Geant4 simulation of roman pots A. Kupco, P. Ruzicka, M. Tasevsky.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)
Advertisements

Proposal for a new design of LumiCal R. Ingbir, P. Ruzicka, V. Vrba October 07 Malá Skála.
Stefan Roesler SC-RP/CERN on behalf of the CERN-SLAC RP Collaboration
Studies for a silicon detector in a e/A collider Benedetto Di Ruzza BNL EIC Task Force meeting August 28 th 2014.
Simulation of Neutrino Factory beam and quasielastic scattering off electrons in the near detector Yordan Karadzhov University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”
EAR2 simulation update Collaboration board meeting Christina Weiss & Vasilis Vlachoudis.
Tomsk Polytechnic University1 A.S. Gogolev A. P. Potylitsyn A.M. Taratin.
Simulations with ‘Realistic’ Photon Spectra Mike Jenkins Lancaster University and The Cockcroft Institute.
Status of DHCAL Slice Test Data Analysis Lei Xia ANL-HEP All results preliminary.
Parameterized Shower Simulation in Lelaps: a Comparison with Geant4 Daniel Birt, Amy Nicholson.
M. Ruspa - FP420 meeting, DESY 18/05/06 1 G4 simulation: where are we? Marta Ruspa on behalf of Alexander Zokhin FP420 Collaboration Meeting DESY 18 th.
22/5/2011 Particle-ID and Tracking performance in CLIC_ILD1/27 CLIC_ILD particle identification and tracking performance J. Nardulli This talk in 2 parts:
Status of the Tagger Hall Background Simulation Simulation A. Somov, Jefferson Lab Hall-D Collaboration Meeting, University of Regina September
Particle Production of a Carbon/Mercury Target System for the Intensity Frontier X. Ding, UCLA H.G. Kirk, BNL K.T. McDonald, Princeton Univ MAP Spring.
The performance of LHCf calorimeter was tested at CERN SPS in For electron of GeV, the energy resolution is < 5% and the position resolution.
Simulations with MEGAlib Jau-Shian Liang Department of Physics, NTHU / SSL, UCB 2007/05/15.
SiD Cal R. Frey1 Some EGS Studies… Compare with Geant4  Questions of range/cutoff parameters EM Resolution understood? Moliere radius – readout gap relation.
Evaluation of G4 Releases in CMS (Sub-detector Studies) Software used Electrons in Tracker Photons in the Electromagnetic Calorimeter Pions in the Calorimeter.
Progress of HERD Simulation Ming XU ( 徐明 ), IHEP HERD 2 nd Workshop, IHEP, Beijing 1.
Design of the Photon Collimators for the ILC Positron Helical Undulator Adriana Bungau The University of Manchester Positron Source Meeting, July 2008.
Medium heavy Λ hyper nuclear spectroscopic experiment by the (e,e’K + ) reaction Graduate school of science, Tohoku University Toshiyuki Gogami for HES-HKS.
NEW COMMENTS TO ILC BEAM ENERGY MEASUREMENTS BASED ON SYNCHROTRON RADIATION FROM MAGNETIC SPECTROMETER E.Syresin, B. Zalikhanov-DLNP, JINR R. Makarov-MSU.
Implementing a dual readout calorimeter in SLIC and testing Geant4 Physics Hans Wenzel Fermilab Friday, 2 nd October 2009 ALCPG 2009.
NEUTRON OPTICS & SHIELDING GROUP NATALIIA CHERKASHYNA TAP MEETING 23 RD OF JANUARY, 2014 Latest Developments on Shielding and Backgrounds.
Atmospheric shower simulation studies with CORSIKA Physics Department Atreidis George ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI.
Hongyu Fu, Trigger group The Monte Carlo for Trigger Design of BES3 Scintillating Fibre BEMC Outline: Introduction to BES3 Scin-fibre BEMC Trigger.
Status of MAPS Geometry Simulation Yoshinari Mikami University of Birmingham 21 th April 2006 MAPS Meeting at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
V.Dzhordzhadze1 Nosecone Calorimeter Simulation Vasily Dzhordzhadze University of Tennessee Muon Physics and Forward Upgrades Workshop Santa Fe, June 22,
Effects of Surrounding Materials on Proton-Induced Energy Deposition in Large Silicon Diode Arrays Christina L. Howe 1, Robert A. Weller 1, Robert A. Reed.
XXXI International Cosmic Ray Conference, ICRC 2009 Lodz, Poland, July 7-15, 2009 Time structure of the Extensive Air Shower front with the ARGO-YBJ experiment.
Difference between Roman Pots and VELO Very forward tracking is typically done using detectors located in Roman pots. They are far away from the interaction.
Latifa Elouadrhiri Jefferson Lab Hall B 12 GeV Upgrade Drift Chamber Review Jefferson Lab March 6- 8, 2007 CLAS12 Drift Chambers Simulation and Event Reconstruction.
LHCf Report Takashi SAKO for the LHCf Collaboration 18-Dec-2009 CERN Main Auditorium.
SIGNAL AND BACKGROUND SIMULATION AT THE RECOMBINATION CHAMBER Vadim TALANOV CERN and IHEP, Protvino Joint LHC Machine-Experiments Workshop on Very Forward.
“The Cosmic Ray composition in the knee region and the hadronic interaction models” G. Navarra INFN and University, Torino, Italy For the EAS-TOP Collaboration.
Min-DHCAL: Measurements with Pions Benjamin Freund and José Repond Argonne National Laboratory CALICE Collaboration Meeting Max-Planck-Institute, Munich.
EAS Time Structures with ARGO-YBJ experiment 1 - INFN-CNAF, Bologna, Italy 2 - Università del Salento and INFN Lecce, Italy A.K Calabrese Melcarne 1, G.Marsella.
Temporal and spatial structure of the Extensive Air Shower front with the ARGO- YBJ experiment 1 - INFN-CNAF, Bologna, Italy 2 - Università del Salento.
Notes About MARS background simulations for BTeV A Summary of how far we’ve come and how far we have to go. By DJ Wagner 9/12/98 Vanderbilt University.
CERF simulation Mitsu 14th Feb Simulation components Production Transportation Detector response
Neutron measurement with nuclear emulsion Mitsu KIMURA 27th Feb 2013.
Study of SoLID Baffle, Background and Trigger Zhiwen Zhao UVa, ODU&JLab 2014/07/09 1.
Lucia Bortko | Optimisation Studies for the BeamCal Design | | IFJ PAN Krakow | Page 1/16 Optimisation Studies for the BeamCal Design Lucia.
Radiation study of the TPC electronics Georgios Tsiledakis, GSI.
1 Limitations in the use of RICH counters to detect tau-neutrino appearance Tord Ekelöf /Uppsala University Roger Forty /CERN Christian Hansen This talk.
OUTGOING NEUTRONS IN CALET CALET AIMS AT DETECTING UHE CR ELECTRONS HIGH REJECTION FACTOR FOR PROTONS/NUCLEI NEEDED POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT RESPECT ‘STANDARD’
Energy Loss Simulation for the CDF Run II W Mass Measurement Tom Riddick University College London.
FCAL Krakow meeting, 6. May LumiCal concept including the tracker R. Ingbir, P.Růžička, V. Vrba.
N_TOF EAR-1 Simulations The “γ-flash” A. Tsinganis (CERN/NTUA), C. Guerrero (CERN), V. Vlachoudis (CERN) n_TOF Annual Collaboration Meeting Lisbon, December.
RAON Simulation Chanyoung Llagi Lee Yonsei HEP.
Multi-Strange Hyperons Triggering at SIS 100
Branch of JSC URSC – ISDE, Russian Federation
Inter-comparison of Particle production (2)
The Optimized Sensor Segmentation for the Very Forward Calorimeter
GAMMA-400 performance a,bLeonov A., a,bGalper A., bKheymits M., aSuchkov S., aTopchiev N., bYurkin Y. & bZverev V. aLebedev Physical Institute of the Russian.
Report to Delta Review: Hadronic Validation
Panagiotis Kokkas Univ. of Ioannina
GAMOS tutorial Shielding Exercises
Polarized WACS Experiment (E ) Using Compact Photon Source (CPS)
The LHC collider in Geneva
Geometry of experimental setup for studies of inverse kinematics reactions with ROOT Students*: Dumitru Irina, Giubega Lavinia-Elena, Lica Razvan, Olacel.
Assessment of BLM thresholds at cold magnets
Stand Alone Simulation & Particle Gun Generator
Russian Research Center “ Kurchatov Institute”
Higgs Factory Backgrounds
GEANT Simulations and Track Reconstruction
GEANT SIMULATION of CREAM-I
PbWO4 Cherenkov light contribution to Hamamatsu S8148 and Zinc Sulfide–Silicon avalanche photodiodes signals F. KOCAK, I. TAPAN Department of Physics,
Physics event timing Use Pythia to generate hadronic decays at 125 GeV
Background Simulations at Fermilab
Presentation transcript:

Geant4 simulation of roman pots A. Kupco, P. Ruzicka, M. Tasevsky

Geometry setup 8 m 4.5 cm 10  (300μm Si + 100μm Cu) Steal 200μm 7 TeV proton Pot 1Pot 2 Simulation was done using stand alone Geant4.9 code The code uses QGSP-EMV hadronic physics list The number of generated events is Steal windows: 70% Fe, 19% Cr, 10% Ni, 1% Mn, density = 8.02 g/cm 3 Doped silicon: 28.5% Si, 39% F, 32.5% O, density = 2.5 g/cm 3 Copper of thickness 100μm is between each silicon layers

Geant4 studies Distribution of polar angle of proton momentum behind pot 1 Distribution of polar angle of proton momentum behind pot 2 Mean: 0.5 μrad RMS: 0.3 μrad gives mean error on the second pot 4 μm Mean: 0.8 μrad RMS: 0.46 μrad

Geant4 studies Energy spectrum of secondary charged particles in Si of pot 2 Distribution of number of secondary charged particles in Si of pot 2 Mean value of number of secondary particles in active silicon layer in the second pot is equal to These particles were created as result of initial proton pass through the first pot. 92% of events have no charged secondary particle 4% of events have one charged secondary particle Secondary charged particle position with respect to the initial proton (Xproton – Xsecondary)

Number of photons and photon energy spectrum in active silicon layer of second pot. Mean value of number of photons is equal to % of events are without photons 1% of events have one photon Geant4 studies Relative position of secondary gamma particles with respect to initial proton (X proton – X secondary ) in the active silicon layer of the second pot

Slice0 number of initial protons which die in pot 1 Slice1 number of initial protons which die in pot 2 Slice2 number of protons which survive 8 m Pot 1Pot 2 Geant4 studies 7 TeV proton

Geant4 studies Distribution of number of photons behind pot 2 Mean 0.9 RMS 5.4 Energy spectrum of photons behind pot 2. Mean 43 GeV RMS 81 GeV Energy spectrum of charged secondary particles behind pot 2. Mean 64 GeV RMS 101 GeV Distribution of number of charged secondary particles behind pot 2. Mean 1 RMS 5.5

Geant4 studies 7 TeV proton 4.5 cm 35.15% of events are lost Mean 10.8 RMS 33 Mean 3 GeV RMS 30.5 GeV Distribution of polar angle of proton momentum after passing 4.5 cm of steal Mean 5.2 μrad RMS 3.5 μrad

Summary The average polar angle of the initial proton behind the first pot is 0.5 μrad. This gives error in measurement in second pot 4 μm. Mean value of number of secondary particles in active silicon layer in the second pot is equal to 1.17 The 92.31% of events have no charged secondary particle. About 5% of events lose the initial proton due to passing the roman pots. In case that initial proton pass the 4.5 cm of the steal we lose 35% of events.

Thank you for your attention