Update on FCAL Work at UCSCSCIPP March 2015

  • Slides: 34
Download presentation
Update on FCAL Work at UCSC/SCIPP March 2015 FCAL Collaboration Meeting CERN 23 -24

Update on FCAL Work at UCSC/SCIPP March 2015 FCAL Collaboration Meeting CERN 23 -24 March, 2015 Bruce Schumm UC Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics

UCSC/SCIPP FCAL Activities • Radiation damage studies Have started with Si, Ga. As Will

UCSC/SCIPP FCAL Activities • Radiation damage studies Have started with Si, Ga. As Will continue with these, plus hopefully sapphire and Si carbide • Simulation Studies Improving the SCIPP reconstruction Exploration of effect of anti-DID Different hole (incoming, exhaust beam) geometries Beamcal position (reconstruction, VTX backgrounds) Bhabhas 2

SLAC T 506 Electromagentic Radiation Damage Study Update and Plans 3

SLAC T 506 Electromagentic Radiation Damage Study Update and Plans 3

LCLS and ESA Use pulsed magnets in the beam switchyard to send beam in

LCLS and ESA Use pulsed magnets in the beam switchyard to send beam in ESA. Mauro Pivi SLAC, ESTB 2011 Workshop, Page 4

2 X 0 pre-radiator; introduces a little divergence in shower Sensor sample Not shown:

2 X 0 pre-radiator; introduces a little divergence in shower Sensor sample Not shown: 4 X 0 and 8 X 0 radiators just before and after sensor

T 506 Si Doses “P” = p-type “F” = float zone “N” = n-type

T 506 Si Doses “P” = p-type “F” = float zone “N” = n-type “C” = Czochralski 6

T 506 Ga. As Doses New this past year: (5 x 5)mm 2 Ga.

T 506 Ga. As Doses New this past year: (5 x 5)mm 2 Ga. As pad sensors via Georgy Shelkov, JINR Dubna Irradiated with 5. 7 and 21. 0 Mrad doses of electromagnetically-induced showers Irradiation temperature 3 o. C; samples held 7 and measured at -15 o. C

Charge Collection Apparatus • Readout: 300 ns Sensor + FE ASIC DAQ FPGA with

Charge Collection Apparatus • Readout: 300 ns Sensor + FE ASIC DAQ FPGA with Ethernet 8

Results: NF Sensor to 90 Mrad, Plus Annealing Study Dose of 90 Mrad Limited

Results: NF Sensor to 90 Mrad, Plus Annealing Study Dose of 90 Mrad Limited beneficial annealing to 90 o. C (reverse annealing above 100 o. C? ) 9

Results: NC sensors Dose of 220 Mrad Incidental annealing ~15% charge loss at 300

Results: NC sensors Dose of 220 Mrad Incidental annealing ~15% charge loss at 300 ns shaping 10

Ga. As Charge Collection: 5. 7 Mrad Exposure Ga. As Dose of 5. 7

Ga. As Charge Collection: 5. 7 Mrad Exposure Ga. As Dose of 5. 7 Mrad • 15 -20% charge loss at 300 ns shaping • Seems to worsen with annealing • Sensor detached at 30 o annealing step 11

Compare to Direct Electron Radiation Results (no EM Shower) Georgy Shelkov, JINR 1000 k.

Compare to Direct Electron Radiation Results (no EM Shower) Georgy Shelkov, JINR 1000 k. Gy = 100 Mrad k. Gy Roughly consistent with direct result 12

Ga. As Dark Current (-100 C) • • O(100 n. A/cm 2) after 6

Ga. As Dark Current (-100 C) • • O(100 n. A/cm 2) after 6 MRad irradiation 13 Not observed to improve with annealing

Single-Channel Readout Output Voltage (m. V) vs Input charge (fc) 700 Noise (f. C)

Single-Channel Readout Output Voltage (m. V) vs Input charge (fc) 700 Noise (f. C) vs Load Cap(p. F) Noise (f. C) 600 Output Voltage (m. V) 500 30 pf 0, 5 0, 4 0, 3 0, 2 0, 1 0 25 pf 20 pf 15 pf 0 400 10 20 30 Capacitance (p. F) 10 pf 40 5 pf 0 pf 20 pf (10 u. A) 20 pf (88 u. A) 300 Linear(30 pf) Lower-noise amp/shaper under development 200 100 Linear(25 pf) Linear(20 pf) Linear(15 pf) Linear(10 pf) Linear(5 pf) Linear(0 pf) Linear(20 pf (10 u. A)) 0 0, 5 1, 5 2, 5 3, 5 4, 5 5, 5 Input Charge (fc) 6, 5 7, 5 8, 5 9, 5 Needed for high-dose Ga. As, and Si. C (0. 25 f. C signal) and Sapphire (0. 09 f. C signal)

Plans for T 506 Have been promised beam time this spring/summer Hoping for high

Plans for T 506 Have been promised beam time this spring/summer Hoping for high intensity running; SLAC has not yet announced plans and offered running slots Continue Si irradiation studies to high fluence • Careful annealing studies • Studies leakage currents as well as charge collection Single-channel readout for novel sensors • Assess 20 Mrad Ga. As sample • Sapphire irradiation (levels? ) • Silicon Carbide (levels? ) 15

Beam. Cal Simulation Efforts at UCSC/SCIPP 16

Beam. Cal Simulation Efforts at UCSC/SCIPP 16

Comparative Study: Andre’s vs. SCIPP’s Reconstruction • Inspired some development for us – –

Comparative Study: Andre’s vs. SCIPP’s Reconstruction • Inspired some development for us – – • Exposed different optimization philosophy – – – • More sensible ganging of segments More use of LCIO tools Our criterion: find clusters in 10% of events that have no clusters (10% inefficiency for degenerate SUSY scenarios) Andre’s criterion (? ): accurate reconstruction of cluster properties Head-to-head efficiency comparison raises questions Raised issue of Bhabha reconstruction – – Back-of-envelope calculation suggests Bhabha rate of order 1 per crossing (pointed out by Andre) Can we identify and reject? Probably… plan to study 17

Andre’s vs. SCIPP’s efficiency comparison (? ) • No truth-matching • 10% fake rate

Andre’s vs. SCIPP’s efficiency comparison (? ) • No truth-matching • 10% fake rate 18

MDI Q 1: Anti-Di. D needed? N. B. : “No DID” really means “No

MDI Q 1: Anti-Di. D needed? N. B. : “No DID” really means “No Anti DID” Tom Markiewicz, SLAC 19

MDI Q 1 cont’d: Anti-Di. D needed? No DID Anti. DID # Hits Energy

MDI Q 1 cont’d: Anti-Di. D needed? No DID Anti. DID # Hits Energy #Hits Energy Out 3 cm exit 17. 9% 78. 4% 81. 9% 85. 4% Out 2 cm entrance 1. 8% 0. 4% 0. 6% 0. 3% Hit the plug 74. 9% 15. 2% 6. 7% 2. 8% Outside the nn plug 5. 4% 6. 0% 10. 9% 11. 4% Conclusion: Tom Markiewicz, SLAC • The Anti-DID really only helps in the plug region between the beam pipes • Without the plug to create secondaries, VXD backgrounds should be LESS with no Anti-DID and radiation dose to BEAMCAL should be less “Plug” What about the physics? 20

Energy deposition (summed longitudinally) for various low-radius points on Beam. Cal R=5 mm =0

Energy deposition (summed longitudinally) for various low-radius points on Beam. Cal R=5 mm =0 R=5 mm = /2 R=5 mm =3 /2 21

MDI Q 2: Beam. Cal Location and Geometry • First step: Need to (re)-learn

MDI Q 2: Beam. Cal Location and Geometry • First step: Need to (re)-learn how to simulate the SLD IP and Beam. Cal environment underway • Need to center Beam. Cal on exit hole (correct? ) • Factorize Beam. Cal efficiency estimates: total efficiency a product of – Geometrical efficiency (did the electron hit the instrumented region? ) – Instrumental efficiency (if so, was an electron reconstructed? ) 22

Factorized efficiency vs radius results for 100 Ge. V electrons Geometrical efficiency Radius in

Factorized efficiency vs radius results for 100 Ge. V electrons Geometrical efficiency Radius in mm Instrumental efficiency Radius in mm • What happens if “plug” is removed (VXD and Beam. Cal backgrounds)? Total efficiency Radius in mm • What is effect on SUSY sensitivity in degenerate 23 scenarios?

Beam. Cal Z Position Studies Interest in common ILD/Si. D L* has opened question

Beam. Cal Z Position Studies Interest in common ILD/Si. D L* has opened question of Beam. Cal Z position • Beam. Cal reconstruction efficiency • VXD backgrounds Hope to explore this spring/summer 24

SCIPP Beam. Cal Summary • T 506 irradiation study continuing and expanding (Si, Ga.

SCIPP Beam. Cal Summary • T 506 irradiation study continuing and expanding (Si, Ga. As, Sapphire, Si. C) • Developing sensitive single-channel readout for low-response/highly-damaged detectors • Final refinements to reconstruction code (inspired by comparison with Andre) underway • Exploring effect of Anti-DID on backgrounds; is it needed? • Contribution of “plug region” • Reconstruction efficiency vs. z position 25

Backup Slides 26

Backup Slides 26

Hadronic Processes in EM Showers There seem to be three main processes for generating

Hadronic Processes in EM Showers There seem to be three main processes for generating hadrons in EM showers (all induced by photons): • Nuclear (“giant dipole”) resonances Resonance at 10 -20 Me. V (~Ecritical) • Photoproduction Threshold seems to be about 200 Me. V • Nuclear Compton scattering Threshold at about 10 Me. V; resonance at 340 Me. V These are largely isotropic; must have most of hadronic component develop near sample 27

Daughter Board Assembly Pitch adapter, bonds Sensor 1 inch 28

Daughter Board Assembly Pitch adapter, bonds Sensor 1 inch 28

Dose Rates (Including 1 cm 2 Rastering) Mean fluence per incident e- Confirmed with

Dose Rates (Including 1 cm 2 Rastering) Mean fluence per incident e- Confirmed with RADFET to within 10% Maximum dose rate (10. 6 Ge. V; 10 Hz; 150 p. C per pulse): 29 28 Mrad per hour

Daughter/Readout Board Assembly 30

Daughter/Readout Board Assembly 30

Charge Collection Measurement 2. 3 Me. V e- through sensor into scintillator Median Collected

Charge Collection Measurement 2. 3 Me. V e- through sensor into scintillator Median Collected Charge Channel-overthreshold profile Efficiency vs. threshold 31

Results: PF sensors Doses of 5 and 20 Mrad No annealing 32

Results: PF sensors Doses of 5 and 20 Mrad No annealing 32

Results: PC sensors Dose of 20 Mrad No annealing 33

Results: PC sensors Dose of 20 Mrad No annealing 33

Results: NF sensor for low dose Doses of 5 and 20 Mrad No annealing

Results: NF sensor for low dose Doses of 5 and 20 Mrad No annealing 34