1 / 15

LSO Cal Geant4 Simulation Upstream material effect

Explore how different materials affect energy deposition of e- and γ beams in CMS and BaBar-like setups using LSO.Cal.G4 simulation. Analyze peak shifts, comparison of MPV and Sigma, upstream vs. internal materials impact, and conclusions on beam behaviors.

ctopps
Download Presentation

LSO Cal Geant4 Simulation Upstream material effect

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. LSO Cal Geant4 SimulationUpstream material effect C. Cecchi - S. Germani - P. Lubrano INFN Perugia SuperB EMC meeting 07/11/07

  2. Geometry Slab • Xtals: • 2.5x2.5 cm Front • 2.88x2.88 cm Back • Pointing distance ~ 1.5 m • Matrix: • 3x3 Xtals module • CMS like • BaBar like • 7x7 module matrix • Upstream material • 2 configurations with several thickness • Slab close to Matrix • Variable thickness C-Fiber • Dummy Detectors • SVT: • 5 x 300 m Si layers • DCH: • variable thickness • Ar C-Fiber layers Dummy SVT Dummy DCH LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  3. Deposited Energy e-,  Peak shifted (ionization loss) 1 GeV e- Electrons and photons show very different behavior No Peak shift 1 GeV  Distribution shoulder (upstream interacting  2nd component) LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  4. Edep vs Ebeam: e- beam on C-Fiber Slab CMS like and Slab BaBar like and Slab mpv mpv sigma sigma LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  5. … CMS and BaBar like comparison mpv mean upstream material wins over internal dead material sigma rms Internal dead material wins over upstream material LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  6. Edep vs X0: e- on Slab, CMS and BaBar like mean mpv CMS and BaBar like have similar behavior rms sigma BaBar like more affected @ low E LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  7. Edep vs Ebeam: e- beam on SVT+DCH CMS like and SVT+DCH sigma mpv Qaulitatively same Slab behavior LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  8. Edep vs Ebeam:  beam on SVT+DCH CMS like and SVT+DCH mean mpv Very different behavior wrt e- rms sigma Behavior similar to e- LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  9. Edep vs Ebeam: beam, material comparison CMS like mean mpv rms sigma Beam Beam LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  10. Edep vs X0: e- on Slab and SVT+DCH CMS like mpv-mean mpv SVT+DCH have bigger effect -> distance rms sigma LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  11. Edep vs X0: e- and  beam CMS like and SVT+DCH mpv mpv-mean effect of2nd component e- ionization loss rms sigma small effect on main  distr LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  12. Edep vs Ebeam:  beam on SVT+DCH BaBar like and SVT+DCH mean mpv rms sigma LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  13. … CMS and BaBar like comparison mean mpv Internal dead material wins over upstream material sigma rms LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  14. Edep vs X0: on SVT+DCH, CMS and BaBar mean mpv-mean sigma rms LSO Cal G4 Simulation

  15. Conclusions • e- and  are affected in different ways • e- have a transition with energy from upstream material dominated to internal material dominated resolution •  have a two components behavior • the main component remains internal material dominated • the 2nd component becomes important only for large upstream material thickness (> 0.1 - 0.4 X0 depending on energy) • The SVT+DCH geometry seems to have bigger effect wrt the Slab one • Distance effect LSO Cal G4 Simulation

More Related