Update on FCAL Work at UCSCSCIPP March 2015
- Slides: 34
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 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
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: 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 “C” = Czochralski 6
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 Ethernet 8
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 ns shaping 10
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. 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 MRad irradiation 13 Not observed to improve with annealing
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 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
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 18
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 #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 R=5 mm = /2 R=5 mm =3 /2 21
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 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 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. 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
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
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
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: PC sensors Dose of 20 Mrad No annealing 33
Results: NF sensor for low dose Doses of 5 and 20 Mrad No annealing 34
- Anthem of poland
- Database backup and recovery techniques
- Globalisation of western childhood
- Welcome to our class
- Happy wednesday march
- Critical essay format
- Glasgow 5 march 1971
- London 1890 rizal
- Spring autumn fall
- 1965 march
- Death march edward yourdon
- Sherman's march to the sea route
- 20 mile march
- Slice march
- Poem for 8 march
- Macro march
- Ausias march poema xiii
- 23 march 1996
- 21 march equinox
- Chapter 15 section 4 aggressors on the march
- Nine line medevac
- March madness banner
- Evening standard cartoonist
- 535 before 14 march
- Van gogh quotes about death
- Entertainment identifier registry
- Sherman's march to the sea
- What is ngo
- March 7, 2012
- Current events quiz
- Jan feb mar
- January february march
- Media blasting march
- Sigma lean sgrho
- March 5 2021