1 / 13

HBD HV Commissioning

HBD HV Commissioning. Itzhak Tserruya DC meeting, BNL, February 7, 2006. HV commissioning: executive summary. Main HBD activity over the last six weeks. Progress not as smoothly as it should be or as expected. Systematic individual GEM conditioning in N 2 .

Sharon_Dale
Télécharger la présentation

HBD HV 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. HBD HV Commissioning Itzhak Tserruya DC meeting, BNL, February 7, 2006

  2. HV commissioning: executive summary • Main HBD activity over the last six weeks. • Progress not as smoothly as it should be or as expected. • Systematic individual GEM conditioning in N2. • Individual GEM conditioning in CF4. • Presently approaching operational HV in groups of modules.

  3. Short reminder • The HBD consists of 24 identical detector modules. • Each module is composed of a mesh and 3 GEMs. Size • The top face of the top GEM is covered with a thin layer of CsI. Electron microscope view of a GEM foil Electron field in the GEM holes

  4. Resistive Chain Outside HBD =2.2M Inside HBD 28 HV segments in each GEM R2=20M Top GEM =10M Middle GEM Bottom GEM • Normal operation: HV= 3720V VGEM = 500V I = 150A • Dead short in one HV-segment of one GEM: • I increases by 1.56% • active area loss of 0.15 %

  5. Status as of Feb. 1, 2007 After completing the conditioning in CF4 • We have found problems in 28 GEMs (out of 72): • 16 top • 7 middle • 5 bottom • Out of them: • 7 have a dead (or almost dead) short and the 10M has been replaced by a 20. • 14 draw high current with non-ohmic behavior. The current ranges from 3 – 25A at about ~500V reflecting a GEM impedance of 0 – 140M. • 3 draw low current (410 and 777nA) at ~500V reflecting a very high GEM impedance (0.6 and 1.3 G). • 4 seem to have multi-strip problems and the 10M has been removed.

  6. Status as of Feb. 1, 2007

  7. 20 MOhm slope 10 MOhm slope Conditioning in N2 Conditioning in CF4 EN0,1,2

  8. GEM test history • All GEMs were subject to the following tests: a) in open air & clean room (WI): • ohmic test before and after framing • 100 V test after soldering the 20M resistors b) Inside test box (WI): • 520 V in CF4 • 480-500V in Ar/CO2 during the single GEM gain mapping. c) Inside glove box (SUNY): • 550 V in pure N2 • ~350 V in Ar/CO2 during the final triple GEM gain mapping. d) After installation and prior of closing the HBD (SUNY): • 100V test and capacitance test

  9. Diagnostics • There is no reason to believe that there was something wrong on the GEMs up to installation inside the HBD. • There is no reason to believe in some damaging chemistry between the CF4 and the CsI. We have accumulated experience (integral of several months of operation CF4 & CsI) and we never observed a problem. • The observations are consistent with dust inside the detector and/or some physical damage of the GEMs most likely during the transportation from SUNY to BNL. • Time may help sharpening this diagnostic or we may need to open the detector.

  10. Present status • The entire detector is rather stable at 3200 V. • At 3200 V we have clearly seen cosmic signals at the expected rate of 1 count/10 sec per pad in a perfect module (ES3). The rate decreased for those modules that have a current flowing thru the top GEM. • We are attempting to bring a group of 8 modules up to 3500V • We are monitoring stability of the other modules.

  11. Feb.1 Feb.6 Stability Monitor the relative difference of the module current wrt to the ideal module current ES3 Example of a good and stable module WN0 Example of an unstable module

  12. HBD IN HBD W ~30 % Loss HBD E ~30-40 % Loss Gas monitoring ~1 Week Ago • 30% loss should correspond to 80 ppm of water. However, according to the hygrometer the detector is at app. 12 ppm. Origin of discrepancy not yet understood. • Working assumption: the gas monitoring results are correct. At the present flow of 2lpm we are loosing 25% of the UV photons. • Rob is working on increasing the flow by a factor of two.

  13. Other activities • Chi has implemented zero suppression. We shall test it soon. • Good progress in the full fledge Monte Carlo (Maxim, Ilia and Anne) • Takao working on the on-line monitoring. • Rob working on increasing the gas flow through the HBD.

More Related