Feasibility Study of Forward Calorimeter in ALICE experiment Sanjib Muhuri Variable Energy Cyclotron...
-
Upload
kerry-walsh -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Feasibility Study of Forward Calorimeter in ALICE experiment Sanjib Muhuri Variable Energy Cyclotron...
Feasibility Study of Forward Calorimeter in ALICE experiment
Sanjib Muhuri
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre
Kolkata
Possible position in ALICE
PMD
PMD position (A-side at z~360cm) is the most ideal location for the Forward Calorimeter – Phase-1. This is just behind the V0 detector and in front of the vacuum flange and its support.
Issues and Limitation of the Calorimeter
• It is expected to be placed around 360cm away from the interaction point.• • Eta coverage should be such to accept most of the forward region. (ours is
from 2.49 to 4.8 for the detector radius between 6 cm to 60 cm) .
• Full energy deposition should be confirmed for 1GeV to about 200GeV incident particles (photons or electrons) .
• Sampling elements/layers should be large enough to have better energy resolution .
• Tracking with good position resolution needed to track the shower profiles because of close proximity of the showers and also to get a better estimation on the total energy deposition.
• Need a smart algorithm to recognize to very closely spaced clusters (for example, two photons are 5mm apart coming from 200GeV Pi0 ) .
X-Y Si Strip (2 layers) 0.3 mm thickness Strip size 0.475 mm x 6 mm
W thickness 3.5 mm
Si Pad + W(1X0)Si thickness 0.3 mmSi size 1 cm x 1cm
W thickness 3.5 mm
Only Tungsten (W) W thickness 3.5 mm
Forward Calorimeter: Silicon – W Calorimetry
3 layers(W + Si pad)
W: 2X0 2+3+1+3+1+12 = 22 X0
Particle
12 layers (W + Si pad)
11 layers of W+ Si_Pad
3 la
yers
of W
+Si_
Pad
3 la
yers
of W
+Si_
Pad
W+S
i_Pi
xel
W+S
i_Pi
xel
W+S
i_Pi
xel
6.2 cm
6.2 cmGeometry of one small module whose front view is 6.2 cm x 6.2 cm
Total no. of Channels for 62mm x 62mm module is 256 + 36 + 256 + 36 +256 + (36 x 4) = 984 channels
0th Layer -> 2Xo W + 0.6 mm Si_Pixel 1st to 3rd Layers -> 1Xo W + 0.5 mm Si_Pad
4th Layer -> 1Xo W + 0.6 mm Si_Pixel 5th to 7th Layers -> 1Xo W + 0.5 mm Si_Pad
8th Layer -> 1Xo W + 0.6 mm Si_Pixel 9th to 19th Layers -> 1Xo W + 0.5 mm Si_Pad
Geant4 geometry of the Prototype of the Present configuration
This prototype is of Dimension24cm*24cm*21Xo
Longitudinal Shower Profile for gamma at different energies (no weighting)
We have simulated both longitudinal and transverse shower profile using 'gamma' as indent particles of energy 1GeV to 50GeV. From longitudinal profile it has been found that “the position of shower-max vary from 4Xo to 8Xo depending on the incident energy which theoretically verified.
Shower Max
tmax = 3.9 + ln(Eo)
Transverse shower Profile for strip layersTransverse shower Profile for strip layers
Cumulative energy deposition at different (gamma) energies
I have studied layer wise Cumulative Edep profile for 1000 events of 'gamma' of energy 1GeV to 50GeV. From cumulative Edep profile it has been found that depending on the incident energy layer wise added Edep get saturated right from 10th layer to 16th layer suggesting full energy deposition by the the incident particle. So 21Xo length of FoCAL is supposed to be enough to minimize longitudinal leakage.
Calibration Curve for photons
I have found the calibration of Edep with respect to Eincidence . It shows very good linearity of Edep with Eincidence with E(deposited) = 0.0012 + 0.0179 * E(incidence)
Resolution:
~19% resolution
To find the energy resolution I have plotted s/Edep (%) Vs Eincidence and fit it with the function f(x) = a + b/sqrt(S)
where b = 18.9 % shows reasonably good energy resolution. a = 0.416 % shows compactness and less defect of the Calorimeter.
Results of Pi0 clustering0th Layer (Pixel Layer)
Continued……1st Layer (Pad Layer)
Continued……
4th Layer (Pixel Layer)
Continued…..5th Layer (Pad Layer)
Continued…..
8th Layer (Pixel Layer)
Continued……
10th Layer (Pad Layer)
Alpha (asymmetry) parameter and opening angle for10 GeV 0
Left figure shows the asymmetry of decayed photons from Pi0. Though It is supposed to have peak around zero but from reconstructed data we have got it around 0.09.
In the right panel we have plotted separation angle b/w two gammas from Pi0. The angle seems to closely matched with the theoretical prediction
Mass of pi0 obtained
Open angle Vs Incident Energy(for Pi0 decayed to two Photons)
Studying pseudorapidity, =-ln(tan/2), dependence of particle production probes parton distributions at different Bjorken x values and involves different admixtures of gg, qg and qq’ subprocesses.
Assume:
1. Initial partons are collinear2. Partonic interaction is elastic
pT, pT,2
How can Bjorken x values be selected in hard scattering?
Deep inelastic scattering Hard scattering hadroproduction
Forward Physics - KinematicsBackup Slides 1
Mid-rapidity particle detection:
0 and <>0
xq xg xT = 2 pT / s
Large-rapidity particle detection:
>>
xq xT e xF (Feynman x), and
xg xF e(
p+p +X, s = 200 GeV, =01.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
frac
tion
0 10 20 30pT,(GeV/c)
qg
gg
Large rapidity particle production and correlations involving large rapidity particle probes low-x parton distributions using valence quarks
NLO pQCD (Vogelsang)
Forward Physics - KinematicsBackup Slides 1