1 / 17

Overview of SoLID

Overview of SoLID. Jian-ping Chen SoLID Collaboration Meeting June 13-14, 2012. SoLID Experiments. SoLID: large acceptance, capable of handling high luminosity (up to~10 39 with baffle, up to ~10 37 without baffle)

evonne
Download Presentation

Overview of SoLID

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. Overview of SoLID Jian-ping Chen SoLID Collaboration Meeting June 13-14, 2012

  2. SoLIDExperiments • SoLID: large acceptance, capable of handling high luminosity • (up to~1039 with baffle, up to ~1037 without baffle) • Ideal for precision Inclusive-DIS (PVDIS) and SIDIS experiments • Possibility also for exclusive reactions • Three Approved Experiments with “A” rating: • PVDIS (E12-10-007), (Paul’s talk) • SIDIS: (E12-10-006) and (E12-11-007) (Haiyan’s talk) • Conditionally approved proposal: Proton SIDIS (Haiyan’s talk) • Condition: transversely polarized NH3 target compatible with SoLID • Progress: magnet design on-going • New Ideas: • J/Psi Proposal: submitted to PAC39 • Other possibilities (some discussed at the last meeting)

  3. SIDIS Requirements • Kinematics Coverage: • 0.05 ~ 0.6 in x (valence) • 0.3 ~ 0.7 in z (factorization region) • PT up to ~ 1.5 GeV (TMD Physics) • Fixed target  Q2 coverage 1-8 GeV2 (~ 2 GeV2 in ΔQ2 at fixed x) • CLEO: 9-17 degrees for p 9-24 degrees for e • Luminoisity: • unpolarized ~ 1037 N/cm2/s • polarized ~ 1036 N/cm2/s • Polarized 3He Target: • ~ 60% higher polarization • Fast spin flip (<20 mins) • Electron PID: (1-7 GeV/c) • <1% Pion contamination • Pion PID: • <1% Kaons and Protons • <1% electron contamination • Resolution: • < a few % in δP/P. • <1 mr in polar angle. • <10 mr in azimuthal angle • ~ 1-2 cm vertex resolution • Similar precision required. • A factor of 2 better achieved in MC • DAQ: • ~ 3kHz Physics Coincidence • ~ 200 kHz Single electron • ~ 50 kHz Coincidence • Limits: 300 MB/s to tape.

  4. PVDIS • 0.5% precision over broad kinematics range. • 22-35 degrees • Beam Polarimetry • Control false asymmetries in PID/Tracking. • New Cryotarget Design • Challenges in mechanical engineering. • Control of false asymmetry. • High luminosity 1039N/cm2/s • Baffle to block direct photons • Effectively reduce luminosities on detectors. • Background in Cerenkov. • Radiation dose in Calorimeter. • Similar to SIDIS requirement • Electron PID: (2-7 GeV/c) • < ~1% Pion contamination • Gas Cerenkov + E&M Calorimeter for < 3.0 GeV • Calorimeter alone for high Momentum • GEM for tracking • 30 sectors, each employs an independent DAQ system. • Simpler design than SIDIS. • < 10 kHz per sector • Require L3 farm and online tracking. • Proof-of-principle of tracking was achieved. • 2.5 kHz per sector @ 1 CPU @ 3.0 GHz.

  5. Design Considerations • Kinematic Coverage: • CLEO magnet is ideal • In addition to 11 GeV, data taking at 8.8/6.6 GeV and also for radiative corrections • Luminoisity-> high rate: • Requirement on GEMs, Cerenkov. • Radiation dose on E&M Calorimeter and front end electronics. • Requirement on DAQ system. • Electron PID: • Combination of E&M calorimeter + Gas Cerenkov (SIDIS/PVDIS shared equipments) • Advantage of coincidence measurement in SIDIS (additional Pion suppression) • Pion PID (SIDIS): • Gas Cerenkov + E&M Calorimeter to suppress electron. • TOF (MRPC) at low momentum to suppress kaons/protons • Heavy Gas Cerenkov to suppress kaons in high momentum.

  6. SoLID- PVDIS Configuration EM Calorimeter (forward angle) Cherenkov GEM Baffle Target GEM CLEO II Coil and Yoke

  7. SoLID- SIDIS Configuration EM Calorimeter (forward angle) EM Calorimeter (large angle) GEM MRPC Target Collmator CLEO II Coil and Yoke Light Gas Cherenkov Heavy Gas Cherenkov

  8. PVDIS vs SIDIS EM Calorimeter (forward angle) EM Calorimeter (forward angle) Cherenkov EM Calorimeter (large angle) MRPC Baffle Collmator Target GEM Target GEM Light Gas Cherenkov Heavy Gas Cherenkov CLEO II Coil and Yoke Can you find six differences between these panels? Target Location, Baffles (PVDIS), Cerenkov’s, GEM Layout, Extra E-Cal, MRPC(SIDIS)

  9. Status • Magnet: CLEO magnet (discuss next meeting) • Simulations: including baffle design (Seamus’ talk) • background (Lorenzo’s talk) • tracking (Ole’s) • GEMs: Chinese collaboration progress (discuss next meeting) • US side progress/ R&D / tests (Nilanga’s talk) • Cherenkov: PMT (Zein-Eddine’s talk) • HBD (Tom’s talk) • EM calorimeters: Design/simulation/tests (Xiaochao’s talks) • MRPC: Tsinghua U, experience from STAR, beam test (discuss next meeting) • DAQ: Design/plan (Alexandre’s talk) • Polarimetry: Compton (Kent’s talk) • Atomic Moller (Kurt’s talk) • Targets: (Discuss next meeting) • Cryotarget: coordinated design effort, G0 as starting point • Pol. 3He: convection cell progress • Pol. NH3: new transverse magnet design

  10. CLEO magnet will produce the desired acceptance and resolution for both SIDIS and PVDIS Magnet Comparison Paul E. Reimer, Magnets, SoLID "Brainstorm" session

  11. Simulation/Background/Tracking S. Riordan’s talk • Simulation • GEANT3  GEANT4 based GEMC (adapted from Hall B) • Event generators • Magnetic field (BaBar  CLEO) • Detector digitization • Background • Background for physics • FLUKA for neutron background • Radiation damage • Baffle design • Detector Simulations • GEM (adapted from SuperBB) • Cherenkov (stand-alone GEANT4) • EM calorimeter (stand-alone GEANT4) • Tracking (Ole’s talk) L. Zana’s talk O. Hansen’s talk

  12. Subsystems: Gaseous Electron Multipliers (GEMs) UVa/INFN/ Chinese Collaboration (USTC/CIAE/Lanzhou/Tsinghua/IMP) N. Liyanage’s talk Layout in SoLID Readout scheme Optimized for f resolution PVDIS R&D shared with Super BigBite. Additional challenges to overcome: * planes dimensions as large as 100 cm: => 99 x 40 GEM foil crafted by CERN * high number of channels: => Scalable Readout System (SRS) from CERN; channel unit cost going down to few $ SIDIS

  13. Subsystems: Gas Cherenkovs Z.Maziani’s talk T. Hemmick’s talk PVDIS: one gas Cherenkov for electron/pion separation + trigger SIDIS: two gas Cherenkovs: one for electron/pion separation, one for pion/kaon separation. Electron Cherenkovs: Two options: • H8500C maPMT; CO2/ (SIDIS) • C4F8O/N2(PVDIS) - GEM+CsI; CF4 Range: 1.5-4.5 GeV/c (SIDIS) • 2-4 (PVDIS) e- 1 m 2 m Basic design (1 sector) Pion: Gas: C4F8O at 1.5 atm Useful range: 2.5-7.5GeV/c Observer “Winston” cone 0.9 m p e- SoLID Cherenkov collaboration: - Duke University; - Temple University; - Stony Brook University; Mirrors Mirrors

  14. Subsystems: EM Calorimeter X. Zheng’s talk PVDIS Provides pion rejection + trigger. Uses shashlyk technology (sandwich of Pb and scintillator): Advantages: - radiation hard (500 kRad); - good energy and timing resolution (tunable by choice of material/thickness of layers) SoLID EM calo collaboration: - Los Alamos National Lab; - University of Virginia; - Duke University; - College of William and Mary; SIDIS Large angle calo Forward angle calo preshower/shower to improve pion rejection: Considered block geometry/layout. Square block: easy assembly/rearrangement.

  15. Data Acquisition A. Camsonne’s talk - Responds to demanding SoLID requirements: 50-100 kHz evt rate x 4kB /evt (SIDIS) - Benefits from Hall D DAQ development; - Performance to be tested within next few years.

  16. Subsystems/Responsibilities • Overall coordination: (J.P. Chen/H. Gao/P. Souder) • Calibration: (P. Souder/X, Qian) • Magnet/Support/Simulations (Argonne/Duke/UVa/Umass) • Magnet (JLab Engineering Div./ Argonne, P. Reimer) • Detector supporting structure (Duke, H. Gao) • General simulation (UVa, Z. Zhao/ Umass, S. Riordan) • Neutron background simulation (Syracuse, L. Zana) • Tracking (UVa/Chinese/others) • GEM detectors (UVa, N.Liyanaga,/Chinese collaboration) • Tracking software (JLab/O. Hansen/ Caltech, X. Qian/ Umass, S. Riordan) • Gas Cherenkov(Temple/Duke/Stony Brook) • Light gas Cherenkov (S. Malace/H. Gao, Z. Meziani, T. Hemmick) • Heavy Gas Cherenkov (S. Malace/H. Gao Z. Meziani) • EM Calorimeter (UVa/Los Alamos/W&M) • Forward angle (UVa, Z.Zhao, X. Zheng/ W&M, D. Armstrong) • Large angle (Los Alamos, J. Haung, X. Jiang/ Duke, M. Meziane, H. Gao) • TOF with MRPC (Tsinghua, Y. Wang/Duke, H. Gao/JLab, A. Camsonne) • DAQ and Trigger (JLab, A. Camsonne, Y. Qiang/Umass, R. Miskimen) • Polarimeters: Compton (UVa, K. Paschke/JLab, S. Nanda) • Atomic Moller (Mainz, F. Mass, K. Aulenbacher/ W&M, W. Deconinck) • Targets (JLab, J.P. Chen/JLab cryotarget group, D. Meekins) • Infrastructure (JLab, Hall A engineer/design team, R. Wines) • More groups are joining (UIUC, J.C. Peng, MIT, S. Gilad, …)

  17. (Very Rough) Cost and A Plan to Move Forward • One option: split and mix • Chinese contribution, • NSF/MRI, Modest DOE/MIE, • JLab capital equipment, • Sharing readout systems amongst Halls • Magnet: extraction/transport/refurbish/infrastructure: ~$3-5 M • JLab • GEMs ~ $4-5 M • (Anticipate) Mainly Chinese Collaboration • Cherenkov ~$3-4 M • Collaboration: MRI or MIE • EM Calorimeter: $3-5 M • Collaboration: MRI / MIE • DAQ/Trigger electronics 3-4 M • JLab Physics Division sharing among 4 halls.

More Related