1 / 13

Background Reduction in Cryogenic Detectors

Background Reduction in Cryogenic Detectors. . . x. Rock. Rock. U/Th/K/Rn.  ,n. n. Dan Bauer, Fermilab LRT2004, Sudbury, December 13, 2004. Detector. U/Th/K/Rn. Shielding. Veto. Cryogenic Dark Matter Search - CDMS. Dark Matter Search

isha
Download Presentation

Background Reduction in Cryogenic Detectors

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. Background Reduction in Cryogenic Detectors   x Rock Rock U/Th/K/Rn ,n n Dan Bauer, Fermilab LRT2004, Sudbury, December 13, 2004 Detector U/Th/K/Rn Shielding Veto

  2. Cryogenic Dark Matter Search - CDMS • Dark Matter Search • Goal is direct detection of a few WIMPS/year • Signature is nuclear recoil with E<100 KeV • Cryogenic • Cool very pure Ge and Si crystals to < 50 mK • Active Background Rejection • Detect both heat (phonons) and charge • Nuclear recoils produce less charge for the same heat as electron recoils • Deep Underground (Soudan) • Fewer cosmic rays to produce neutrons • Neutrons produce nuclear recoils Detector Tower Shield/Muon Veto Dilution Refrigerator Electronics and Data Acquisition • Shielding (Pb, polyethylene, Cu) • Reduce backgrounds from radioactivity • Active scintillator veto against cosmic rays

  3. gamma cal. A D Y = Charge/phonons y Phonon timing C B x Erecoil(keV) Y = Charge/phonons CDMS Background Rejection Strategy Detector Rejection of Backgrounds • Phonon timing: surface events () Charge yield: ,  • Multiple-scatters: n • (also Si vs Ge rates) Position information: locate discrete sources

  4. CDMS Background Reduction Strategy Layered shielding (reduce g, b, neutrons) ~1 cm Cu walls of cold volume (cleanest material) Thin “mu-metal” magnetic shield (for SQUIDs) 10 cm inner polyethylene (further neutron moderation) 22.5 cm Pb, inner 5 cm is “ancient” (low in 210Pb) 40 cm outer polyethylene (main neutron moderator) All materials near detectors screened for U/Th/K Active Veto (reject events associated with cosmics) Hermetic, 2” thick plastic scintillator veto wrapped around shield Reject residual cosmic-ray induced events Information stored as time history before detector triggers Expect > 99.99% efficiency for all m, > 99% for interacting m MC indicates > 60% efficiency for m-induced showers from rock

  5. The Radon Problem • Radon levels high, vary seasonally at Soudan (200-700 Bq/m^3) • Decays include energetic gammas which can penetrate to detectors, and eject betas from Compton scatters (‘ejectrons’) • Need to displace Radon from region inside Pb shield • Six purge tubes along stem shield penetrations • Purge gas is medical grade breathing air ‘aged’ in metal cylinders for at least 2 weeks to allow decay of 90% of 222Rn

  6. Typically “bulk” events High ionization yield in detector bulk Rejection 99.9999% at 70% nuclear recoil efficiency Sources Residual contamination in the Pb, polyethylene and copper Environmental radon Three event classes Compton scatters from nearby passive materials have low solid-angle for hitting detectors Compton scatters from nearest neighbor can be vetoed Dominant component is 1 in ~30000 gammas interacting in dead layer: expect <0.1 events in CDMSII (after timing cuts) Comparison of data and MC: Gammas from U/Th/K in Pb, Poly, Cu at assayed level Radon between purged volume & Pb Fit concentration to data in summed spectra 35 Bq/m3 compared with ambient ~500 Bq/m3 Fair agreement but actual radon level may be slightly lower based on: 609 keV 214-Bi line lower in data 1765 keV 214-Bi line agrees Measured Gamma Backgrounds Radon: fit to data U/Th/K: ~1/4 total rate L. Baudis, UFL

  7. — Charge side — Phonon side Charge Efficiency Depth (um) Measured Beta Backgrounds • Typically surface events: rejected at 99.4% in present analysis • Timing 97% • Ionization yield 80% • Sources • Residual contamination on detector and nearby surfaces: “intrinsic” betas • Soft x-rays • Pb-210, K-40, C-14 primary focus • Identification • in situ direct counting • Correlate with gammas and alphas • surface science techniques • Auger, SIMS, RBS+PIXE • Rates • Observe ~0.4/det/day on inner detectors • Expect ~7 Events in CDMS-II for present analysis and rate Modest improvements will keep us background free • Important to ID and characterize these backgrounds for CDMSII • Robust leakage estimates • Convolve source spectrum in Monte Carlo to model charge collection • Confirm with calibration/TF data J.-P. Thompson, Brown

  8. Sources of residual beta background • Pb-210 — from airborne radon daughters • Could be dominant source — further analysis needed • Complex decay chain with numerous alphas and betas  expect and observe roughly equal numbers • Detailed simulations to check relative detection efficiency in progress charge Events Recoil Energy (keV) Recoil Energy (keV) J. Cooley-Sekula, Stanford

  9. Sources of residual beta background • K-40 — from natural potassium • Direct upper limit less than half observed rate • 1460 keV gamma: lack of observed photopeak or compton edge sets upper limit of 0.15 betas/det/day • RBS+PIXE surface probe for natK and assumption that 40K is in standard cosmogenic abundance limits rate to 0.04 betas/det/day • C-14 — from natural carbon • Auger spectroscopy and RBS indicate 2-3 monolayers of “adventitious” carbon • 0.3 betas/det/day to 156-keV endpoint  0.05 betas/det/day in 15-45 keV • Work is ongoing • Complete Pb-210 analysis • Broaden scope to more possible isotopes • Just beginning use of new technique: ICP-MS • Inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy • Antimony found on test wafer - normalization not known yet R. Schnee, D. Grant, Case; P. Cushman, A. Reisetter, U Minn

  10. Reduction of EM Backgrounds • Reduce beta contamination via active screening/cleaning • Observed alpha rate indicates dominated by 210Pb on detectors • Improved radon purge should help, if this is correct • Materials surface analysis (PIXE/RBS/SIMS/Auger) (in progress) • Try to pinpoint source(s) of beta contamination • Developing multiwire proportional chamber or cloud chamber as dedicated alpha/beta screener (Tom Shutt talk) • Necessary for 17 beta emitters that have no screenable gammas/alphas • Reduce photon background via improved shielding • Active (inexpensive) ionization “endcap” detectors to shield against betas, identify multiple-scatters • Add inner ‘clean’ Pb shielding • Improved gamma screening (Rick Gaitskell talk)

  11. Neutron Backgrounds • Predictions based on neutron propagation from rock and shield, normalized to Soudan muon flux • Expected <0.05 unvetoed neutrons in first data set - none observed • Expected 1.9 vetoed neutrons - none observed (agrees at 85% CL) • Should see ~ 5 vetoed neutrons in second data set • Will allow normalization of Monte Carlos • Observe one muon-coincident multiple-scatter nuclear recoil so far • Ongoing work to refine estimates • Direct measure of muon flux from veto • Throw primary muon spectrum in Fluka + Geant4 • Hadron production • Correlations of particles from same parent muon • Simulate vetoed fraction of externally produced events • Predict 60% of “punch through” (>50 MeV) are vetoed by outer scintillator • Expect <0.2 unvetoed neutrons in full CDMS-II exposure • Will reach ‘natural’ neutron background limit at Soudan in a few years S. Kamat, R. Hennings-Yeomans, Case; A. Reisetter, U Minn; J. Sander, H. Nelson, UCSB

  12. Neutron Reduction Strategies • CDMS II @ Soudan • Could add inner neutron veto Super CDMS @ SNOLAB Avoid the problem by reducing muon flux by 500x Muon Flux (m-2s-1) Depth (meters water equivalent)

  13. 04/04/14 Currently 45% Z 2,3,5 > 10keV 90% CL upper limit 0.005 Tower 1: Fall 03 Expected CDMSII end 2005 Expected Tower 1+2 Summer 04 CDMS II Goal 1998 Zero background 58% efficiency Blue points illustrate random fluctuation from experiment to experiment CDMS GoalMaintain Zero Background as MT increases Improvement linear until background events appear Then degrades as √MT until systematics dominate

More Related