Scribd
Upload
18 views18 pages

GLC Detector Upgrade

Uploaded by

sumitwalia177
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views18 pages

GLC Detector Upgrade

Uploaded by

sumitwalia177
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 18

GLC Detector

Geometry

Y. Sugimoto
Introduction
 Figure of merit : Main Tracker

720
t t
2
p / p  ( 3 .)
BL2
3
n4
 : Spatial resolution
B : Magnetic field
L : Tracking length
n : Number of samplings
 Figure of merit : Calorimeter
 jet2 = ch2 + 2 + nh2 + confusion2 + threashold2
 Separation of charged particles and /nh is important (See
J.C. Brient’s talk at LCWS2004)
 Charged particles should be spread out by B field
 Lateral size of EM shower of  should be as small as possi
ble ( ~ Rmeffective: effective Moliere length)
Barrel: B Rin2/ Rmeffective
Endcap: B Z2/ Rmeffective
Rin : Inner radius of Barrel ECAL
Z : Z position of EC ECAL front face
(Actually, it is not so simple. Even with B=0, photon energy i
nside a certain distance from a charged track scales as ~R i
n )
2
Simulation by J.C. Brient
e+e-  ZH  jets at Ecm=500GeV

SD (6T)

TESLA (4T)
Effective Moliere Length
xa xg
Effective Molire Length = Rm (1+xg/xa)

Gap : Sensor + R.O. elec + etc.


Absorber
W : Rm ~ 9mm
Pb : Rm ~ 16mm
B=0
Comparison of Detector
Models
SD TESLA GLC LD JLC
Solenoid B(T) 5 4 3 3 2
Rin(m) 2.48 3.0 3.75 3.7 4.25
L(m) 5.8 9.2 6.8 9.4 9.1
Est(GJ) 1.4 2.3 1.0 1.7 1.1
Tracker Rmin (m) 0.2 0.36 0.45 0.5 0.45
Rmax(m) 1.25 1.62 1.55 2.0 2.3
m 7 150 85 150 100
Nsample 5 200 50 144 100
pt/pt2 3.9e-5 1.5e-4 2.9e-4 1.6e-4 1.3e-4
Comparison of Detector
Models
SD TESLA GLC LD JLC
ECAL Rin(m) 1.27 1.68 1.6 2.0 2.5
ptmin 1.9 2.0 1.4 1.8 1.5
BRin2 8.1 11.3 7.7 12.0 12.5
Type W/Si W/Si Pb/Sci Pb/Sci Pb/Sci
Rm(mm) 18 24.4 25.5 21.3 21.3
BRin2/Rm 448 462 301 565 588
Z 1.72 2.83 2.05 3.0 2.9
BZ2/Rm 822 1311 494 1271 792
X0 21 24 27 29 29
Total  5.5 5.2 7.3 6.9 6.9
t (m) 1.18 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.5
Possible modification of GLC
Detector
 Larger Rmax of the tracker and Rin of ECAL
 Keep solenoid radius same:
 Somewhat thinner CAL (but still 6), but does it matter?
 Use W/Sci(/Si) instead of Pb/Sci for ECAL
 Effective Rm: 25.5mm  16.2mm (2.5mm W / 2.0mm Gap)

 Much smaller segmentation by Si pad layers

 Put ECCAL at larger Z  Longer Solenoid


 Preferable for B-field uniformity if TPC is used

 If l*=4.3 (3.5) m is adopted,


 10 cm thick W shield around the support tube is not necessary

 Rmin of the tracker can be reduced


 It is preferable Z
pole-tip < l* both for neutron b.g. and QC support
GLC B-field non-uniformity
z max
Br
TESLA TDR Limit: 
0
Bz
dz  2 mm
mm

R=0.1m

TESLA TDR Limit


Z (m)
R=2.0m

by H.Yamaoka
Comparison of Detector
Models
SD TESLA GLD LD JLC
Solenoid B(T) 5 4 3 3 2
Rin(m) 2.48 3.0 3.75 3.7 4.25
L(m) 5.8 9.2 8.4 9.4 9.1
Est(GJ) 1.4 2.3 1.2 1.7 1.1
Tracker Rmin (m) 0.2 0.36 0.40 0.5 0.45
Rmax(m) 1.25 1.62 2.05 2.0 2.3
m 7 150 150 150 100
Nsample 5 200 220 144 100
pt/pt2 3.9e-5 1.5e-4 1.1e-4 1.6e-4 1.3e-4
Comparison of Detector
Models
SD TESLA GLD LD JLC
ECAL Rin(m) 1.27 1.68 2.1 2.0 2.5
ptmin (GeV/c) 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.5
BRin2 8.1 11.3 13.2 12.0 12.5
Type W/Si W/Si W/Sci/Si Pb/Sci Pb/Sci
Rm(mm) 18 24.4 16.2 21.3 21.3
BRin2/Rm 448 462 817 565 588
Z 1.72 2.83 2.8 3.0 2.9
BZ2/Rm 822 1311 1452 1271 792
X0 21 24 27 29 29
Total  5.5 5.2 6.0 6.9 6.9
t (m) 1.18 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.5
EM Calorimeters
 Area of EM CAL
(Barrel + Endcap)
 SD: ~40 m2 / layer
 TESLA: ~80 m2 / layer
 GLD: ~ 100 m2 / layer
 (JLC: ~130 m2 / layer)
Global Geometry
Global Geometry
Interaction Region
Summary
 The LC detector optimized for “Energy Flow Algorithm” is realize
d with a “Truly large detector”
 “Truly large detector” can be achieved with a minimal modificatio
n of GLC detector, and it can get better performance than any ot
her detector models.
 Compared with the present GLC detector,
 Rmin and Zmin of EM CAL should be increased
 Effective Moliere length of ECAL should be decreased
 Magnetic field and radius of the solenoid unchanged, but somewhat l
onger
 For TESLA detector, it is hard to make Rmin of ECAL larger bec
ause of the cost of the Si/W EMCAL
 The key is Calorimeter
Summary (Cont.)
 Things to do:
 Design new (longer) solenoid magnet with better uniformity

 TPC: Determine the requirement for the B-field uniformity

 CAL: Simulations

 Show the advantage of Large detector


 4 cm2 granularity is good enough for EFA?
 If not, how many Si layers are necessary?
 Consider tungsten (W) instead of lead (Pb)
 Or still stick to hardware compensation rather than EFA?
 How many ’s needed?
 Collaboration with US LD: GLC+LD = GLD

You might also like