adeola
Uploaded by
15 SLIDES
301 VUES
150LIKES

BeamCal Simulation for CLIC

DESCRIPTION

This presentation by André Sailer from CERN discusses the simulation of BeamCal for the Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) in the context of a collaboration meeting in October 2009. Key topics include the use of Mokka with the CLIC01_ILD detector model, background identification, and energy depositions from electrons versus background noise. Detailed analysis revolves around the geometry of the calorimeter, beam parameters, and tagging efficiencies for different particle events. Challenges related to high background levels and time stamping in the BeamCal detector are also highlighted.

1 / 15

Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

BeamCal Simulation for CLIC

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. BeamCal Simulation for CLIC André Sailer (CERN-PH-LCD) FCAL Collaboration Meeting October 2009: CERN

  2. Detector Model • Using Mokka with CLIC01_ILD(fwp04) • 20 mrad crossing angle • LumiCal at 2.5 m from IP • BeamCal at 3.2 m • QD0 at 3.5 m • 4 T Solenoid Field • No Anti-DiD • QGSP_BERT_HP LumiCal BeamCal QD0 Vacuum Tube 3.5 m 2.5 m André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  3. BeamCal • BeamCal • 40 Layer Si-W • Inner Radius: 2.6 cm (8 mrad) • Outer Radius: 15 cm (47 mrad) • Number of Rings, Sectors and Pads not Changed • i.e. Pads are a little bit smaller than for ILD • Dead Area increased due to different crossing angle André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  4. Electron Tagging • eeττ and eeµµ are Background for corresponding slepton production • Generated with BDK (M. Battaglia) • Cross-sections (Full Angle): • eeτ τ: 280fb • eeµµ: 4700fb • For CLIC • Almost all are down the beam pipe • Try to tag as many as possible with BeamCal • Beam-Beam-Effect/ Luminosity Spectrum not included yet André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  5. Beam-Beam-Background at CLIC • Produced by GuineaPig • Using Beam Particle Distribution from Accelerator/BDS simulation • Fluctuation limited, because initial distribution does not change • Incoherent Pairs • 3*105 Particles/BX • Coherent Pairs • 3.8*108 Particles/BX • Very small angles (<10mrad) • Will be ignored in this analysis André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  6. Incoherent and Coherent Pairs at 3 TeV • BeamCal inner Radius limited by Coherent Pairs • Very low statistics for large angles • Plot on the right is from 1000 GuineaPig++ runs scaled to 1 BX • For 10 mrad: 2 times more energy from Incoherent than from Coherent Pairs per Side Coherent1/2 are for Positron and Electron bunch, incoherent is for both sides André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  7. Simulation • Background • 10 BX of incoherent Pairs • Signal: • 1.5 TeV Electrons • Along “12 O'clock” of BeamCal 1. 5 TeV Electron at ≈15 mrad, 1BX average BG André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  8. Deposited Energy • 26 GeV Deposited by fully contained Electrons • Signal: Peaks in Layer 12 • BG: Peaks in Layer 6 André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  9. Simple Electron ID (I) • Can’t use sophisticated approach (yet) • Fluctuation for Background is not very realistic • Full Simulation takes a lot of time • Get an idea how well BeamCal works at 3 TeV CLIC: • How much energy from Electrons is deposited above fluctuation from Background  Estimate BeamCal coverage: What is the minimal angle electrons can be tagged André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  10. Simple Electron ID (II) • For each Pad of BeamCal get • Deposited Energy from Electrons • Deposited Energy from Background • Standard Deviation from Background • Add energy of Pads with • “Figure of Merit”: • Also depends on Number of Integrated Bunch crossings • i.e. Time Stamping in BeamCal • CLIC: 312 BX per Train, 0.5 ns separation between BX André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  11. 1 Bunch Crossing • Using 5 Sigma separation • Doesn’t seem so bad, except for very small angles André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  12. 50 Bunch Crossings • 25 ns Time Stamping • This is probably the goal for the rest of the Calorimeters due to γγHadrons • Nothing to see below 15 mrad André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  13. 156 & 312 Bunch Crossings André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  14. Summary • This was a very simple first look at BeamCal for CLIC • Background in BeamCal is very high • Clearly depending on Time Stamping • Fluctuations of Beam-Beam Background have to be better understood • Fluctuations for a full Bunch Train are not 312 times fluctuations for 1 Bunch Crossing André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

  15. Conclusions • More realistic Background has to be simulated • Bunch to Bunch fluctuations (offset, bunch shape) • Newer BeamCal geometry (Inner Radius ~ 3.5 cm) should be looked at • Include Coherent Pairs? • Time Stamping for BeamCal has to be understood • Would the number of BX read out be always the same? • Investigate more sophisticated approach for electron tagging that does not rely on average Energy deposit? André Sailer - BeamCal for CLIC - FCAL

More Related
SlideServe
Audio
Live Player
Audio Wave
Play slide audio to activate visualizer
Slide 1

Sea Ice

Slide Player

AI NARRATOR Slide 1 of 12

Sea Ice

0:00 0:15