Ammosov RPC IHEP

62 %
38 %
Information about Ammosov RPC IHEP
Entertainment

Published on October 12, 2007

Author: Sudiksha

Source: authorstream.com

Status of RPC R&D for DHCAL in IHEP:  Status of RPC R&D for DHCAL in IHEP Vladimir Ammosov Institute for High Energy Physics Protvino Moscow region, Russia Content:  Content 1. RPC design for DHCAL 2. Tests of RPCs - in avalanche mode - in streamer mode 3. Comparison of operation modes 4. Conclusion RPC design for DHCAL:  RPC design for DHCAL RPC design for DHCAL:  RPC design for DHCAL RPC design for DHCAL:  RPC design for DHCAL Dead zones RPC tests:  RPC tests Set-up at 18T channel 5 GeV/c h+ beam RPC samples - 1.2, 1.6, 2.0 gaps - 1013 cm window glass - 16 pads of 1x1 cm2 - in tight box Trigger S1S2S3S4 for 2x2 cm2 area Di - preamp+disc RPC tests:  RPC tests Gas mixtures RPCs were tested in saturated avalanche and trigger modes For both modes TetraFluoroEthane (TFE) based mixtures were used TFE = freon 134A = C2H2F4 ~ 8 ionizations/mm Saturated avalanche mixtures = TFE/IB/SF6 IB = Iso-C4H10 as quencher, IB fraction = 5% SF6 as streamer suppresor, SF6 fractions = (2-5)% Streamer mixtures = TFE/IB/Ar or N2 IB = Iso-C4H10 as quencher, IB fraction= (5-20)% Ar/N2 as streamer developer, fractions = (2-20)% RPC in avalanche mode:  RPC in avalanche mode 1.2 mm gap RPC eff, <m> vs HV - 2% and 5% of SF6 For 2.2 mV Knee 8.2 kV 8.6 kV V 0.6 kV 0.6 kV Thresholds  - 0.6 mV  - 2.2 mV  - 5.0 mV 2.2 mV is best threshold eff >99% low <m> ~ 1.4 RPC in avalanche mode:  RPC in avalanche mode 1.6 mm gap RPC eff, <m> vs HV - 2% and 5% of SF6 For 2.2 mV Knee 8.8 kV 9.8 kV V 0.8 kV 0.8 kV Thresholds  - 0.6 mV  - 2.2 mV  - 5.0 mV 2.2 mV is best threshold eff >99% low <m> ~ 1.4 RPC in avalanche mode:  RPC in avalanche mode 2.0 mm gap RPC eff, <m> vs HV - 2% and 5% of SF6 For 2.2 mV Knee 10.0 kV 11.4 kV V 0.8 kV 0.6 kV Thresholds  - 0.6 mV  - 2.2 mV  - 5.0 mV 2.2 mV is best threshold eff >99% low <m> ~ 1.4 RPC in avalanche mode:  RPC in avalanche mode Typical Q and m distributions 1.2 mm, 2% SF6, 8.4 kV - working point, 2.2 mV thr Mean 2.8 pC RMS 1.6 pC Mean 1.47 RMS 0.58 Q ~ 107 e 2 adj pads RPC in avalanche mode:  RPC in avalanche mode <Q> and Q behavior, 2% SF6 1.2 mm 1.6 mm 2.0 mm For all gaps Q/<Q> ~ 1    knee RPC in avalanche mode:  RPC in avalanche mode Eff and <m> vs pad spacing No any prominent dependence for 0.3 -1.0 mm spacings RPC in avalanche mode:  RPC in avalanche mode Efficiency as a function of trigger position between two adjucent strips RPC in avalanche mode:  RPC in avalanche mode <m> vs anode thickness Should be as small as possible RPC in avalanche mode:  RPC in avalanche mode Eff and <m> vs beam incident angle No any prominent dependence for 900 - 450 angles RPC in avalanche mode:  RPC in avalanche mode Noise is increased as function of E 1.6 mm - ~0.2 Hz/cm2 1.2 mm - ~0.5 Hz/cm2  - 1.2 mm  - 1.6 mm  - 2.0 mm 1.6 mm knee 1.2 mm 2.0 mm Noise RPC in streamer mode:  RPC in streamer mode 1.2 mm gap, thr > 50 mV efficiency ~95% No 100% avalanche -streamer transition for any gas mixtures with Ar/N2 additions RPC in streamer mode:  RPC in streamer mode 1.2, 1.6, 2.0 mm gaps, thr > 50 mV efficiency ~95% No 100% avalanche -streamer transition for any gas mixtures with Ar/N2 additions Not lucky with streamer  also Q/<Q> ~ 0.6 as for avalanche RPC in streamer mode:  RPC in streamer mode Typical Q distributions on knee 1.2 mm 1.6 mm RPC in streamer mode:  RPC in streamer mode Eff ~95% and <m> ~ 1.4-1.5 for 200 mV thr 1.2 mm gap RPC in streamer mode:  RPC in streamer mode 1.2, 1.6, 2.0 mm gaps, thr > 50 mV Noise ~0.1 Hz/cm2 for 1.2 and 1.6 mm Comparison of avalanche and streamer modes:  Comparison of avalanche and streamer modes Rate capability streamer <4-5 Hz/cm2 avalanche <300 Hz/cm2 It is hard to work in streamer mode even for usual beam conditions Streamer is suitable only for very low rates like e+e- FLC Comparison of avalanche and streamer modes:  Comparison of avalanche and streamer modes As example, for 1.2 mm gap Comparison of avalanche and streamer modes:  Comparison of avalanche and streamer modes Avalanche mode is preferable due to: 1. higher efficiency (>99%) 2. smaller charge deposition (~102) - no observed ageing effects - higher rate capability (~102) R&D plans:  R&D plans 1. RPC samples with 64 ch on board March03 2. 40x25 cm2 RPC plane with 512 ch on board ? April03 3. 1 m3 DHCAL prototype June04 - 40 RPC planes of 1 m2 - 400 000(100 000) channels for 1 m2 (0.25 m2) surface in collaboration with ANL, Dubna, Ecol Pol Conclusion:  Conclusion 1. RPCs in avalanche mode are in favor to be used for TESLA DHCAL 2. Working conditions: -gas gap 1.2 -1.6 mm - gas mixture TFE/IB/SF6 - average induced charge ~2 pC (107 e) - efficiency > 99% - pad multiplicity ~ 1.5 - rate capability < 300 Hz/cm2 - noise 0.2-0.5 Hz/cm2 3. RO electronics (thr>1-2 mV) is challenge ( cost should be at ~0.1 Euro level)

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

V.Ammosov,A.Ivanilov,V.Koreshev,Yu.Sviridov,V.Zaets ...

Ammosov V.V. et al. Study of SF 6 Addition Influence on Narrow Gap RPC Performance: IHEP Preprint 99-53. – Protvino, 1999.
Read more

V.Ammosov,V.Gapienko,A.Kulemzin,A.Semak, Yu. Sviridov,V - IHEP

Ammosov V., Gapienko V., Kulemzin A. et al. Study of the Avalanche to Streamer Transition in Glass RPC Excited by UV Light.: IHEP Preprint 2002-11.
Read more

Proposal for cumulative process studies in light ion ...

V.Ammosov LINC2008, IHEP - Protvino 20.06.08 1 Proposal for cumulative process studies in light ion –nuclear interactions
Read more

Test of RPC operated in avalanche mode in a 5T magnetic ...

Ammosov V. et al . Preprint 2006-24 ... Test of RPC Operated in Avalanche Mode at 5 Tesla Magnetic Field: IHEP A multi-pad glass RPC with digital readout ...
Read more

Bibliography of the HARP{CDP group - CERN | Accelerating ...

Bibliography of the HARP{CDP group ... A. Ammosov, V. Gapienko, V. Koreshev, A. Semak, Yu. ... ‘Physics Performance of the Barrel RPC System of the HARP Ex-
Read more

CiteSeerX — AS A CANDIDATE TO A LARGE AREA THIN TIME-OF ...

Abstract. Submitted to PTE UDK 537.613 m–24 Ammosov V., Gapienko V.,Semak A. et al. Four-Gap Glass RPC as a Candidate to a Large Area Thin Time-of-Flight ...
Read more

A fast front-end electronics for the RPC detector in the ...

A fast front-end electronics for the RPC detector in the HARP experiment E. Usenko Abstract ... (IHEP Protvino, Russia, 2002). [2] V. Ammosov et al., ...
Read more

PowerPoint Presentation - NIU

RPC borrowed from Fermilab, ... postdoc assigned, 1st RPC meeting 11/1/02 at ANL. V.Ammosov (IHEP) – will use “standard” design, thickness 4.5 ...
Read more

Title: Study of the avalanche to streamer transition in ...

... Study of the avalanche to streamer transition in the glass RPC exited by UV light. Authors: V. Ammosov, V. Gapienko, A ... IHEP 2002-11 ...
Read more