shower study for Si-W prototype ECAL with ASIC readout

189 views

Published on

Prototype Si-W electromagnetic calorimeter tested with 1-5 GeV electron beam at DESY. The result which is related, shower development for different radiation length was discussed.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
189
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

shower study for Si-W prototype ECAL with ASIC readout

  1. 1. Shower study for 1-5 GeV energy electron beam with ASICSKIROC readout Elmaddin Guliyev LLR – Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3 Palaiseau, France 26.09.2012- Analysis meeting
  2. 2. Tungsten plate Detector Interface (DIF) to DAQ (LDA) am bee- Very front-electronics (FVE8) ASIC+Si wafer e- beam energy: 1-5 GeV Rate: 1 KHz – 5 Hz 6 layer of detector=6*(Si wafer+4ASIC+DIF)
  3. 3. 1 GeV e- hit with 6 layer of detector: between the layersand in front of 1st layer W plate placed. All the run was same: 3600 sec.
  4. 4. Example of MIP for one chip, channel,column Pedestal 1st MIP 2nd MIP
  5. 5. MIP position variety:
  6. 6. MIP position variety:
  7. 7. Shower profile for 6 layer/detector for 1 GeV electron / X0
  8. 8. Beam alignment or leakage in configuration????
  9. 9. Hit per event for different radiation length
  10. 10. X profile GAUS fitUse to estimate:Shower size-sigma from gausBeam alignment-mean from gaus
  11. 11. Mean value of Gaus fit of shower on X profile Deviation ==> beam alignment
  12. 12. Shower size for different radiation length:Size of shower determined from sigma of Gaus fit of shower profile. Shower size (sigma gaus)
  13. 13. Shower study in radial direction for different radiation length.e-
  14. 14. Efficiency for the layers (detectors)1 GeV electron beamX0 and 6X0 configuration
  15. 15. Hit for one event in same BCID
  16. 16. Summary:Hit distribution for different radiation length analysed.The size of shower estimated for different radiation length.It seems beam not aligned proper or we had a shower leakagedue to particle loose, which gives the discrepancy in end of X0 and beginning of3X0 configuration (same for 3X0 and 6X0).Need to verify it with same geometry with simulation!
  17. 17. Hold calibrationOptimized value: 100-110 uDelay

×