1: % Template article for preprint document class `elsart'
2: % SP 2001/01/05
3:
4: \documentclass{elsart}
5:
6: % Use the option doublespacing or reviewcopy to obtain double line spacing
7: % \documentclass[doublespacing]{elsart}
8:
9: % if you use PostScript figures in your article
10: % use the graphics package for simple commands
11: % \usepackage{graphics}
12: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands
13: % \usepackage{graphicx}
14: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands
15: % \usepackage{aaai}
16: % \usepackage{times}
17: \usepackage{epsfig}
18: \usepackage{cite}
19:
20: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols
21: \usepackage{amssymb}
22:
23: % \parskip12pt plus 1pt minus 1pt
24: % \parindent 0mm
25: % \setlength{\floatsep}{0em}
26:
27: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{4}
28: \setcounter{totalnumber}{9}
29: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0}
30: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}
31: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
32:
33: \def\be{\begin{equation} }
34: \def\ee{\end{equation} }
35: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray} }
36: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray} }
37: \def\ban{\begin{eqnarray*} }
38: \def\ean{\end{eqnarray*} }
39: \def\epem{\mbox{e}^+\mbox{e}^-}
40: \def\arco{\mbox{ArCO$_2$}}
41: \def\MM{\mbox{$\mu$Megas}}
42: \def\ExB{\mbox{\boldmath$\rm E \times B$\unboldmath}}
43: \def\mum{\mbox{$\mu$m}}
44: \def\mumrcm{\mbox{$\mu$m / $\sqrt{\mbox{cm}}$}}
45:
46: \begin{document}
47:
48:
49: \begin{frontmatter}
50:
51: % Title, authors and addresses
52:
53: % use the thanksref command within \title, \author or \address for footnotes;
54: % use the corauthref command within \author for corresponding author footnotes;
55: % use the ead command for the email address,
56: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:
57: % \title{Title\thanksref{label1}}
58: % \thanks[label1]{}
59: % \author{Name\corauthref{cor1}\thanksref{label2}}
60: % \ead{email address}
61: % \ead[url]{home page}
62: % \thanks[label2]{}
63: % \corauth[cor1]{}
64: % \address{Address\thanksref{label3}}
65: % \thanks[label3]{}
66: \title{Resolution studies of cosmic-ray tracks in a TPC with
67: GEM readout}
68:
69: \author[ref_CU]{R.~K.~Carnegie},
70: \author[ref_CU,ref_TR]{M.~S.~Dixit},
71: \author[ref_CU]{J.~Dubeau},
72: \author[ref_CU,ref_UVIC,ref_TR]{D.~Karlen},
73: \author[ref_UM]{J.-P.~Martin},
74: \author[ref_CU,ref_TR]{H.~Mes}
75: and
76: \author[ref_CU]{K.~Sachs\corauthref{add_KS}}
77: \ead{sachs@physics.carleton.ca}
78: % \ead[url]{home page}
79:
80: \address[ref_CU]{Department of Physics, Carleton University,
81: \\ 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada}
82: \address[ref_UM]{University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada}
83: \address[ref_UVIC]{University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada}
84: \address[ref_TR]{TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC, Canada}
85: \corauth[add_KS]{Corresponding author;
86: tel.: +1-613-520-2600, ext. 1567; fax: +1-613-520-7546.}
87:
88:
89: % use optional labels to link authors explicitly to addresses:
90: % \author[label1,label2]{}
91: % \address[label1]{}
92: % \address[label2]{}
93:
94: \begin{abstract}
95: % Text of abstract
96: A large volume TPC is a leading candidate for the central tracking
97: detector at a future high energy linear collider. To improve the
98: resolution a new readout based on micro-pattern gas detectors is
99: being developed. Measurements of the spatial resolution of
100: cosmic-ray tracks in a GEM TPC are presented.
101: We find that the resolution suffers if the readout pads
102: are too wide with respect to the charge distribution at the
103: readout plane due to insufficient charge sharing. For narrow pads of
104: $2 \times 6 \mbox{ mm}^2$ we measure a resolution of 100 \mum\ at
105: short drift distances in the absence of an axial magnetic field.
106: The dependence of the spatial resolution as a function of drift
107: distance allows the determination of the underlying electron statistics.
108: Our results show that the present technique uses about half
109: the statistical power available from the number of primary electrons.
110: The track angle effect is observed as expected.
111: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
112: \begin{picture}(0,0)
113: \put(-20,160){\parbox{5cm}{NIM A538 (2005) 372-383 \\ physics/0402054 \\ LC-DET-2004-004}}
114: \end{picture}
115: \end{abstract}
116:
117: \begin{keyword}
118: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword
119: Gaseous Detectors \sep
120: Position-Sensitive Detectors \sep
121: Micro-Pattern Gas Detectors \sep
122: Gas Electron Multiplier
123: % \sep Micromegas
124:
125:
126:
127: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code
128: \PACS 29.40.Cs \sep 29.40.Gx
129:
130: \end{keyword}
131: \end{frontmatter}
132:
133: % main text
134: \section{Introduction}
135: \label{sec:intro}
136:
137:
138: The time projection chamber (TPC) \cite{cit:TPC1,cit:TPC2} has been a
139: mainstay of large particle detectors since its initial
140: concept in the 1970's. The traditional TPC has an end cap
141: detector that uses anode wires for amplification of the signal.
142: When operated in an axial magnetic field, this leads
143: to the so called \ExB\ effect \cite{cit:ExB} close to the wires,
144: which significantly degrades the resolution of the TPC.
145: Proposals to readout TPC signals without the use of anode wires have
146: been suggested \cite{cit:padTPC1,cit:padTPC2} in the past.
147: The recent development and success of micro pattern gas detectors
148: (MPGD) such as the $\mu$Megas \cite{cit:uMegas} and the
149: GEM \cite{cit:gem,cit:gem2} has renewed interest in this solution.
150:
151: The advantages of MPGD detectors are that they require less mass
152: for construction, should not have any \ExB\ effect, naturally suppress
153: positive ion feedback and allow more freedom in the shape and
154: orientation of the readout pads. In addition the signals are faster,
155: potentially improving the double track resolution in drift time.
156: In the case of MPGDs, the signal on
157: the readout pads can be a direct electron collection signal or an induced signal.
158: The advantage of direct signals is that their amplitude is larger and
159: the signal is more confined, thus potentially improving the spatial
160: double track resolution. The disadvantage of the confined signal is
161: that the pads need to be much narrower, on the order of the width of
162: the ionization charge distribution, which increases the number of
163: channels and thus the cost. In the case of GEMs the ionization charge
164: can be spread naturally in the gaps between the GEMs and readout pads.
165: It is also possible to use the induced signal
166: \cite{cit:induced,cit:LCWS2000} which has a wider spread than the
167: direct signal, but a reduced amplitude.
168:
169: GEM amplification with pad type readout planes has been shown to give
170: excellent spatial resolution for point sources, such as X-rays
171: converting in a gas \cite{cit:xray2}, which is useful for
172: medical applications, where the pad size can be arbitrarily small to
173: give the required resolution. In the case of a large scale experiment
174: using a TPC, such as the proposed TESLA detector, the pad size
175: determines the number of channels and thus the cost; in that case it
176: is important to make the pad size as large as possible consistent with
177: the resolution required.
178:
179: In earlier studies \cite{cit:LCWS2000}, using a double GEM amplification
180: stage, we determined the point resolution, $s$, that can be
181: achieved for X-rays converting in the gas using the direct charge
182: distribution near the edge of hexagonal pads \mbox{($s \sim 70\;\mum$)}
183: and the induced charge distribution near the middle of pads
184: \mbox{($s \sim 80\;\mum$)}.
185: A subsequent study \cite{cit:LCWS2002} with cosmic rays and
186: a small TPC with an end cap detector with 5 staggered rows of
187: $2.5 \times 5 \mbox{ mm}^2$ rectangular pads showed that these pads
188: produced an adequate track resolution using the direct charge.
189:
190: In this paper we examine the resolution that can be achieved using
191: the direct signal from a double GEM amplification stage and a
192: rectangular staggered pad readout scheme. In particular we examine the
193: effect of the pad width and length on the spatial resolution and
194: attempt to gain a better understanding of the phenomena that affect
195: the resolution. For this purpose we
196: measured the spatial resolution as a function of several different
197: quantities, including three different pad sizes
198: and local position across a pad, two gases, drift distance,
199: crossing angle, and signal amplitude.
200:
201: The two gases used were P10 (Ar(90):CH$_4$(10)), a fast gas with
202: large diffusion, and Ar(90):CO$_2$(10), a slow gas with relatively
203: small diffusion, operated at a voltage below the peak velocity.
204: The different diffusion properties allowed us to study the effect of
205: pad size relative to the width of the direct charge distribution
206: arriving at the pads, and to simulate, with the \arco\ mixture,
207: reduced diffusion as would be present with a P10 type gas in a
208: magnetic field.
209:
210:
211: \section{Experimental setup}
212: \label{sec:exp}
213:
214: The test TPC used for these measurements is housed in a cylindrical
215: pressure vessel filled with P10 or \arco\ gas at atmospheric pressure.
216: The TPC has a maximum drift length of 15~cm and an active area of
217: $8 \times 8 \mbox{ cm}^2$. The drift field of 138~V/cm is established
218: by a series of thin window frame electrodes located between the
219: cathode plane at the far end and the readout end plane at the other end
220: of the TPC.
221: A charged particle crossing the drift region will ionize the gas;
222: the released electrons drift to the end plane where they are amplified
223: and detected on a readout PCB. While drifting the charge cloud gets
224: wider due to transverse diffusion, an effect that would be reduced
225: in an axial magnetic field.
226:
227: We use a double GEM structure for amplification with a gap
228: of 2.4~mm between the first and the second GEM. The voltage difference
229: across this transfer gap is 653~V resulting in a field of 2.7~kV/cm.
230: The induction gap between the second GEM and the readout board is
231: 5.4~mm wide with a voltage difference of 1783~V and a field of
232: 3.3~kV/cm. The transfer and the induction gaps were purposely large
233: to diffuse the electron cloud and thus spread the signal over
234: more than one readout pad.
235:
236: \begin{figure}[b]
237: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsffile{event_1010_22_bw.eps}}}
238: \caption[]{\label{fig:event}
239: Event display with a reconstructed track in \arco\ gas. The shade of the
240: pad corresponds the the reconstructed signal amplitude. The lower
241: threshold is 2 and one hit per row of more than 8.5 is required for
242: the track fit. In general there is a 3-fold multiplexing for
243: the outer and test rows. The rows are numbered from bottom to top.}
244: \end{figure}
245:
246:
247: The GEMs were made from 50 \mum\ thick kapton foil coated with copper
248: on both sides. The holes with a diameter of $\sim$90 \mum\ at
249: the surface are arranged in a
250: hexagonal pattern with a spacing of $d_{\rm hex} = 140$ \mum.
251: The voltage across the GEMs is 357~V each.
252: Gain measurements were made for 5.9 keV $^{55}$Fe x-ray conversion
253: electrons in the gas and used standard pulser calibration technique.
254: The effective gains for \arco\ and P10 were about 6700 and 4600 respectively.
255: % The effective gain is estimated to be about 5000.
256:
257: The readout-pad layout shown in Figure \ref{fig:event} consists
258: of 192 pads which are reduced to 64 readout channels via
259: multiplexing. The pads in the outer rows (1,2,4,7,9,10) are
260: 2.54 mm $\times$ 5.08 mm large; in the test row 5 the pads are
261: 2.032 mm $\times$ 6.096 mm large and in row 6 they are
262: 3.048 mm $\times$ 5.080 mm large.
263: Rows 3 and 8 consist of wide pads used for filtering. The outer
264: pads in rows 1--4 and 7-10 are multiplexed
265: to give one veto channel on the left and right side, respectively.
266:
267: We use a right-handed coordinate system with the $x$-coordinate
268: horizontal and the $y$-coordinate pointing upwards; the
269: $z$-coordinate corresponds to the drift distance with $z=0$ at the
270: first GEM. The azimuthal angle $\phi$ and the polar angle $\theta$
271: are measured with respect to the $y$-axis.
272:
273: The signals are read out via ALEPH TPC wire
274: preamplifiers \cite{cit:preamp} and
275: 64 channels of 200~MHz, 8~bit FADCs custom made at the University of Montreal.
276: For data acquisition we use the MIDAS \cite{cit:MIDAS} system.
277:
278: A three layer scintillation counter telescope is used to trigger on
279: cosmic-ray tracks.
280: One scintillator counter is placed above the TPC and two below,
281: separated by a 10 cm thick layer of lead. The $\sim$19 cm width of
282: the counters and the distance of $\sim$40 cm between the two outer
283: counters defines the acceptance coverage in z.
284:
285: \section{Theory}
286: \label{sec:theory}
287:
288: The observed width\footnote{Throughout this paper the width of a
289: distribution refers to its standard deviation.}
290: of the track, $\sigma_{\rm track}$, which is the standard deviation
291: of the charge cloud perpendicular to the track, is determined by
292: two components, the spread associated with the readout system $\sigma_0$ and
293: the transverse diffusion depending on the drift distance $z$:
294: \ba
295: \label{eq:trackwidth}
296: \sigma_{\rm track}^2 & = & \sigma_0^2 + C_{\rm D}^2 \; z \\
297: \nonumber
298: \sigma_0^2 & = &\sigma_{\rm hex}^2 + \sigma_{\rm intern}^2
299: + \sigma_{\rm other}^2 \; ,
300: \ea
301: where $C_{\rm D} = \sqrt{2 D_{\rm t} / \nu}$ is the 1-dimensional
302: diffusion coefficient given by the transverse diffusion constant
303: $D_{\rm t}$ and the drift velocity $\nu$. In a
304: magnetic field $D_{\rm t}(B) = D_{\rm t}(0) / (1+\omega^2 \; \tau^2)$,
305: thus resulting in a reduced transverse diffusion.
306: The contribution $\sigma_0$ is composed of several parts.
307: The first term originates from the hexagonal pattern structure
308: of the GEM depending on the hole distance $d_{\rm hex}$. For our
309: geometry $\sigma_{\rm hex}$ is estimated to be $\sim$ 50 \mum .
310: The second term, $\sigma_{\rm intern}$, results from diffusion
311: between the GEMs and the readout pads. For the present setup
312: \mbox{$\sigma_{\rm intern}\simeq 318\;\mum$} for \arco\ and
313: $\simeq 460\;\mum $ for P10. Other factors denoted by
314: $\sigma_{\rm other}$ also contribute.
315:
316:
317: The standard deviation $\sigma_x$ of the charge cloud distribution
318: across a row of pads also
319: includes the crossing angle effect $\sigma_\phi$ depending on
320: the track angle $\phi$ and is given by:
321: \ba
322: \label{eq:sigmax}
323: \sigma_x^2 & = & \sigma_0^2 + \sigma_{\rm D}^2 + \sigma_\phi^2 \\
324: \nonumber
325: \sigma_{\rm D} & = & C_{\rm D} \; \sqrt{z} / \cos{\phi} \\
326: \nonumber
327: \sigma_\phi & = & L/\sqrt{12} \; \tan{\phi} \; .
328: \ea
329:
330: The factor $1 / \cos{\phi}$ in the transverse diffusion
331: term $\sigma_{\rm D}$ reflects the projection of the charge
332: distribution onto the x-axis.
333: The crossing angle effect comes from the spread of $x(y)$ for
334: a track with an angle $\phi$. Projected onto the $x$ axis
335: this leads to a rectangular function of total width
336: $L\tan{\phi}$, where $L$ is the length of the pad.
337: The standard deviation for such a rectangular uniform
338: distribution is given by $\sigma_\phi$.
339:
340:
341: The observed x-resolution $s_x$ reflects the precision with which
342: the mean of the charge distribution can be determined
343: and hence has additional factors from statistics:
344: \ba
345: \label{eq:xreso}
346: s_x^2 & = & s_0^2 + s_{\rm D}^2+ s_\phi^2 \\
347: \nonumber
348: s_0^2 & = & s_{\rm hex}^2 + s_{\rm intern}^2 + s_{\rm other}^2\\
349: \nonumber
350: s_{\rm D} & = & \sigma_{\rm D} / \sqrt{N^{\rm eff}_{\rm t}} \\
351: \nonumber
352: s_\phi & = & \sigma_\phi / \sqrt{N^{\rm eff}_{\rm cl}} \; .
353: \ea
354:
355:
356: Most contributions depend on the number of electrons $n_{\rm t}$
357: produced by the ionizing particle. Some of these electrons stem from
358: secondary ionization. They are therefore correlated forming $n_{\rm cl}$
359: clusters. The number of electrons and clusters created across a
360: row of pads is \mbox{$N_{\rm t} = n_{\rm t} \cdot L / \cos{\phi}$} and
361: \mbox{$N_{\rm cl} = n_{\rm cl} \cdot L / \cos{\phi}$}, respectively.
362: For example for Argon \mbox{$n_{\rm cl} = 24.3 / \mbox{cm}$} and
363: \mbox{$n_{\rm t} = 94 / \mbox{cm}$} \cite{cit:kkk}.
364:
365: All components of $s_0$ depend on the signal amplitude.
366: The contribution from the GEM structure $s_{\rm hex}$ is minor:
367: the track width due to diffusion is large enough to cover a
368: sufficient number of GEM holes. The effect from internal diffusion
369: $s_{\rm intern}$ is strongly reduced due to the high gain.
370: Contributions from electronic noise, calibration errors and
371: limitations due to insufficient charge sharing between the pads
372: are included in $s_{\rm other}$.
373:
374: The effect from transverse diffusion depends on the effective number
375: of electrons $N_{\rm t}^{\rm eff} = R \cdot N_{\rm t}$, which includes
376: a reduction factor $R$.
377: The crossing angle effect depends on the effective number of clusters
378: $N^{\rm eff}_{\rm cl} = (N_{\rm cl})^\epsilon$.
379: Following the notation of \cite{cit:blum} the number of clusters
380: is reduced by the exponent $\epsilon$.
381:
382:
383: \begin{figure}[b]
384: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsffile{pulsefit.eps}}}
385: \caption[]{\label{fig:pulse}
386: Determination of time and amplitude of a pulse, see text.
387: The dot indicates the reconstructed $T0$ and amplitude.}
388: \end{figure}
389:
390: \section{Reconstruction}
391: \label{sec:rec}
392:
393: \begin{figure}[b]
394: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsffile{amplitude.eps}}}
395: \caption[]{\label{fig:amplitude}
396: Sum of pad signal amplitudes in row 5 for both gases.
397: The distribution is proportional to the energy loss, the difference
398: between \arco\ and P10 is due to different gain.
399: The RMS of the noise on a single pad is $\sim$0.5 ADC counts with
400: typically 2 to 3 pads contributing to the amplitude of the row.
401: The cutoff for a pad signal was 2 ADC counts.}
402: \end{figure}
403:
404:
405:
406: The analysis package is based on Fortran f95 code \cite{cit:F}.
407: In a calibration run pedestals and pulse fall times $t_{\rm fall}$
408: as well as the relative gain are determined for each readout channel.
409: The time $T0$ and the amplitude of the signals are
410: determined from the pedestal subtracted ADC pulse as shown in
411: Figure~\ref{fig:pulse}.
412: The time $T_{\rm peak}$ is determined as the time bin with
413: minimum ADC count. In the region $[T_{\rm peak}+50 ; T_{\rm peak}+350]$
414: an exponential
415: $A(t) = A_{\rm peak} \ast \exp{-(t-T_{\rm peak})/t_{\rm fall}}$
416: is fit to the ADC spectrum to determine the amplitude $A_{\rm peak}$
417: at $T_{\rm peak}$. The time $T0$ is determined via a linear fit to
418: 25 time bins at the rising edge as $\mbox{ADC}(T0) = A_{\rm peak} / 2$
419: and the signal amplitude is $-A(T0)$. The amplitudes are corrected
420: for the relative gain of each channel. The RMS of the correction
421: coefficients is 5\%.
422: Only signals with an amplitude of more than 2 ADC counts are
423: recognized as pad hits and taken into account.
424: Events are rejected if a veto channel has an amplitude of more than
425: 8.5 ADC counts.
426: The $T0$ of a row is determined as the amplitude weighted mean
427: of the times of the hits in this row.
428: The sum of reconstructed amplitudes in row 5 is shown in Figure
429: \ref{fig:amplitude}.
430:
431: The track fit is performed similar to \cite{cit:deanfit}.
432: In the upper and lower two rows (1,2 and 9,10) start points are
433: determined from a centroid calculation of the largest amplitude
434: channel and its neighbor pads. These two points are connected
435: by a line to form the seed track. Because of the multiplexing
436: several seed tracks are found and the track with the most rows
437: having a related hit with an amplitude of more than 8.5
438: is chosen. In general this choice is unique. There must be at least
439: six rows with hits out of the eight outer and test rows.
440: Other events are rejected from the analysis.
441:
442:
443:
444: The track projection in the x-y plane can be described with three
445: parameters: the x-position
446: at y=0, $x_0$, the track angle, $\phi$, and the width of the charge
447: cloud, $\sigma_{\rm track}$.
448: The track parameters are determined from a maximum likelihood fit where a
449: uniform line of charge with a Gaussian profile is assumed. This
450: idealized distribution is integrated over the pad areas and normalized
451: across a row to obtain the expected charge probabilities. From these
452: and the observed signal amplitudes a likelihood function is determined,
453: which includes a uniform noise probability of 0.2\%. The noise level is
454: determined from the data; a variation between 0.1 and 0.5\% has only a
455: small effect on the fitted track parameters.
456:
457: The drift distance at y=0, $z_0$, and the angle
458: $\theta$ are determined from a straight line fit to the $T0$ of each
459: row as a function of y. All eight rows are used to determine global
460: distributions of track angles $\phi$ and $\theta$ as well as
461: $x_0$ and $z_0$.
462: The drift velocities as determined from the data are 55$\pm$4 \mum /ns
463: for P10 and \mbox{8.3$\pm$0.3 \mum /ns} for \arco .
464: The result for P10 is in good agreement with the prediction from
465: MAGBOLTZ given in Table \ref{tab:magboltz},
466: while the measured velocity for \arco\ is smaller than expected.
467: This might be due to a limited time window recorded or
468: because of gas impurities. In \arco\ we lose about 10\% of the
469: electrons over the
470: full drift distance of 15 cm due to attachment. This is an indication
471: of impurities in the gas which may affect gas properties.
472: No such effect is observed with P10.
473:
474: \begin{table}[t]
475: \caption[]{\label{tab:magboltz}
476: MAGBOLTZ (version 5.1) predictions for a drift field of 140 V/cm.}
477: \begin{center}
478: \begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c}
479: \hline
480: & drift & \multicolumn{2}{c}{diffusion} \\
481: gas & velocity & transverse & longitudinal \\
482: & (\mum /ns) & (\mumrcm ) & (\mumrcm ) \\
483: \hline\hline
484: P10 & 55 & 564 & 374\\
485: \arco & 8.9 & 229 & 241 \\
486: \hline
487: \end{tabular}
488: \end{center}
489: \end{table}
490:
491:
492:
493: \begin{figure}[t]
494: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize\textwidth\epsffile{zreso.eps}}}
495: \caption{\label{fig:zreso}
496: Resolution of drift distance for both gases as a function
497: of drift distance for small track angle $|\phi| < 5^\circ$. }
498: \end{figure}
499:
500:
501: \section{Analysis Results}
502: \label{sec:results}
503:
504:
505: The resolution for the drift distance $z$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:zreso}
506: as a function of drift distance. The intrinsic time resolution
507: is about 13~ns for P10 and 9~ns for \arco . It is worse for
508: P10 since the average signal amplitude is smaller.
509: While the $z$ resolution for P10 is completely dominated by the intrinsic
510: time resolution, the effect of longitudinal diffusion is visible
511: for \arco\ because of the much smaller drift velocity.
512: The observed dependence is linear and not quadratic as expected:
513: $s_z / \mum = 80 + 14 * z / \mbox{cm}$.
514: It does not depend on the readout pad size.
515:
516: \begin{figure}[t]
517: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize\textwidth\epsffile{twidth.eps}}}
518: \caption[]{\label{fig:twidth}
519: Fitted track width $\sigma_{\rm track}$ as a function of drift distance $z$.
520: The upper plots show $\sigma_{\rm track}$ versus $z$ for all events,
521: the lower plots show the average $\sigma_{\rm track}^2$ versus $z$. }
522: \end{figure}
523:
524:
525: The width of the charge cloud $\sigma_{\rm track}$ is shown in Figure
526: \ref{fig:twidth} as a function of the drift distance. The mean
527: transverse diffusion coefficient can be determined from a linear fit to
528: $\sigma_{\rm track}^2(z)$ (Equation \ref{eq:trackwidth}). We obtain
529: \ba
530: \label{eq:CDp10}
531: C_{\rm D} & = & 0.429 \mbox{ mm} / \sqrt{\mbox{cm}}
532: \hspace{10mm}\mbox{for P10 and} \\
533: \label{eq:CDarco}
534: C_{\rm D} & = & 0.209 \mbox{ mm} / \sqrt{\mbox{cm}}
535: \hspace{10mm}\mbox{for \arco} \; ,
536: \ea
537: with negligible statistical errors. The result for P10 is
538: smaller than the expectation from MAGBOLTZ given in Table
539: \ref{tab:magboltz} while the result for \arco\ is in reasonable
540: agreement. The width of the charge cloud at $z=0$ is
541: determined to be $0.563 \pm 0.006 \mbox{ mm}$ for P10 and
542: $0.544 \pm 0.006 \mbox{ mm}$ for \arco .
543: Only a part of this measured amount is expected from
544: $\sigma_{\rm intern}$. Since $\sigma_{\rm hex}$ is negligible
545: a contribution of several 100 \mum\ remains unexplained for both gases
546: and must be assigned to other factors in $\sigma_{\rm other}$.
547:
548: The remainder of this paper concentrates on the study of the $x$ resolution
549: dependence on track angle, transverse diffusion and amplitude.
550: In this analysis the track parameters are not determined from
551: reconstructed hit-positions in each row but from a fit to the
552: charge distribution of the full track. Therefore the concept of
553: the point position in a row is not a priori given. The x-position
554: in a row, $x_{\rm row}$ is determined from a track fit to the
555: charge distribution in this row
556: only, keeping all track parameters fixed apart from $x$.
557: The x-resolution $s_x$ is obtained from the width~$\sigma$ of a
558: Gaussian fit to the distribution of the residuals
559: $\delta = x_{\rm row} - x_{\rm track}$;
560: $x_{\rm track} = x_0 + \tan{\phi}*y_{\rm row}$.
561: If these residuals are derived from a track fit including the test row
562: the obtained spread $\sigma^{\rm in}$ will be systematically too
563: small. On the other hand the spread $\sigma^{\rm ex}$ obtained
564: from a track fit excluding the test row will be too large.
565: As shown in appendix \ref{sec:rowfit} the geometric mean of these
566: two results $s_x = \sqrt{\sigma^{\rm in} * \sigma^{\rm ex}}$
567: gives the correct estimate for the point resolution.
568: For these studies the charge width $\sigma_{\rm track}$ is fixed to the mean
569: observed track width as a function of the drift distance.
570:
571: \subsection{X resolution depending on pad width}
572:
573: \begin{table}[t]
574: \caption[]{\label{tab:drift}
575: Mean track width and RMS for three regions of drift distance and
576: two gases.}
577: \begin{center}
578: \begin{tabular}{c|cc}
579: \hline
580: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{track width (mm)} \\
581: drift distance & \arco & P10 \\
582: \hline
583: 0 -- 3 cm & 0.53$\pm$0.14 & 0.72$\pm$0.24 \\
584: 3 -- 8 cm & 0.67$\pm$0.13 & 1.12$\pm$0.21 \\
585: 8 -- 15 cm & 0.81$\pm$0.11 & 1.52$\pm$0.21 \\
586: \hline
587: \end{tabular}
588: \end{center}
589: \end{table}
590:
591:
592: \begin{figure}[b]
593: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsffile{edge_arco.eps}}}
594: \caption[]{\label{fig:edge}
595: X resolution as a function of distance to the centre of the pad
596: for \arco\ and three regions of drift distance.
597: The points are results from 3 mm wide pads with $|\phi|<5^\circ$. }
598: \end{figure}
599:
600:
601: First we investigate the dependence of the resolution on the
602: width of the pad. To eliminate other effects only tracks
603: with $|\phi|<5^\circ$ are used for this study.
604: Figure \ref{fig:edge} shows the $x$ resolution in 3 mm wide pads
605: as a function of the distance between the reconstructed position and
606: the centre of the pad for \arco . To obtain samples with different
607: diffusion, i.e. size of the charge cloud, three regions of
608: drift distance are considered as given in Table \ref{tab:drift}.
609: For short drift distances, hence small charge-cloud size,
610: the resolution gets significantly worse in the centre of the pad.
611: This is because an increased fraction of signals is collected
612: only on one pad and charge sharing is less effective
613: for the determination of the position of the track in this row.
614: This effect leads also to a non-uniform distribution of the
615: measured $x_{\rm row}$ positions, where more hits are reconstructed
616: in the center of a pad if the pad is too wide.
617: This study is repeated for the 2~mm and 2.5~mm (row~4) wide pads,
618: which shows that the effect sets in if the pad is wider than about
619: three times the width of the charge cloud and becomes prominent
620: for a pad width larger than four times the charge width.
621: However, this effect depends also on the amplitude;
622: signals with large amplitude tend to have more charge sharing.
623: All measurements are made without magnetic field. However,
624: the results can be reinterpreted for a given width of the charge cloud.
625: This study indicates that 3~mm wide pads are too wide for a charge
626: cloud with a width of less than about 1~mm, which is the case for
627: \arco\ and P10 at small drift distances. To avoid this
628: effect, the following analyses are restricted to the 2~mm wide pads.
629:
630: \subsection{X resolution depending on drift distance $z$}
631:
632: The resolution deteriorates with increasing drift distance because
633: of transverse diffusion. This is studied using tracks with small
634: angle, $|\phi|< 5^\circ$, to suppress the track angle effect.
635: As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:drift}
636: the effect is less pronounced in \arco\ because of the very small
637: diffusion. The function
638: \be
639: s_{\rm x} = \sqrt{ s^2 + \frac{C_{\rm D}^2}{N_{\rm t}^{\rm eff}} z}
640: \ee
641: can be fit to the data. Using $C_{\rm D}$ as given in
642: Equations \ref{eq:CDp10} and \ref{eq:CDarco}
643: we obtain $N_{\rm t}^{\rm eff} = $ 19$\pm$7 for \arco\
644: and 20.6$\pm$0.7 for P10. These numbers are smaller than
645: the total expected number of electrons $N_{\rm t}$. However, the wide
646: range of amplitudes makes the interpretation difficult.
647: The expected $N_{\rm t}$ as given in \cite{cit:kkk} relates
648: to the mean amplitude observed in a row, while the resolution
649: is proportional to $1/\sqrt{N_{\rm t}}$, which results in a bias. For
650: the full range the mean amplitude $\langle A \rangle$ is larger than
651: $1/(\;\langle 1/\sqrt{A} \rangle\;)^2$ by 30\% for both gases.
652:
653:
654: \begin{figure}[b]
655: \vspace*{6mm}
656: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsffile{drift_func.eps}}}
657: \caption[]{\label{fig:drift}
658: Resolution in $x$, $s_x$, as a function of drift distance for
659: 2 mm wide pads, tracks with $|\phi|<5^\circ$, both gases.
660: }
661: \vspace*{5mm}
662: \end{figure}
663:
664: \begin{table}[bp]
665: \caption[]{\label{tab:transpa}
666: Fit result for resolution as a function of drift distance.
667: The number of electrons
668: $N_{\rm t}$ for tracks with small angle $|\phi|$ is
669: scaled with mean amplitude; for the full range $n_{\rm t}$ is
670: taken from \cite{cit:kkk}.
671: The errors are statistical only.}
672: \begin{center}
673: \begin{tabular}{cc|c|r@{$\pm$}l|r@{$\pm$}lr@{$\pm$}l}
674: \hline
675: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Amplitude}& &
676: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$C_{\rm D}/\sqrt{N_{\rm t}^{\rm eff}}$} &
677: \multicolumn{4}{c}{derived}\\
678: range & mean & $N_{\rm t}$ &
679: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{(\mumrcm ) } &
680: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$N_{\rm t}^{\rm eff}$} &
681: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$R = \frac{N_{\rm t}^{\rm eff}}{N_{\rm t}}$ (\%)}\\
682: \hline
683: \multicolumn{9}{l}{P10} \\
684: all & 93 & 55 &
685: 94.6&1.6 & 20.6&0.7 &
686: \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
687: % 37.5&1.3 \\
688: $0 < A < 60$ & 42 & 25 &
689: 122.3&2.6 & 12.3&0.5 & 50.0&2.1 \\
690: $60 < A < 100$ & 78 & 46 &
691: 93.9&2.0 & 20.9&0.9 & 45.3&1.9 \\
692: $100 < A < 1000$ & 175 & 103 &
693: 70.0&3.1 & 37.6&3.3 & 36.3&3.2 \\
694: \hline
695: \multicolumn{9}{l}{\arco} \\
696: all & 150 & 57 &
697: 47.8&9.3 & 19&7 &
698: \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
699: % 34&13 \\
700: ~~$0 < A < 100$~ & 69 & 26 &
701: 55.6&3.0 & 14&2 & 54&6 \\
702: $100 < A < 170$~ & 131 & 50 &
703: 40.2&2.8 & 27&4 & 55&8 \\
704: $170 < A < 1000$ & 279 & 106 &
705: 23.2&3.9 & 82&27 & 77&26 \\
706: \hline
707: \end{tabular}
708: \vspace*{6mm}
709: \end{center}
710: \end{table}
711:
712:
713: \begin{figure}[b]
714: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsffile{transpa.eps}}}
715: \caption[]{\label{fig:transpa}
716: Ratio $R = N_{\rm t}^{\rm eff} /N_{\rm t}$ as determined from the resolution as a function
717: of the drift distance for both gases and 3 regions of amplitude.
718: }
719: \end{figure}
720:
721: If the sample is split up in three regions of
722: signal amplitude this bias is reduced to about 10\%.
723: The amplitude ranges are chosen such that the number of events
724: in each range is approximately the same.
725: The fit results are summarized in Table \ref{tab:transpa} and
726: Figure \ref{fig:transpa}. The ratio $R$ is consistent with 0.5 independent
727: of the amplitude. This interpretation does not account for the
728: $\sim$10\% loss of primary electrons over the full drift-distance
729: observed in \arco . There is no electron loss in the drift-region for
730: P10. No loss of GEM transparency is suggested at our operating voltages
731: from published analyses \cite{cit:sauli}.
732: However, it is clear that the present resolution measurement technique
733: effectively uses only about half the statistical power available from the
734: number of primary electrons.
735:
736: \subsection{X resolution depending on track angle $\phi$}
737:
738: The track angle effect on the
739: resolution is expected to be $\propto \tan{\phi}$ and depends on
740: the length of the pad as well as the effective number of
741: clusters $N_{\rm cl}^\epsilon$.
742: Figure~\ref{fig:phi_ampl2} shows the x-resolution as a function of
743: track angle for drift distances of less than 3 cm
744: for three regions of amplitude.
745: The following function is fit to the data:
746: \be
747: s_{\rm x} = \sqrt{ s^2 + \frac{L^2}{12}\tan^2{(\phi-\varphi)} \;
748: / N_{\rm cl}^\epsilon } \; ,
749: \ee
750: where $\varphi$ is an additional
751: free parameter allowing for a bias in the track angle
752: and $s$ includes contributions from diffusion $s_{\rm D}$.
753: For the fit the number of clusters $N_{\rm cl}$ is taken to be
754: independent of the amplitude, all variations being assigned to
755: the exponent $\epsilon$. The fit results for $s$, $\varphi$ and
756: $\epsilon$ are given in Table \ref{tab:phifit}.
757:
758: The offset $\varphi$ is consistent with 0 indicating that there is
759: no systematic shift.
760: The number of primary clusters $N_{\rm cl}$ is reduced to the number
761: of effective clusters by the exponent $\epsilon$.
762: We see no dependence of $\epsilon$ on the amplitude.
763: As expected the basic resolution $s$ improves with amplitude.
764: Due to the high gain $s$ is mainly determined by the diffusion
765: $s_{\rm D}$ and not so much by the internal resolution $s_0$.
766:
767: \begin{table}[b]
768: \caption[]{\label{tab:phifit}
769: Fit result for track angle effect.}
770: \begin{center}
771: \begin{tabular}{c|r@{$\pm$}lr@{$\pm$}lr@{$\pm$}l}
772: \hline
773: \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Amplitude}&
774: \multicolumn{6}{c}{Fit result}\\
775: range & % mean &
776: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$s$ (mm)} &
777: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\varphi$ (deg)} &
778: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\epsilon$} \\
779: \hline
780: \multicolumn{7}{l}{P10} \\
781: $ 0 < A < 60$ & % 42 &
782: 0.170&0.005 & --0.3&0.5 & 0.50&0.03 \\
783: $ 60 < A < 100$ & % 78 &
784: 0.122&0.004 & --0.5&0.3 & 0.54&0.02 \\
785: $ 100 < A < 1000$ & % 175 &
786: 0.111&0.004 & 0.3&0.3 & 0.49&0.02 \\
787: \hline
788: \multicolumn{7}{l}{\arco} \\
789: ~~$0 < A < 100$~ & % 69 &
790: 0.130&0.005 & 0.1&0.5 & 0.64&0.03 \\
791: $100 < A < 170$~ & % 131 &
792: 0.103&0.003 & 0.2&0.3 & 0.56&0.02 \\
793: $170 < A < 1000$ & % 279 &
794: 0.105&0.003 & 0.1&0.3 & 0.55&0.02 \\
795: \hline
796: \end{tabular}
797: \end{center}
798: \end{table}
799:
800:
801: \begin{figure}[p]
802: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=0.9\textwidth \epsffile{phi_ampl2.eps}}}
803: \caption[]{\label{fig:phi_ampl2}
804: X resolution as a function of track angle for 2 mm wide pads and
805: drift distance less than 3 cm. For both gases the sample is
806: split up in three regions of amplitude $A$.
807: The expected angular dependence is fit to the distributions.
808: The fit results are given in Table \ref{tab:phifit}.}
809: \end{figure}
810:
811: \clearpage
812:
813: \section{Conclusion}
814:
815: We have investigated the dependence of the spatial resolution of
816: cosmic-ray tracks in a GEM TPC on various parameters.
817: We found that the resolution degrades if the pads are too wide with
818: respect to the track-charge width arriving at the
819: readout plane due to insufficient charge sharing between readout pads.
820: The observed charge width is larger than that expected from transverse
821: diffusion between the GEMs and the readout plane.
822: Therefore 2~mm wide pads are large enough to achieve a resolution
823: of 100 \mum\ for drift distances of less than 3 cm in the absence of
824: an axial magnetic field. The dependence of
825: the spatial resolution as a function of drift distance allows the
826: determination of the underlying electron statistics. Our results
827: show that with the present technique effectively only about half of
828: the primary electron statistics is used for the position determination.
829: The track angle effect is observed as expected.
830:
831: \section*{Acknowledgements}
832: We would like to thank Ron Settles for providing the ALEPH TPC
833: charge amplifiers that were used in these measurements.
834: Ernie Neuheimer lent us his expertise in designing, building and
835: troubleshooting much of our specialized electronics.
836: Mechanical engineers Morley O'Neill and Vance Strickland helped with
837: the detector design and in improving the clean-room facility where
838: the detector was assembled. Philippe Gravelle was always helpful in
839: providing technical assistance when needed. Much of the work
840: was done by our CO-OP students Alasdair Rankin, Steven Kennedy,
841: Roberta Kelly, David Jack and Pascal Elahi
842: who where involved in construction and commisioning of the detector
843: as well as in data taking and analysis.
844: This research was supported by a project grant from the
845: Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
846:
847:
848: \bibliographystyle{Lep2Rep}
849: % \bibliographystyle{elsart-num}
850: \bibliography{pr}
851:
852: \clearpage
853:
854: \appendix
855: \section{Corrections to the $x$ resolution}
856: \label{sec:rowfit}
857:
858:
859: When determining the point resolution the typical method involves
860: fitting a straight line to all points and determining the standard
861: deviation of the residuals; this method gives
862: a resolution that is too good, since the point for which the
863: resolution is to be determined was included in the line fit.
864: The alternate method is to fit a straight line without the point
865: for which the resolution is to be determined; this gives a resolution
866: which is worse than the actual resolution since the line is determined
867: from the other points which themselves have an uncertainty.
868:
869: A detailed analysis reveals that a better estimate of the true
870: resolution is given by the geometric mean of the two methods, that is:
871: $
872: \sigma_i^2 = \sigma_{\delta_i^{\rm in}} \cdot \sigma_{\delta_i^{\rm ex}}
873: $,
874: where $\sigma_i$ is the better estimate of the resolution $s_i$
875: for point $i$, $\delta_i^{\rm in}$ and $\delta_i^{\rm ex}$ are
876: the measured residuals when the point is included and
877: excluded respectively, and $\sigma_{\delta_i^{\rm in}}$ and
878: $\sigma_{\delta_i^{\rm ex}}$ are the standard deviations of
879: the residual distribution when the point is included
880: and excluded from the fit.
881:
882: Let us assume a track consisting of $N$ measurements with known
883: values $y_j$, $1\leq j \leq N$. The corresponding measured values
884: $x_j$ are distributed around the expected mean
885: $\langle x_j \rangle = a + b \; y_j$ with the standard deviations $s_j$,
886: where $a$ and $b$ are the track parameters.
887: To determine the resolution of one measurement $i$ it is convenient
888: to choose the coordinate system so that $y_i = 0$.
889: In this case, the residual is given by $\delta_i = a - x_i$, where
890: $a$ can be determined from a least square fit to the track by either
891: including ($a^{\rm in}$) or excluding ($a_i^{\rm ex}$) the
892: measurement~$i$. The residual $\delta_i$ will be distributed with a
893: standard deviation $\sigma_{\delta_i}$ which is related to $s_i$,
894: but depends on the coordinates $(x_j,y_j)$ and weights $w_j = 1/s_j^2$
895: of all measurements.
896:
897: % \onecolumn
898:
899: Minimising the $\chi^2$ gives an estimate for $a$:
900: \ba
901: a^{\rm in} & = & \frac{\sum_j w_j x_j \cdot \sum_k w_k y_k^2
902: - \sum_k w_k y_k \cdot \sum_j w_j x_j y_j}
903: {D^{\rm in}} \mbox{ , where} \\
904: \nonumber
905: D^{\rm in} & = & \sum_j w_j \cdot \sum_j w_j y_j^2 - ( \sum_j w_j y_j )^2
906: \ea
907: and
908: \ba
909: a^{\rm ex}_i & = & \frac{\sum_{j \neq i} w_j x_j \cdot
910: \sum_{k \neq i} w_k y_k^2
911: - \sum_{k \neq i} w_k y_k \cdot
912: \sum_{j \neq i} w_j x_j y_j}{D^{\rm ex}_i} \mbox{ , where}\\
913: \nonumber
914: D^{\rm ex}_i & = & \sum_{j \neq i} w_j \cdot \sum_{j \neq i} w_j y_j^2 -
915: ( \sum_{j \neq i} w_j y_j )^2 \; .
916: \ea
917:
918: And since $y_{(j=i)} = 0$
919: \be
920: \nonumber
921: D^{\rm ex}_i = D^{\rm in} - w_i \sum_j w_j y_j^2 \; .
922: \ee
923:
924: The residual $\delta_i^{\rm in}$ of point $i$ is:
925: \ba
926: \nonumber
927: \delta_i^{\rm in} & = & a^{\rm in} - x_i \\
928: \nonumber
929: & = & \frac{\sum_j w_j x_j (\sum_k w_k y_k^2 - y_j \sum_k w_k y_k )
930: - D^{\rm in} x_i} {D^{\rm in}} \\
931: & = & \frac{\sum_{j\neq i} w_j x_j (\sum_k w_k y_k^2 - y_j \sum_k w_k y_k )
932: - D_i^{\rm ex} x_i} {D^{\rm in}} \; .
933: \ea
934:
935: Assuming that the $N$ measurements are independent, the variance of the
936: residual distribution is approximately:
937: \be
938: \nonumber
939: \sigma^2_{\delta_i^{\rm in}} =
940: \sum_j \left( \frac{\partial\delta_i^{\rm in}}{\partial x_j} s_j \right)^2 \; .
941: \ee
942: The partial differentiation picks out the $x_j$ terms yielding:
943: \be
944: \sigma^2_{\delta_i^{\rm in}} = \frac
945: {\sum_{j \neq i} w_j^2 s_j^2
946: \left(\sum_k w_k y_k^2 - y_j \sum_k w_k y_k \right)^2
947: - \left( D_i^{\rm ex} s_i\right)^2 }
948: {(D^{\rm in})^2} \; .
949: \ee
950: Expanding, rearranging and collecting terms yields:
951: % Expanding, rearranging, collecting terms and using the substitutions:
952: % \ban
953: % w_j & = & 1 / s_j^2 \\
954: % % 1 & = & w_j s_j^2 \\
955: % \sum_j w_j & = & w_i + \sum_{j \neq i} w_j \\
956: % \sum_j w_j y_j & = & \sum_{j \neq i} w_j y_j \mbox{ ~ , since } y_i = 0
957: % \ean
958: %
959: % yields:
960: \be
961: \sigma^2_{\delta_i^{\rm in}} = s_i^2 \frac{D_i^{\rm ex}}{D^{\rm in}}
962: % \ee
963: \hspace{1cm}
964: \mbox{and similarly: }
965: \hspace{1cm}
966: % \be
967: \sigma^2_{\delta_i^{\rm ex}} = s_i^2 \frac{D^{\rm in}}{D_i^{\rm ex}} \; .
968: \ee
969:
970: The quantities ${D^{\rm in}}$ and ${D_i^{\rm ex}}$ are fixed for a given
971: layout and can be
972: calculated to correct the resolution measured, however it is simpler
973: to combine the last two expressions:
974:
975: \be
976: s_i^2 = \sigma_{\delta_i^{\rm in}} \cdot \sigma_{\delta_i^{\rm ex}} \; .
977: \ee
978:
979: With this one can thus get a better estimate of the resolution by
980: taking the geometric mean of the resolution as determined with the
981: point included in and with the point excluded from the fit without having to
982: calculate a correction factor. As expected, our tests show that
983: for a large sample the results are identical for the two methods.
984:
985: \end{document}
986: