1 / 18

Pixel Detector Simulation with Magnetic Field

JC and Marina 12/18/00. Pixel Detector Simulation with Magnetic Field. Effects with magnetic Field Deflection Effective mobility Non-constant Hall mobility Comparison with magnet run. Magnetic Field. 0 V. n +. . e. e. B y. e. e. n. e. e. . e. e. e. e. e. e. e.

ariel-tucker
Télécharger la présentation

Pixel Detector Simulation with Magnetic Field

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. JC and Marina 12/18/00 Pixel Detector Simulationwith Magnetic Field • Effects with magnetic Field • Deflection • Effective mobility • Non-constant Hall mobility • Comparison with magnet run

  2. Magnetic Field Syracuse University

  3. 0 V n+  e e B y e e n e e  e e e e e e e p+ -V Deflection in Magnetic Field Effect of magnetic field  Effect of incident angle Syracuse University

  4. Deflection in Magnetic Field Assumption: mH = constant meff = m The charge distributions are the same with B or q Syracuse University

  5. Effective Mobility Very small effect: B field  Cloud drifts slower Larger Spread Syracuse University

  6. P+ side larger E N+ Side Smaller E E-dependent Mobility Larger E  Smaller mHall  Smaller deflection Syracuse University

  7. Effect of Magnetic Field With non-constant mHall(E), and meff The charge distributions are slightly different Syracuse University

  8. Conclusion We Don’t expect the magnetic field will reduce the ratio between two-pixel clusters and one-pixel clusters Syracuse University

  9. Magnet Run • Track at 1.3 angle ( ~ 0.242 Tesla ) • Measurement: Rmin = 0.193 • Simulation ( Qth= 2.5Ke ): Rmin = 0.250 What is wrong ? Syracuse University

  10. Magnet Run • Track at 1.32 ( 23 mrad ) ( ~ 0.245 Tesla ) • Measurement: Rmin = 0.193 • Simulation ( Qth= 4.0Ke ): Rmin = 0.197 Just to Play around But there is no other evidence that threshold was wrong Syracuse University

  11. Magnetic Field • Measured with Gauss meter: 45A 0.585 Tesla • Assume overall scale of the magnetic field uncertain • Use MC simulation to fit  0.517 Tesla (error?) • Error of Hall factor (mHall/m =1.15) can make up the difference Syracuse University

  12. Summary • MC simulation accurate both for drift and B field simulation • Magnet Run data is not fully understood yet Syracuse University

  13. Lorentz Angle Lorentz angle is not a constant along z, shown are overall effects Larger bias voltage  Larger E field  Smaller mobility  Smaller Lorentz angle Syracuse University

  14. Lorentz Angle Comparison Magnetic field: 1.4 Tesla Udepletion is calculated with effective thickness of the sensor Syracuse University

  15. Diffusion Constant Einstein equation: D = k T m / q Reduce Teff from 390K to 300K  Reduce fraction of doublet by 1.4% Syracuse University

  16. Angular Fit with  Distribution FPIX0-Pstop Normal Incidence Data • MC: 0.5 interval, interpolation between points • Normal incident data:  = (1.77  0.09) Syracuse University

  17. 15° Data 20° Data 10° Data 5° Data   Angular Fit with  Distribution FPIX0-Pstop Syracuse University

  18. Detector Inclination Angle • In Minuit fit, the beam is assumed to normal incident on the first SSD, the overall rotation of the detector can not be fitted • In  fit, interpolation between MC points (0.5° interval) is used • The error from the fit is about 0.1°, which should be smaller than error from MC model Syracuse University

More Related