1 / 25

Calorimeter Response Measurement in SPS and PS Test Beams

This study aims to measure the calorimeter response in the SPS and PS test beams using various chambers and modules. The results provide insights into module production technology and particle identification capabilities.

bewing
Télécharger la présentation

Calorimeter Response Measurement in SPS and PS Test Beams

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. SHIP calorimeters at test beam I. Korolko October 2015

  2. SPS test beam - ECAL PS test beam - HCAL ITEP and IHEP groups

  3. SPS test beam. • Measure calorimeter response with high energy muons as a function of impact point in module • good coordinate measurement is crucial • we used 4 MWPC with cathode delayed readout • one chamber from CERN H2 beamline facility • tree chambers from ITEP provided by Pavel Shatalov • for module with spiral fibers • for module with straight fibers • Add knowledge gained during LHCb test beams • Try to choose the best production technology

  4. 3 ITEP chambers Calorimeter module Beam 3 scintillator trigger counters CERN chamber

  5. module internal structure 400<ADC<500 Pedestal MIP Module boundaries and needles are clearly seen Such pictures were used to test collinearity of beam and module (1 mm diameter fibers 50 cm long)

  6. Long run (12 hours) CERN chamber ITEP chamber CERN cameras are rather old Lost collinearity or platform is moving during the run

  7. Platform is moving (in general: to Jura and down)! Time difference between 2 pictures is ~26 hours.

  8. Platform movements • For each 200000 events find module boundary in all chambers. 200000 events ≈ 18 minutes • Track module position with each chamber during long run • Results from different chambers are consistent BTW, chamber precision better than 150 microns

  9. Table movement. Boundary position (cm) Run2: Module with straight fibers

  10. Nuts and bolts which tighten module housing Delta electrons from nearby objects!!! Module housing Clamp Module housing and rotating table

  11. Different modules Spiral fibers Straight fibers Fibers are clearly seen in modules with straight fibers. What is the nature of addition spot?

  12. Technological mark! Marks ensures correct order of different tiles (4) for module with spiral fibers. Tiles of only one type are used in module with straight fibers. Can we see marks in module with spiral fibers?!

  13. Module with spiral fibers • Marks and fibers are visible! • ADC cut fine tuning • cut at the very beginning of MIP peak

  14. Chamber precision.Chamber 2 - Chamber 0 ΔX, cm ΔY, cm Distributions for X and Y are different. Nature of the difference not understood but precision is enough for us. Wrong HV on one of Y planes? Beam divergence?

  15. Tracking • Remove CERN chamber from analysis chain. • data only from 3 ITEP chambers • Got 3 points to draw a straight line • 2 chambers (0 and 2) close to each other • χ2 minimization • same resolution for all 3 chambers was assumed

  16. Procedure • Collect signal in 1x1 mm2 regions into histograms • Fit histograms with Landau distribution • Plot MPV of the fits as a function of coordinates

  17. Results Straight fibers Spiral fibers

  18. Results Spiral fibers Light mixer

  19. Results. Response distributions Straight fibers Spiral fibers 40% width 36% width Failed fits: boundaries, needles and fibers (in case of straight fibers). Without failed fits. Straight fibers: Mean: 345.8, RMS: 25.81 (7.5%) Spiral fibers: Mean: 385.5, RMS: 23.85 (6.2%)

  20. Comparison with LHCb results LHCb inner module scanned with muons. 3 CERN chambers for tracking. Straight fibers Response on edge of two modules are completely different! Edge treatment of LHCb module plates makes the response much more uniform.

  21. Conclusions for SPS testbeam • Module response as a function of coordinates has been measured • We got knowledge which would help us to chose the module manufacturing technology. • Need to formulate questions properly. • Tapes or needles • Straight or spiral fibers • Tile edge treatment • Tile sickness

  22. PS testbeam • Study calorimeter response with low energy pions • tune MC • better understand capability of calorimeter to identify particles • Use two calorimeter sections • LHCb 12x12 modules with single lightisolated cell • PS “pion” beam used • 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 GeV particles

  23. 2 calorimeter sections 2x2 modules each Pair of MWPC with cathode delayed readout Scintillator trigger counters Beam

  24. Calorimeter response • First calorimeter section. • 3 GeV beam • See electrons in the beam • Cherenkov counter • Mixture of pions and muons Pions and muons. MIP ~ 150 ADC channel Pions Electrons

  25. Conclusions for PS testbeam • Very preliminary results are presented • A lot of work to do and for future measurements • Geant model and comparison with data. • Monitoring system. • Particle identification (electrons and muons)

More Related