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{Ar:CO$_2$}}

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: \def\FWHM{\mbox{\it FWHM}}

46: 

47: \begin{document}

48: 

49: 

50: \begin{frontmatter}

51: 

52: % Title, authors and addresses

53: 

54: % use the thanksref command within \title, \author or \address for footnotes;

55: % use the corauthref command within \author for corresponding author footnotes;

56: % use the ead command for the email address,

57: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:

58: % \title{Title\thanksref{label1}}

59: % \thanks[label1]{}

60: % \author{Name\corauthref{cor1}\thanksref{label2}}

61: % \ead{email address}

62: % \ead[url]{home page}

63: % \thanks[label2]{}

64: % \corauth[cor1]{}

65: % \address{Address\thanksref{label3}}

66: % \thanks[label3]{}

67: \title{Spatial resolution of a GEM readout TPC using

68: the charge dispersion signal}

69: 

70: \author[ref_CU]{K.~Boudjemline},

71: %\author[ref_CU]{R.~K.~Carnegie},

72: \author[ref_CU,ref_TR]{M.~S.~Dixit\corauthref{add_MD}},

73: \ead{<msd@physics.carleton.ca>}

74: % \ead[url]{home page}

75: % \author[ref_CU]{J.~Dubeau},

76: \author[ref_UM]{J.-P.~Martin}

77: %\author[ref_CU]{H.~Mes}

78: and

79: \author[ref_CU]{K.~Sachs}

80: 

81: \address[ref_CU]{Department of Physics, Carleton University, 

82:         \\ 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada}

83: \address[ref_UM]{Universit\'e de Montr\'eal, Montr\'eal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada}

84: % \address[ref_UVIC]{University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada}

85: \address[ref_TR]{TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC V6T 2A3, Canada}

86: \corauth[add_MD]{Corresponding author; 

87:          tel.: +1-613-520-2600, ext. 7535; fax: +1-613-520-7546.}

88: 

89: 

90: % use optional labels to link authors explicitly to addresses:

91: % \author[label1,label2]{}

92: % \address[label1]{}

93: % \address[label2]{}

94: 

95: \begin{abstract}

96: % Text of abstract

97: A large volume Time Projection Chamber (TPC) is being considered for the central charged particle tracker for the  detector for the proposed International Linear Collider (ILC).  To meet the ILC-TPC spatial resolution challenge of $\sim$ 100 $\mum$ with a manageable number of readout pads and channels of electronics,  Micro Pattern Gas Detectors (MPGD) are being developed which could use pads comparable in width to the 

98: proportional-wire/cathode-pad TPC.   We have built a prototype GEM readout TPC with 2 mm x 6 mm pads using the new concept of charge dispersion in MPGDs with a resistive anode. The dependence of transverse  resolution on the drift distance has been measured for small angle tracks in cosmic ray tests without a magnetic field for \arco (90:10). 

99: The GEM-TPC resolution with charge dispersion readout is significantly better than  previous measurements carried out with conventional direct charge readout techniques.

100: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

101:  \begin{picture}(0,0)

102:  \put(20,160){\parbox{5cm}{Carleton Phys/061020 }}

103: \end{picture}

104: \end{abstract}

105: 

106: \begin{keyword}

107: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword

108: Gaseous Detectors \sep 

109: Position-Sensitive Detectors \sep

110: Micro-Pattern Gas Detectors \sep

111: Gas Electron Multiplier 

112: % \sep Micromegas

113: 

114: 

115: 

116: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code

117: \PACS 29.40.Cs \sep 29.40.Gx 

118: 

119: \end{keyword}

120: \end{frontmatter}

121: 

122: % main text

123: \section{Introduction}

124: \label{sec:intro}

125: 

126: Large volume time projection chambers (TPC) \cite{cit:TPC1,cit:TPC2} 

127: have been used as high precision tracking detectors in many high energy

128: physics experiments since the 1970s. A large volume TPC is also a prime

129: track detector candidate for future experiments at the International

130: Linear collider (ILC). However for the ILC application, it will be

131: important to improve the spatial resolution capability for the TPC.

132: A promising possibility is the replacement of the traditional proportional-wire/cathode-pad

133: readout by a Micro Pattern Gas Detector (MPGD) like the Gas Electron Multiplier

134: (GEM) \cite{cit:gem,cit:gem2}. This would eliminate one of the major 

135: systematic errors which results from the so called \ExB\ effect 

136: \cite{cit:ExB} that degrades the TPC spatial resolution.

137: 

138: The readout of a TPC with MPGD has several advantages but also some

139: drawbacks, both of which are related to the confinement of the signal

140: charge to a small spatial region due to reduced transverse in a high magnetic field. The advantage is that the localization has the potential to improve the double track resolution. 

141: The disadvantage with conventional MPGD direct charge readout technique is that it leads to difficulties

142: with the determination of the signal position. For a nominal

143: pad size of $\sim$2 mm,  signals may often be confined to one or two pads only

144: making a centroid calculation less precise, in contrast to the proportional-wire/cathode-pad readout. A smaller pad width would

145: lead to a better resolution but also to a large number of readout 

146: channels which may be difficult to manage for a large detector.  

147: 

148: One possibility to improve the signal centroid determination and thus achieve good

149: resolution with relatively wide pads is to use a MPGD with a resistive anode which

150: disperses the avalanche charge and allows the signal to be

151: reconstructed on several pads. The principle of charge dispersion has 

152: been proven previously \cite{cit:dispersion} for a  GEM using point  

153: X-ray source. The charge dispersion phenomenon and its application to MPGD-TPC readout are now well understood as shown in the excellent agreement of model simulations with experimental data \cite{cit:simulation}.

154: In this paper, we present  our first results of MPGD-TPC track resolution measurements with charge dispersion 

155: for cosmic-ray particles.

156: The spatial resolution of a GEM-TPC  is measured as a function of drift distance using the charge dispersion technique.  \arco (90:10) was used as a fill gas to mimic the reduced transverse diffusion 

157: for a TPC  in a high magnetic field.

158: The results are compared to our previous measurements of 

159: GEM-TPC resolution \cite{cit:tpc1b}  with direct charge readout for the same gas.

160: 

161: \section{Experimental setup}

162: \label{sec:exp}

163: 

164: A small 15 cm drift length double-GEM TPC used earlier for cosmic ray resolution studies with conventional

165: direct charge readout  \cite{cit:tpc1b} was modified for the measurements reported here. The standard anode pad readout plane was replaced with  a resistive anode readout  structure  \cite{cit:dispersion}. 

166: The new anode structure is fabricated by laminating a 25~\mum\ thick film 

167: of carbon loaded Kapton with an effective surface resistivity of 

168: 530~${\rm K}\Omega/\square$ to the readout pad PCB using a double 

169: sided insulating adhesive.

170: The adhesive provides a 50 \mum\  gap between the resistive anode 

171: and the PCB.  Taking the dielectric constant of the glue into account, 

172: the gap results in a capacitance density of C $\simeq$ 0.22 pF/mm$^2$. 

173: The film surface resistivity and the capacitance  results in a 

174: $RC$ coupling of the anode to the readout plane.  An avalanche charge 

175: arriving at the anode surface disperses with the system $RC$ time constant. 

176: Signals are induced on readout pads as explained in reference \cite{cit:dispersion}. 

177: 

178: 

179:  The TPC drift field for  \arco (90:10) at 300 V/cm was larger than in our previous measurements with direct charge readout for the same gas. From Magboltz \cite{cit:Magboltz}, we find that the larger drift field increased the electron drift

180: velocity from 8.9 to 22.75 $\mum/ns$, and decreased the transverse diffusion slightly from

181: 0.229 to 0.223 $\mum/\sqrt{cm}$. Within measurement errors, the effective gas gain for the two measurements was about the same, about 6700.

182:  

183:  

184: The layout of the readout pad system contained 5 inner rows of 12 pads each 

185: (pad size: 2 mm $\times$ 6 mm), together with two large area 

186: outer pads whose signals are used for selecting cosmic events for analysis. 

187: Charge signals on the central 60 pads used for tracking were read out using Aleph proportional wire TPC readout

188: preamplifiers.  We used 200 MHz 8 bit FADCs, designed previously  for another application, to digitize preamplifier  signals directly without an intermediate shaper amplifier.  Since charge dispersion pulses are slow and signals were integrated over a few hundred ns during analysis, 25 to 40 MHz FADCs would have been adequate. 

189: 

190:  The data analysis  

191: method is similar to that used in our previous publication 

192: \cite{cit:tpc1b} on GEM-TPC with conventional direct charge readout except for the amplitude reconstruction technique.

193: For the direct charge measurement, signals result only from the 

194: charge deposit on a pad. Depending on the transverse diffusion in the 

195: TPC gas, one or more pads in a row have a signal. In this type of normal TPC readout, all signals

196: have the same shape, {\it e.g.} rise-time, and the maximum amplitude is proportional

197: to the charge collected by the pad. The pad response function ({\it PRF}) can be

198: evaluated from the known diffusion properties of the gas and readout geometry. 

199: 

200: For the charge dispersion readout, in contrast, pads away from the region of direct

201:  charge collection on the anode may still see  measurable

202: signals due to the $RC$ dispersion of the cluster charge on the resistive surface.

203: The observed amplitude and the charge pulse shape depends on the distance

204: of the pad with respect to the track ionization clusters and the characteristics of

205: the front-end electronics. Pads seeing a part of the direct charge on the anode will

206: have a prompt signal with a fast rise-time, while other pads with signals resulting only from charge

207: dispersion will have a smaller slower rise-time delayed signal depending on the distance to the

208: track. In principle, a determination of the

209: track {\it PRF} is possible starting from  the charge dispersion model.  

210: However, small {\it RC} inhomogeneities of the 

211: resistive anode readout structure  introduce systematic effects which make the theoretical

212: {\it PRF} deviate from the measurement, as observed in Reference  \cite{cit:simulation}. For the present analysis, the {\it PRF} as well as the systematic effects 

213: are determined empirically from the internal consistency of  a subset of cosmic ray track data used only for calibration.   The remaining part of the data is used for resolution studies.

214: 

215: \begin{figure}[tp]

216: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=\textwidth \epsffile{evt.eps}}}

217: \caption{\label{fig:event}

218: Track display plot showing observed pulse shapes for a cosmic ray track for the five rows of  2 mm x 6 mm GEM readout pads used for tracking.  The dark shaded areas indicate the regions used

219: to compute signal amplitudes  to determine the pad response function  ({\it PRF}), as explained in the text. The track parameters are: drift distance z = 1.97 cm,  $\phi = 0.15$ radians and $\theta = -0.70$ radians.} 

220: \end{figure}

221:  

222: 

223: As both the rise time and the pulse height carry track position information, the {\it PRF} will depend 

224: on the method used to reconstruct the pad signal amplitude from the measured  

225: pulse. The following method uses both the time and pulse height information to obtain a narrower {\it PRF}  

226: with shorter tails. For a given pad row, the largest pulse is identified and its amplitude

227: calculated by maximizing the average pulse height in a 150 ns window. 

228: The large fast rise time pulse arises mainly from the primary charge. For

229: a single track,  adjacent  pads in the row have delayed slower rising  smaller signals;

230: which reach their maximum peak pulse heights later.

231: For these pads, the start of the integration time window is kept at the value 

232: obtained from the largest pad signal and the width is increased to maximize

233: the reconstructed amplitude. The maximum window width is limited to 500 ns. 

234: 

235: Fast pulses, from the primary charge, are thus averaged

236: only over a short time period, leading to a larger calculated amplitude. Slower 

237: rising smaller pulses are averaged over a longer time window,

238: improving the signal to noise ratio. Since the start of the time window is determined by the main

239: pulse in the row, late pulses will be reconstructed with a smaller computed amplitude as well

240: leading to a suppression of the tails of the pad response function.

241: Figure~\ref{fig:event} shows the observed pulses for a cosmic ray track for

242: the five tracking rows of pads. The time bins used for the determination of the

243: amplitudes are also indicated. Differences in the shapes between

244: the main pulse dominated by primary charge and pulses from

245: charge dispersion on pads farther away are visible.

246: % Finally the drift time measurement for

247: % the row only uses the timing information from the largest pad pulse.

248: 

249: \begin{figure}[b]

250: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=11cm \epsffile{prf.eps}}}

251: \caption[]{\label{fig:prf}

252: a) Determination of the pad response function ({\it PRF})  from the calibration data set for the first 1 cm drift.  The  figure shows measured relative pulse amplitudes as a function of the

253: track x coordinate relative to pad centres and the fit to the {\it PRF} parametric form  given by Eq. \ref{eq:prf}.

254:  

255: b) The {\it PRF} as a function of drift distance was determined in 1 cm steps. The dependence of the square of the {\it FWHM} of the {\it PRF}  on the drift distance  was found to be linear.} 

256: \end{figure}

257: 

258: 

259: The  resolution study was restricted to  track angles $|\phi|<5^\circ$. The track fit of the reconstruction analysis made use of a

260: pad response function {\it PRF} determined  from the calibration data  set.  The {\it PRF} was determined as a function of drift distance and as mentioned before,

261:  the calibration data set was not used for  resolution studies.

262: 

263:  Figure~\ref{fig:prf}a shows the  {\it PRF}  data for  drift distances up to 1 cm. The relative 

264: amplitude is shown as a function of the distance between the pad-center 

265: and the track.  The {\it PRF} was determined in 1 cm steps and parameterized with a ratio of two symmetric 4th order polynomials:

266: 

267: \begin{equation}

268: PRF(x,\Gamma,\Delta,a,b ) = \frac{1 + a_2 x^2 + a_4 x^4}{1 + b_2 x^2 + b_4 x^4} \; 

269: %\mbox{ with} \\[1ex]

270: \label{eq:prf}

271: \end{equation}

272: 

273: ~~~~~with

274: 

275: \ba

276: %PRF(x,\Gamma, \Delta, a, b ) & = & \frac{1 + a_2 x^2 + a_4 x^4}{1 + b_2 x^2 + b_4 x^4} \;

277: %\mbox{ with} \\[1ex]

278: %\label{eq:prf}

279: a_2 & = & - (2/\Delta)^2 \, (1 + a) \nonumber \\

280: a_4 & = & (2/\Delta)^4 \, a \nonumber \\

281: b_2 & = &  (2/\Gamma)^2 \left(1 - b -2(1+a)\left(\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta}\right)^2 +

282: 2a\left(\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta}\right)^4 \right) \nonumber \\

283: b_4 & = & (2/\Gamma)^4 \, b, \nonumber 

284: \ea

285: 

286: 

287: where in principle all parameters,  full-width-half-maximum \FWHM\ 

288: ($\Gamma$), base width $\Delta$, and scale parameters $a$ and $b$, 

289: depend on the drift distance.

290:  For the present data set, a linear parameterization could be used for the square of  \FWHM\,  as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:prf}b.  The other parameters at

291:  $b=0$, $a=-0.3$ and $\Delta=11.9$ mm were held constant.

292:  

293: Since the track fit uses a $\chi^2$ minimization,  the amplitude measurement errors must also be determined from the

294: data. In our case, this error is dominated by systematic effects leading to

295: a mainly linear dependence on the amplitude.

296: 

297: 

298: \section{Analysis and  results}

299: \label{sec:results}

300: 

301: As in our previous paper \cite{cit:tpc1b}, the track parameters 

302: $x_0$ and $\phi$ are

303: determined from a global fit to all pad amplitudes of a given event. 

304: We use a right-handed coordinate system with the $x$-coordinate

305: horizontal and the $y$-coordinate parallel to the pad length; the 

306: $z$-coordinate corresponds to the drift distance with $z=0$ at the

307: first GEM stage. The azimuthal angle $\phi$ and the polar angle $\theta$

308: are measured with respect to the $y$-axis. The position in a row

309: $x_{\rm row}$ is determined from a separate one-parameter track fit 

310: to this

311: row only using the known track angle $\phi$. Figure~\ref{fig:bias}a

312: shows the mean of the track residuals $x_{\rm row}-x_{\rm track}$ for row 4  (see Fig \ref{fig:event})   as a function of

313: $x_{\rm track} = x_0 + \tan{\phi}*y_{\rm row}$, where $y_{\rm row}$ is

314: the $y$ position of the row. A bias of up to 130 \mum\ is observed

315: which we attribute to small local variations in the $RC$ 

316: from imperfections in the quality of materials and technique used presently in laminating the resistive anode readout assembly.

317:  The bias is intrinsic to the detector and does not change with time. It can therefore be easily corrected. 

318: The calibration data set used for the {\it PRF} determination is also used to determine the bias correction

319: for each pad row in 500 $\mu$m steps. Figure~\ref{fig:bias}b shows the mean track residuals for the central pad row after bias correction. The remaining bias after correction was small.

320: 

321: \begin{figure}[tp]

322: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsffile{bias.eps}}}

323: \caption[]{\label{fig:bias}

324: Bias in the determination of track position before and after correction. The figure shows position residuals ($x_{\rm row}-x_{\rm track}$) for row 4 (see Fig \ref{fig:event}) as a function of $x_{\rm track}$, 

325: a) before and b) after bias correction.} 

326: \end{figure}

327: 

328: \begin{figure}[bp]

329: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=9cm \epsffile{resi.eps}}}

330: \caption[]{\label{fig:residual}

331: Position residuals $x_{\rm row}-x_{\rm track}$ for short drift

332: distance $z < 1 \mbox{ cm}$ and track angles $|\phi|<5^\circ$ after 

333: bias correction. The mean corresponds to the remaining bias.} 

334: \end{figure}

335: 

336: 

337: Figure~\ref{fig:residual} shows the distribution of the residuals

338: for tracks with $|\phi| < 5^\circ$ and small drift distance

339: $z <  1$ cm. 

340: As in our previous publication \cite{cit:tpc1b} the resolution is given by

341: the geometric mean of  standard deviations of residuals from track fits done in two different ways:  including and excluding the row for which the resolution is being determined. The measured resolution as a function of drift distance

342: is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:resolution} together with a fit to the function:

343: 

344: \begin{equation}

345:   s = \sqrt{ s_0^2 + \frac{C_{\rm D}^2 z}{N_{\rm eff}}} ~~,

346:   \label{eq:reso}

347: \end{equation}

348: 

349: %\be

350: % s = \sqrt{ s_0^2 + C_{\rm D}^2/N_{\rm eff} \times z} \; ,\label{eq:reso}

351: %\ee

352: 

353: 

354: where $s_0$ is the resolution at $z=0$, $C_D$ is the transverse diffusion constant and 

355: $N_{\rm eff}$ is the effective number of electrons along the track in a row.

356: 

357: 

358: \begin{figure}[t]

359: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsffile{reso.eps}}}

360: \caption[]{\label{fig:resolution}

361: Transverse resolution for track angles $|\phi|<5^\circ$ as a function of 

362: drift distance $z$ for 2 mm wide pads. The data with charge dispersion is fitted to the resolution expected from diffusion in the TPC gas and electron statistics (Eq. \ref{eq:reso}) (solid line).

363: For comparison, the GEM-TPC resolution with direct charge 

364: readout from our previous work \cite{cit:tpc1b} is also shown (dashed line).} 

365: \end{figure}

366: 

367: 

368: 

369: Electronic noise and systematic effects contribute to the constant term $s_0$, the resolution at zero drift distance. The constant term $s_0$  is about 80 $ \mu$m for the  

370: charge dispersion readout. In contrast, as shown in Figure 5, the TPC resolution with the conventional GEM readout for drift distances approaching zero would be much larger (138 $ \mu$m at 5 mm), due to lack of precision in pad centroid determination from diffusion. The resolution for the conventional GEM readout improves with increasing transverse diffusion for larger drift distances.  Nevertheless, 

371:   the TPC resolution obtained with the charge dispersion  

372: readout remains better than with the conventional GEM readout \cite{cit:tpc1b} even 

373: for larger drift distances. This is due to the fact that the charge dispersion phenomena can be completely described by material properties and geometry and  the centroid of the dispersed charge signals on the resistive anode can be accurately determined,  in contrast to centroid determination from diffusion, which is statistical in nature. 

374: 

375: 

376: 

377: %\clearpage 

378: 

379: 

380: 

381: \section{Summary and outlook}

382: 

383: A GEM-TPC with a charge dispersion readout system incorporating a resistive anode has been

384: used to measure particle track resolutions for the first time. 

385: The resistive anode allows a controlled dispersion of the track charge clusters

386: over several pads which can be used for a precise determination of  the charge centroid.

387: Using 2 mm x 6 mm pads, we have shown that charge dispersion  improves the GEM-TPC

388: resolution significantly over that achievable with conventional direct charge readout,  both at short 

389: and at long drift distances. 

390: Imperfections in the resistive anode assembly and materials lead to a position measurement bias which can be easily corrected. The bias remaining after correction is small.  With improvements in  fabrication techniques and the quality of materials, the measurement bias will be reduced further.  The TPC pad readout signals were digitized at 200 MHz for the results reported here.  We are in the process of developing slower 25 to 40 MHz digitizers which will be adequate  for these type of measurements.

391: 

392: 

393: 

394: \section*{Acknowledgments}

395: We thank Bob Carnegie and Hans Mes for numerous discussions and helpful suggestions throughout the course of this work. 

396: Our TPC front-end charge pre-amplifiers were used previously for the ALEPH TPC readout at LEP and we thank Ron Settles for providing these to us. 

397: Ernie Neuheimer was our electronics expert for the project and he  designed, built and did much of the troubleshooting of  the front-end and readout electronics. Our

398: mechanical engineers, Morley O'Neill initially and Vance Strickland subsequently, worked on designing

399: the TPC assembly and developing the clean-room facility used for 

400: the detector assembly. Philippe Gravelle was always willing and available to help us

401: solve a variety of technical problems. Our CO-OP students Alasdair Rankin, Steven Kennedy,

402: Roberta Kelly and David Jack worked on the commissioning of the detector as well as writing parts of the data acquisition and analysis software.   Finally, we thank Alain Bellerive for a critical reading of the manuscript and for identifying parts that needed improvements. This research was supported by a project grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. TRIUMF receives federal funding via a contribution agreement through the National Research Council of Canada.

403: 

404: 

405: % \bibliographystyle{Lep2Rep}

406: \bibliographystyle{elsart-num}

407: \bibliography{pr}

408: \end{document}

409: