1 / 13

HCal Simulation with Geant4

0.7 cm (1.2 cm). 0.3 cm. 3/31/2008 M. Konno. HCal Simulation with Geant4. 1. Setup. Particle:  + (E in = 0.5-100 GeV) Processes: - Decays - EM interaction - Hadronic interaction (Model: LHEP_BERT) Items: - Efficiency - Energy loss (<E>, resolution)

julian-barlow
Download Presentation

HCal Simulation with Geant4

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. 0.7 cm (1.2 cm) 0.3 cm 3/31/2008 M. Konno HCal Simulation with Geant4 1. Setup Particle: +(Ein = 0.5-100 GeV) Processes: - Decays - EM interaction - Hadronic interaction (Model: LHEP_BERT) Items: - Efficiency - Energy loss (<E>, resolution) - Shower profile (transverse) 200 cm (Z) 200 cm (Y) 50 cm (X) (75 cm) Absorber: (Pb or Fe) • - 50 layers • 1 layer = 1.0 cm • (1.5 cm) Scintillator

  2. 2. Particle Shot Single particle (+, Ein = 10 GeV) (Absorber: Fe, 12 mm)

  3. 3. Energy loss in calorimeter (Absorber: Fe, 12 mm) (same data in log scale) Lower tail seen

  4. 4. Efficiency (for shower) ~95 % for 12 mm ~85 % for 7 mm

  5. 5. Energy loss (Eloss>50MeV) * Secondary particles flow out?

  6. 6. Energy resolution (RMS/Mean, Eloss>50MeV) * Only small fraction of particle energy measured. It’s not the total energy.

  7. 7-1. Shower profile - dE/dx vs. x (beam direction: x) (Absorber: Pb, 7mm) (Absorber: Fe, 7 mm) * The dE/dx distributions are different between Pb and Fe.

  8. 7-2. Shower profile - dE/dx vs. x (beam direction: x) (Absorber: Pb, 12 mm) (Absorber: Fe, 12 mm) * The dE/dx distributions are different between Pb and Fe.

  9. 8-1. Shower profile - dE/dr vs. r (Absorber: Pb, 7mm) (Absorber: Fe, 7 mm)

  10. 8-2. Shower profile - dE/dr vs. r (Absorber: Pb, 12 mm) (Absorber: Fe, 12 mm)

  11. 9-1. Shower profile – R vs. Ein • The radius not changing much with Ein • The energy loss is centered • (In other words, a long tail seen around the center) • R(Fe) < R(Pb)

  12. 9-2. Shower profile – R vs. Ein • The radius not changing much with Ein • The energy loss is centered • (In other words, a long tail seen around the center) • R(Fe) < R(Pb)

  13. 10. Summary • The energy loss (<E>, E) and efficiency are • not so different between two absorbers Pb and Fe. • Efficiency: ~85% for absorber length = 35 cm (0.7 cm x 50 layers) • Efficiency: ~95% for absorber length = 60 cm (1.2 cm x 50 layers) • R80(Fe, 12mm): ~12 cm, R80(Pb, 12mm): ~21 cm • R(Fe) < R(Pb) Next to do • - Put EMCal in front of HCal • - Introduce the photon detection efficiency • Study the segmentation in YZ plane • with PYTHIA jet information as Pb+Pb collisions • Optimize the materials and geometry parameters • to fit in ALICE detector • Try to use other hadronic models

More Related