1 / 23

Status of MiniCal analysis

Status of MiniCal analysis. MiniCal operational in e+ beam 3 types of photo-detectors tested PM and SiPM preliminary analysis  beam calibration  cosmic calibration energy scan results Preliminary data/MC comparison APD first calibration with beam  two read out boards.

nero
Télécharger la présentation

Status of MiniCal analysis

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 of MiniCal analysis • MiniCal operational in e+ beam • 3 types of photo-detectors tested • PM and SiPM preliminary analysis •  beam calibration •  cosmic calibration • energy scan results • Preliminary data/MC comparison • APD first calibration with beam •  two read out boards • analysis of all data in progress • large group effort: • DESY, MEPHI, Prague, LPI, ITEP Erika Garutti

  2. e+ 1-6 GeV The MiniCal 3x3 tiles per layer Tile: 5x5x0.5 cm3 97% Shower contained e+ 1 cell = 3 tiles combined in depth Erika Garutti

  3. Silicon PhotoMultiplier (SiPM) MEPhI&PULSAR SiPM Pixels of the SiPM Test of 3 types of Photo-Detectors • MA-PM –16 channels: • best photo-detector • cannot be operated in B • cell read out: 3 tiles connected to one channel Only for reference • Silicon photo-multiplier (SiPM): • new detector concept, first test with beam • sizes: 1x1mm2, 1000 pixels/mm2 • gain ~ 2*106, quantum eff. ~ 15-20% • single tile read out / mounted directly on tile • Avalanche photo-detector (APD): • already used by CERN experiments • gain ~ 500, quantum eff. ~ 75% • high pre-amplification required  3 preamp boards • cell read out: 3 tiles Erika Garutti

  4. Tests schedule • till 10 Aug. : PM studies  13 cassettes (4 cells + 1 tile) , 3 MA-PM 16 ch. • 10-25 Aug. : SiPM first test period  10 cassettes, 90 SiPM • -beam & cosmics MIP • -single photoelectron peak • -energy scan • 25-10 Sep. : PM studies  same configuration • beam & cosmics MIP • energy scan • 11-12 Sep. : APD first calibration 45 single tiles • Prague preamp board (16 ch.) • 15-30 Sep. : KEK group • - 1-5 Oct. : PM+SiPM cosmic calibration • 5-15 Oct. : SiPM second test period  12 cassettes, 108 SiPM • repeat all studies • 20-21 Oct. : APD second calibration  45 single tiles • Prague preamp board (16 ch.) • -LAL/HCAL preamp chip on Prague board (18 ch.) • -Minsk preamp Erika Garutti

  5. PM Calibration with beam • Beam calibration - individual tiles - cell of 3 tiles e+ Good reproducibility - independent on material in front - independent on repositioning Analysis from Evgeni Devitsin, LPI Erika Garutti

  6. Single tile calibration Sum of single tile calibration compared to cell calibration - 108 tiles+WLF tested with source  7% spread • 108 tile+WLF+PM •  16% spread Analysis from Evgeni Devitsin, LPI Erika Garutti

  7. PM Calibration with cosmics m • Cosmic ray calibration - cell of 3 tiles m MIP position fitted with gauss+landau • MPV cosmic shifted with respect to MPV e+ • Possible influence hitting-position of beam on tile Analysis from Evgeni Devitsin, LPI Erika Garutti

  8. Reproducibility of calibration - Second calibration one month after • Same experimental conditions • 10-15% shift of all PM channels • Tile-fiber system ageing? • New calibration last w.e. Analysis from Evgeni Devitsin, LPI Erika Garutti

  9. PM Calibration Cell of 3 tiles single tile Ped: 21.6 , s: 1.1 MIP: 81.1 <RMS>: 7.7 +/- 4.9 Ped: 21.3 , s: 0.9 MIP: 37.7 <RMS>: 8.4 +/- 1.3 Ped: 21.2 , s: 1.0 MIP: 36.6 <RMS>: 12.8 +/- 1.8 Ped: 20.5 , s: 1.5 MIP: 76.3 <RMS>: 10.5 +/- 6.2 Analysis from Evgeni Devitsin, LPI Erika Garutti

  10. Shower development with PM 3 Gev e+ beam • 97% shower contained in central tiles • 13 layers ~ 14 X0 Erika Garutti

  11. Energy Resolution for PM readout Energy Sum • pedestal due to background triggers  Negligible second particle in same trigger • different calib. lead to same dE/E • 5% systematic uncertainty Erika Garutti

  12. SiPM Calibration - Cosmic and beam calibration of all tiles w/o pre-amplifier  reproducibility studies (LPI)  calibration analysis (MEPHI) - Single photoelectron peak visible with pre-amplifier for calibration only One photoelectron peak MIP peak pedestal From MEPHI group  See E. Popova talk Erika Garutti

  13. Shower development with SiPM Single layer readout 1 MIP peak visible in first layer Tile 2 Tile 1 Tile 3 Tile 4 Tile 5 Tile 6 Tile 7 Tile 8 95% shower contained for 3GeV beam Tile 10 Tile 9 Erika Garutti

  14. Energy Resolution for SiPM Energy Sum • - non-linearity correction not applied • 5% systematic uncertainty •  GEANT3 with SiPM (see A. Raspereza talk) 1 GeV 2 GeV 4 GeV 3 GeV 5 GeV 6 GeV Preliminary E [MeV] Erika Garutti

  15. Result Comparison • good agreement PM/SiPM • systematic uncertainty still to be • calculated (fix 5%) • SiPM non-linearity correction • both MC w/o tile LY variation ~7% • GEANT 3 with Poisson treatment • of ph.e. (SiPM) Preliminary Erika Garutti

  16. APD Calibration • - tile calibration with source • correction factor for each cell ~ 20% spread (corrected)  Absolute calibration possible see G. Eigen talk • 14 APD connected to cells of 3 tiles • tested with 3 GeV beam, no absorbers • Preamp from Prague (Ivo) • APD values for MIP calibration: Ped: 18.9 , s: 9.9 MIP: 54.1 , s: 19.6 < s >: 17.2+/- 1.6 Compare to PM values: Ped: 20.5 , s: 1.5 MIP: 76.3 < s >: 10.5 +/- 6.2 Erika Garutti

  17. APD Calibration T = 29 C • second calibration (5 weeks later) • good agreement w/o check and polish • fibers. special PreAmp settings 420 V : 26% spread for 10 APD result from CERN test: 28% spread for the same APD Erika Garutti

  18. APD Voltage dependence • T = 29 C (stable) • exponential increase of gain • - smaller increase than observed at CERN APD test at CERN T = 25 C Erika Garutti

  19. Comparison of two boards Voltage sensitive preamp Prague Design pedestal s ~ 11 s ~ 6 Beam MIP s ~ 23 s ~ 13 Charge sensitive preamp LAL/ECAL chip Larger gain Erika Garutti

  20. Shower development with APD 4 cells (12 layers) read out with LAL/HCAL chip on Prague board Only central tiles used = partial shower containment Erika Garutti

  21. Energy Resolution for APD Preliminary NOTE: for APD only partial shower containment! … analysis in progress Erika Garutti

  22. LED monitoring PIN diode Stability ~1% PM 2 550V LED position corrected for ped. and PIN diode fluctuations: Stability ~1% PM 3 500V  See H. Meyer talk • very stable LED monitoring system required for APD operation • system available & tested on PM Erika Garutti

  23. Outlook • Finish tests for all photo-detectors • Comparison of various APD readout boards • Finalize data analysis + MC comparison •  LCIO format for data acquisition • fast comparison to MC • fast integration of other detectors • first hardware in this format !!! • Raw data/LCIO converter exists (F. Gaede) • GEANT 4 already uses LCIO format • combined data/MC analysis in LCIO format  M. Groll PhD thesis  2004 construction and operation of the Physics Prototype Erika Garutti

More Related