1 / 24

FGT Layout Simulation Results

 =1.0.  =1.5.  =2.0. 1 2 3 4 5 6  FGT disks. FGT Layout Simulation Results. Detector requirements Disk layout e+/e- separation e/h discrimination Simu GEM response Strip layout, occupancy To-do- list Summary. Jan Balewski, MIT FGT Project Review

tallis
Download Presentation

FGT Layout Simulation Results

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. =1.0 =1.5 =2.0 1 2 3 4 5 6  FGT disks FGT Layout Simulation Results • Detector requirements • Disk layout • e+/e- separation • e/h discrimination • Simu GEM response • Strip layout, occupancy • To-do- list • Summary Jan Balewski, MIT FGT Project Review January 7-8, 2008 e+ shower ET=40 GeV

  2. FGT Requirements • Reconstruct charge of e+, e- from W decay for PT up to 40 GeV/c • Discriminate electrons against hadrons • Allow for uniform performance for z-vertex spread over [-30,+30] cm • Fit in geometrical space free up by the West Forward TPC (FTPC) • Benefit from limited coverage of other trackers: IST, SSD • Relay on vertex reconstruction and Endcap shower-max hit • Relay on Endcap towers for energy reconstruction • Minimize amount of material on the path of tracks • Align FGT segmentation with TPC sector boundaries and Endcap halves • Assure relative alignment vs. TPC is double with real particles

  3. Optimization of FGT Disks Location in Z a) Barrel EMC Used TPC volume nHits>=5 Endcap EMC =1.0 Zvertex=0cm =1.5 =2.0 SSD IST1,2 beam  1 2 3 4 5 6  R-‘unconstrained’ FGT disks Zvertex=+30cm Zvertex=-30cm c) b) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 FGT disks geometry: Rin=7.5cm, Rout=41cm, Z1…Z6=60…150cm, Z=18cm • 5 hits required for helix reco • FGT sustains tracking if TPC provides below 5 hits • use TPC, SSD,IST for • Zvertex <~0 and <~1.3 • allow Zvertex[-30,+30]cm

  4. Optimization of FGT Disk Radii (Z Vertex = 0 cm ) Endcap Used TPC volume nHits>=5 track = 1.7  =1.0 Zver=0cm =1.5 =2.0 TPC If nHit>5 Endcap SMD 1 2 3 4 5 6  FGT FGT  1 2 3 4 5 6 SSD IST1,2 vertex =1.7  Rxy –  representation Rxy – Z representation • Optimization Criteria • Each track must cross the vertex and Endcap EMC • 6 FGT disk are needed to provide enough hits for tracks at all  and all z-vertex • Single track crosses less than 6 FGT disks

  5. Optimization of FGT Disk Radii (& location) 11.5 37.5 70 a) Z Vertex = - 30 cm b) Z Vertex = 0 cm c) Z Vertex = + 30 cm TPC If nHit>5 Endcap SMD FGT  1 2 3 4 5 6 SSD IST1,2 vertex FGT disks geometry: Rin=7.5cm, Rout=41cm, Z1…Z6=60…150cm, Z=18cm R-’unconstrained’ FGT disks FGT disks fitting in available R-space Critical FGT coverage depends on Z-vertex

  6. FGT Enables Reco of Sign of e+,e- Sagitta (mm) Sagitta (mm) 2mm 2mm Endcap SMD hit =1.5mm Y/cm Good Q-sign Wrong Q-sign 100cm reco track  1  of reco track Sagitta=2mm Limit for  pT track 40cm 3 FGT hits =70m 20cm X/mm Vertex =200m 1.0 2.0 mm 0

  7. Track & Charge Sign Reco Efficiency FGT disks geometry: Rin=7.5cm, Rout=41cm, Z1…Z6=60…150cm, Z=18cm • N0 – thrown electrons, ET=30 GeV • N1 – reco tracks (<3 mrad) • N2 – reco tracks w/ correct charge sign • Track reco efficiency >80% for  up to 2.0 • Wrong charge reco <20% for  above 1.5

  8. Stability of Charge Reconstruction Zvert=0 • Studied variations of efficiency (shown in proposal): • degraded FGT cluster resolution (80m  120m, OK) • reduced # of FGT planes (6 4 , bad, too few hits/track) • degraded transverse vertex accuracy (200m 500m, OK) • FGT cluster finding efficiency (100%  90%, OK , details) • smaller FGT disk size & separation - OK Rin=18cm, Rout=37.6cm, Z1…Z6=70…120cm, Z=10cm

  9. e/h Discrimination Capability of Endcap EMC Pre Showers Shower Max Post Shower =2.0 30 GeV 0 GeV e+ =1.08 + GeV  Simu of Endcap response to Electrons (black) & charge pions (red) with ET of 30 GeV e+ + Endcap + e+ Projective tower Shower from electron E=30 GeV  ~15 GeV ET Trigger threshold

  10. e/h Discrimination : PYTHIA Events Isolation & missing-PT cuts suppress hadrons by ~100 Hadrons from PYTHIA M-C QCD events e+, e- from PYTHIA M-C W-events

  11. Real Electrons Reconstructed in Endcap Endcap-based cuts TPC P [6,8] GeV/c TPC P [10,14] GeV/c  e+, e- • MIP e+, e- • MIP Identified e+,e-

  12. Detailed Simulation of GEM Response (1) Latice attractors spaced 130 m Charge from this hexagon is attracted by the hole Hole in GEM foil amplifies charge cloud Primary ionization R-axis strip Pitch=800m xhit phi-axis strip pitch=600m Amplified signal is displaced best • ionization and charge amplification • spatial quantization on GEM grid • charge collection by strip planes • 1D cluster reconstruction

  13. Simulated FGT Response (2) 14 prim pairs/track 14 prim pairs/track 22 eV/pair 22 eV/pair (760 eV/ track) R* =40m 32 any pairs/track R=122m GEM response Test beam data 1D Cluster finder resolution

  14. FGT Strip Layout *) y x y x 326 R-strips X z 15 deg Endcap halves Top -layer 949 -strips pitch 600m Essential for PT reco ~ 50% transparency FGT quadrant boundaries match to Endcap segmentation Bottom R-layer pitch 800m  needed for 3D track recognition, resolving ambiguities *) close to final

  15. Estimation of Strip Occupancy tracks 2 1 1 -strips 400 m pitch R-strips 45 deg long 0  1 track/strip per 1000 minB events tracks Track rate per strip for minB PYTHIA events @ s500 GeV Based on FGT geometry:Rin=15cm, Rout=41cm R=41cm R=15cm 0.8 0.4 0 =0 deg =90 • pileup from minB events dominates • 1.5 minB interactions/RHIC bXing • 300nsec response of APV •  3 bXings pile up • Total pileup of 5 minB events per trigger event • 1 tracks per FGT quadrant per minB event • (scaled from simu below) • Cluster size: 1mm along , 2mm along R • Cluster occupancy per triggered event per quadrant • -strips (span ~43cm)1.2% occupancy • R-strips (span 25cm)  4% occupancy • (uncertainty factor of 2) minB PYTHIA event @ s=500 GeV

  16. To-do List • completion of detailed (a.k.a. ‘slow’) simulator for GEM response • develop 3D tracking with pattern recognition • include pileup from 3 events in reco of physics events • implement and optimize full array of e/h discrimination techniques • completion of full W event simulation and comparison to full hadronic QCD events simulation • determine background contribution from Z0 and heavy flavor processes, above pT>20 GeV/c

  17. FGT Simulation Summary • Will be able to reconstruct charge of e+, e- from W decay for PT up to 40 GeV/c with efficiency above 80% • There is enough information recorded to discriminate electrons against hadrons • Allow for uniform performance for z-vertex spread over [-30,+30] cm, OK • Will fit in geometrical space • Will use hits from IST, SSD • Will relay on vertex reconstruction and Endcap shower-max hit & energy • FGT quadrants are aligned with TPC sector boundaries and Endcap halves • FGT disks 1 &2 overlap with TPC allowing relative calibration

  18. BACKUP

  19. Compact FGT- proof of principle Rin=18cm, Rout=37.6cm, Z1=70cm, …,Z6=120cm, Z=10 cm Critical FGT coverage depends on Z-vertex

  20. FGT Material budget UPGR13, maxR=45 cm 0.5 Z vert= - 30cm Z vert= 0cm Z vert= + 30cm 0 0.5 0

  21. FGT Material UPGR13 w/o SSD

  22. TPC reco with 5 points ‘regular’ tracking 5-hits tracking ‘regular’ tracking 5-hits tracking

  23. Alternative Snow-flake Strip Layout  12-fold local Cartesian ref frame As in Proposal 

  24. Track Reco Strategy 1 2 3 4 5 6  FGT • Select EMC cluster with large energy • Eliminate all FGT hits outside the cone: vertex SMD hit • Resolve remaining ambiguities comparing R vs.  charge • Consider shorter -strips (snow flake design) 3 4 1 2

More Related