Perf rformance ormance Stud udies ies of of BULK LK Mi Micr - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Perf rformance ormance Stud udies ies of of BULK LK Mi Micr crome omegas as wit ith h Dif iffer erent ent Ampli lifica icati tion on Ga Gaps ps Purba Bhattacharya 1 , Sudeb Bhattacharya 1 , Nayana Majumdar 1 , Supratik Mukhopadhyay 1 , Sandip Sarkar 1 , Paul Colas 2 , David Attie 2 1 Applied Nuclear Physics Division, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India 2 DSM/IRFU, CEA/Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette CEDEX, France

Motivation  Micromegas – promising candidate for TPCs including ILD main tracker  Bulk Micromegas – built using printed circuit board fabrication techniques  Important parameters that determine choice of a particular bulk over another are detector gain, gain uniformity, energy and space point resolution, comfortable operating regime (in terms of voltage settings, signal strength etc), stability and ageing characteristics (ion back-flow), capability to efficiently pave large readout surfaces with minimized dead zone (due to spacers) …  These parameters are known to depend on geometry of the detector (amplification gap, mesh hole pitch, wire radius etc), electrostatic configuration within the detector, gas composition, pressure …  Systematic comparison of different bulk Micromegas has been carried out to weigh out various possibilities and options and guide our choice for specific applications  Comparison with numerical simulations using Garfield has been performed to verify the mathematical models and confirm our understanding of the device physics

BULK MICROMEGAS Details of BULK Micromegas:  10x10 cm 2 active area  Amplification gap: 64  m, 128  m, 192  m and 220  m  Stainless steel mesh, wire diameter 18  m, pitch 63  m/ 78  m  Dielectric Spacer, diameter 400  m, pitch 2 mm Microscopic view of Bulk Micromegas Mesh Hole ~ 45  m Spacing between two spacer ~ 2 mm Spacer Diameter ~ 400  m Pitch ~ 63  m

Experimental Set Up Gas Cylinder Purification System Residual Gas Analyzer Gas Mixing System Power Supply RGA Spectrum for fixed Argon – Pressure Gas Flow In (High Voltage) Gauge Isobutane Gas Mixture (N471A) Gas Chamber & Detector Gas Flow Out Pre-Amp (Model No. – Filter 142IH) Multi- Amplifier Oscilloscope Channel (ORTEC 672) Analyzer Typical MCA Spectrum of 55 Fe

Numerical Simulation Simulation tools Radiation Source Garfield framework: to model and Ionization simulate two and three dimensional drift chambers Drift and Diffusion Drift Volume  Ionization: HEED of Electrons  Drift and Diffusion: MAGBOLTZ  Amplification: MAGBOLTZ Amplification Gap  Potential, Field: neBEM Amplification and (nearly exact Boundary Element further Diffusion Transfer Gap Method) Readout Pads Pad Response Signal Garfi rfield eld + + neBEM EM + + Magbo gboltz ltz + + Heed ed

Variation of Electric Field With Mesh Hole Pitch (a) (Wire Diameter: 18  m) With Amplification Gap (b) (Please note, Y-Axis is in log scale) In each case detector characteristics (gain, resolution…) changes accordingly

Gain : G = N t / N p = kP/ N p , where N t  Total number of electrons N p  Primary electrons k  Constant, depends on Preamplifier, Amplifier, MCA specification P  Peak Position (Maximum allowable voltage: Sparking limit) Variation of gain with amplification field in different argon-based gas mixture (drift field 200 V/cm) Higher gain can be obtained in Argon Isobutane Gas Mixture

Variation of gain with amplification field for three different amplification gap – higher gain can be obtained with larger amplification gap leading to a comfortable operating regime (Maximum allowable voltage: Sparking limit) Variation of gain with amplification field for two different pitch – for larger pitch, sparks start at higher field and so a higher value of gain can be obtained

Comparison with Simulation Results Trend similar in case of both detectors→ Simulated results considerably lower without Penning Roles of different parameters : Penning Transfer Mechanism → Increase of gain, Needs further investigation on transfer rates The simulated gain in other gas and other gap also agrees quite well with experimental data

Energy Resolution : R =  P /P, where  p  r.m.s. of the pulse height distribution P  peak position Variation of energy resolution at 5.9 keV with gain in different argon-based gas mixture At this drift field, at higher gain, Argon Isobutane gas shows better energy resolution

Variation of energy resolution with gain for three different amplification gap – 128  m shows better resolution Variation of energy resolution with gain for two different pitch – 63  m shows better resolution

Comparison with Simulation Numerical estimates follow trend of measured data Gain variation and electron transparency needs further investigation Similar trend observed in other cases also

Estimation of Electron Transparency  Fraction of electrons arriving in amplification region  Depends on field ratio, drift voltage  Depends on hole-pitch Every electron collision is connected with red lines,  inelastic collisions  excitations  ionizations. Experiment : Ratio of signal amplitude at a given E drift over signal amplitude at E drift where gain is maximum Simulation:  Microscopic tracking of electrons from randomly distributed points (100  m above mesh)  Two different models for mesh modelling: one dimensional thin wire segments for Edrift < 100 V/cm and three-dimensional polygonal approximation of cylinders for Edrift > 100 V/cm

Experiment: Variation with electron transparency with field ratio for three different amplification gap At this pitch value, the electron transparency reaches maximum value at much higher drift field The larger gap detector reaches maximum value at lower drift field in comparison with smaller gap

Comparison of Experimental Data with Simulation Results (Amplification Gap: 64  m and 192  m; Pitch: 63  m) Simulation Results agree quite well with Experimental Data Calculation with higher pitch (78  m) is in progress

Ion Ba Ion Backflo kflow w  Secondary ions from amplification region drift to drift region  Distortion of electric field; degrades stable operation of detector  Micromegas micromesh stops a large fraction of these ions  Backflow fraction : N b /N t  (1/FR)(p/  t ) 2 where N b  average number of backflowing ions N t  average total number of ions FR  field ratio, p  pitch of the mesh,  t  diffusion Avalanche of Electrons (2D picture) Drift of Secondary Ions (2D picture)

Simulation of IBF: Variation with IBF with Field Ratio a) for different argon based gas mixture (Amplification gap: 128  m) b) for three different amplification gap (Ar:Isobutane 90:10)  Preliminary simulation results show expected trends  Need further investigation and experimental verification

Experimental Set Up: Preliminary data was taken at CEA, Saclay We are trying to build up a similar set up at SINP Value of IBF follows the theoretical prediction Besides the contribution of ions from avalanche, additional contribution from ions between drift plane and test box window affect the data – implementation of 2 nd drift mesh – improvement of results

Effect of Spacer (Diameter 400  m, Pitch 2 mm, Amplification Gap 128  m) Electric field in axial direction through different holes  Spacers cause significant perturbation resulting in Without Spacer Drift lines increased field values, and particularly in the regions where Avalanche cylinders touch the mesh  Electron drift lines get distorted near the dielectric spacer With Spacer

Electron Transparency and Gain (Without and With Spacer) Without Spacer With Spacer 25  m 50  m 100  m 25  m 50  m 100  m Position of track above mesh Electrons crossing 97.794 97.304 97.549 97.549 95.343 95.833 mesh Electrons reaching 97.794 97.304 97.549 54.902 92.892 95.343 middle of amplification area Gain 600 594 596 338 570 584  Electrons are lost on the spacer resulting in reduced gain  Signal strength reduces and it has a Signal longer tail

Summary Experiments and numerical simulations carried out using different bulk Micromegas (amplification gaps 64  m, 128  m, 192  m, 220  m; Pitch 63  m, 78  m) in several argon based gas mixtures Important detector parameters such as gain, energy resolution, transparency estimated Observed conflicting advantages of different parameters, e.g., configuration that leads to higher gain and more stable operation (amplification gap 220  m) provides less attractive energy resolution Smaller pitch (63  m ) found to be generally more useful Preliminary calculation of ion back flow compare favorably with measurements Effects of spacers on gain and signal indicated significant changes occurring around the spacer Successful comparisons with simulation indicate that the device physics is quite well understood and suitably modeled mathematically