1 / 24

From H8 Test-beam to Muon System Commissioning

From H8 Test-beam to Muon System Commissioning. 1 st North American ATLAS Physics Workshop Tucson, AZ - December 20-21, 2004 Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan. Outline. Aim: this is a ‘physics workshop‘, so focus on detector calibration and validation

richard_edik
Télécharger la présentation

From H8 Test-beam to Muon System Commissioning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. From H8 Test-beam to Muon System Commissioning 1st North American ATLAS Physics Workshop Tucson, AZ - December 20-21, 2004 Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  2. Outline Aim: this is a ‘physics workshop‘, so focus on detector calibration and validation • H8 setup description & objectives • US contributions to the H8 test beam • Review of a few test beam muon results (software/trigger in Moore/Amstrong’s talk) • Phase I chamber certification • Plans for calibration work in next phases Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  3. Whole H8 Test Beam Layout Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  4. H8 Muon Endcap Layout TGC EOS/L EMS/L Barrel chambers EIS/L Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  5. H8 setup in 2004 • 8 Barrel MDT (2 BIL, 2 BML, 2 BOL + 1 BIL + 1 BOS) Full FE electronics ( 1 MROD) and alignment system 1 BILon rotating support for r(t) relations 1 BOS MDT+RPC for combined test beam and noise test • 6 Barrel RPC (4 BML and 2 BOL) only ¼ of the 2 towers equipped with New PAD boards Total 2880 MDT channels with 8 CSM and 2 MROD • 6 Barrel MDT (2 EI, 2 EM and 2 EO) • Fully equipped with FE electronics  1 MROD • Full (almost “absolute-calibrated”) alignment system Total 1920 MDT channels with 6 CSM and 1 MROD • 3 TGC (2 doublets, 1 Triplet) + full on chamber electronics • CSC and MBPS magnet between EI and EM station Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  6. H8 Muon System Objectives • Full scale integration of the whole electronics chain (tube  HH  mezz  CSM  MROD  ROS) • Readout of the sensors through ELMB/DCS • Validation of the whole alignment system • First staging of combined muon detectors (MDT, RPC, TGC, CSC) • Test of the muon triggers bunch ID efficiency and second coordinate • Integration of multiple detector readout into the Data stream. Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  7. US Contributions • ISR Early chambers setup + leak certification and dark current test (by UM) • Detector: 4 MDT (Boston and Seattle) + CSC from BNL • Electronics: CSMs, Motherboards, Mezzanine cards + support hardware from UM • Alignment system from Brandeis • Physicists and engineers • Software for operational & diagnostic analysis • Data analysis Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  8. Individual Contributions My deep apologies to every institution/single who worked hard and not mentioned here • UoM: Dan Levin, US H8 coordinator from 2002 • UoM: J. Chapman, J. Gregory, B. Ball, T. Dai: electronics (CSM-2, Motherboard, software, ...) • UoM: R. Avamidrou shifts and on site operations • Harvard: J. Oliver Mezzanine test setup station + software • Tufts: K. Sliwa, M. Wolfer, S.Tudorovova online logbook and data analysis • Seattle: J. Rothberg DB coordinator + CXDB work Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  9. A Few Trigger Results • Central Trigger Processor latency ~ 5 BC (target 4 BC) • Successful MuCTPI in 25 ns runs (Oct) • Fast (LVL2) LVL1 trigger with global pattern recognition and better Pt estimation (Look Up Table) within a Region of Interest. • TrigMoore (Event Filter) Based on Moore for seeded reconstruction from RoI of either LVL2 or LVL1 and precise Pt determination Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  10. H8 Analysis Tasks • Evaluation of tube-channel stability, functionality, efficiency, noise, mortality • Sagitta resolution • Alignment system tests: • Temperature induced chamber motions • Controlled translations and rotations • Absolute alignment • Combined detectors system • Test reconstruction software (Moore, Muonboy in Athena + Mutrak) Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  11. Chamber functionality 2003: • 35 dead tubes in 12 chambers • ~14 % of both hedgehog cards not working • Discovered problem with CSM “pair mode” • Many noisy tubes 2004: • 10 dead tubes (9 in barrel chambers) • Developed MECCA continuity test • CSM “edge mode”  updated CSM & MROD • Evaluated common mode noise (G. Blanchot) • Replace mezzanine and threshold per ASD Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  12. Endcap Beam Profile • Hit distribution: hodoscope (~flat) 10x10 cm2 • No dead channels (holes) • A few noisy channels (only 1 large spike) (S.Todorova &Tufts) Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  13. L y TDC Spectrum & Wire sag t0 ± 80 ns/√#ev y= wire displacement (m) x= distance from center (m) L= tube length (m) ρ = wire density (g/cm3) R = wire radius (μm) T= wire tension (g) tmax ± 200 ns/√#ev Drift time Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  14. t0 Run Δt0 Run Drift Time & T0 stability Example EIL (Marcin Wolter) ML#1 ML#2 Channel # Mezzanine # 19 HODO runs; threshold - 40 mV Δt0 respect mezzanine average Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  15. Chamber efficiency Example for one EMS chamber Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  16. Alignment plots • - Very strong • T-dependence • -Sensors images • reproduce the • movement • 180 images • (83 KB/image) • per cycle (5’) • many GB/day DB saves only analysis result • (J. Rothberg) Optical sensor (BCAM) 1μm (Azimuthal EO) Temperature 5 days Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  17. 2003 Sagitta Baseline Measurement After ~0.5 mrad rotation Aug 6-11: Controlled displacement + long term T distortions Reconstructed Sagitta Corrected Sagitta RESULT Alignment and muon tracks give the same relative sagitta variations in 10-20 μm (D. Levin) Resolution improved by 27 % points still referenced to July 19 ! Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  18. 2004 Endcap Sagitta Results Track with nominal geometry  sagitta follows T (~ alignment) ARAMyS: geometrical corrections: large chambers (ex.) 45 parameters - Temperature expansion:86 μm/ºC - Chamber translations and rotations - Deformations: torsion, cross plate sags and elongations (RO &HV) . . . All runs : 10x10 cm2, Hodoscope trigger, magnetic field (-600A) RMS=15 μm(14 μm @ small trigger acceptance)↔ ARAMyS correction ~ alignment (~10-20 μm) Sagitta ~ -157 μm close to absolute alignment precision 120-150 μm (D. Pomarède) RMS=15 μm S = -157 μm RMS=104 μm ΔS~400 μm S = -184 μm RMS=21 μm S = -159 μm RMS=14 μm Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  19. An example of indirect results Double peak Ramsauer dip in the cross section for E(e-) ~ 0.35-0.60 eV at E=1.6 KV/cm giving a longer mean free path. 2% water clear the second peak. Ar-CO2(93%-7%) H2O percentage 0.5, 1.0,1.52.0 Ar-CO2 (93-7%) 3 bar, 1 vol/day HV=3080V Nitrogen shifts the 2nd peak at higher fields  smaller times. Ar(93%)-CO2(7%) N2 percentage 0.5, 1.0,1.5 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 Rachel Avramidou Using Garfield simulation Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  20. Wire sag correction Difference in Drift Times (ns) H8 BILR θ=40º 96 μm wire sag Double tail fit Δ(DT) = 199 μm T-max affected by wire sag>150 μm Wrong gas Ar-CO2 93-7  93.6-6.6 % (method in B184) (Ed Diehl, Dan Levin, Ashley Thrall) Wire Displacement (μm) Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  21. Endcap Phase I Certification H8 experience important in pre-commissioning: ex.grounding HV connector http://www.atlas.physics.lsa.umich.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2295/ Endcap DB document • Mechanical drawings • DAQ/tests configuration • Data  20 DB tables • Web interface ~ 5,200 records/MDT  600K fields/MDT CERN DB Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  22. 80 UM Endcap in Phase I ASD noise cut=35ns 30709 tubes + 11 dead (4 in B180 accident) Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  23. Next steps • Phase II (BW, SW, EIL4): DCS, B-sensor & Alignment connectivity/operability. • HV off Threshold/All test (mezz ID) • HV off Random trigger, @ -50mV, noise test • HV on Random trigger, @ -40mV, noise test  DB • Measure relative t0 for each channel (Δt0~2 ns) • Burn-in: 2 weeks/sector (mortality of components, stability, DB baseline results, monitoring parameters) • Phase III: • Relative timing with TGC chamber • RT functions with and without B-field (single beams) • verify the RT function models. Needed detailed studies together with trigger system Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

  24. Conclusions • Encouraging chamber validation results • Castor ~ 3 TB from ~ 6,500 runs: combined analysis still on (H8 workshop in February) • Successful test beam shows • Stable electronics with low noise • Consistent & stable tube parameters (t0,drift time) • Working “muon system” calibration • Large effort needed for data monitoring already at commissioning stage • A lot of work to (re-)organize run log-file and DB (Conditions DB, Phase 1-2-3, AMDB, …) Claudio Ferretti – University of Michigan

More Related