1. RICH simulation for CLAS12 Contalbrigo Marco INFN Ferrara Luciano Pappalardo INFN Ferrara Hall B Central Detector Forward Detector M. Contalbrigo1JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

2. RICH detector Substitute 2 LTCC sectors with a proximity RICH detector 3 cm 80 cm GeV /c 12345678910  /K TOF LTCC HTCC  /p TOF LTCC HTCC K/p TOF LTCC  ratio K/  ~ 0.1-0.15 M. Contalbrigo2JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

3. Simulation with realistic phase space To detemine the best photon detector size, ,K,p have been generated at the LTCC-RICH entrance window according with a realistic phase space distribution of reconstructed momenta and angles. (GeV/c) M. Contalbrigo3JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

4. UV light  Hall-A approach  Multiwire chambers (with CSI) suitable as cheap photon detector of large area M. Contalbrigo4JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

5.  Old GEANT3/Fortran/PAW based MonteCarlo framework the same used the for the development of the Hall A Proximity RICH but with different geometry and size!  Charged particles phase space at the LTCC-RICH entrance window from CLAS simualtion, same distribution for ,k,p  Use arcs as radiator and detector geometries (see next)  Limitation on photon production (~3000) old memory constraint. This becomes relevant for radiator thickness > 2.5-3.0 cm Main output parameter:  k  = mean error on Cherenkov angle reconstruction of k and  Monte Carlo studies: framework CC CKCK    K-  = (  K +   )/2 M. Contalbrigo5JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

6. Points: MonteCarlo, Curves: analytical functions ~ 1 mr difference  C 5 F 12 mandatory! Geometry from the previous example Radiator Type for UV light C 5 F 12 C 6 F 14 CC CC   nn M. Contalbrigo6JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

7. Typical spectrum for a generic PM 1/100, 90 % eff 1/100, 75 % eff M. Contalbrigo7JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

8. UV light  Hall-A approach  Multiwire chambers (with CSI) suitable as cheap photon detector of large area  C 6 F 14 has not enough discrimination power at large momenta  C 5 F 12 is technologically challenging: liquid only below 29 o needs 0 o to keep same vapor pression of C 6 F 14 M. Contalbrigo8JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

9. Idea: why not visible light with C 6 F 14 ?  Much reduced cromatic error  Longer absorption length -> higher number of p.e.  Higher cost due to photomultiplers  Higher material budget before ECAL M. Contalbrigo9JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

10. Simulation based on most conservative n (Moyssdes) M. Contalbrigo10JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

11. Quartz absorption length and refraction index from Khashan and Nassif, Optic communications 188 (2001) 129 M. Contalbrigo11JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

12. Typical spectrum for a generic PM M. Contalbrigo12JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

13. Accounting in addition for 0.65 efficace detection efficiency M. Contalbrigo13JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09 C 6 F 14 C 5 F 12

14. No improvement at a variance with expectations:  Reduced chromatic error (uniform refr. Index)  Increased photon number (larger abs. length) M. Contalbrigo14JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09 C 6 F 14 C 5 F 12

15. M. Contalbrigo15 No difference in the Cerenkov angle resolution JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09 C 6 F 14 C 5 F 12

16. Vs. track angle Vs. photon energy M. Contalbrigo16JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

17. Vs. emission point M. Contalbrigo17JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

18. Particle impact point z fixed at -5 cm (before freon) move z to 0 cm (freon surface) M. Contalbrigo18JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

19. Vs. emission point M. Contalbrigo19JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

20. Vs. track angle Vs. photon energy M. Contalbrigo20JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

21. Cerenkov angle resolution improves and now scales as expected with UV vs VISIBLE light M. Contalbrigo21JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09 C 6 F 14 C 5 F 12

22. M. Contalbrigo22JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

23. Assume: Two radiators (only 1 simulated); one per sector Detector covers up to 2 sectors (detect photons from both radiators) Radiator Polar acceptance: 5° ÷ 30°  fix radiator size ~ 4 m 2 Max gap length = 120 cm Not to scale Unit: mm and degree M. Contalbrigo23JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

24. 5°5° 25° 35° 20° 90° 538.5 +10 freon Quartz (0.5cm) gap beam line O A B A’ B’ K C C’ H H’ Space for support and neoceram ? Minimum radius fixed by 5 o requirement ? How to define maximum radius ? Study gap depth and freon thickness M. Contalbrigo24JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

25. M. Contalbrigo25JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09 C 6 F 14 with visible light: similar or better than C 5 F 12 Pad size 2 cm Pad size 0.6 cm Pad size 0 cm

26. M. Contalbrigo26JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09 Hamamatsu R7400-U03: 18 mm diam., 12 mm length 0.8 x 0.8 cm 2 pixel, 50 % packing density Spectral range 185-650 nm, max q.e. at 420 nm ~0.1 keu each: 1 m 2 costs about 250 keuro Hamamatsu H8500/H9500: 52 mm square. 0.6 x 0.6 cm 2 pixel, 89 % packing density Spectral range 300-650 nm, 25 % q.e. at 420 nm ~1.5 keu each: 1 m 2 costs > 500 keuro Hamamatsu R7600-03-M16: 26 mm square. 0.5 x 0.5 cm 2 pixel, 50 % packing density Spectral range 300-650 nm, max q.e. at 420 nm ~0.5 keu each: 1 m 2 costs about 700 keuro

27. 2<p h <3 GeV 3<p h <4 GeV 4<p h <5 GeV Correlation between track energy/angle and detector area spanned by photons might lead to cost optimization Photon detector area > 10 m 2 with 2500 2x2 cm 2 PM per square meter and > 100 $ each: 2.5 M$ just enough M. Contalbrigo27JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

28. VISIBLE light onlyMIX photon detectionUV light only The track distribution is not azimuthally uniform on the radiator surface and this results in a different performance of the two radiators due to the common photon detector. The worse case is considered. M. Contalbrigo28JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09 Color code is for mean number of photoelectrons 3 m 2 8 m 2

29. The hybrid photon detector option M. Contalbrigo29JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09 Pad size 2 cm Pad size 0 cm VISIBLE light Pad size 2 cm UV+VIS light UV light

30. A hybrid (visible + UV photons) solution under test To be compared with C5F12 and UV light at same conditions Estimate the optimal geometrical parameters – freon thickness – gap length – detector/pad size Toward real experimental conditions – ,p,k with their specific spectra – Real particle multiplicity Limit the total cost and material budget – define degrees of freedom and limiting conditions Study the C6F14 and visible light options just started Initial pessimistic estimations affected by a wrong impact z coordinate M. Contalbrigo30JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

31. Radiation thickness Thickness (cm)X 0 (%) Entrance window Al0.050.5 Rohacell5152 Al0.050.5 Radiator Neoceram0.43 C 5 F 12 210 Quartz0.54 Gap CH 4 800.001 Photon Detector Pad NEMAG100.080.4 GEM chamber10.6 Total radiation thickness of the proposed RICH: ~20% X 0

32. Hall A RICHFactorClass12 RICH Readout954380 (15%) MWPC: Pads Planes2010200 (8%) MWPC: Parts (Macor Insulator)1510150 (6%) Freon (C6F14)2040800 (33%) Quartz+Neoceram3020600 (24%) Mechanical Structure3010300 (12%) Evaporation Fac.5001500 (exist) Freon Recirculation System20 (?)1.530 (?) Total210+5202420+530 Class12/Hall A Radiator:36-48 (min.-max. volume), 24 (surface) Detector:13 (surface), 4 (chs) GEM ~ 1.2 x MWPC k$ (estimation from Lire, CHF, $ and Euro) Costs - Very Preliminary!!

33. K-  Separation_old Radiator Thickness = 3 cm Gap length = 80 cm Pad/Pixel size = 0.75 cm Angle reconstruction error vs: 10K generated events

34. Approved Experiments requiring a RICH PR-09-007 Studies of partonic distributionsusing semi-inclusive production of kaons. PR-09-008 – Studies of the Boer-Mulders Asymmetry in Kaon Electroproduction with Hydrogen and Deuterium Targets. PR-09-009 Studies of Spin-Orbit Correlations in Kaon Electroproduction in DIS whit polarized hydrogen and deuterium targets.

35. Optimal combination: Freon Thickness ~ 3 cm GAP Length ~ 80 cm PAD size < 1 cm C 5 F 12 Single sector radiator 2 sectors photon detector (26 m 2 ) Angle reconstruction error vs: Radiator Thickness, Gap length Pad/Pixel size Radiator Thickness / Proximity GAP  Note: MC statistics is poor! CC CC KK KK

36. The drawings inside the plot represent different detector sizes simulated Black dots: represent the black arc at different external radius Red triangle: corresponds to the red single sector Blue square: corresponds to the blue single sector with optimal external radius Green Triangle: Optimal sector (± 45 degree) and external radius Photon Detector Size

37. K-  Separation 80_1.5 80_280_2.5 80_3 80_3.5

38. K-  Separation Separation at 5 GeV/c: best case (green): 1:100 / 90% worst case (black):1:100 / 75%

39. Which RICH? Liquid Radiator (Freon) –May cover up to 5 GeV/c –Relatively inexpensive (proximity focusing RICH) Aerogel + Gas Radiators –May cover up to 10 GeV/c –Very expensive (cost Aerogel RICH ~ 5x Proximity Focusing RICH) M. Contalbrigo39JLAB12 coll. Meeting 20Oct09

40. Small “pad” size is needed only in the restricted area spanned by photon from large momentum particles Effective eff=0.65 M. Contalbrigo40JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09

41. M. Contalbrigo41JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09 UV LIGHT

42. Effective eff=0.65 Minimum pad size 2x2 cm 2 gap (assumed) 5  separation with 100 cm and 2 cm freon M. Contalbrigo42JLAB12 coll. Meeting 18 Nov 09