1 / 16

Status & Plans of Segmentation

Status & Plans of Segmentation. Y.P.Viyogi(V.E.C.C) Arun Prakash(B.H.U ). Geometry. Compact MuCh:5 abs.+15 detect layers : Monolithic type Pipe_much.geo Shield_standard.geo Cave.geo Target_au_250mu.geo Magent_standard.geo Sts_same_z.geo. Transport.

hop-green
Télécharger la présentation

Status & Plans of Segmentation

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. Status & Plans of Segmentation Y.P.Viyogi(V.E.C.C) Arun Prakash(B.H.U)

  2. Geometry Compact MuCh:5 abs.+15 detect layers : Monolithic type Pipe_much.geo Shield_standard.geo Cave.geo Target_au_250mu.geo Magent_standard.geo Sts_same_z.geo

  3. Transport • 10,000 UrQMD + 5 µ+ and 5µ- (Box Generator) • With momentum 2-5 GeV/c • Θ :5-25 • Φ: 0-360 Manual Segmentation • Pad size : 2.5 mm to 1 cm • Digitization, calculate hits loss = 1-Nhits/NMCPoints • Result always ~50%, independent of station/layer and pad size : not quite understandable • Some study into the codes, found that even points having good coordinates were many times not getting assigned any pad/sector during segmentation (or digitization), leading to large loss.

  4. Next step… • Tried with modular geometry : GEM and with different pad sizes • Small number of events, just for checking the numbers • Found hit loss negligible, also multiple hits very little Decide to move ahead with Modular geometry, as this is the next and practical step.

  5. Geometry : do we need extra radius • Presently the code adds 20cm to the nominal R_max at each station • Results in ~25% more number of channels (this is only fictitious) in sectors sitting outside the nominal acceptance • Points/hits in the regions beyond nominal R_max do not contribute to tracks Decide to remain within nominal outer radius at each station.

  6. Comparison of two scenario Station-1 Station-1 R=70cm R_max+20cm R_max+0.6cm

  7. Selection of GEM module and pad size • So far excellent work with various ideal and modular geometry by the GSI-PNPI-Dubna group in simulation • We slowly move towards realistic detectors • GEM foils : routinely made in 30cm X 30 cm size, sector shaped GEM foil made at CERN for RD51 collaboration which is ~50cm long. Even 1m long sectors being tried. • FEE board size and mounting on the modules (too early to decide) : horizontal (parallel to detector plane) preferred. Consequence : pad size to be large enough for reasonable real estate of a 2-nXYter Board, approx. 8 cm x 8 cm • Optimum pad size : a balance between simulation and hardware efforts

  8. Selection of pad size : particle density

  9. Selection of GEM module and pad sizes • Nominal size of GEM assumed : 32 cm X 32 cm • Pad sizes 0.5 cm, 1 cm, 2 cm to respect the condition that number of channels must be 2^n. Quick check on segmentation with 50 events

  10. Segmentation : First attempt, guided by particle density Av. Hit loss ~ 1.5%

  11. V1 : Station1 as seen after segmentation R=70 cm

  12. How bad can it be ? Av hit loss ~4.8%

  13. Can we worsen it further ? Av hit loss ~ 14.8%

  14. Next stage : fine tuning Av. Hit loss ~2.20%

  15. V4 : station 1 after segmentation R=70 cm

  16. Next Steps • Transport : UrQMD + PLUTO events in reasonable mix for modular geometry • Segmentation: try V4 first • Reconstruction: Do the full reconstruction &calculate the efficiency for signal muons, rho, J/Psi etc. • Fine tuning of pad sizes/GEM Geometry and then study again…. And again….

More Related