General EEEMCal Meeting Summary 2/25/22

From Cuawiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PARTICIPANTS: Carlos, Irina, Renee, Silvia, Vardan, Vladimir, Tanja, Olivier, Hamlet



  • JLab prototype tests 2022: planning to test SiPM array configurations
  • Array of 16 SiPM (Hamamatsu S14160-3010PS) per PWO block based on BCAL/Hall D array configuration
  • Array of 16 SiPM (Hamamatsu S14160-6050HS) per SciGlass block based on BCAL/Hall D array. As an alternative considering the Hamamatsu provided 4x4 array.
  • IJCLab-Orsay: planning tests in 2022 of reading out SiPM with ASIC


  • Concept idea of an insert for the EEEMCAL to reach to the highest eta ~-3.7.
  • In this concept design the insert is installed at the location of the EEEMCAL and is fixed in place.
  • The EEEMCAL is installed behind the insert and can be removed by sliding it out.
  • To address any gaps in homogeneous electron detection in the backward direction (EEEMCAL and barrel EMCAL) in this design additional EMCal capabilities around the insert at larger radii may be necessary.
  • Discussion of the concept idea of an insert for the EEEMCAL
  • Increase of acceptance needs to be balanced with feasibility of cluster analysis across boundaries
  • How does having an insert impact the physics?
  • Is there a way to split open the EEEMCAL into two pieces (clam shell design) and merge the insert with the EEEMCAL?
  • How does the fixed insert impact the beamline - is it even allowed to have the blocks close to vacuum pipe?
  • Geant Mesh could be a good option for simulating complex designs in GEANT4 - works directly from CAD drawing step file
  • If splitting EEEMCAL in two pieces this may have less of an impact on clusters, and so physics, than having a separate insert - needs to be verified
  • Action items
  • Check if insert EEEMCAL is ok for beamline
  • Check if EEEMCAL can be split apart in the middle and incorporate the insert
  • Simulation of impact of insert vs splitting EEECAL in two pieces on physics



  • Preparing for prototype test in May - the overall plan:
  • long horizontal scans at various vertical positions with the PbWO4 using CAEN QDC and Digitizer in parallel (3 days)
  • The same thing with FADC250 triggered and streaming readout (3 days).
  • Then switch to simpler scans swapping the central crystals with the SciGlass and PbWO4 alternating at various temperatures (4 days).
  • If there is time, rotate the calorimeter to study the effect of incident angle (1 day).
  • A lower priority would be to place various thicknesses of absorber before the calorimeter (1 day).
  • Assuming 1 day for setup and 1 day to clean up and pack the entire test is expected to take 2 weeks.


  • Next prototype beam tests are planned for the fall 2022 - the overall plan:
  • measure energy resolution of 40cm long SciGlass in 3x3 array prototype
  • measure energy resolution with SiPM readout for 4x4 arrays of SiPMs per block (10um pixel for PWO, 50um SciGlass) based on BCAL design from Hall D for a 3x3 prototupe with PWO 20cm long crystals and a 3x3 SciGlass prototype
  • commission the Crytur 3x3 prototype with Crytur PWO crystals and in-house designed arrays of SiPMs
  • Crytur prototype preparations - investigating options for reducing power/heating
  • presently testing a reduction by factor 16
  • discussion about options for outside cooling
  • water cooling - chiller
  • dry air - need to check with Hall D
  • planning tests at JLab on test bench before installing in the hall - could be as soon as May


  • Discussion of list of specifications for PWO and SciGlass
  • include resistance to hadron radiation - how to quantify?
  • current measurements are carried out at 18degC
  • current measurements are carried out for 100ns integration gate
  • add emission peak for both PWO and SciGlass
  • transmission longitudinal and transverse captures uniformity of material
  • resolution not part of the specifications to vendor, but measurements with prototype are needed
  • quote all specifications for the radiation length that the calorimeter will use and leave open spaces or put question marks where specification values are still being determined
  • Projectivity of SciGlass blocks