
Study of b quark contributions to non-photonic electron yields by azimuthal angular correlations between non-photonic electrons and hadrons Shingo Sakai.
Performance of Shower Maximum Detectors Saori Itoh (Shinshu Univ.) GLC calorimeter group (KEK,Kobe,Konan,Niigata,Shinshu,Tsukuba) Introduction Detector.
Feasibility study of Heavy Flavor tagging with charged kaons in Au-Au Collisions at √s=200 GeV triggered by High Transverse Momentum Electrons. E.Kistenev,
Aerogel Cherenkov Counters for the ALICE Detector G. Paić Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares UNAM For the ALICE VHMPID group.
1 1 - To test the performance 2 - To optimise the detector 3 – To use the relevant variable Software and jet energy measurement On the importance to understand.
Jet Studies at CDF Anwar Ahmad Bhatti The Rockefeller University CDF Collaboration DIS03 St. Petersburg Russia April 24,2003 Inclusive Jet Cross Section.
Christian Lippmann (ALICE TRD), DPG-Tagung Köln Position Resolution, Electron Identification and Transition Radiation Spectra with Prototypes.
Edouard Kistenev for the PHENIX Collaboration Calorimetry based upgrade to PHENIX at RHIC CALOR 2012 Santa Fe, NM, June 4-8, 2012.
High p T results from PHENIX Carla M Vale Brookhaven National Laboratory for the PHENIX Collaboration June
Régis Lefèvre (LPC Clermont-Ferrand - France)ATLAS Physics Workshop - Lund - September 2001 In situ jet energy calibration General considerations The different.
July 27, 2002CMS Heavy Ions Bolek Wyslouch1 Heavy Ion Physics with the CMS Experiment at the Large Hadron Collider Bolek Wyslouch MIT for the CMS Collaboration.
LHC Symposium 2003 Fermilab 01/05/2003 Ph. Schwemling, LPNHE-Paris for the ATLAS collaboration Electromagnetic Calorimetry and Electron/Photon performance.
10 May 2006Paul Dauncey1 ALICE EMCAL Technical Proposal: First Discussion Paul Dauncey, Michel Gonin, Junji Haba.
13/03/2007Gustavo Conesa Frascati EMCAL meeting 1/24 Gamma jet/hadron correlations Gustavo Conesa Balbastre.
Saturation physics with an ALICE-like detector at FHC Some numbers and ideas – a discussion-starter Marco van Leeuwen, Nikhef.
SPHENIX Mid-rapidity extensions: Additional Tracking system and pre-shower Y. Akiba (RIKEN/RBRC) sPHENIX workfest July 29,
V. Pozdnyakov Direct photon and photon-jet measurement capability of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC Valery Pozdnyakov (JINR, Dubna) on behalf of the HI.
Extending the PHENIX physics reach Physics beyond the baseline accessible at RHIC II Capabilities needed to address the new physics Detector upgrades to.
1 Jet Reconstruction and Energy Scale Determination in ATLAS Ariel Schwartzman 3 rd Top Workshop: from the Tevatron to ATLAS Grenoble, 23-Oct-2008.
Where are we? What do we want to do next? Some thoughts
Jet reconstruction in ALICE using the EMCal
Alternative CEPC Calorimeter
First physics from the ALICE electromagnetic calorimeters
Simulation study for Forward Calorimeter in LHC-ALICE experiment
Jet Measurements with the EMCal of ALICE
Dual readout calorimeter for CepC
Michele Faucci Giannelli
LC Calorimeter Testbeam Requirements
PHYS 3446 – Lecture #18 Monday ,April 9, 2012 Dr. Brandt Calorimeter
Presentation transcript:

E.Kistenev Large area Electromagnetic Calorimeter for ALICE What EMC can bring to ALICE Physics and engineering constrains One particular implementation How much it will cost Schedule

Large area calorimeter will: deliver the rate for high Pt photons; make possible the low level triggering on electrons and photons(*); allow precision jet measurements; allow triggering on jets (e/m component is good enough); allow for correlated photon-jets physics; allow for parton dE/dx measurement via leading particle spectra in tagged jets (direct access to measuring modifications to fragmentation function); (*) Neither TRD nor EMCal can do this job alone, pion decays in flight will become a main source for TRD triggers, large energy deposits from hadrons will dominate the EMCal trigger.

STAR Design

Problems&Solutions Too High Occupancy. Relevant parameters are: E low pt in the angular cone in which the shower is measured; overlap probability (two hits in the same calorimeter cell). Handles: calorimeter density and/or granularity; calorimeter depth and longitudinal segmentation: very high energy shower has much of its energy at depths where the low pt showers have died away. PS. Overlaps are irrelevant to the high Pt showers.

Problems&Solutions Energy measurements: Photons and electrons In the central AuAu event at LHC the average “foreign” energy per tower is ~ 25 MeV - use “essential contributors” only. Pile-up does limit the precision of the energy measurements for the lower end of the shower energy range, but not in the “natural range for High Density QCD at LHC ” around ~ few GeV;

Problems&Solutions Energy measurements: Jets In the most of LHC experiments it is the uncertainties of jet definition what limits the resolution not the shower- type dependence E jet = (E EMCal (depth > 1Labs) ~ 0.75 E impigent ) + corrections from tracking;

If functionality (energy and position) is not separated reaching few mm goal within the framework of traditional design requires matching cell size to radiation length (one needs a reasonable amount of energy to leak out of the hit cell to measure impact position) -> cost prohibitive for large area devices. Problems&Solutions Position measurements: Have no effect on Pt measuremnts; Only secondary to effective mass measurements; Constrains are set by track-to-shower matching: few mm resolution is certainly sufficient.

Problems&Solutions Angular measurements: very useful to reject non-vertex background; nearly a must if diamond is large and more then one event per crossing is possible; costly - but desirable

Particle Id: primarily e/h separation but can do better

Energy measurements (E - P matching)x 100 (*) Lateral shower shape x 50 (*) Longitudinal shower shape x 2 (*) Signal timing structure? (*) Unfortunately - calorimeter based criteria are correlated: practical limit to hadron rejection in a stand-alone calorimeter is ~200 for a few GeV/c hadrons.

ANTIBARYON SHOWERS Late arrivals in EMCal (  -flash corrected > 2.5 ns) Shoulder consistent with antibaryon contribution EMCal ToFeffective at low energies, works nicely for antyneutrons

Something about time segm.

ALICE EM calorimeter (1) full coverage (rate&jets) but hermeticity is not a must; (2) energy resolution of (15-20)% at 1 GeV-> comparable tracking and calorimeter resolution at a lower limit of the “natural range for High Density QCD at LHC ” (3) deps of ~ 25 Lrad / 1 Labs (em resolution + jets); (4) high density to limit shower size (it also helps to limit the cost); (5) relatively coarse granularity - two high Pt showers are unlikely to overlap, limit is set by  0 background to prompt photons; (6) some degree of a pointing capability; (7) high light yield to retain ToF capability; (8) upgradability -> to offset initial cost.

May EMC be designed and built along these lines and still be reasonably costed: The answer would be YES if design allows to resolve internal contradictions between density, granularity and ability to point. B.Aubert et al, NIM, A309, 438 (1991)

Sampling fraction = 10.5% Energy resolution = 15% (3mm plates)

Why Accordion… very uniform; no dead areas; very linear - autocompensation for light attenuation in the fibers; best possible position resolution for a given cell size; shower shape is very sensitive to impact angle - built-in pointing; multiple options for longitudinal segmentation, relatively easy industrialization.

Energy resolution ~ 15%

Basics of costing: PHENIX EMCal Design-> $US PHENIX EMCal Mechanics -> $US (*) Fibers-> $US Assembly&testing-> $US PHENIX EMCal Readout PMT’s-> $US HV-> $US LV-> $US FEM-> $US (4k/FEM - production cost only) Total-> ~ $US + FEM development costs (~ $US) (*) Cost per kg of active media $15

ALICE large area EMCal (mechanics) Cost/kg (active media) 20 $US Contingency 50% Cost (active media - mechanics)~ $US Industrial comp. (fibers etc)~ $US ______________________________________________________ Development costs (incl. R&D)~ $US Support structures (10%)~ $US ______________________________________________________ Total~ $US

ALICE large area EMCal (readout) Cost per channel: APD’s(  =5 mm)$ 50 (*) readout$ 20 power$ 5 Total per channel $75 Channel count: 5x5 cm260k-> $US 7x7 cm230 k-> $US 10x10 cm2 (staged)15k-> $US (*) Smaller size APD’s are the option - we may use smaller diameter fibers and loose some light but regain the timing - all this is the subject for optimization

Fine tuning the specifications Baseline simulation of the EMCal performance & optimization Decision on longitudinal segmentation Prototype design: multiple options Readout evaluation Prototype construction Envelope studies Infrastructure design Test beam Prototype readout Detector Design Construction 2 Years 1.5 Years 6 months Time scale for the project to complete