Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Roger Rusack – The University of Minnesota. Outline  Physics Motivation:  Review the physics that drives the design of the forward region.  What.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Roger Rusack – The University of Minnesota. Outline  Physics Motivation:  Review the physics that drives the design of the forward region.  What."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Roger Rusack – The University of Minnesota

2 Outline  Physics Motivation:  Review the physics that drives the design of the forward region.  What do we know and what do we not know.  Radiation environment:  Reminder of the radiation levels that we can expect to see at the HL-LHC.  Discuss some detector options.  One example. 2

3 Precision Study of Higgs  Central priority of the field will be to study in detail the Higgs-like object seen at 125 GeV.  This means we will need a high precision detector capable of working delivering the same or better quality physics as we have now in CMS.  This includes understanding and measuring the VBF scattering with good precision. 3

4 WW VBF 4 To study this process we need the forward region. If we are to use particle flow to measure the jet energy, we need good tracking, highly segmented calorimetry and muons momentum for η ≤ 3.0 (at least). Dan Green

5 And  As we extend searches out to the highest masses missing E T will continue to be a critical tool in our searches for SUSY particles.  Assymetries in top physics production needs angular coverage out to the highest η. 5 All this means that the forward region will play a central role in the Physics of the HL-LHC. The question now is how to design the best detector for this region at a price that we can afford in time for installation in 2022.

6 What do we have now 6

7 The next Ten Years of the LHC 7 Mike Lamont May – 2021: Physics with ‘ultimate LHC’ parameter set Parameters‘Ultimate’ k (# of bunches)2808 N (bunch intensity)1.7*10 11 p β*β* 0.5 m Luminosity [cm -2 s -1 ]2.4*10 34 E[TeV]7 E[MJ]541

8 8

9 In 2022  Long Shutdown (LS3) Upgrade LHC  Replace tracker.  New track trigger.  New trigger.  Maybe replace ECAL barrel electronics.  Replace endcap electro-magnetic calorimeter.  Replace active components of endcap hadron calorimeter (maybe absorber).  Upgraded detector will need to operate at the highest luminosity and work effectively after operation up to 3,000 fb -1 in ten years. 9

10 Forward Detector  High eta regions will be more important then due to physics interests.  With ~5E34 cm -2 s -1 luminosities can expect to have average pile-up of ~100 – 200 events.  Radiation levels will be significantly higher than experienced before in HEP experiments.  Approaching levels of radiation typical for a reactor. 10

11 Design Thoughts  The best jet energy resolution in CMS has been achieved with particle flow techniques.  Particle flow requires a combination of tracking, calorimetry and muons working together.  Currently muon coverage in CMS ends at η = 2.4, the tracker at 2.5 and the endcap calorimeters at 3.0.  The number of interactions per bunch crossing will be ~

12 And  Do no harm --- CMS is a very good detector and we should not make it worse by trying to improve it. 12

13 Some Known Knowns  Parts of the ECAL endcap detector will have large attenuations in the crystals at the end of phase 1 and EE will in all likelihood need to be replaced.  HE will suffer significant damage in the innermost regions, with the tiles going black.  HF will receive a dose of 10 MGy at the eta of 5.  Neutron fluxes in all the calorimeters will be very large. 13

14 More Known Knowns  Extending the muon coverage to η = 3.0 requires removing shielding that protects against neutrons from the high eta region.  The problem to solve is how to build a high- performance detector that will survive unprecedented levels of radiation.  Time is short.  And so too is money. 14

15 Flux of neutrons after Phase M. Huhtinen: Neutron flux for 2,500 fb -1 SLHC Workshop 2004.

16 EE Radiation Levels. 16 > neutrons/cm 2 > neutrons/cm 2 > 10 5 Gy > Gy

17 Light Yield Losses in PbWO 4 17

18 What about HF?  Current estimates are that it will survive with light loss.  But: 18 The neutron flux at 2,500 fb -1. Current data indicates there will be light losses

19 and 19 RegionLS1EYETS 16-17LS2LS3LS4 Tracker BH 12  Sv/h35  Sv/h50  Sv/h65  Sv/h125  Sv/h EE(high  ) 0.25 mSv/h0.75 mSv/h1 mSv/h1.25 mSv/h2.5mSv/h HF(high  ) 5 mSv/h15 mSv/h20 mSv/h25 mSv/h50 mSv/h TAS region≤15mSv/h≤45mSv/h≤60mSv/h≤75mSv/h≤150mSv/h Expt cavern <0.5  Sv/h<1.5  Sv/h<2  Sv/h<2.5  Sv/h<5  Sv/h Radiation Levels at contact after one month after the start of LS3 So any work on the existing detector will need to be done with shielding of the personnel.

20 Detector Options/Ideas.  Tracker.  Significant work on highly rad tolerant silicon detectors – 3D silicon. An idea whose time has come?  Current plans are to cover out to η = 2.5. Discussion of possibilities to extend to higher eta for PF calorimetry.  Micromegas have been proposed for the far forward region.  Muons:  Current detectors are expected to cope with the rate.  To extend to high eta – will need to use GEM detectors or similar. 20

21 Calorimetry  Two main lines of thought:  Build a new ECAL and fix the hadron calorimeter.  Replace the electromagnetic calorimeter and re- furbish the hadron calorimeter with rad hard detector material.  Replace both with one homogeneous calorimeter. 21

22 Detector Material.  What detector materials do we know that will work at these ultra-high radiation levels.  Amorphous silicon  Quartz.  3D silicon – may be needed for the pixels at high eta.  Glasses.  Liquids.  LYSO  ….  High precision timing. 22

23 Possible EM Calorimeter 23 Shashlik design with LYSO Main idea is that the WLS acts a light source, but does not transport the light to the photosensor The quartz performs that function quartz wls Idea proposed by Randy Ruchti (Notre Dame)

24 New Photodetectors 24 First results from a GaAs SiPM photodetector Lightspin & UVA

25 Silicon Carbide  Bandgap of 4H-c SiC is 2.32 eV.  High bandgap material used in making LEDs, now showing up more in semiconductor and nan0-technology industry.  You can now buy JFETs and MOSFETs in SiC.  MOSFETs have been tested to 7.5 × neutrons/cm 2 and were operational.  Significant degradation at n/cm 2 seen by RD50.  Interesting detector development possibilities. 25

26 26 4H-SiC PIN480 Avalanche Photodiode: Recessed Window PECVD + Thermal SiO 2 SiO 2 n : + substrate n: 2000 nm, 4.5x10 18 cm -3 p: 200 nm, 2x10 18 cm - 3 p : 480 nm, - 1x10 16 cm - -3 p+:p+:p+:p+:200 nm, 1x10 nm, 1x10 19 cm -3 p-contact(Ni/Ti/Al/Au) n-contact(Ni/Ti/Al/Au) Thickness of p + : ~ 35 nm AR Coating (2300 Å) Joe Campbell – Electrical Engineering – University of Virginia

27 Quantum Efficiency 27

28 Amorphous Silicon  Amorphous Silicon (a:Si-H) has been studied as a possible rad hard detector materila for several years.  Idea is that it is like a severely damaged material to start with, so changes after irradiation are relatively small.  Problem good materials had an effective collection depth of ~5μ and charge collection times of order 100 ns. Making an efficient a:Si-H tracker was not feasible.  Never studied for calorimetry where there is more charge deposition.  Now a:Si-H is a major industry. Making it a very cheap material.  Also new meta-materials based on a:Si-H have much larger mobility than standard material. 28

29 One Example Idea  Use Čerenkov signal and the ionization signal in hadron calorimetry.  Not as in DREAM calorimeter for optimum resolution, but for a restricted volume calorimeter.  Main idea in the CMS – HF: sample hadronic shower in EM core only.  Tag only EM core with Čerenkov and measure the ionization.  Benefit: EM core of a hadron shower is in a cone ~10 cm diameter, all ionization is in a cone 1 m diameter.  Significantly reduces overlap between showers. 29

30 Straw-man Idea:  Cerenkov Light Detection:  Quartz plates with a layer of amorphous silicon  Use Silicon Carbide or GaAs APDs to detect the Čerenkov light in the quartz.  Couple signal to PCB – readout at outer radius.  Ionization detection.  Use a:Si-H as a readout material.  Lots of technical problems with this idea, but let’s look at how it would work. 30

31 Simulation:  Simulate ideal detector to understand detector performance.  Current on-going work lots of questions still to be understood.  Geant simulations done using CATS system developed here by Hans Wenzel.  All results presented here are from work at Minnesota by Peter Hansen - 0 th year grad student. 31

32 CATS Simulation  CATS –  1.01m x 1.01m, 1 cm square tiles  1.5 m total absorber width (brass)  Separate runs with different absorber  25 mm, 50 mm and 75 mm per layer.  Total absorber depth kept constant at 1.5 m.  Each layer detectors:  1 cm 2 tiles of 7 mm quartz & 5 mm scintillator.  Count only Cerenkov photons and ionization 32

33 100 GeV hadron shower 33

34 A 500 GeV Shower 34

35 Another 100 GeV Shower 35

36 Shower Size Study spatial extent of the showers by defining square annuli and adding up the ionization and Čerenkov light inside the annuli. 36 Study resolution we get using energy from tiles where there is Čerenkov light.

37 Shower Size mm absorber plates.

38 Resolution with 75 mm plates 38

39 Resolution with 50 mm plates 39

40 Questions  Simulation has so far concentrated on the resolution that can be obtained. Need to study the tails in the distributions.  Explore further the benefits of tracking the hadron shower development.  Two particle separation.  Optimize jet reconstruction with a tracker.  Evaluate performance inside the CMS detector.  Test structure in a test beam.  Can we reuse existing ones? 40

41 Conclusion  2022 is not that far away to design test and qualify a completely new calorimeter for CMS endcaps.  Technical challenges are large.  Collaboration with the Fermilab calorimeter R&D group would be very welcome. 41


Download ppt "1 Roger Rusack – The University of Minnesota. Outline  Physics Motivation:  Review the physics that drives the design of the forward region.  What."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google