FNAL BEAM TEST ANALYSIS

Adil Khan

Kyungpook National university

Korea-Japan Joint ScECAL Group Meeting

kobe University Japan

3rd September 2010

WORK LAYOUT

Introduction Prototype Beam Test Layout

Beam Test Preliminary Results of BT 2008 Preliminary Results of BT 2009

Plan

Scintillator_ Based Ecal

ScECAL

The 2nd ScECAL ProtoType• The 2nd prototype is 4 times larger

than the DESY BT module. (18 x 18 cm, 30 layers)• Fully adopt with extruded

scintillator.• Precise positioning of MPPC and

Fiber• Monitoring system• MPPC : 2160 readout channel.

BEAM TEST

Extensive test beam campaign

•FNAL: 2008, 2009• Wide variety of beam energies and particle species• 1 GeV to 60 GeV• muons, e±, π±

• ScECAL, AHCAL, TCMT Technologies

PEDESTAL DATA CHECK 2008

Using Gaussian Function.

Fitting Function : gauss->µped ± 3σped

Collect the Pedestal mean and Sigma Values of all the Run numbers

use the pedestal data for the MIP Calibration constant

SIGMA AND MEAN VALUES VS RUN NUMBER

Total 120 Run Number were checked.

Pedestal sigma and meanValues from the fitting showsThe stability of pedestal Distribution.

MIP SELECTION

Muon Event Recorded in Online Monitor

Strip =j

Layerx !=i

Event selectionExample: For X-Layer i, Strip j→Check a hit of the strip j on otherX-layers excepting i .(total 14 layers)MIP event Hit Definition:

ADC >ADCped + 3σped

Fitting MIP Distribution• Gaussian convoluted landau

distribution function

MIP SIGNAL 32GEV FOR 2008 DATA

Chi2/NDF Result from Fitting

Fitting all the channels• Using Gaussian Convoluted-Landau Function

The fitting for the entire channel work well Even the bad channels.

MIP CALIBRATION CONSTANT 2008

MIP Response Mapping

• The average of ADC Counts/MIP ~160 and RMS is ~31•The fluctuation is about 20%, which is coming from variation of the Light yield.

TEMPERATURE CORRECTION SCECAL TEMP VS HCALM3TEMP

9

1

2 3 4

Splitted into 4 parts , in order to makethe Temp distribution for linear Fit

hCALM3Temp(C)

ScE

CA

LTem

p(C

)

TEMPERATURE VARIATION OF MIP CONSTANT

10

Total 16 MIP runs were used to get the temperature correction factor .

The variation of temperature difference between MIP runs is about ~ 1.4 0C This shows temperature Effect seems to be very small or almost negligible

Correlated Temperature=P0* hCALM3 + P1

MipConst and Temperature Obtained Run by Run.

TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT

11

Temp(C)

Mip

Const

Used Linear fitting in Order to get the Temperature Correction Factor.

MipConst and corr-Temperature Obtained Run by Run for every strip. Temperature correlation depends on channel by channel

ENERGY DISTRIBUTION OF EACH POINT

12

3GeV

16GeV12GeV

25GeV 32GeV

6GeV

Without Temp CorrectionWith Temp CorrectionWith 2009 Temp data Correction

After using Temperature Correction Factor, the result is almost same, No significant difference. But2009 data temperature correction factor shows some change.

The wide shift in temperature is due to the damage in air conditioning system during 2009 data taking.

RESOLUTION AND LINEARITY THE LINES ARE THE FITTING RESULTS WITH THE FUNCTION OF :

13

EE stochasticconst

1

Energy Deposit in ScECAL (MIPS)

# of

cou

nts

1/sqrt(E)

Sig/E

In terms of using Temperature Correction factor seems not remove the large the large constant term for 2008 data

3 GeV6GeV

12GeV

16GeV

25GeV 32GeV

Without Temp CorrectionWith Temp CorrectionWith 2009 Temp data Correction

LINEARITY DEVIATION

14

The Deviation from Linear behavior of the energy spectrum is less than 5%

As, the temperature correction doesn’t show any big difference

First look into 2009 dataMip constant Correlation

Checked in similar way the 2009 data Mip constant correlation between 2009data Runs at low temperature and high Temperature Runs with 2008 data.

Plan & Schedule

Short Term Analysis (1~2 weeks)

• Proceed with the 2009 data for the Resolution, Linearity..

Detail Analysis (~2 months)

• Optimize all types of selection cut (Mip, electron)

• Temperature Correction for 2009 data

• Saturation Correction

• Geant4 Simulation for beam test

Evaluation of Systematic Uncertainty (1~2Months)

BACK UP

PEDESTAL CHECK 2009 DATA

CHI2/NDF RESULT FROM FITTING

19 Fitting all the channels• Using Gaussian Convoluted-Landau Function

MuonRun 32GeV, Layer1 2009 dataMip Distribution of High Temp Runs Mip Distribution of Low Temp Runs

20

Chi2/NDF Result from Fitting

Chi2/ndf of High Temp Runs

Chi2/ndf of Low Temp Runs

MIP CALIBRATION

MIP Calibration Constant

Data Entries Mean RMS

Low Temp Runs09 2160 143.7 27.87

High Temp Runs09 2160 178.2 32.69

2008 Mip Const 2160 160.8 31.39

Euquation Used for Temp Effect :

Esum += (slope*Nominal Temp+offset) /(Slope * HM3Temp + offset)*En

Tnominal = 25 0C