1 / 50

Collection Of Plots for A Testbeam Paper

Collection Of Plots for A Testbeam Paper. List of Possible Plots. R/Phi resolution, charge sharing, noise etc. Noise performance and few Landau distributions Testpulse MP/Irradiation fluence vs position MP/Irradiation fluence vs position for different bias voltages

kata
Download Presentation

Collection Of Plots for A Testbeam Paper

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. Collection Of Plots for A Testbeam Paper

  2. List of Possible Plots • R/Phi resolution, charge sharing, noise etc. • Noise performance and few Landau distributions • Testpulse • MP/Irradiation fluence vs position • MP/Irradiation fluence vs position for different bias voltages • For full irradiated area, MP vs HV to extract full depletion voltage • Detection efficiency at certain threshold. • Charge sharing comparison at full vs at none, and transition region • Resolution comparison at full vs at none, and transition region. • Ballistic deficit with one pitch bin. Jianchun Wang

  3. R/Phi sensor Jianchun Wang

  4. Charge Sharing (I) Nstrip = 2 Strip pitch (40, 50) mm Nstrip = 1 R sensor of R/f pair Nstrip = 3 Percentagge Range: angle0.5 Seed threshold  5.4 Ke Side threshold  2.7 Ke Cluster Size Side threshold ~ 2 × noise Jianchun Wang

  5. Charge Sharing (II) Seed threshold  5.4 Ke Side threshold  2.7 Ke Pitch (mm) 40 – 50 50 – 60 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 90 90 – 100 Angle (  ) -0.5 – 0.5 2.5 – 3.5 6.5 – 7.5 10.5 – 11.5 R/f data is split into 1 of angle & 10 mm of pitch sub-samples. Sub-samples of 0, 3, 7 and 11 are with reasonable large statistics. Jianchun Wang

  6. Charge Sharing With Different Thresholds (I) Angle (  ) -0.5 – 0.5 2.5 – 3.5 6.5 – 7.5 10.5 – 11.5 pitch (40, 50) mm, angle (–0.5, 0.5) Nstrip = 2 Nstrip = 1 Nstrip = 3 Seed threshold = 4 ADC Side threshold = 2 ADC Approximate conversion for R/F 22.5 Ke / 15 ADC = 1.5 Ke/ADC Jianchun Wang

  7. Charge Sharing With Different Thresholds (II) pitch (40, 50) mm, angle (–0.5, 0.5) Angle (  ) -0.5 – 0.5 2.5 – 3.5 6.5 – 7.5 10.5 – 11.5 Nstrip = 2 Nstrip = 1 Nstrip = 3 Seed threshold = 6 ADC Side threshold = 3 ADC Approximate conversion for R/F 22.5 Ke / 15 ADC = 1.5 Ke/ADC Jianchun Wang

  8. The Eta Curve • Eta curve plot – the relationship between charge sharing and track hit position. • It can be generated in two ways. • Method one (Thanks to suggestion from Jan Buytaert): • Find track projected hit position on VELO plane. • Find the two adjacent strips between the centers of which that the track hits. • Calculated charge sharing before applying threshold. • Method two (useful in hit position reconstruction): • Applying thresholds and form clusters. • Select two- or more-strip clusters that matched with track. • Calculate charge sharing. Only Strip N has Charge Only Strip N+1 has Charge Center of Strip N+1 Track Hit Fraction Center of Strip N Cluster Fraction = Jianchun Wang

  9. Eta Curve Correction s = 11.7 Pitch = 40 – 50 mm Angle = (-0.5, 0.5) Nstrip = 2 only Fit eta profile and correct RVELO measurement. Track Hit Fraction s = 10.1 Profile Fit to pol3 RVELO – Rtrack ( mm ) Cluster Fraction Jianchun Wang

  10. Resolution vs Pitch R sensor of R/f pair • Tracking precision is removed from the hit resolution. • Tracking precision is determined at each point (~6 mm). • Error bar includes: • Statistic error from fit ~ 0.2–0.5 mm, except for few points. • Different fitting methods ~ 0.1–0.5 mm. • Guestimated uncertainty on alignment error & tracking precision ~ 0.5 mm. Contribution: ~0.1–0.4 mm. Angle (  ) - 0.5 – 0.5 2.5 – 3.5 6.5 – 7.5 10.5 – 11.5 Preliminary ! Seed threshold  5.4 Ke Side threshold  2.7 Ke Jianchun Wang

  11. Comparison TED result was produced by Silivia Borghi and presented by Kazu Akiba at the Florence LHCb week Low momentum track, momentum not measured. Multiple scattering effect is not removed precisely. Normal Incidence (0.5) Preliminary ! If resolution is determined from RMS of residual instead of fit, then the projection to 40 mm is 9.60.6 mm Jianchun Wang

  12. Resolution vs Track Angle For discussion purpose only Pitch ( mm) 40 – 50 50 – 60 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 90 90 – 100 Worse than testbeam 2004 results (ref: lhcb-2007-151) Effective track angle is determined in plane perpendicular to the strip. Sub-samples of 0, 3, 7 and 11 are with reasonable large statistics. Other angles are due to concentric strip, thus with small amount of hits. Large statistics Jianchun Wang

  13. Different Thresholds Angle () - 0.5 – 0.5 2.5 – 3.5 6.5 – 7.5 10.5 – 11.5 Seed threshold = 3.6 ADC Side threshold = 1.8 ADC Seed threshold = 4 ADC Side threshold = 2 ADC Seed threshold = 6 ADC Side threshold = 3 ADC Jianchun Wang

  14. RR sensor Jianchun Wang

  15. N-type Sensor Charge Collection All angles Hit map determined by tracking YVELO (mm) XVELO (mm) The relative position between irradiation profile and sensor Y is adjusted according to the center of two transition regions ( Position = Yprofile – 39.3 mm). N-type sensor is flipped (Position = -Y). Jianchun Wang

  16. P-type Sensor Charge Collection Normal incident track only 1 bad beetle chip Hit map determined by tracking YVELO (mm) XVELO (mm) • The sudden drop after 30 mm is unexpected. • It is very unlikely that the irradiation profile is wrong. Jianchun Wang

  17. Basic on Charge Distributions • The FE electronics were under-powered, resulting in low gain. Most probable charge ~16 ADC instead of ~40. • Constant thresholds (seed=3.6, inclusion=1.8) are used (noise ~ 0.9 ADC counts). Thresholds are low enough to study irradiated sensors. • Gain differences are partially corrected using header heights. • Only hits that match with pixel tracks are looked at, to reduce the influence from uncertainty of noise hits. • Charge distributions are fit to Landau convoluted with Gaussian. The width of Gaussian is fixed to an average value so as to reduce the uncertainty on Landau MP. • In some cases there are shoulders/tails on low side that were not well understood. Fits are at peak areas. Fit range affects MP obtained from fit.  MP represents, but not completely, the charge collection efficiency. Charge (ADC counts) Jianchun Wang

  18. Sensor Charge Collection Tracks at 0-8 degrees, detector biased at 500 V. Hit map determined by pixel tracks that matches with VELO hits. X (mm) X (mm) ? N-type ? P-type = – Y = + Y Jianchun Wang

  19. N-type MP Charge At Different HVs Some points need further work HV (V) 500 400 300 200 100 50 Sum of all angles Jianchun Wang

  20. P-type MP Charge At Different HVs Some points need further work HV (V) 500 400 300 200 100 50 Jianchun Wang

  21. Comparison Between N- and P-type Sensor P-type N-type Jianchun Wang

  22. Comparing Different Electronics Settings optimized for sensors after irradiation. N-type Kazu setting P-type Kazu setting biased at 500 V Optimized for current running in the pit. P-type Chris setting N-type Chris setting Jianchun Wang

  23. More on N-type Sensor N-type sensor Artificial parameter from MP so that the shape looks more like the irradiation profile Slopes in the transition region exhibit small discrepancy. Jianchun Wang

  24. MP vs Y for Different X Slices X flipped X Slices (–5, ) (–10, –5) (–20, –10) ( , –20) Jianchun Wang

  25. Phi Value of Sector Borders • The VELO alignment wrt pixel tracks has very loose constraint in phi. • Check if this is the source of the shift in MP vs position for different X slices. • Look at phi of matched pixel hits for each sector. Borders are clear. • Fit to error function. The average edge value of the neighboring border is consistent with p (+0.0017 and +0.0016 for N-type and P-type respectively). • Borders between sectors 0&1, 2&3 are consistent with 3/4p and 5/4 p. • The maximum difference is ~ 0.003 corresponding to shift of 0.12 mm at R=42mm. • Ruled out N-type, Sector 1 Edge = 3.1472 Sigma = 0.0016 Number of Matched Hits N-type, Sector 2 Edge = 3.1395 Sigma = 0.0008 F (rad) Jianchun Wang

  26. Detection Efficiency • Due to the trigger scheme and different DAQ clock frequencies for the two systems, tracks seen by pixel and VELO are not necessarily the same. • Pixel tracks are matched with hits from one sensor (± 200 mm) to ensure this is a real track and seen by VELO. • We then look at the other sensor to see if there is hit that matches the track. The detection efficiencies are thus determined. • Beam profiles are not guaranteed to be the same for different conditions so the weight of dead areas changes for different condition runs. • A dead chip and few dead strips and certain border areas are removed. • In this way, the detection efficiencies reflect more precisely the effect of irradiation fluencesand/or bias voltages. Jianchun Wang

  27. Cleanup of Dead Strip & Borders hit position expectation that are unmatched N-sensor N-sensor ! Remove 6 bad strips & borders Y (mm) Y (mm) P-sensor P-sensor Remove 4 bad strips & borders ! X (mm) X (mm) Jianchun Wang

  28. Detection Efficiency Normal incident tracks Biased at 500 V P-type Kazu setting N-type Kazu setting Not from 0 Jianchun Wang

  29. N-type Sensor Charge Sharing Y = (–42, –32) mm Y = (–32, –18) mm Y = (18, 32) mm Y = (32, 42) mm Largest strip ADC value of each cluster Low tail due to large cluster size Jianchun Wang

  30. P-type Sensor Charge Sharing Y = (–42, –32) mm Y = (–32, –18) mm Y = (18, 32) mm Y = (32, 42) mm Largest strip ADC value of each cluster Low tail due to large cluster size Jianchun Wang

  31. Detection Efficiency Bias Voltage (V) 500 400 300200 100 50 All angles N-type Kazu setting P-type Kazu setting Jianchun Wang

  32. Detection Efficiency All angles N-type Chris setting P-type Chris setting ? Jianchun Wang

  33. Detection Efficiency Vs Mp Biased at 500 V N-type P-type Detection efficiency is determined by charge collected (MP) charge sharing (cluster size) seed threshold (constant ADC) Jianchun Wang

  34. Detection Efficiency Vs MP for Different HV Bias Voltage (V) 500 400 300200 100 50 All angles N-type Kazu setting P-type Kazu setting Jianchun Wang

  35. MP vs HV P-type N-type Fit with a naïve function Non-irradiated Non-irradiated Vdep = 117±7 V From non-irradiated irradiated irradiated Vdep = 1218±96 V Vdep = 771±43 V Jianchun Wang

  36. For Resolution Study Pitch ( mm ) Track Effective Angle (degree) • Select regions Y< –16 mm & Y > 16 mm. • Angles: 0-2, 2-4, 6-8 degrees • Pitches: 64-70, 70-80, 80-90, 90-100 mm Y (mm) Jianchun Wang

  37. Resolution vs Pitch N-type 0-2 degree R of R/f pair (Chris, 0 degree) R of R/f pair Fully irradiated (Chris) Normal Incidence (0.5) Fully irradiated (Kazu) Non-irradiated (Kazu) P-type 0-2 degree Fully irradiated (Kazu) Non-irradiated (Chris) Non-irradiated (Kazu) • Resolutions are obtained through Gaussian fit to residual distributions, not just RMS due to bkg hits. • Tracking errors are removed. Error not fully estimated Jianchun Wang

  38. Charge Sharing vs Pitch Non-irradiated (Kazu) Fully irradiated (Kazu) Angle (  ) -0.5 – 0.5 2.5 – 3.5 6.5 – 7.5 10.5 – 11.5 R of R/f pair Fully irradiated (Chris) R of R/f pair (Chris) N-type 0-2 degree Non-irradiated (Kazu) Non-irradiated (Chris) P-type 0-2 degree Fully irradiated (Kazu) Error not estimated Jianchun Wang

  39. Resolution vs Pitch N-type R of R/f pair • Irradiated • Fully •  None • Angle (degree) • 0-2 • 2-4 • 6-8 Angle (  ) - 0.5 – 0.5 2.5 – 3.5 6.5 – 7.5 10.5 – 11.5 P-type Error not fully estimated Jianchun Wang

  40. Center of Residual vs HV 64 – 70 mm N-type fully-irradiated 6-8 degree tracks 70 – 80 mm 80-90 mm 90 – 100 mm Naïve interpretation Max difference ~150tan(8) = 21 mm Jianchun Wang

  41. Center of Residual vs HV P-type non-irradiated 6-8 degree tracks 64 – 70 mm 70 – 80 mm Full depletion voltage ~ 110 V 90 – 100 mm 80-90 mm Jianchun Wang

  42. Inefficiency Issue The window is ± 200mm for reference plane hit with pixel tracks. If noise hit gets in due to this window, the efficiency would be lower. The window is tighten to ± 100mm, for reference plane. The efficiency difference is negligible. 200 mm might be too tight for DUT. Jianchun Wang

  43. Non-perpendicular Beam For Irradiation X Position Y Position* Angle = 0.251 X Slices (–5, ) (–10, –5) (–20, –10) ( , –20) Before rotation After rotation Irradiation profile offset Old = 39.3 mm New = 36.8 mm N-type Jianchun Wang

  44. MP vs Y for Different X Slices X Slices (–5, ) (–10, –5) (–20, –10) ( , –20) N-type P-type Jianchun Wang

  45. Sensor Charge Collection Tracks at 0-8 degrees, detector biased at 500 V. X X Y Y Position Position X (mm) X (mm) ? N-type ? P-type = – Y(rotate) = + Y (rotate) Jianchun Wang

  46. VELO Scint Pixel Pixel Pixel Y 120 GeV proton beam Z X YX Y YX RR(F) Pixel X/Y Pixel Y VELO Pixel X/Y ~ 1 m

  47. Transition Region High Fluence Region Low Fluence Region

  48. Inefficiency vs R 90-135 135-180 N type R sensor Inefficiency Rate 225-270 180-225 Radius (mm) Jianchun Wang

  49. Inefficiency vs R 90-135 135-180 Inefficiency Rate P type R sensor 225-270 180-225 Radius (mm) Jianchun Wang

More Related