Preliminary Results on Non-Projective HCal Simulations

1. This presentation will probably involve audience discussion, which will create action items. Use PowerPoint to keep track of these action items during your presentation • In Slide Show, click on the right mouse button • Select “Meeting Minder” • Select the “Action Items” tab • Type in action items as they come up • Click OK to dismiss this box • This will automatically create an Action Item slide at the end of your presentation with your points entered. Preliminary Results on Non-Projective HCal Simulations Dhiman Chakraborty, Guilherme Lima, Jeremy McCormick, Vishnu Zutshi NICADD / Northern Illinois University Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

2. Status Summary • Last week overview, status and plans for short and medium term • Today • Non-projective Hcal geometry • Geometry initialization • Preliminary results • … Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

3. Why a non-projective HadCal? • A projective geometry is • easy to analyze (cal towers) • easy to find cell neighbors, cones • But it also • needs many different cell sizes • may have cells too big at outer layers • cells may be too large at lower angles Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

4. Why a non-projective HCal? • Fabricating a small number of cell sizes is simpler, cheaper and maybe even better… • Small cell sizes are nice for a digital calorimeter, but too many small cells may become a nightmare: • Hot cells / dead cells • Space for readout • Cost per channel • Simulations are helpful to adjust cell dimensions in order to maximize performance/cost ratio. Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

5. First version of NP simulator • Based on (projective) LCDG4 • Fixed cell sizes (rectangular for now) • User provides cell dimensions, and simulator makes slight adjusts (few %) for integral numbers of cells along z,  • Only HCal for now, but plans for ECal Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

6. Preliminary tests • Use single particles: • Muons, pions and electrons • Fixed directions in space • Different energies (2,5,10,20,30,50 GeV) • Absolute energy deposition • Comparison with projective geometry • Same energy deposition per layer • Number of hit cells reasonably scales with inverse of cell area (pions) • Complex physics events Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

7. Energy in ECal absorber Estimate approx 8.7 MeV for a MIP # entries Energy (MeV) Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

8. Energy in Ecal sensors Estimate approx 0.2 MeV for a MIP # entries Energy (MeV) Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

9. Energy in HCal absorber Estimated about 31 MeV for a MIP 10 GeV Muons 50 GeV pions Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

10. Energy in HCal sensitive layers Estimated about 2.4 MeV for a MIP Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

11. Number of hits in ECal Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

12. Number of hits in HCal Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

13. Comparison to LCDG4proj and GISMO Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

14. Hit distributions per layer ECal HCal Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

15. Last layers hit in each event 50 GeV pions Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

16. Total energy per layer(comparison to LCDG4proj and GISMO) 50 GeV pions Energy (MeV) Layer Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

17. Total energy(based on GISMO sampling fractions) Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

18. Checking EM sampling fraction Based on GISMO sampling fractions (a reevaluation is needed!) Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting

19. Conclusions • JAS3 analysis classes available* for general use • Preliminary results look very encouraging • Projective vs. non-projective values for energy depositions per layer are in good agreement • Sampling fractions need to be reevaluated • Next steps include: • replace SDJan03 for SDMar01 • analyze complex physics events in NP geometry (Vishnu?) • extend NP geometry into EMCal • use hexagonal cells • whatever else is necessary to certify NP simulation…(?) Guilherme Lima, DHCal Meeting