search

SiWECAL-TestBeam / SiWECAL-Sim

Simulation tools for the CALICE SiW-ECAL technological prototype
GNU General Public License v3.0
1 stars 5 forks source link

TB2022 - geometry #3

Open airqui opened 2 years ago

airqui commented 2 years ago

@fabriciojm Is there any update on the TB2022 geometry implementation ? Did you generate geometry for the different layers sorting (check e-log, we modified the sorting during the second week,)

fabriciojm commented 2 years ago

I've made quite a few improvements for TB2022-23 that I'll commit to my fork soon (then do the PR). I can produce (generation-digitization) of the shuffled configuration in ~ a day, but would like to confirm that the Tungsten was kept at 2.8 mm for the first seven layers and 4.2 mm for the last eight. For the silicon thickness I'll follow https://llrelog.in2p3.fr/calice/2325.

fabriciojm commented 2 years ago

I can see in the elog that the beam energies used were: 1.0, 2.0, 2.6, 3.0, 4.0, 4.6, 5.0, 5.6, 5.8, and 6.0 GeV. Does that sound fine?

airqui commented 2 years ago

The tungsten repartitions are as you say. Thicker layers only in the back.

For the sensors, yes, the 2325 distribution is the correct. Please remember than one slab (17? please double check it) has one wafer of 500um.

Take into account that we also have two sets of gains:

The S/N on the trigger and the S/N on the charge are different (and to be estimated). How?

airqui commented 2 years ago

I can see in the elog that the beam energies used were: 1.0, 2.0, 2.6, 3.0, 4.0, 4.6, 5.0, 5.6, 5.8, and 6.0 GeV. Does that sound fine?

if the e-log says so... There are also lots of mip calibration runs (and with angle). Same comment as always: first study the data-simulation comparison with mips.

airqui commented 2 years ago

I did check https://github.com/fabriciojm/SiWECAL-Sim/blob/main/generation/geometry_TB2022/ECAL_CONF1.xml are the FEV13s included in the simulation? (650um wafer thickness)