Preliminary Results on NonProjective HCal Simulations

1
Preliminary Results on Non-Projective HCal
Simulations

• This presentation will probably involve audience
  discussion, which will create action items. Use
  PowerPoint to keep track of these action items
  during your presentation
• In Slide Show, click on the right mouse button
• Select Meeting Minder
• Select the Action Items tab
• Type in action items as they come up
• Click OK to dismiss this box
• This will automatically create an Action Item
  slide at the end of your presentation with your
  points entered.

• Dhiman Chakraborty, Guilherme Lima, Jeremy
  McCormick, Vishnu Zutshi
• NICADD / Northern Illinois University

2
Status Summary

• Last week
• overview, status and plans for short and
  medium term
• Today
• Non-projective Hcal geometry
• Geometry initialization
• Preliminary results

3
Why a non-projective HadCal?

• A projective geometry is
• easy to analyze (cal towers)
• easy to find cell neighbors, cones
• But it also
• needs many different cell sizes
• may have cells too big at outer layers
• cells may be too large at lower angles

4
Why a non-projective HCal?

• Fabricating a small number of cell sizes is
  simpler, cheaper and maybe even better
• Small cell sizes are nice for a digital
  calorimeter, but too many small cells may become
  a nightmare
• Hot cells / dead cells
• Space for readout
• Cost per channel
• Simulations are helpful to adjust cell dimensions
  in order to maximize performance/cost ratio.

5
First version of NP simulator

• Based on (projective) LCDG4
• Fixed cell sizes (rectangular for now)
• User provides cell dimensions, and simulator
  makes slight adjusts (few ) for integral numbers
  of cells along z, ?
• Only HCal for now, but plans for ECal

6
Preliminary tests

• Use single particles
• Muons, pions and electrons
• Fixed directions in space
• Different energies (2,5,10,20,30,50 GeV)
• Absolute energy deposition
• Comparison with projective geometry
• Same energy deposition per layer
• Number of hit cells reasonably scales with
  inverse of cell area (pions)
• Complex physics events

7
Energy in ECal absorber

• Estimate approx 8.7 MeV for a MIP

entries
Energy (MeV)
8
Energy in Ecal sensors
Estimate approx 0.2 MeV for a MIP
entries
Energy (MeV)
9
Energy in HCal absorber
Estimated about 31 MeV for a MIP
10 GeV Muons
50 GeV pions
10
Energy in HCal sensitive layers
Estimated about 2.4 MeV for a MIP
11
Number of hits in ECal
12
Number of hits in HCal
13
Comparison to LCDG4proj and GISMO
14
Hit distributions per layer
ECal
HCal
15
Last layers hit in each event
50 GeV pions
16
Total energy per layer(comparison to LCDG4proj
and GISMO)
50 GeV pions
Energy (MeV)
Layer
17
Total energy(based on GISMO sampling fractions)
18
Checking EM sampling fraction
Based on GISMO sampling fractions (a reevaluation
is needed!)
19
Conclusions

• JAS3 analysis classes available for general use
• Preliminary results look very encouraging
• Projective vs. non-projective values for energy
  depositions per layer are in good agreement
• Sampling fractions need to be reevaluated
• Next steps include
• replace SDJan03 for SDMar01
• analyze complex physics events in NP geometry
  (Vishnu?)
• extend NP geometry into EMCal
• use hexagonal cells
• whatever else is necessary to certify NP
  simulation(?)