1 / 21

STAR TU, simulation status

STAR TU, simulation status. N. Smirnov Physics Department, Yale University, STAR Collaboration Meeting, MIT, July, 2006. What does mean STAR TU ?. Conserve / Improve TPC performance ( RHIC II Luminosity). High resolution Vertex Detector ( heavy quark Physics ).

eithne
Download Presentation

STAR TU, simulation status

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. STAR TU, simulation status N. Smirnov Physics Department, Yale University, STAR Collaboration Meeting, MIT, July, 2006

  2. What does mean STAR TU ? • Conserve / Improve TPC performance ( RHIC II Luminosity). • High resolution Vertex Detector ( heavy quark Physics ). • “special” tracking in EEMC “direction” ( pp  W  e+/- ). • Tracking data for PMD ( |η| > 2.); pp, dA • μ– detector (?)

  3. Conserve / Improve TPC performance ( RHIC II Luminosity). • Additional tracking / calibration detectors inside and outside of TPC • Pad or XY strip GEM Detectors is a good choice : • Required 3d- precision • low mass, • fast. • Solves TPC space charge distortions correction problem {“charge” value / number of hits as a F ( t, φ, z); model (can/should be different for pp and AA); correction on “track level”} • and part of tracking (large surface to be covered, R~35 cm). • Together with other “fast” detectors, help to solve the “Event pile-up” problem. • TPC its own improvements; IFC shielding; “gap” between sectors; OFC gas leak  membrane HV, CF4 gas mixture  smaller diffusion, faster drift (new FEE, on-line cluster finding/reconstruction). Gas amplification calibration • TPC MWPC data: number of tracks in drift volume, tracking for |η| > 1.

  4. High resolution Vertex Detector ( heavy quark Physics ). • Today (HFT) proposal relays on: -- perfect TPC space charge distortions correction (not in a simulation), -- perfect SSD performance ( does not work still, and …), -- perfect alignment, -- factor X improvement in APS read-out speed (X = 2 ?, 2 ms / frame), -- primary vertex is a “key factor”, -- D reconstruction efficiency and background – two different simulation steps, -- APS simulation (N of hits / frame and their position) is not a “realistic” one -- unknown beam-beam background conditions for small R. R&D “step” to demonstrate “hit – track” matching was not done, but in a schedule. • It is too optimistic (my opinion) • Natural limitations: high multiplicity events to get a primary vertex with “needed” precision ( multi-loop approach can help ?) • Conclusion: needs a high precision, fast “pointer” ( SVT was a “candidate”, but ...) The best: 3 points in space to be “independent” from TPC data.

  5. A lot of simulation results have been presented during last STAR Upgrade meeting (December 1-2,2005) • Some conclusions: • - fast, high precision, low mass tracking detectors in front and behind TPC ( GEM) can be crucial to help with TPC “space charge distortions correction”. • - HFT with 4 ms read-out time will work in a combination with TPC+SSD+(GEM) up to L=1x1027, but not a RHIC II Detector. • - IT has to provide a high quality “search corridor” for HFT to “help” with occupancy, primary vertex reconstruction, PP, dA, ….; • - three double layers Si strip detector (MIT proposal) is not the best solution. • - tracking detector in front of EEMC is useless for We+/- + X study because TPC end-cap material budget. • - IT has to solve this problem: high Pt particle reconstruction in EEMC acceptance. Three possible variants for IT (personal opinion) - 3 or 4 double layers of Si strip detectors; first and last – with 90 deg strip direction rotation, and to use pad detectors ( with 2x2 mm2 size) instead of stereo ones for 2 intermediate layers (Gerrit’s idea). - microTPC with fast, low diffusion gas mixture and MicroPattern read-out (no gating grid) - Two layers of Pixel Hybrid Detectors with pad size 50 x 425 μm2

  6. Variant with Si Pixel Det., SPD + Si strip + GEM (III) TPC “IN field-cage” “safety” Kapton foil GEM with X-Y read out SSD Si strip, 4x4 cm2 two layers, X and Z SPD (Hybrid Pixel) Two layers with 90 deg rotation HFT SPD – Design Parameters (ALICE) Two barrel layers; R1 = 6.4 cm, R2 = 7.6 cm. Pixel Cell: 50(rφ) x 425 (z) μm2, (90 deg rot. second layer) Pixel ASIC thickness: <=150 μm. Si sensor ladder thickness: <=200 μm. “Bumps” technology. Cooling: water / C6F14/ [C3F8 (evaporative)] Material budget (each layer): 0.9%X0 ( Si – 0.37, Cooling – 0.3, Bus – 0.17, Support – 0.1 )

  7. Variant I – 4 Double Si strip/Pad1st – 2x2 cm2 (X/Z); 2nd – 4x4 cm2(X/Pad); 3rd – 4x4 cm2(X/Pad); 4th – 4x4 cm2(X/Z) GEM Detectors TPC in field cage SSD Si Strip HRVD

  8. Simulation / Reconstruction approach • Stand – along routines (FORTRAN) on the basis of personal experience and knowledge from previous experiments and R&D activities • Special for fast (but reliable) test / checking different detector SetUps including PiD (dE/dX, Ch.Det., RICH, TRD) and secondary Vertexes finding/reconstruction. • GEANT-3 (GSTAR) • Detector response simulation – 4 variants: -- GEANT hits, but not GSTAR variants (sometimes) -- Gaussian smearing -- “intermediate” scale simulation ( to save a compute time) -- “full” scale simulation ( check Hans Bichsel web page) • Two variants of a “helix fit” • Keep all needed “pointers” for evaluation / control

  9. One particle (π+) /event. Hits in a fit - only IT detectors (primary vertex – OFF); 100% efficiency, perfect alignment. Variant III Matching performance: IT track crossing position – 2nd HFT layer hit (Local CS). Pt, GeV/c dX, cm dX, cm dZ, cm Here it will be presented the simplest, “first step” simulation results: “one π/event”, GEANT hits with Gaussian smearing

  10. Matching performance: track crossing point – HFT L2 hit position (LCS) Set Up Variant: TPC + SSD, Vertex in FIT;All hits Lines – Sp.Ch. effect GEM + SSD + 1 double SiStrip + 2 Si Pixel; ITH SSD + 2 Si Pixel; All hits SSD + 1 Si Pixel; All hits σ of Gauss fit, cm GEM + SSD + 2 Si Pixel; ITH GEM + SSD + 1 Si Pixel; ITH GEM + SSD + 2 double Si strip/pad + 2 Si strip XZ ( MIT proposal)mod, ITH GEM + SSD + 3 double Si strip/pad ( MIT proposal), ITH dZ dX “ITH” – only IT hits are in Fit, “All hits” -- + TPC hits. Vertex OFF

  11. Matching performance: track crossing point – HFT L2 hit position (LCS) Set Up Variant: TPC + SSD, Vertex in FIT;All hits Lines – Sp.Ch. effect GEM + SSD + 1 double SiStrip + 2 Si Pixel; ITH SSD + 2 Si Pixel; All hits SSD + 1 Si Pixel; All hits σ of Gauss fit, cm GEM + SSD + 2 Si Pixel; ITH GEM + SSD + 1 Si Pixel; ITH GEM + SSD + 2 double Si strip/pad + 2 Si strip XZ ( MIT proposal)mod, ITH GEM + SSD + 3 double Si strip/pad ( MIT proposal), ITH dZ dX “ITH” – only IT hits are in Fit, “All hits” -- + TPC hits. Vertex OFF

  12. Variant “Pixel” - 1 or 2 (with 90 deg rotation) layers of SPD (ALICE, LHCB, PHENIX) Variant “3Si2” – 3 Double Si strip/Pad1st – 2x2 cm2 (X/Z); 2nd – 4x4 cm2(X/Pad); 3rd – 4x4 cm2(X/Pad) “Special Variant” for detector response simulation; TPC, GEM, SSD – gaussian smearing SPD, Si-strip / pad – “intermediate”, q with noise, but no FEE , no cross-talk,… APS – Yes/No but realistic read-out and background hits simulation / reconstruction ( 640x640 pads, 30x30 μm2 size, 4 read-out ports, 50 MHz read-out frequency 2. ms read-out time )

  13. Si detectors, number hits (Central HJ) PIXEL 3Si2 Number of tracks that “contributed” in reconstructed hit R pos 6.4 7.6 6.4 11. 16. cm Det. Size 1.74 4. 16. cm2 Strip/pad 0.0002125 0.02 0.04 cm2 N hits (8, 3) (7, 2) (18, 7) (20, 7) (17, 4) ( max, aver) N “destroyed” hits because occupancy ~0.3% ~ 15% 3Si2 PIXEL

  14. Tracks finding / reconstruction (Vertex OFF)( TPC  SSD  Si…) DCA, XY, cm PIXEL 1 2 3Si2 Eff: 0.8 0.7 0.7 Ghost: 0.064 0.046 0.4 Track DCA parameters Red: all tracks 3Si2 variant Blue: good one, 3Si2 variant Black: all tracks PIXEL variant DCA, Rz, cm

  15. Primary Vertex reconstructionTPC + SSD + PIXEL (1 or 2) PIXEL 2 PIXEL 1 DCA, xy, cm DCA, Rz, cm N of event N of event

  16. APS, number hits L = 2.x10**26, L1, 2 ms read-out time; Nmax hits / det event = 79 Naver = 42 L = 2.x10**27,  L1 (2.8 cm R) - ( 815, 314), L2 (4.6 cm) – (284, 135) (max, aver) (max, aver) N hits (L1) Y, cm One detector, reco hits plus background Central HJ N detector X, cm

  17. Tracks finding / reconstruction (Vertex OFF)( TPC  SSD  PIXEL (1 or 2)  APS) Very preliminary Luminosity PIXEL 1 2 2.x10**26 Eff 0.625 0.6 Ghost 0.016 0.013 2.x10**27 Eff 0.65 0.6 Ghost 0.05 0.11 DCA track parameters to Primary vertex Detector combination DCA, xy, μm DCA, Rz, μm (sigma) APS only ---------- 28. SSD + APS 39. 39. PIXEL 1 + APS 71 32 SSD + PIXEL 2 + APS 28 33 All hits 53 91

  18. What is the reason for GEM D ? -- not to use TPC hits (can be strong distortions) for the “final” step – to match track with APS hits, and vertexes (both primary and secondary ) finding and reconstruction -- the best “tool” to struggle with TPC hits space charge distortions, as a scaller and high precision tracker. -- help with events pile-up problem -- may be the first step – use one CTB slat for fast, precision tracking detector behind TPC. • Data from TPC before (in time) a trigger signal -- scaller data -- coordinate inform for particles in EEMC acceptance • SSD <----> two layers of Si strip ( if it will be any problem or timing will be a “stopper” point) in a combination with GEM D. • Tracking in EEMC direction to study pp  W  e-/+ (next slide)

  19. IT set up -- asymmetric (in Z); Two more layers of Si strip detectors ( one side, 4x8 cm2) to cover “EEMC direction”, for pp program. pp, √s=500, PYTHIA Pt, GeV/c 60. “barrel” position; NOT “disk” 30. η 1. Sample of events, We(μ) + X

  20. Track reconstruction performance.One π+ / event; HFT + IT + minimum 6 TPC hits; perfect alignment η 30 % dPt/Pt dPt/Pt The reconstruction “chain” has to work well; TPC track  EEMC cluster  electron E  electron P (HELIX Radius)  matching hits from IT  constraint Refit  electron charge (+/-)

  21. Points to be discussed • SSD status / performance / future • GEMD; fast, reliable gas detector, COMPAS experience, 10x10 cm2 active size, XY data with q-selection power and “scaler” data to solve TPC sp.ch. distortions corrections on a “track” level (?); man-power support (MIT, Yale); needs “some R&D” ( low mass construction approach, FEE); good progress with foil mass-production. • Si one sided strip detector: does not need R&D, reliable and good tested technology, SSD substitution and EEMC direction (pp); man-power support (MIT) • Si pixel detector: the best way (my opinion) to get in STAR very powerful and reliable Vertex Detector; mass-production is in a progress and a lot of such detectors will be installed in nearest future (ALICE, LHCB, PHENIX). It is crucial to be “in a line” and keep a control and get an experience (can LBL takes a care?) One layer will help a lot (special for 2. ms read-out variant); it means ~490 sensors (<2. M$), but man-power, experience, DAQ,… are very difficult points. • Very crucial – to prepare and control a “global” mechanical structure for IT and HFT (together!!) as a one construction part. Alignment problem can be very difficult to get a high precision tracking data, and it should be flexible for different variants of IT setup(s). • STAR tracking is a “not easy” problem, and needs (may be) nonstandard decisions. It should be a “one person supervision” approach, with high “KEAL” factor, like HHW did a job for TPC

More Related