1 / 15

PNPI, R&D MUCH related activity ● Segmentation

PNPI, R&D MUCH related activity ● Segmentation ● Simulation of the neutral background influence ● R&D of the detectors for MUCH ● P reparati o n to the beam test. A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010. Segmentation (E.Kryshen, M,Ryzhinski).

cordelia-weeks
Download Presentation

PNPI, R&D MUCH related activity ● 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. PNPI, R&D MUCHrelated activity ●Segmentation ● Simulation of the neutral background influence ●R&D of the detectors for MUCH ●Preparation to the beam test A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  2. Segmentation(E.Kryshen, M,Ryzhinski) It was considered 10 variants of segmentation for 5 stations (each of them has 3 detecting layers): 1. Monolithic GEM design (no dead zones) 2. Module GEM design with modules of 25.6x25.6 cm2 each 3. Module GEM design with modules of 51.2x51.2 cm2 each A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  3. First station in case of monolithic design (left), case of modules 25.6X25.6 cm2, and case of modules 51.2x51.2 cm2 (right). Each variant of segmentation was tested for ω→µµ Pad size 4x4 mm2 Pad size 2x2 mm2 Gap between absorbers 30 cm A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  4. Station 4 in case of: Modules of straw (left), blue lines – one dimension straw hits GEM modules 25.6x25.6 cm2 (right), points – 2D GEM hits A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  5. Monolith Threshold for hit recognition In the calculations: ■compact MUCH ■ω→µµ process ■realistic hit producer ■different thresholds for hit recognition ■realistic detectors geometry (different variants of segmentation, realistic geometry of detecting layers, dead zones, and so on) Modules 51.2x51.2 cm2 A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  6. FEE layout for the central area of Station 1 4 1 2 3 5 9 6 7 8 11 10 12 13 14 16 16 15 18 17 Sketch represents our current understanding Realistic pad layout by E.Kryshen and M.Ryzhinsky, pad size: 2*2 mm. Box represents FEE card of 512 channels + HUB and optical fiber interface. V.Nikulin A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  7. Power consumption: 5W (xyter) + ? ROC i.e. ~6W(?) per card or 3*430W in central area size of 50*50 cm. • Thermal analysis is required • Heat sink size: 30*40 mm; • Type of the heat sink should be chosen (water/air or something else) • Additional transverse size of the chamber should be taken into account A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  8. GEANT4 study of neutral background in CBM MUCH detector for Helium and Argon as two alternative working gas options. Victor Baublis, PNPI, March 2010 e-mail: baublis@mail.pnpi.spb.ru 5 mm 2 mm Simulation was performed for simplified detector prototype consisting only from gas volume, FR-4/G10 construction walls and Ar/He gases Layout of simulated setup A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  9. Some results of the simulation ■ For both options of working gas the contribution of the FR-4 walls in neutron and photon hit rate dominates ■The hit rate of neutrons does not exceed 10% from the hit rate of photons ■Total hit rate of neutral particles in the Argon is about 10% higher than in Helium Origin vertex z coordinate distributions of the charged secondary particles which were produced inside the detector-prototype by the beam neutrons and photons. A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  10. R&D of the tracking detector for MUCH Anode structure 2048 pads with hidden contact holes Pad size 1.5x 3 mm2 Working area 102x109 mm2 Gap between pads 0.2 mm This year our main R&D activity – assembling and testing two prototypes. One of them – Double TGEM, another one – hybrid MICROMEGAS/GEM Preamp to take signals from mesh or TGEM A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  11. Double TGEM1/TGEM2 TGEM1, TGEM2 are identical: thickness – 0.53 mm step between holes – 1 mm hole diam.– 0.6 mm rim diam.- 0.74 mm Ar/CO2/iC4H10 (90/8/2) Gaps: Anode-G1 – 1.5mm G1-G2 – 1.5 mm Cathode-G2 – 4 mm GGx103 volts GG vs. ΔVg1&ΔVg2(ΔVg1=ΔVg2) (ΔVag=300V, ΔVg1g2=300V, ΔVcg=800V) The best energy resolution reached was 29% (fwhm) For double TGEM1/TGEM2 we can reach Gas Gain up to 30∙103 and energy resolution fwhm ~30% without visible problems A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  12. Double TGEM1/TGEM2 He/CF4/iC4H10 (75/23/2) Gas gain X103 volts GG vs. ΔVg1&ΔVg2(ΔVg1=ΔVg2) (ΔVag=300V, ΔVg1g2=300V, ΔVcg=800V – fixed) During the test with 55Fedouble TGEM detectorshowed stable behaviour. Operation of the detector with He based gas mixture allows soft HV regime to get supposed for MUCH electronics value of GG=2∙104 A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  13. Micromegas/GEM 3.7 mm 2.6 mm Ar/CO2/iC4H10 (90/8/2) 60 mcm We are taking signals from the mesh GEM – produced by CERN PCB has hidden contact holes GG vs. Vm&ΔVg (Vm=ΔVg) (ΔVmg=100V and 250V, ΔVcg=350V – fixed) Energy resolution fwhm~36% Easy to get GG ~4∙105 A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  14. Micromegas/GEM He/CF4/iC4H10 (75/23/2) GG vs. Vm (ΔVmg=50V, ΔVg=ΔVcg=0V – fixed) GG vs. ΔVg (Vm=400V, ΔVmg=260V, ΔVcg=400V – fixed) Easy to get GG ~4∙105 During the test with 55Fe Micromegas/GEM detector showed stable behaviour. Operation of the detector with He based gas mixture allows very soft HV regime to get supposed for MUCH electronics value of GG=2∙104.It is enough to keep320-330 voltson Gem and320-330 voltson Micromegas GG vs. Vm&ΔVg (Vm=ΔVg) (ΔVmg=260V, ΔVcg=400V – fixed) A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

  15. Plans for this year ■Continue work on segmentation ■Make beam test of the prepared prototypes A.Khanzadeev_GSI_April 2010

More Related