Initialize a repository for writeup
This commit is contained in:
315
AlCapSimulationReport/report.tex
Normal file
315
AlCapSimulationReport/report.tex
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,315 @@
|
||||
\documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}
|
||||
\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
|
||||
\usepackage{ucs}
|
||||
\usepackage{amsmath}
|
||||
\usepackage{amsfonts}
|
||||
\usepackage{amssymb}
|
||||
\usepackage{labelfig}
|
||||
\usepackage{epsf}
|
||||
\usepackage{float}
|
||||
\usepackage{url}
|
||||
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
|
||||
\usepackage{verbatim}
|
||||
\usepackage{color,listings}
|
||||
\usepackage{booktabs}
|
||||
\usepackage{tabularx}
|
||||
\usepackage{natbib}
|
||||
\usepackage[all]{xy}
|
||||
\usepackage{graphicx}
|
||||
\usepackage{graphics}
|
||||
\usepackage{multirow}
|
||||
|
||||
%\makeatletter
|
||||
%\def\@xobeysp{}
|
||||
%\makeatother
|
||||
%\setlength{\textwidth}{14cm}
|
||||
\author{Tran Hoai Nam}
|
||||
\title{Short report on Geant4 simulation for proton measurements at PSI}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{document}
|
||||
|
||||
\maketitle
|
||||
%\tableofcontents
|
||||
%\listoffigures
|
||||
%\listoftables
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Set up}
|
||||
The geometry for the simulation is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:geo}, and
|
||||
parameters of each component are listed in Table~\ref{tb:para}. Each dE/dx
|
||||
package consists of:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item one dE detector: silicon, 65 $\mu$m thick
|
||||
\item one E detector: silicon, 1500 $\mu$m thick
|
||||
\item charged particles veto counter: plastic scintillator, 1 mm thick
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
There is
|
||||
a small gap of 1 mm between the detectors in each dE/dx package, and distance
|
||||
from the beam counter to beam window is 5 mm. The germanium detector
|
||||
I used is just a simple cylinder. I have asked Malachi (from PNNL) to
|
||||
implement a more realistic geometry for it based on the detector PNNL group
|
||||
has.
|
||||
\begin{figure}[htpb]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{figs/geo_cut}\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figs/geo_top}
|
||||
\caption{Geometry used in the simulation, left: cut view, right: top view}
|
||||
\label{fig:geo}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{table}[htb]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\caption{Parameters used in simulation}
|
||||
\vskip1ex
|
||||
\label{tb:para}
|
||||
\begin{tabularx}{0.9\textwidth}{lll}
|
||||
\toprule
|
||||
Items & Material & Dimensions \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
Vacuum chamber & Stainless steel & H = 380 mm \\
|
||||
& & $\Phi$ = 310 mm \\
|
||||
& & 5 mm thick wall \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
Beam window & Mylar & 200 $\mu$m thick ($2\times 100$ $\mu$m,\\
|
||||
& & not shown in fig)\\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
Muon counter & Plastic & 5$\times$5 cm$^2$ \\
|
||||
and muon veto & scintillator & 0.5 mm thick \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
dE counter & Silicon & 5$\times$5 cm$^2$ \\
|
||||
& & 65 $\mu$m thick \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
E counter & Silicon & 5$\times$5 cm$^2$ \\
|
||||
& & 1500 $\mu$m thick \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
Charged particle& Plastic & 5$\times$5 cm$^2$ \\
|
||||
veto & scintillator & 1 mm thick \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
Target & Si/Al & 5$\times$5 cm$^2$ \\
|
||||
& & various thickness 50 $-$ 200 $\mu$m \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
Ge detector & Germanium & H = 30 mm \\
|
||||
& & $\Phi$ = 30 mm \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
Lead shield & Lead & 5$\times$5 cm$^2$ \\
|
||||
& & 2 mm thick \\
|
||||
|
||||
\bottomrule
|
||||
\end{tabularx}
|
||||
\end{table}
|
||||
|
||||
%\begin{figure}[htpb]
|
||||
%\centering
|
||||
%\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figs/geo_top}
|
||||
%\caption{Top view of the geometry}
|
||||
%\label{fig:topview}
|
||||
%\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Choosing initial muon momentum}
|
||||
|
||||
Initial muon momentum is varied to maximize muon stopping ratio in the target,
|
||||
the muon momentum at the target, after passing through the beam counter and the
|
||||
chamber window is plotted in the Figure~\ref{fig:mu_at_target}.
|
||||
Other parameters of the muon beam are:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item muon momentum spread 2 \%
|
||||
\item Gaussian spatial spread, $\sigma_x = \sigma_y = 5$ mm
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}[!htpb]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/mu_at_target}
|
||||
\caption{Momentum of muons at the target with different initial momentum}
|
||||
\label{fig:mu_at_target}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
I also set the target area to be 15$\times$15 cm$^2$ to see where the muons are
|
||||
scattered after the chamber window. The results are shown in
|
||||
Figure~\ref{fig:mu_hit_pos_200um}.
|
||||
\begin{figure}[!htpb]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/mu_hit_pos_200um_target}
|
||||
\caption{Hit position of muons on target with different initial muon
|
||||
momentum, the red box is the actual area of the $5\times5$ cm$^2$ target}
|
||||
\label{fig:mu_hit_pos_200um}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
Muon stopping ratio for different target thicknesses are listed in the
|
||||
Table~\ref{tb:stpratio}.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{table}[htb]
|
||||
\begin{center}
|
||||
\caption{Muon stopping ratio (\%) in target when adjusting initial muon
|
||||
momentum}
|
||||
\label{tb:stpratio}
|
||||
\vskip1ex
|
||||
%\scalebox{0.75}{
|
||||
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
|
||||
\toprule
|
||||
& 50 $\mu$m & 100 $\mu$m & 150 $\mu$m & 200 $\mu$m \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
30 MeV/c & 7.8 & - & - & - \\
|
||||
29 MeV/c & 40.2 & 6.7 & - & - \\
|
||||
28 MeV/c & 51.7 & 38.7 & 4.2 & - \\
|
||||
27 MeV/c & 43.0 & 38.5 & 33.1 & 1.3 \\
|
||||
26 MeV/c & 31.4 & 31.4 & 31.3 & 22.5 \\
|
||||
25 MeV/c & 8.1 & 8.0 & 8.1 & 8.0 \\
|
||||
\bottomrule
|
||||
\end{tabular}
|
||||
%}
|
||||
\end{center}
|
||||
\end{table}
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\section{Rate estimation}
|
||||
I have run the simulation with different thickness of the target: 50, 100, 150
|
||||
and 200 $\mu m$, initial momentum of muons is chosen from
|
||||
Table~\ref{tb:stpratio}.
|
||||
4$\times 10^6$ muons were generated in each run.
|
||||
The result of rate estimation for 10$^4$ muons/sec is shown in
|
||||
Table~\ref{tb:rates}. Some notes:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item triggered event: has hit on beam counter, AND no hit on veto counter
|
||||
\item stopped muon event: triggered, AND muon actually stopped inside the
|
||||
target. This is obtained by tracking the original muon, and seeing that it
|
||||
really stopped inside the target.
|
||||
\item hit on dE/dx package: coincidence with dE and E counters, AND no hit on
|
||||
charged particle veto.
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
%\begin{table}[htb]
|
||||
%\centering
|
||||
%\caption{Rate for 10$^4$ muons/sec}
|
||||
%\vskip1ex
|
||||
%\label{tb:rate}
|
||||
%\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
|
||||
%\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{ccccccccc}
|
||||
%\toprule
|
||||
%Target & Triggered & Stopped &\multicolumn{3}{c}{Rate dE/dx
|
||||
%1 (s$^{-1}$)}&
|
||||
%\multicolumn{3}{c}{Rate dE/dx 2 (s$^{-1}$)}\\
|
||||
%\cline{4-9}
|
||||
%thickness & \% & \% & All &Proton&$\mu$ & All &Proton&$\mu$ \\
|
||||
%\midrule
|
||||
%200 $\mu m$ & 98.7 & 41.9 & 19.8&2.9 &0.2 & 126.9& 6.7 &104.7\\
|
||||
%150 $\mu m$ & 96.5 & 34.9 & 17.1&2.7 &0.2 & 124.7& 7.5 &105.2\\
|
||||
%100 $\mu m$ & 87.3 & 8.6 & 7.9&1.7 &0.2 & 122.8& 5.1 &114.6\\
|
||||
%50 $\mu m$ & 77.7 & 0.2 & 4.5&1.0 &0.1 & 100.1& 2.9 &96.7\\
|
||||
%\bottomrule
|
||||
%\end{tabularx}
|
||||
%\end{tabular}
|
||||
%\end{table}
|
||||
\begin{table}[htb]
|
||||
\begin{center}
|
||||
\caption{Estimated event rates for various targets of different
|
||||
thickness. Incoming $10^{4}$ muons/sec and proton
|
||||
emission rate of
|
||||
0.15 per muon capture are assumed. The efficiency of
|
||||
Si detector of 100 \% is also assumed. }
|
||||
\label{tb:rates}
|
||||
\vskip1ex
|
||||
\scalebox{0.85}{
|
||||
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
|
||||
\toprule
|
||||
Target & Muon momentum &\% Stopping & Event rate (Hz) & Event rate (Hz) \\
|
||||
thickness ($\mu$m)& (MeV/c) &in target & All particles
|
||||
& Protons \\
|
||||
\midrule
|
||||
50 & 26 & 22.2 & 34.8 & 4.6 \\
|
||||
100 & 27 & 32.9 & 48.5 & 5.4 \\
|
||||
150 & 28 & 38.5 & 54.5 & 4.8 \\
|
||||
200 & 28 & 51.2 & 47.7 & 4.5 \\
|
||||
|
||||
%50 & 26 & 22.2 & 14.8 & 2.3 \\
|
||||
%100 & 27 & 32.9 & 18.5 & 2.1 \\
|
||||
%150 & 28 & 38.5 & 16.6 & 1.7 \\
|
||||
%200 & 28 & 51.2 & 19.8 & 2.0 \\
|
||||
\bottomrule
|
||||
\end{tabular}
|
||||
}
|
||||
\end{center}
|
||||
\end{table}
|
||||
|
||||
%The reasons why stopping ratio is very small compares to trigger ratio are:
|
||||
%\begin{itemize}
|
||||
%\item some muons stopped inside the beam counter,
|
||||
%\item and, some muons that passed the beam counter are scattered off the
|
||||
%target (the distance from the beam counter to the target is 210 mm).
|
||||
%\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
%To investigate those effects, I fixed the target thickness to 200 $\mu m$, and
|
||||
%varied the thickness of beam counter from 0.7 mm to 1.5 mm. Fraction of muons
|
||||
%stopped in the beam counter, fraction that goes to the target are shown in
|
||||
%Table~\ref{tb:stop}. Some figures on momentum of original muons, and muons that
|
||||
%hit the target, and spatial distribution of muons that hit target are presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Note:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item \% get to target = $\frac{\text{number of muons hit the target}}
|
||||
{\text{total number of muons generated}}$
|
||||
\item \% stop in target = $\frac{\text{number of muons stopped inside target}}
|
||||
{\text{number of muons hit target}}$
|
||||
\item \% total stopping efficiency = $\frac{\text{number of muons stopped inside
|
||||
target}}{\text{total number of muons generated}}$
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
%\begin{table}[htb]
|
||||
%\centering
|
||||
%\caption{Percentage of stopping muon}
|
||||
%\vskip1ex
|
||||
%\label{tb:stop}
|
||||
%\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
|
||||
%\toprule
|
||||
%Beam counter & \% stop in & \% get to & \% stop in & \% total stopping \\
|
||||
%thickness & beam counter& target & target & efficiency\\
|
||||
%\midrule
|
||||
%0.7 mm & 0.02 & 64 & 34 & 42 \\
|
||||
%0.8 mm & 0.04 & 57 & 66 & 40 \\
|
||||
%0.9 mm & 0.06 & 51 & 89 & 45 \\
|
||||
%1.0 mm & 0.09 & 43 & 98 & 42 \\
|
||||
%1.1 mm & 0.2 & 35 & 99.4 & 35 \\
|
||||
%1.2 mm & 1.4 & 24 & 99.7 & 24 \\
|
||||
%1.3 mm & 12 & 12 & 99.7 & 12 \\
|
||||
%1.4 mm & 43 & 3 & 99.8 & 3 \\
|
||||
%1.5 mm & 79 & 0.5 & 99.9 & 0.5 \\
|
||||
%\bottomrule
|
||||
%\end{tabular}
|
||||
%\end{table}
|
||||
|
||||
%\begin{figure}[!htpb]
|
||||
%\centering
|
||||
%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/mu_at_target}
|
||||
%\caption{Momentum of muons when entered target at different thickness of beam
|
||||
%counter}
|
||||
%\label{fig:mom}
|
||||
%\end{figure}
|
||||
%\begin{figure}[!htpb]
|
||||
%\centering
|
||||
%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/mu_at_target_all}
|
||||
%\caption{Momentum of muons when entered target at different thickness of beam
|
||||
%counter, in comparison with original muon momentum}
|
||||
%\label{fig:mom_aio}
|
||||
%\end{figure}
|
||||
%\begin{figure}[!htpb]
|
||||
%\centering
|
||||
%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/xy_target}
|
||||
%\caption{Spatial of muon hits on target when changing beam counter thickness}
|
||||
%\label{fig:xy}
|
||||
%\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Side notes on structure of the output ROOT file}
|
||||
I used ROOT TObject to construct the output of the simulation (as pointed out
|
||||
by Malachi, this is not convenient for analysing).
|
||||
An event contains following information:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item event id,
|
||||
\item deposited energies in all detectors and target,
|
||||
\item a flag to show if there is a muon stopped inside the target,
|
||||
\item hits on each detectors, each hit has:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item type of the hit: initial muon stopped in the target, a particle
|
||||
entered or exited a detector, or a new particle is spawned in
|
||||
a detector
|
||||
\item a detector id,
|
||||
\item particle info: name, energy, hit position, time
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
\end{document}
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user