1 / 22

Simulation Studies of GEMs in Digital Hadronic Calorimetry and its Energy Flow Analysis

This study presents the use of Gas Electron Multiplier (GEM) technology in Digital Hadronic Calorimetry (DHCAL) as a cost-effective solution for energy flow analysis (EFA). The UTA team, represented by J. Yu, conducts a series of simulations comparing GEM performance to traditional methods such as TDR. The findings include the significant impact of fine cell sizes on calorimeter cluster association, energy deposition efficiency, and challenges with systematic uncertainties in resolution. Initial studies reveal comparable responses between detailed and simplified GEM geometries, showcasing the potential of GEMs for EFA.

selah
Télécharger la présentation

Simulation Studies of GEMs in Digital Hadronic Calorimetry and its Energy Flow 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. GEM DHCAL Simulation Studies • Introduction • Analog Studies: TDR vs GEM • Preliminary GEM Digital Studies • Initial EFA studies with GEM • Summary J. Yu* Univ. of Texas at Arlington ALCW, July 15, 2003 Cornell University (*on behalf of the UTA team; S. Habib, V. Kaushik, J. Li, M. Sosebee, A. White)

  2. Introduction • DHCAL a solution for keeping the cost manageable for EFA • Finer cell sizes are needed for effective calorimeter cluster association with tracks and subsequent energy subtraction • UTA Has been working on DHCAL using GEM for • Flexible geometrical design, using printed circuit readout • Cell sizes can be as fine a readout as GEM tracking chamber!! • High gains, above 103~4,with spark probabilities per incident  less than 10-10 • Fast response • 40ns drift time for 3mm gap with ArCO2 • Relatively low HV • A few 100V per each GEM gap • Reasonable cost • Foils are basically copper-clad kapton • ~$400 for a specially prepared and framed 10cmx10cm foil Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  3. UTA GEM Simulation • Use Mokka as the primary tool • Kept the same detector dimensions as TESLA TDR • Replaced the HCAL scintillation counters with GEM (18mm SS + 6.5mm GEM, 1cmx1cm cells) • Single Pions used for initial studies • 3 – 100 GeV single pions • Analyzed them using ROOT • Compared the results to TDR analog as the benchmark • GEM Analog and Digital (w/ and w/o threshold) Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  4. Resolution curve – TESLA TDR I know this is about 10% higher than others. Estimate of 2.5% systematic uncertainties included Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  5. Double GEM schematic S.Bachmann et al. CERN-EP/2000-151 Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  6. Detailed GEM ArCO 2 0. 00 6.5mm 5 1 Cu Simple GEM . 0. 0 00 Kapton 5 G10 ArCO2 3.4 mm GEM 3.1 mm UTA Double GEM Geometry Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  7. Comparison of Detailed and Simple GEM Geometries Detailed GEM 75GeV p Simple GEM 75GeV p <E>=0.81  0.008MeV <E>=0.80  0.007MeV • 25.2sec/event for Simple GEM v/s 43.7 sec/event for Detailed GEM • Responses look similar for detailed and simple GEM geometry • Simple GEM sufficient Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  8. Energy Deposit for 10 GeV Pions (GEM) fEM>=0.85 fHC>=0.85 Total Remaining Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  9. EM-HAD Relative Weighting Factor • To compensate the response differences between ECAL and GEM HCAL responses a procedure to normalize them had to be introduced • ELive=SEEM+ W SgEHAD(g:GEM Intrinsic gain) • Obtained the relative weight W using two Gaussian fits to EM only v/s HAD only events • Perform linear fit to Mean values as a function of incident pion energy • Extract ratio of the slopes  Weight factor W • E = C* ELive Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  10. GEM TESLA TDR GEM Response (Analog) Estimate of 2.5% systematic uncertainties included Sampling fractions are as expected for both TDR and GEM Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  11. GEM TESLA TDR GEM Resolution (analog) Systematic uncertainties for GEM amplified by 50% to reflect unconsidered sources We just cannot make the resolution as good as our French colleagues saw. Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  12. GEM Digital Response Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  13. ~85% single hit ~74% single hit ~15% >1 hit ~26% >1 hit GEM Cell Occupancies Number of cells with higher number of hits increase w/ E Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  14. E vs Layer N vs Layer Energy Deposit/Ncells vs Layers for 50 GeV Pions Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  15. Extraction of of dE/dN Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  16. GEM Digital GEM Analog GEM Digital Response Estimate of 2.5% systematic uncertainties added to analog. Digital analysis w/ syst. in progress. Sampling fractions are consistent between digital and analog. Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  17. 95% efficiency Energy Deposit Efficiency MIP Efficiency At 0.23MeV Energy Deposited (MeV) GEM MIP Digital Threshold Efficiency Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  18. Discharge Study: NPairs for Muons in GEM Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  19. Single GEM gain/discharge probability • Single pion study almost completed • Understand average total charge deposit in a cell of various sizes • Study fake signal from spiraling charged particle in the gap A.Bressan et al, NIM A424, 321 (1998) Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  20. Ep=50 GeV Single Pion EFA Study • Track-cluster association is the first step for a good EFA • Must work for simplest cases • Start with single pion in analog and digital cases • Fit the centroid of shower using energy weighted (analog) and numerically averaged (digital) center in each layer • Measure the distance between fit shower position and the particle incident position Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  21. E weighted <Dh>=-3.1x10-5 s=1.1x10-2 Numerical Mean <Dh>=-1.2x10-3 s=2.5x10-2 Dh (E weighted vs Numerical Mean) Ep = 50 GeV 1cm x 1 cm cells Analog seems to be better than digital but not by significant factor Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

  22. Summary • UTA’s GEM based DHCAL simulation has made significant progress in the past year • First pass single particle studies completed with a M.S. thesis, using Mokka: • GEM analog resolution comparable to TDR • GEM digital seems to be comparable to GEM analog • GEM digital with threshold will complete soon • Fit method refinement in progress • EFA studies began • Single particle study seems to show reasonable performance in E weighted vs numerical means • Jet final state studies will come next • Funding for ½ student for this effort available Jae Yu: UTA GEM DHCAL ALCW, Cornell

More Related