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

November 5, 2004V.Ammosov ITEP-Moscow, Russian CBM meeting ...

November 5, 2004V.Ammosov ITEP-Moscow, Russian CBM meeting 3 IHEP TOF group We were/are busy with RPCs since ATLAS muon system -HARP TOF system -R&D for ...
Read more

PPT - Status of RPC R&D for DHCAL in IHEP PowerPoint ...

Status of RPC R&D for DHCAL in IHEP. Vladimir Ammosov Institute for High Energy Physics Protvino Moscow region, Russia. Content. 1. Choice of RPC working ...
Read more

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

Official Full-Text Publication: Test of RPC operated in avalanche mode in a 5T magnetic field on ResearchGate, the professional network for scientists.
Read more

Status and plans for DHCAL in Europe

RPC or pads MicroMegas IHEP (Protvino) + collaborators LAPP (Annecy) + collaborators. February 13, 2007 V.Ammosov DESY, CALICE meeting 4 1m3 DHCAL ...
Read more

TESTOFRPCOPERATEDINAVALANCHEMODE ATA5TESLAMAGNETICFIELD

UDK537.613 М–24 Abstract Ammosov V. et al. Test of RPC Operated in Avalanche Mode at 5 Tesla Magnetic Field: IHEP Preprint 2006-24. – Protvino, 2006.
Read more

Bibliography of the HARP{CDP group - CERN

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

June 1, 2007V.Ammosov, LCWS2007/ILC2007 DESY Hamburg 1 ...

June 1, 2007V.Ammosov, LCWS2007/ILC2007 DESY Hamburg 3 DHCAL motivation Particle Flow Approach requires high longitudinal and transverse granularity in ...
Read more

November 5, 2004V.Ammosov ITEP-Moscow, Russian CBM meeting ...

November 5, 2004V.Ammosov ITEP-Moscow, Russian CBM meeting 1 IHEP possible participation in CBM TOF system Vladimir Ammosov Institute for High Energy Physics.
Read more