1. 1 C.Woody BNL Summary of the Calorimetry Session PHENIX Upgrade Workshop Dec 14-16, 2010 PHENIX Collaboration Meeting January 11, 2011

2. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/112 Upgrade Workshop - Calorimetry Session Agenda Start at 8:30 am 10’ – Introduction to the Workshop and Calorimetry Session (M.Leitch pptx, pdf; C.Woody ppt, pdf)pptxpdfpptpdf 30’ – Overview of the PHENIX Decadal Plan (D.Morrison, pdf)pdf 20’ – Physics with Calorimetry in the PHENIX Upgrade (M.McCumber, pdf)pdf 20’ - Calorimeter Requirements – What’s in the Decadal Plan ? (N.Grau, pdf)pdf 20’ - Technology Choices for Calorimetry in an Upgraded PHENIX Detector (C.Woody ppt, pdf)pptpdf 30' - Status of Physics Analysis with the Current PHENIX EMCAL (T.Sakaguchi, pptx, pdf)pptxpdf 30’ - The ALICE FOCAL (T.Gunji pdf, pptx )pdfpptx 30’ – ORNL Approaches to the ALICE FOCAL & Ties to Future PHENIX Upgrades (C.Britton ppt, pdf )pptpdf 20’ – Open mike (All) pdfpdf Lunch 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm 30’ - Hybrid Calorimetry in an Upgraded PHENIX (E.Kistenev, ppt)ppt 30’ - Scintillator Calorimetry for the PHENIX Upgrades (J.Frantz, pptx, pdf)pptxpdf 30' - New Technologies for SciFi Calorimeters (O.Tsai, pptx, ppt)pptxppt 30’ - Use of SiPMs in the GlueX Barrel Calorimeter (E.Smith, pdf)pdf 30' - The CALICE Calorimeters (F.Sefkow) pdfpdf Physics Colloquium: 3:30 pm – 4:30 pm (P.Steinberg) Open Discussion, Summary and Future Plans: 4:45 pm – 6:00 pm

3. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/113 Ground Rules 1.Do not deviate from the Decadal plan design “too much” 2.Want a Compact Detector with specific physics capabilities that will be able to perform unique and important physics measurement in 5-10+ years at a “reasonable” cost  We are not aiming to build a new, large, multipurpose detector like ATLAS,CMS, or ALICE 3.Design based around a “small” solenoid magnet in the central region However, things like the radius of magnet should be considered as a variable within reasonable limits 4.Focus on technology choices that will enable this type of design

4. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/114

5. 5 Basic Assumptions Inclusion of a Hadron Calorimeter covering 2  and |  | < 1 implies the need for a Compact Electromagnetic Calorimeter Both calorimeters need to be hermetic and projective To handle shower overlaps in central Au+Au collisions, a Compact EMCal implies: - Small Moliere radius (~ 2 cm) - High segmentation (  ~.01,  ~.01) Identifying single photons from  0 s up to p T ~ 40 GeV/c requires a preshower detector with  (  ) ~.0005  ~ 300  m at R = 60 cm At least part of the CEMC will be inside the magnetic field The hadronic calorimeter will be outside the field and will have have relatively low granularity (    ~ 0.1)

6. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/116 Energy Resolution vs Occupancy Assumed energy resolutions in the Decadal Plan: - Electromagnetic ~ 15%/  E - Hadronic ~ 50%/  E The energy resolution requirements will determine the sampling fraction in a sampling calorimeter, which will in turn have an impact on the Moliere Radius, Radiation Length and Nuclear Absorption Length R M, X 0 and I will determine the transverse segmentation and longitudinal depth of the calorimeters. Occupancy will be determined by how far the calorimeters are located from the interaction point Simple calculation (A.Oskarsson) based on scaling our present Pb-Sc EMCAL at R=5m and R M =3 cm to a new Compact EMCAL at R=60 cm and R M =2 cm changes occupancy from 2% to 66% !

7. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/117 Technology Choices Sampling vs Homogeneous Optical vs Ionization - Optical  Scintillator (crystal, plastic), Wavelength Shifter, Cherenkov - Ionization  Silicon, Noble Liquids (Ar, Kr, Xe) Readout Devices “Apparent” R M ~ 1.8 cm due to Cherenkov Reduced by sampling fraction

8. 8 FOCal 2011 2 mm W plates, ~5 X0 4 mm W plates, ~16 X0 22 layer of ~500  Si pads 15x15 mm 2 8 layers of ~300  0.5 mm wide Si strips (4 X + 4 Y) Segment - 0Segment - 1Segment - 2 -enhanced early shower measurements; -reduced readout gaps to reduce shower blow-up; -resolved dynamic range problem. E.Kistenev 00  Preshower separation Provides good compactness due to thin sampling layers of silicon

9. 9 CNS, India, ORNL, 7 “Standard” W+Si (pad/strip) calorimeter (CNS) – Similar to the PHENIX FOCAL but 3.5m away from IP W thickness: 3.5 mm (1X 0 ) wafer size: 9.3cmx9.3cmx0.525mm Si pad size: 1.1x1.1cm 2 (64 ch/wafer) W+Si pad : 21 layers 3 longitudinal segments Summing up raw signal longitudinally in segments Single sided Si-Strip (2X 0 -6X 0 ) 2  separation, 6 inch wafer 0.7mm pitch (128ch/wafer) Total 25k channels First segmentSecond segmentThird segment Si Strip (X-Y)Tungsten Si pad CPV ALICE FOCAL Taku Gunji + Chuck Britton

10. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1110 EMCAL Options - Decadal Plan Accordion Projective Towers Scintillator Accordion (E.Kistenev & colleagues from Russia) Tungsten Scintillator Shashlik ALICE Pb-Sc Projective Shashlik w/APD Readout HERA-B had a non-projective W-Sc Shashlik Composite tungsten plates can be formed into accordion shape

11. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1111 Scintillating Tile Hadron Calorimeters Scintillator tiles read out on edges with WLS fiber Depth segmentation achieved by fiber routing WLS fiber ATLAS Other Tile-WLS Fiber Calorimeters CMS Barrel Hadron LHBb HCAL STAR EMCAL D0 HERA CALICE (w/SiPMs)

12. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1112 Scintillating Fiber Calorimeters R.Wigmans, NIM A494 (2002) 277-287 1 mm plastic scintillating fibers Other Sci-Fi Calorimeters H1 KLOE JETSET CHORUS E864 (BNL) SPACAL Embedding scint fibers in an absorber matrix (Oleg Tsai) UCLA Prototype 0.25x0.25, 0.3 mm fibers 0.8 mm spacing “Spacardeon”

13. 13 Hybrid Option for PHENIX Central Calorimetry -em energy resolution: 20% at 1 GeV -em depth: 20 X0 or more; -had. Resolution – better 50% at 1 GeV -had depth: ~4 Labs Si-Sc hybrid option -Active preshower ~4 X 0 -2 mm W (or equivalent) plates in preshower -Si readout in preshower -Pb & Sc in both E-sampling segments -Optical readout in sampling segments s-c magnet EMC energy sampler Hadronic energy sampler Preshower E.Kistenev

14. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1114 Self supporting structure Optical Readout Accordion E.Kistenev

15. 15 Shashlik W-Sc EMCal Module square cross-section “a” slightly decreases from 15.0 mm to 14.9 mm as |  | increases “b” slightly decreases from 16.8 mm to 16.7 mm as |  | increases a a b b Thickness of W = 1.5 mm Thickness of Scintillator = 1.0 mm Radiation length X 0 = 5.8 mm use 46 layers of W+Sc Depth of the module = 20X 0 Sampling fraction = 0.0569 (rapidity independent) Position resolution = 2.8 mm at E = 1 GeV = 0.9 mm at E = 10 GeV Moliere Radius R M = 14.6 mm |  | x |  | segmentation = 0.0146 x 0.0146 (Projective) ~50 K Channels Don’t Need Preshower/SMD ? Energy resolution = 11.3 % / sqrt(E) Occupancy: 20 % (same assumptions for Pb) Price Quote: $8.2 M Total weight: 17.6 ton J.Franz

16. 16 Barrel HCal Placed behind W-Sc Shashlik EMCal 38.6 0 |  | = 1.05 |  | x |  | segmentation = 0.1 x 0.1 1054 readout channels Boundaries of rapidity cells in HCal are shown J.Franz

17. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1117 Issues and Questions 1. What is the real occupancy in the EMCAL and HCAL and how does it affect the physics ? EMCAL - Preshower identifies single  s and  0 s up to high p T, but overlapping showers from other particles in the event affects the ability to measure their energy HCAL - What is the affect of the underlying event on measuring the jet energy ? - Can we really live with very coarse segmentation if we want to correlate hadronic energy with charged tracks ? 2. What will be the radius of the magnet ? Increasing the radius of the magnet will:  reduce the occupancy in both calorimeters  allow more space for tracking and increase B  dL, improve momentum resolution  allow more space for particle id  increase the cost

18. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1118 Issues and Questions 3.What energy resolutions do we really want in the EMCAL and HCAL ? 4.Is ~ ±1 units of  large enough to measure the jet given that we also want to measure soft fragmentation components ? 5.Should we try and identify muons behind the HCAL ? 6.Preshower needs to be inside magnet regardless of radius. Probably needs to be Si strips or pixels to achieve the required separation resolution 7.Remainder of EMCAL could be inside or outside the magnet. Could use PMTs if outside. However, cost due to increased size will be higher 8.Multiple technologies available for HCAL (tile-WLS, SciFi). 9.Need to look more carefully at the forward direction (pp + HI). There will be a lot of interesting physics to study in this region well into the future and it connects well with the eRHIC program. 10.Additional detector R&D and simulations are needed

19. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1119 Areas for Detector R&D In building a Compact Electromagnetic Calorimeter, there is a tradeoff between Moliere radius and energy resolution Si-W provides good compactness, but cost is prohibitive at larger radii Need to study/develop a compact, low cost optical readout calorimeter Two options: W-shashlik W-accordion What is the optimal sampling fraction ? Minimize Moliere radius Minimize sampling fluctuations while preserving energy resolution Provide enough light output to produce usable signals and minimize fluctuations due to photostatistics Choose readout device APD SiPM PMT inside magnetic field outside magnetic field need to develop low cost W absorbers (  Tungsten Heavy Powder, Inc)

20. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1120 Backup Slides

21. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1121 M.McCumber

22. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1122 M.McCumber

23. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1123 M.McCumber

24. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1124 M.McCumber

25. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1125

26. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1126 |  | = 0.9 44.3 0 10.3 0 9.9 0 9.4 0 8.6 0 7.7 0 |  | x |  | segmentation = 0.015 x 0.015 50400 readout channels 1 m is the closest distance to the beamline from WSc material 1 2345678910 35 supermodules azimuthally 10 supermodules along the beam for later review not to be discussed now Barrel Shashlik W-Sc EMCal J.Franz

27. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1127 E.Smith

28. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1128 E.Smith

29. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1129 CALICE Calorimetry for the International Linear Collider Analog Hadron Calorimeter (AHCAL) (one option being studied) Scintillator tile –WLS fiber calorimeter read out with SiPMs 7609 tiles, each with individual WLS fiber and SiPM (Pulsar) 38 layer 1 m 3 prototype tested First large scale deployment of SiPMs R.Fabbri, 2009 IEEE NSS/MIC Conference Record F.Sefkow

30. C.Woody, Calorimeter R&D Workshop Report, 1/11/1130 CALICE Si-W EM Calorimeter F.Sefkow