1 / 12

Update on HF PMT magnetic shielding

Update on HF PMT magnetic shielding. Ianos Schmidt April 2 , 2012. Existing readout box PMT shielding. A box contains 24 steel and mu-metal PMT shields in addition to four “dummy” steel shields without mu-metal and PMT’s.

carlow
Download Presentation

Update on HF PMT magnetic shielding

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. Update onHF PMT magnetic shielding Ianos Schmidt April 2, 2012

  2. Existing readout box PMT shielding A box contains 24 steel and mu-metal PMT shields in addition to four “dummy” steel shields without mu-metal and PMT’s. Steel tubes are 41.275 mm outside diameter, with a 3.2mm wall thickness. Tubes are 121mm long. “Plate 2” (Garolite) Hamamatsu R7525 Kapton insulator “Plate 1” (Garolite)

  3. Shielding for new PMT’s Base board Plate2 SHIELD LENGTH 46mm –Prototype box (54mm – Hybrid box) Shield 23.6 To PC (14.4) Opening in Plate1 Sleeve Shield Light guide tube (48.4) Thickness 2.1mm Plate1 Light guide tube, with mirror (protrudes into box from HF. Not part of the box). Photo-cathode minimum area

  4. Relative response vs CMS magnet field Relative response of Old PMT’s Response of HF PMTs during ramp-up of CMS magnet data taken by HCAL Operations DOCs: Brian Dorney, KadriOzdemir, analysis by DimaVishnevskiy presented at HCAL Operations Meeting, on March 12, 2012 Relative response 24 “PPP- box” R7600U PMT’s Relative response 8 “hybrid box” R7600U PMT’s

  5. Hybrid box • Installed on HF Fall 2010. • Contains 16 original R7525 PMT’s • 8 new R7600U PMT’s with 54mm long shields

  6. Shields

  7. Analysis by SlavaKlyukhin • Full information was provided to SlavaKlyukhin for evaluation, including PMT locations and layout (X,Y,Z) in CMS, Details of shielding for all three configurations (old, “hybrid”, and new), and Dima’s presentation on measurements taken during magnet ramp. His initial evaluation (or both small and large YE4 disk): “I have analysed the stray field in the HF RBX region in two CMS magnet models at 3.8 T: cms_110322_13l_18164a_v3_1-ye5_40_30 - with small YE4 of 5 m diameter; cms_110322_13l_18164a_v3_1_ye5_40_30 - with large YE4 of 14 m diameter. The large disk gives the reduction of the stray field in the RBX region by 1 mT only both for axial Bz and radial Br (Bx in the tables) components. In the model the HF outer shield is 8 cm thicker (it is from R=1.52 to 1.7 m instead of R=1.6 to 1.7 m). This can make the stray field a bit less. The stray fields are calculated in horizontal plane for the plot between Z=-13.97 to -13.77 m and R=1.03 to 1.43 m. The maximum Bz is 19 mT (small disk), the maximum Br (Bx) is 13 mT (small disk), Bphi (By) is vanished. The thickness of the PMT steel shield of 2.1 mm is enough to cancel the magnetic flux of 2.2e-05 Wb in the inner square of 33.9 x 33.9 mm2. Really, at 19 mT the induced magnetic flux density in steel is about 1.88 T, that gives a magnetic flux of 56.9e-04 Wb in the shield cross section. Thus, new design of the PMT shield has the only one parameter that is not sufficient for efficient shielding: the length of the shield box. All the results you get from the test installations you can apply to the upgraded CMS yoke with larger YE4.” Work still in progress.

  8. Field in ROB region

  9. Z-component

  10. X -component

  11. Why was shield length reduced? The limiting factor is generally the distance from the edge of the shielding to the PMT sensitive area. • We chose long sockets for the PMT's to get the PMT's as deep into the shielding as possible (~23mm). This was believed to be our limiting dimension. • Had encouraging results from the hybrid box. Chose to improve aspects of the optical coupling by reducing the shield length • Reduce losses in optical coupling (in HF photons are precious). • Improve sleeve to PMT alignment • Improve robustness • Expected light losses to be at about same level (few %) as effects from magnet. 23mm dimension at back side of shield does not appear to dominate the shielding performance. - Due to Metal envelope of PMT ?

  12. What is maximum shield length we can install. • 54mm (length used in slice box) is the longest without suffering light loss beyond 5% • Sleeves are not long enough or robust enough to extend much farther. • Depending on the distance, sleeves would likely need to be re-engineered, tested, produced, and replace on the detector. • a large amount of effort we worked hard to avoid • effort would not likely to improve optical coupling • 54mm shields respect the general rule that the sensitive area be as far into the shielding • as its size, which is not respected by the short shields. This appears to be demonstrated by • the hybrid box performance (although it is not an ideal test). • Slava's analysis results should give us a better understanding of how we should proceed. • Shield production is currently stopped until conclusion of analysis and a decision on how to proceed. • what is an acceptable level that we should achieve?

More Related