Overview of SoLID Jian-ping Chen

SoLID Collaboration Meeting June 13-14, 2012

•SoLID: large acceptance, capable of handling high luminosity (up to~1039 with baffle, up to ~1037 without baffle)

• Ideal for precision Inclusive-DIS (PVDIS) and SIDIS experiments• Possibility also for exclusive reactions

• Three Approved Experiments with “A” rating:• PVDIS (E12-10-007), (Paul’s talk)• SIDIS: (E12-10-006) and (E12-11-007) (Haiyan’s talk)

• Conditionally approved proposal: Proton SIDIS (Haiyan’s talk)

Condition: transversely polarized NH3 target compatible with SoLID

Progress: magnet design on-going

• New Ideas:• J/Psi Proposal: submitted to PAC39• Other possibilities (some discussed at the last meeting)

SoLID Experiments

SIDIS Requirements• Kinematics Coverage:

– 0.05 ~ 0.6 in x (valence)– 0.3 ~ 0.7 in z (factorization region)– PT up to ~ 1.5 GeV (TMD Physics)– Fixed target Q2 coverage 1-8

GeV2 (~ 2 GeV2 in ΔQ2 at fixed x)– CLEO: 9-17 degrees for 9-24 degrees for e

• Luminoisity:– unpolarized ~ 1037 N/cm2/s– polarized ~ 1036 N/cm2/s

• Polarized 3He Target:– ~ 60% higher polarization– Fast spin flip (<20 mins)

• Electron PID: (1-7 GeV/c)– <1% Pion contamination

• Pion PID:– <1% Kaons and Protons– <1% electron contamination

• Resolution:– < a few % in δP/P.– <1 mr in polar angle.– <10 mr in azimuthal angle – ~ 1-2 cm vertex resolution– Similar precision required.– A factor of 2 better achieved in MC

• DAQ:– ~ 3kHz Physics Coincidence– ~ 200 kHz Single electron– ~ 50 kHz Coincidence– Limits: 300 MB/s to tape.

PVDIS• 0.5% precision over broad

kinematics range. – 22-35 degrees– Beam Polarimetry – Control false asymmetries in

PID/Tracking.• New Cryotarget Design

– Challenges in mechanical engineering.

– Control of false asymmetry.• High luminosity 1039 N/cm2/s

– Baffle to block direct photons • Effectively reduce luminosities on

detectors. – Background in Cerenkov.– Radiation dose in Calorimeter.

• Similar to SIDIS requirement

• Electron PID: (2-7 GeV/c)– < ~1% Pion contamination– Gas Cerenkov + E&M

Calorimeter for < 3.0 GeV– Calorimeter alone for high

Momentum– GEM for tracking

• 30 sectors, each employs an independent DAQ system.– Simpler design than SIDIS. – < 10 kHz per sector

• Require L3 farm and online tracking.– Proof-of-principle of tracking

was achieved. • 2.5 kHz per sector @ 1 CPU @

3.0 GHz.

Design Considerations• Kinematic Coverage:

– CLEO magnet is ideal – In addition to 11 GeV, data taking at

8.8/6.6 GeV and also for radiative corrections

• Luminoisity-> high rate:– Requirement on GEMs, Cerenkov.– Radiation dose on E&M Calorimeter

and front end electronics. – Requirement on DAQ system.

• Electron PID:– Combination of E&M

calorimeter + Gas Cerenkov (SIDIS/PVDIS shared equipments)

– Advantage of coincidence measurement in SIDIS (additional Pion suppression)

• Pion PID (SIDIS):– Gas Cerenkov + E&M Calorimeter

to suppress electron. – TOF (MRPC) at low momentum to

suppress kaons/protons– Heavy Gas Cerenkov to suppress

kaons in high momentum.

GEM

SoLID- PVDIS Configuration

SoLID- SIDIS Configuration

PVDIS vs SIDIS

Can you find six differences between these panels?

Target Location, Baffles (PVDIS), Cerenkov’s,GEM Layout, Extra E-Cal, MRPC(SIDIS)

Status

Magnet Comparison

6 January 2012

Paul E. Reimer, Magnets, SoLID "Brainstorm" session10

CLEO magnet will produce the desired acceptance and resolution for both SIDIS and PVDIS

• Simulation GEANT3 GEANT4 based GEMC (adapted from

Hall B)Event generatorsMagnetic field (BaBar CLEO)Detector digitization

• Background Background for physicsFLUKA for neutron backgroundRadiation damage Baffle design

• Detector SimulationsGEM (adapted from SuperBB)Cherenkov (stand-alone GEANT4)EM calorimeter (stand-alone GEANT4)

•Tracking (Ole’s talk)

Simulation/Background/TrackingS. Riordan’s talk

L. Zana’s talk

O. Hansen’s talk

Layout in SoLID

Subsystems: Gaseous Electron Multipliers (GEMs) UVa/INFN/ Chinese Collaboration (USTC/CIAE/Lanzhou/Tsinghua/IMP)

Readout scheme

PVDIS

SIDIS

Optimized for f resolution

R&D shared with Super BigBite.Additional challenges to overcome: * planes dimensions as large as 100 cm: => 99 x 40 GEM foil crafted by CERN

* high number of channels: => Scalable Readout System (SRS) from CERN; channel unit cost going down to few $

N. Liyanage’s talk

PVDIS: one gas Cherenkov for electron/pion separation+ trigger

Subsystems: Gas Cherenkovs

SIDIS: two gas Cherenkovs:one for electron/pion separation,one for pion/kaon separation.

e-

p

SoLID Cherenkov collaboration: - Duke University; - Temple University; - Stony Brook University;

1 m

0.9 m

2 m

Observer

Mirrors

“Winston” cone

e-

Electron Cherenkovs:Two options:-H8500C maPMT; CO2/ (SIDIS)- C4F8O/N2 (PVDIS)- GEM+CsI; CF4

Range: 1.5-4.5 GeV/c (SIDIS)- 2-4 (PVDIS)

Basic design (1 sector)Pion:Gas:C4F8O at 1.5 atmUseful range:2.5-7.5 GeV/c

Mirrors

Z.Maziani’s talkT. Hemmick’s talk

Provides pion rejection + trigger.Uses shashlyk technology (sandwich of Pb and scintillator):Advantages: - radiation hard (500 kRad); - good energy and timing resolution (tunable by choice of material/thickness of layers)

Subsystems: EM Calorimeter

PVDIS

Considered block geometry/layout.Square block: easy assembly/rearrangement.

preshower/shower to improve pion rejection:

SoLID EM calo collaboration: - Los Alamos National Lab; - University of Virginia; - Duke University; - College of William and Mary;

SIDIS

Forward angle calo

Large angle calo

X. Zheng’s talk

Data Acquisition

- Benefits from Hall D DAQ development; - Performance to be tested within next few years.

- Responds to demanding SoLID requirements: 50-100 kHz evt rate x 4kB /evt (SIDIS)

A. Camsonne’s talk

• Overall coordination: (J.P. Chen/H. Gao/P. Souder) •Calibration: (P. Souder/X, Qian)•Magnet/Support/Simulations (Argonne/Duke/UVa/Umass)

• Magnet (JLab Engineering Div./ Argonne, P. Reimer)• Detector supporting structure (Duke, H. Gao)• General simulation (UVa, Z. Zhao/ Umass, S. Riordan)• Neutron background simulation (Syracuse, L. Zana)

•Tracking (UVa/Chinese/others)• GEM detectors (UVa, N.Liyanaga,/Chinese collaboration)• Tracking software (JLab/O. Hansen/ Caltech, X. Qian/ Umass, S. Riordan)

• Gas Cherenkov(Temple/Duke/Stony Brook)•Light gas Cherenkov (S. Malace/H. Gao, Z. Meziani, T. Hemmick)•Heavy Gas Cherenkov (S. Malace/H. Gao Z. Meziani)

• EM Calorimeter (UVa/Los Alamos/W&M)•Forward angle (UVa, Z.Zhao, X. Zheng/ W&M, D. Armstrong)• Large angle (Los Alamos, J. Haung, X. Jiang/ Duke, M. Meziane, H. Gao)

•TOF with MRPC (Tsinghua, Y. Wang/Duke, H. Gao/JLab, A. Camsonne)•DAQ and Trigger (JLab, A. Camsonne, Y. Qiang/Umass, R. Miskimen)•Polarimeters: Compton (UVa, K. Paschke/JLab, S. Nanda)

Atomic Moller (Mainz, F. Mass, K. Aulenbacher/ W&M, W. Deconinck)• Targets (JLab, J.P. Chen/JLab cryotarget group, D. Meekins)• Infrastructure (JLab, Hall A engineer/design team, R. Wines)More groups are joining (UIUC, J.C. Peng, MIT, S. Gilad, …)

Subsystems/Responsibilities

One option: split and mix Chinese contribution, NSF/MRI, Modest DOE/MIE, JLab capital equipment, Sharing readout systems amongst Halls

• Magnet: extraction/transport/refurbish/infrastructure: ~$3-5 M JLab

• GEMs ~ $4-5 M (Anticipate) Mainly Chinese Collaboration

• Cherenkov ~$3-4 MCollaboration: MRI or MIE

• EM Calorimeter: $3-5 MCollaboration: MRI / MIE

• DAQ/Trigger electronics 3-4 MJLab Physics Division sharing among 4 halls.

(Very Rough) Cost and A Plan to Move Forward