1 / 26

Status of RPC R&D for DHCAL in IHEP

Status of RPC R&D for DHCAL in IHEP. Vladimir Ammosov Institute for High Energy Physics Protvino Moscow region, Russia. Content. 1. Choice of RPC working conditions 2. RO electronics 3. R&D plans 4. Proposal for joint mech. structure. Choice of RPC working conditions.

zuwena
Download Presentation

Status of RPC R&D for DHCAL in IHEP

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. Status of RPC R&Dfor DHCALin IHEP Vladimir Ammosov Institute for High Energy Physics Protvino Moscow region, Russia V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  2. Content 1. Choice of RPC working conditions 2. RO electronics 3. R&D plans 4. Proposal for joint mech. structure V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  3. Choice of RPC working conditions RPCs with 0.8,1.2, 1.6 and 2.0 gas gaps were tested in saturated avalanche and streamer modes For both modes TetraFluoroEthane (TFE) based mixtures were used TFE = freon 134A = C2H2F4 ~ 8 ionizations/mm Saturated avalanche mixtures = TFE/IB/SF6 IB = Iso-C4H10 as quencher, IB fraction = 5% SF6 as streamer suppresor, SF6 fractions = (2-5)% Streamer mixtures = TFE/IB/Ar or N2 IB = Iso-C4H10 as quencher, IB fraction= (5-20)% Ar/N2 as streamer developer, fractions = (2-20)% V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  4. RPC tests Set-up at 18T channel 5 GeV/c h+ beam RPC samples - 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, 2.0 gaps - 1013cm window glass - 16 pads of 1x1 cm2 - in tight box Trigger S1S2S3S4 for 2x2 cm2 area Di - preamp+disc V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  5. Conclusion for working conditions 1. RPCs in avalanche mode are in favor to be used for FLC DHCAL 2. Working conditions: -gas gap 1.2 -1.6 mm - gas mixture TFE/IB/SF6 - average induced charge ~4 pC (107 e) - efficiency ~ 99% - pad multiplicity ~ 1.4-1.5 - rate capability < 100 Hz/cm2 - noise 0.2-0.5 Hz/cm2 3. RO electronics (thr>1-2 mV) is challenge ( cost should be at ~0.1 Euro level) V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  6. Conclusion for working conditions V. Gapienko (IHEP) Geant3 simulation of DHCAL response V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  7. RPC in avalanche mode Typical Q and m distributions 1.2 mm, 2% SF6, 8.4 kV - working point, 2.2 mV thr Mean 2.8 pC RMS 1.6 pC Mean 1.47 RMS 0.58 Q ~ 107 e 2 adj pads V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  8. RPC in streamer mode Typical Q and M distributions, 200 V above knee 1.2 mm gap, TFE/Ar/IB=80/10/10 RMS/Q=0.6 FWHM=20% V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  9. Comparison of avalanche and streamer modes Eff vs M streamer Ar10 mix 100 mV thr 300 mV thr N210 mix 100 mV thr Avalanche - solid line There is some region for low M (1.1-1.2) with eff~95% comparing with avalanche mode V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  10. Comparison of avalanche and streamer modes Rate capability streamer <4-5 Hz/cm2 avalanche <300 Hz/cm2 It is hard to work in streamer mode even for usual beam conditions Streamer is suitable only for very low rates like e+e- FLC V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  11. Comparison of avalanche and streamer modes As example, for 1.2 mm gap V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  12. Comparison of avalanche and streamer modes Avalanche mode is preferable due to: 1. higher efficiency (>99%) 2. smaller charge deposition (~102) - no observed ageing effects - higher rate capability (~102) V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  13. RPC design for DHCAL V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  14. RO electronics General scheme for 64 channel read out • Two parts: • Conditioning (analog) • FPGA (digital) V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  15. Requirements for FLC RO electronics - All FEE should be on board - One channel < 1 cm2 - Anode PCB with pads should be multi layer PCB V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  16. Steps for design and usage RO electronics V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  17. RO electronics Two versions for conditioning 1) IHEP version Preamp(IC)+comparator(IC)+gate(IC) each single channel IC 2) Minsk version special 8 channel chip included preamp, amp and comparator (very sensitive ~0.2 A) V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  18. IHEP version, threshold > 0.5 mV RO electronics Gate, 100-300 ns TTL pos signal for FPGA Comp, 5 mV Preamp, 10x Was tested successfully in Dec02 beam run as separate board (approach A) V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  19. RO electronics Test of IHEP version with RPC signals using  source Comparison of counting rate with old, calibrated FEE 1 mV threshold is achieved V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  20. RO electronics Test of Minsk version with RPC signals using  source Comparison of counting rate with old, calibrated FEE 0.5 mV threshold is achieved V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  21. RO electronics IHEP version single 6 layer anode PCB for 64 channels • Layer meaning • 1. Anode pads • 2. Shield GND • 3. Signal CMOS lines • 4. Power layer • 5. Shield analog GND • 6. Component layer • FPGA on the same PCB, out of RPC • ALTERA EP1K50 is used as FPGA All components (ICs) in SOT-23-5 packages V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  22. RO electronics IHEP version single 6 layer anode PCB for 64 channels Preliminary tests do not allow to reach lowest threshold - below 5 mV threshold it is channel generation due to the cross talk from the gate with TTL signal to pads. V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  23. RO electronics PLANS 1. Play with IHEP version (single PCB) to find possible minimal threshold for one RPC plane (64 channels) 2. Use the two PCB approach further - to simulate chamber PCB with signal transportation to find proper impedance etc - to design FEE PCB based on Minsk version 3. For beam tests of 20 layer electromagnetic cal (Dec03) use Minsk version of two PCB approach 4. It is proposed to use for the 1 m3 prototype also two PCB approach. It is planned together with Minsk to design special 16 simplified chip based on on the current Minsk 8 channel analog chip. V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  24. R&D plans December 2003 Beam tests of the 20 layer digital ‘E/H' calorimeter with the 64 channel small RPC planes and the 2/4 cm steel sampling June 2004 We are ready for Production and assembly of RPC planes for the 1 m3 DHCAL prototype V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  25. R&D plans Digital ‘E/H’ calorimeter with 20 layers sampling: 2/4 cm steel + 0.65 cm RPC plane sensitive area 9x9 cm2 ( 8x8 pads of 1x1 cm2, 1 mm spacing) GEANT3 simulation of transverse containment pe=1,10,40 GeV/c Trans. cont.  Diff. distr.  R=4.5 cm 98% trans. cont. V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

  26. Proposal for joint mech. structure N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Item Shape Number of layers Material of absorber Thick of absorber Tolerance for thick Tolerance for flatness Support plate Gap active detector Transverse active area Boarders proposal Rectangular 38 SS ? 20 mm –tsup.pl. 0.1 mm 0.1           mm/m SS, tsup.pl.=2 mm 6-7 mm 500x1500 mm2 top= mm, bottom= mm, left= mm, right= mm Comment Insert to magnet Insert to magnet V.Ammosov DESY-Hamburg, HCAL meeting

More Related