Approved plots that can be shown by ATLAS speakers at conferences and similar events.
Contact the responsible project leader in case of questions and/or suggestions. Please note that the original plots, often in multiple formats, are attached to this page in the attachements tab at the bottom.
All plots listed in this section relate to very early Run-1 data and are therefore obsolete.
. They are still listed here for information only.
The document attached to this page (SCTConfigurationMay2010.pdf) details the configuration of the SCT in May 2010. Within that document you
will find details of the modules, chips and strips missing from the SCT configuration in the first half of 2010. On the right hand side you can see a snapshot of one of these
pages. Users are encouraged to copy the values from the table into their own presentations in a format that is appropriate for them. It SHOULD BE CLEAR that this is only
a snapshot and these numbers vary on a day-to-day basis. However, the level of those variations is very small indeed. It is also true that the level of the problems reported
in this table have been very similar throughout most of 2011.
|
|
The plot shows the SCT cluster size (in strips) plotted as a function of the track incidence angle for the 4 layers in the SCT barrel. The incidence angle is measured in degrees. We note that the minimum of the distribution is, in each case displaced, from the zero by the measured Lorentz angle. The value of the minimum with the associated systematic errors are presented in the next plot. This plot was approved on Wednesday 9th December 2009 at an open ATLAS meeting and uploaded on Saturday 12th December 2009.This plot is now out of date and one of the ones below should be used.
|
|
In this plot we see the value of the Lorentz angle extracted from the cluster-size vs angle plot. The extracted value is shown for collision data, cosmic ray data. Also shown are the model predictions. Note that the 4 layers are not all operated at the same temperature and this is reflected in the model prediction value. The errors shown on the data are the statistical values only.This plot was approved on Wednesday 9th December 2009 at an open ATLAS meeting and uploaded on Saturday 12th December 2009. This plot is now out of date and one of the ones below should be used.
|
|
In this plot we see the value of the Lorentz angle extracted from the 2011 colliding beam data.
For details see the document in CDS https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1385910/files/LorentzAngleUpdateOnApprovedPlots2011.pdf
|
|
In this plot we see the value of the Lorentz angle extracted from the 2011 colliding beam data with Monte Carlo simulation superimposed.
|
|
In this plot we see the mean cluster size as a function of the incidence angle for the 4 SCT barrels. The cluser size is measured on
side 0.
|
|
In this plot we see the mean cluster size as a function of the incidence angle for the 4 SCT barrels. The cluser size is measured on
side 1.
|
|
In this plot we see the mean cluster size as a function of the incidence angle for the 4 SCT barrels. The cluser size is measured on
side 0. In the same plot we also see the same distributions for the Monte Carlo simulation.
|
|
In this plot we see the mean cluster size as a function of the incidence angle for the 4 SCT barrels. The cluser size is measured on
side 1. In the same plot we also see the same distributions for the Monte Carlo simulation.
|
|
In this plot we see the number of strips per module side from the 900GeV run 14291
lumiblock 11-36 compared with a 900GeV minimum bias Monte Carlo sample.
The solenoid was on during this run. The number of events from the run is about 10k, and 40k for MC. Both distributions are normalized by number
of events and plotted in logarithmic scales in both axes. The plot contains all SCT modules both from barrel and end caps A good agreement is obtained
for a wide range of number of strips. The discrepancy at low N arises (at least in part) from the fact that noise in simulation is lower than in data. Noise in
the simulation is appropriate for read-out of one bunch-crossing. These data were taken reading out 3 BC, and the noise level is higher (by approx. a factor of 3).
The plots were apprved in February 2010.
|
|
This plot shows the intrinsic module efficiency for tracks measured in the SCT Barrel.
In these plots we show the number of hits per possible hit where dead modules and chips are taken into account. The efficiency is shown for two different types of tracks; SCT stand alone and combined tracks. We demand a minimum of 20 TRT hits and 6 SCT hits in the silicon detectors (not including the hit under test for efficiency). This plot was approved on Wednesday 16th December 2009 at an open ATLAS meeting and uploaded on Friday 18th December 2009. The alignment used in this plot was derived from collision data.
|
|
This plot shows the intrinsic module efficiency for tracks measured in the SCT EndCap-A.
In these plots we show the number of hits per possible hit where dead modules and chips are taken into account. The efficiency is shown for two different types of tracks; SCT stand alone and combined tracks. We demand a minimum of 20 TRT hits and 6 SCT hits in the silicon detectors (not including the hit under test for efficiency). This plot was approved on Wednesday 16th December 2009 at an open ATLAS meeting and uploaded on Friday 18th December 2009. The plot includes a preliminary alignment derived from beam data.
|
|
This plot shows the intrinsic module efficiency for tracks measured in the SCT EndCap-C.
In these plots we show the number of hits per possible hit where dead modules and chips are taken into account. The efficiency is shown for two different types of tracks; SCT stand alone and combined tracks. We demand a minimum of 20 TRT hits and 6 SCT hits in the silicon detectors (not including the hit under test for efficiency). This plot was approved on Wednesday 16th December 2009 at an open ATLAS meeting and uploaded on Friday 18th December 2009.The plot includes a preliminary alignment derived from beam data. Note the single low measurement in layer 2 inner is due to a single module with a large number (748) of misbehaving strips.
|
|
The intrinsic module efficiency is shown for tracks measured in the SCT Barrel. This hit efficiency is the number of hits per possible hit, where dead modules and chips are taken into account. The data used is from run 165591 on 22-09-2010. The efficiency is shown for two different types of tracks: SCT stand-alone and Inner Detector combined tracks, both with the requirement of a transverse momentum of above 1 GeV. For stand-alone tracks we demand at least 7 SCT hits (not including the hit under test for efficiency) while for combined tracks at least 6 SCT Hits are required. The efficiencies in layer ‘0 inner’ and ‘3 outer’ are biased for the SCT stand-alone tracks as holes beyond the last measurement are not counted.
|
|
The intrinsic module efficiency is shown for tracks measured in the SCT EndCap-A. This hit efficiency is the number of hits per possible hit, where dead modules and chips are taken into account. The data used is from run 165591 on 22-09-2010. The efficiency is shown for two different types of tracks: SCT stand-alone and Inner Detector combined tracks, both with the requirement of a transverse momentum of above 1 GeV. For stand-alone tracks we demand at least 7 SCT hits (not including the hit under test for efficiency) while for combined tracks at least 6 SCT Hits are required. The efficiencies in layer ‘0 inner’ and ‘3 outer’ are biased for the SCT stand-alone tracks as holes beyond the last measurement are not counted.
|
|
The intrinsic module efficiency is shown for tracks measured in the SCT EndCap-C. This hit efficiency is the number of hits per possible hit, where dead modules and chips are taken into account. The data used is from run 165591 on 22-09-2010. The efficiency is shown for two different types of tracks: SCT stand-alone and Inner Detector combined tracks, both with the requirement of a transverse momentum of above 1 GeV. For stand-alone tracks we demand at least 7 SCT hits (not including the hit under test for efficiency) while for combined tracks at least 6 SCT Hits are required. The efficiencies in layer ‘0 inner’ and ‘3 outer’ are biased for the SCT stand-alone tracks as holes beyond the last measurement are not counted.
|
|
SCT reads out three 25ns time bins around Level-1 Accept signal. During commissioning, we run in a mode where a hit is recorded in a strip if the charge
deposited is greater than the 1fC threshold in any of these time bins.We want the whole detector to be “timed in” with the trigger, so that the modules receive
the Level-1 accept signal in the same bunch crossing as the particles from a collision
pass through the modules. This involves applying delays to the trigger signal to
compensate for the length of the optical fibres that transmit the trigger signal, and for the
time-of-flight of particles from the interaction point to the module. We can fill a 3 bin histogram corresponding to whether a strip was over threshold in each
of the three bunch crossings that are read out – the first bin corresponds to the bunch
crossing before the Level-1 accept, the second bin is the same BC as the LVL1Accept
and the third is the BC after. If we are correctly timed in, hits corresponding to tracks
from a collision event should follow a “01X” pattern – i.e. nothing in the first bin, over
threshold in the second bin, and no requirement on the third bin. For each event, fill one of these 3-bin timebin plots for each layer, using hits-on-track for
that layer. Take the mean of this histogram, and fill this as the y-axis variable in a profile
plot. Reset the histograms and repeat for all events. Therefore, the y error bars on each point represent the variances in the means of those
timebin plots from event-to-event. One unit on the y-axis corresponds to 25ns, and to
be correctly timed in, we hope that the mean should be between 1 and 2.
|
|
This plot shows the fraction of SCT module sides that are reporting errors as a function of time (run number) for the data taken in 2010. The error rate is very low and there is no strong evidence of an increase with increasing luminosity. The report summarizing this can be found
here .
|
|
This plot shows a breakdown of the different types of error for the data taken in 2010 as seen on the previous plot. It shows that the total fraction of data with errors in the run period was less than 0.25%. The fraction of data with each kind of error can be found in corresponding bins.The report summarizing this can be found
here .
|
|
This plot is one of many summarizing the SCT timing scan done in 2010. The report summarizing this can be found
here . Please go to this location to pick up more plots.
|
|
This plot is one of many summarizing the performance of the FSI in 2010. The report summarizing this can be found
here . Please go to this location to pick up more plots.
|
|
This plot shows a history of the SCT occupancy measured in the ROS in a typical run in 2010.
here . Please go to this location to pick up more plots.
|
|
Plots concerning leakage currents, measured fluxes in SCT and RadMod. See more details
here . Plot updated in January 2013.
In this plot, the HV current measured in the HV power supply of the ATLAS SCT barrel modules are shown by points at four SCT barrel layers (B3 to B6) . The data were taken when the LHC beams were off. Assuming that all HV currents are due to generation current in the silicon bulk, they are converted to those at the temperature of 0oC using the temperature scaling formula with effective energy Egen =1.21 eV [1]. The predicted leakage currents by the Hamburg /Dortmund model are shown by four lines with colored bands indicating 1 sigma uncertainties, which is obtained by quadratically summing up all uncertainties of the model parameters as well as the temperature measurements. The prediction takes into account of self-annealing effects using the measured sensor temperatures shown at the top of plots.
The prediction is based on the total 7 and 8-TeV collision luminosities delivered at Point-1, shown by the black solid line. Results of the FLUKA simulation [2] of minimum bias events at 7 TeV pp collisions (with 5% up at 8 TeV) are used to convert the collision luminosity to 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence at each layer. The error of the FLUKA simulation is not included in the estimate of 1 sigma uncertainty. Very good agreements between data and predictions are observed over 4 decades in leakage current as well as over 3 year, indicating (1) observed HV currents are mostly due to bulk generation current, (2) the leakage current models with self-annealing terms are well applicable and (3) the flux simulation is reasonable. In conclusion, the leakage current is one of good measures for the radiation levels at the SCT region.
[1] A.Chilingarov, RD50 Technical Note 2013_JINST_8_P10003 ,
[2] https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/Atlas/BenchmarkingAtTheLHC.
|
|
Plots concerning leakage currents, measured fluxes in SCT and RadMod. See more details
here . Plot updated in January 2013.
This plot shows the leakage current distribution of the SCT modules of four barrel layers (B3 to B6) on Dec 5, 2012 when the LHC beam off. Out of 2112 barrel modules, 2060 modules (97.5%) satisfy the cuts of HV=150+5-2V with reasonable hybrid temperatures. The currents measured by the HV PS are converted to those at the temperature of 0oC using the temperature scaling formula. The leakage currents are plotted in 12 groups, each of which contains all the modules placed at the same z (beam direction) position. Values of modules in each group are plotted in series starting from 0 to 360 degree in phi direction. The distribution of currents is very flat along z (eta) except for B3 in which the central part (|z| < 30 cm) shows about 7% excess. This flat distribution is a good reflection of the flat eta distribution of secondary particles around the center of the minimum bias events.
|
|
This table demonstrates the rate limitations of the SCT for various occupancies. It shows that at 1% link occupancy
that the event size is 2 kB/ROD and that SCT rate limitation is dominated by the S-links at a value of 89Khz.
|
|
Numder of active cooling loops for SCT as a function of time from 2010 to 2012. Occasional interuptions by for example power-line cuts are seen but the recoveries have been prompt.
|
|
|
Distribution of the HV currents of all the barrel modules as of Dec. 5, 2012. Regular bump patterns in the layer B3 are due to one cooling loop set at higher temperature. The flat distribution along z (beam) axisi is a reflection of the flat pseudorapidity distribution of secondary particles in minimum bias events.
|
|
|
Distribution of the HV currents of all the end-cap modules as of Dec. 5, 2012. Modules of sides C and A and those with Hamamatsu and CiS sensors are shown in different colors. The HV currents in side A are systematically larger by about 20% probably due to different sensor temperatures.
|
|
|
Distribution of the temperatures of all the barrel modules as of Dec. 5, 2012. There are two thermistors on each module. Points labeled as link 0 (red) are for the outer hybrid circuits, while those labeled as kink 1 (blue) are for the inner hybrid circuits. The regular bumps in the layer B3 are due to one cooling loop set at higher temperature.
|
|
|
Distribution of the temperatures of all the end-cap modules as of Dec. 5, 2012. Each module has one thermistor to measure the temperature of the hybrid circuit. Side A and C are shown with different colors.
|
|
|
Mean hybrid temperatures as a function of time (averaged every 5 days). In the endcap case, they are separately shown for sides A and C.
|
|
|
Status of the Barrel layer B3 as of Dec. 5, 2012: (Top) High Voltage, (2nd) Hybrid temperatures of link-0 and link-1, (3rd) Raw HV current per module, and (Bottom) Normalized leakage curret at 0 degree C. The left-most block in the plot corresponds to 32 modules at Eta=-6 closest to the C-side. Blue horizontal lines show HV and temperature cuts to exclude modules in the bottom plot. Regular bump patterns in the 2nd and 3rd plots are due to one cooling loop set at higher temperature. However these these bumps disappear after the temperature normalization. The flat distribution along z in the bottom plot is a reflection of the flat pseudorapidity distribution in minimum bias events. Similar flat distributions are seen in all other barrel layers. |
|
|
This plot shows a typical evolution of the HV current(blue) and bias voltage(red) of one of end-cap modules with CiS sensors in late May 2012. It exhibits anomalously high and varying HV currents during beam collisions. Such poor behaviours were suppressed by setting the standby voltage to 5V (instead of 50V) and lowering the bias voltage to 80-120V for some modules. |
|
|
This plot shows typical beam-time behaviors of bias voltages and HV currents during November 2012 runs. Modules with Hamamatsu sensors(left) show flat current profiles while those with CiS sensors(right) exibit varying current behaviors during beam times. The last run corresponds to 1-day long calibration with no beam in which all currents stayed constant.
|
|
|
Change of the chip-averaged noises as a function of chip numbers, during second half of year 2010 (top) and from 2011 to 2012(bottom) for Barrel layer B3. Noises of the modules with <100> crystal orientation are separately plotted, showing negligible dependence on chip numbers. The noise mystariously decreased by about 7% in late 2010 when the fluence level was at about 1.e10 cm-2, a few Gy. Such noise drops strongly depended on the strip location as shown by the chip-number dependence in the top plot, while such initial decrease stopped and the strong chip-number dependence disappered in 2011 and 2012 shown in bottom plot.
|
|
|
Time dependence of integrated luminosityuminosity(top), input equivalent noise charges ENC(middle) and gains of front-end amplifiers(bottom) from March 2010 till December 2012. Modules are divided into ten different groups according as module types, crystal orientations of <111> vs <100> and sensor manufactures of Hamamatsu vs CiS. ENCs and gains are the results of the 3-point gain calibration scans.
|
|
|
This figure shows the module-averaged noises (ENCs) of all end-cap modules, taken in a response curve test in December 2012. Modules of side-A and side-C with Hamamatsu and CiS sensors are marked with different colors. Noticeable enhancement of noise is seen in the middle modules with CiS sensors.
|
|
|
The figure shows the distributions of module-averaged responce-curve noises (ENCs) as of October 2010 for end-cap outer, middle and inner layers. Modules of sides A and C and those with Hamamatsu and CiS sensors are shown in different colors. ENCs of the middle short modules in disk 8 is plotted using right scale.
|
|
|
The figure shows the distributions of module-averaged responce-curve noises (ENCs) as of December 2012 for Barrel layers B3 to B6. ENCs of modules with <100> sensors are shown by blue points, systematically lower that those with <111> sensors (red).
|
|
|
The figure shows the distributions of chip-averaged responce-curve noises as of October 2010 (top) and December 2012 (bottom). Only modules with HV values greater than 145V are selected. For the barrels, only modules with <111> sensors are plotted, while for the end-caps, chips with Hamamatsu and CiS sensors are shown separately. After receiving 30 fb-1,the noises stayed nearly at the original level for barrel and end-cap outer modules, while they increased about 15% in the end-cap middle modules with CiS sensors and about 5\% in inner modules both with Hamamatsu and CiS sensors.
|
|
|
The figure shows the log-scale distributions of chip-averaged responce-curve noises as of October 2010 (top) and December 2012 (bottom). Only modules with HV values greater than 145V are selected. For the barrels, only modules with <111> sensors are plotted, while for the end-caps, chips with Hamamatsu and CiS sensors are shown separately. After receiving 30 fb-1,the noises stayed nearly at the original level for barrel and end-cap outer modules, while they increased about 15% in the end-cap middle modules with CiS sensors and about 5\% in inner modules both with Hamamatsu and CiS sensors.
|
|
|
Total number of active strips as a function of time from the start of data-taking in 2010 to the end
of data-taking in 2013. One point is plotted for each physics run with at least one hour of stable
beam. The left-hand axis shows the number of strips, and the right-hand axis the corresponding
fraction of the detector in %. The runs with fewer than 98.5% of strips active correspond to periods
when a cooling loop was off, so the modules served by that loop could not be powered. The runs at
the end of 2010 with ~98.6% strips active correspond to a period when a TX fibre connector was
broken, affecting 12 modules.
|
|
|
Number of disabled modules as a function of time from the start of data-taking in 2010 to the end of
data-taking in 2013. One point is plotted for each physics run with at least one hour of stable beam.
The left-hand axis shows the number of modules, and the right-hand axis the corresponding fraction of
the detector in %. The numbers include 13 modules on the outermost disk of endcap C which are
disabled permanently due to an inaccessible leak in one cooling loop. The runs with more than 60
disabled modules correspond to periods when a cooling loop was off, so the modules served by that
loop could not be powered. The runs at the end of 2010 with around 40 disabled modules correspond to
a period when a TX fibre connector was broken, affecting 12 modules. The variations late in 2010 and throughout 2011 correspond to TX deaths where we could not use redundancy; in those cases the module was disabled until the TX was replaced.
|
|
|
Number of disabled readout chips as a function of time from the start of data-taking in 2010 to the
end of data-taking in 2013. One point is plotted for each physics run with at least one hour of
stable beam. The left-hand axis shows the number of chips, and the right-hand axis the
corresponding fraction of the detector in %. The numbers exclude chips on disabled modules. The
majority of the disabled chips (roughly 2/3) are on barrel modules read out through one link; in
this case, the master chip on the side with the non-functioning link cannot be read out.
NEED TO ADD SOMETHING ABOUT RISE.
|
|
|
Number of disabled individual strips as a function of time from the start of data-taking in 2010 to
the end of data-taking in 2013. One point is plotted for each physics run with at least one hour of
stable beam. The left-hand axis shows the number of strips, and the right-hand axis the
corresponding fraction of the detector in %. The numbers exclude strips in disabled modules and whole
chips. The most common reason for disabling a strip is excessive noise. Once a strip has been
disabled, no attempt is made to re-enable it. The occasional dips seen in the number correspond to
runs where extra modules were disabled, for example due to a cooling loop failure, so any individual
disabled strips in these modules are not counted in this plot.
|
|
|
Number of noisy strips determined offline in the prompt calibration loop as a function of time from
the start of data-taking in 2010 to the end of data-taking in 2013. One point is plotted for each
physics run with at least one hour of stable beam. The left-hand axis shows the number of strips,
and the right-hand axis the corresponding fraction of the detector in %. A noisy strip is defined as
one with an average occupancy of more than 1.5% in empty bunch-crossings. Strips which were noisy,
or showed other problems, in the previous online calibration run are excluded. The rate of noisy
strips is observed to rise with luminosity, as radiation affects the effective readout thresholds.
Often whole chips are affected, leading to large run-to-run fluctuations in the number of noisy
strips. The number is relatively stable during the periods of heavy-ion running at the end of
2011 and in 2013, when the luminosity was relatively low.
|
|
|
Other plots are listed below.
Public Link |
CDS record (ATLAS) |
Full Title |
Publication Date |
Approval meeting |
SCT-2015-003 |
ATL-COM-INDET-2015-037 |
Early Run2 plots, before collisions: Noise, leakage current, timing |
01/06/2015 |
28/05/2015 |
SCT-2015-001 |
ATL-INDET-INT-2015-007 |
Hit efficiency as function of bcid during first 2015 Collisions at √s = 13 TeV |
21/09/2015 |
21/09/2015 |
SCT-2015-002 |
ATL-INDET-INT-2015-011 |
Lorentz angle data measured with the SCT detecor in the first 13TeV pp collisions |
01/12/2015 |
30/11/2015 |
SCT-2016-001 |
ATL-COM-INDET-2016-032 |
Hit Efficiency, leakage currents, noise and detector status at start of 2016 |
23/05/2016 |
23/05/2016 |
SCT-2016-002 |
ATL-COM-INDET-2016-065 |
Bandwidth limits, IPIN trends, SEU effects on chip occupancy, long term link noise and gain, long term current and depletion projections, noisy strips and active strips |
21/09/2016 |
21/09/2016 |
SCT-2017-001 |
ATL-COM-INDET-2017-043 |
ABCD Error rates as function of product of pileup and trigger rate |
21/09/2017 |
11/09/2017 |
SCT-2017-002 |
N/A |
Updated bandwidth limitation plots, and barrel leakage currents |
06/09/2017 |
06/09/2017 |
SCT-2017-003 |
N/A |
SCT p-i-n radiation damage effects |
08/11/2017 |
08/11/2017 |
SCT-2017-004 |
N/A |
Currents, noise, gain and depletion evolution |
16/11/2017 |
15/11/2017 |
SCT-2018-001 |
N/A |
Noisy strip and disabled strip evolution - updates |
17/11/2018 |
17/01/2018 |
SCT-2018-002 |
ATL-COM-INDET-2018-024 |
Current projection updates, and link error counts |
19/04/2018 |
18/04/2018 |
SCT-2018-003 |
N/A |
Opto link radiation damage and stability plots |
19/04/2018 |
18/04/2018 |
SCT-2019-001 |
ATL-COM-INDET-2019-007 |
Radiation damage summary plots for end of Run2 |
11/02/2019 |
06/03/2019 |
SCT-2019-002 |
ATL-COM-INDET-2019-038 |
Run2 Performance summary plots for Vertex 2019 |
10/10/2019 |
09/10/2019 |
SCT-2019-003 |
ATL-COM-INDET-2019-052 |
SCT performance plots for KEK seminar |
10/12/2019 |
11/12/2019 --Cancelled-- |
SCT-2021-001 |
ATL-COM-INDET-2022-015 |
THE PERFORMANCE AND OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF THE SCT DURING LHC RUN 2 : Plots to present in as poster at TIPP 21 |
19/05/2021 |
19/105/2021 |
It's published on 2021.09.06. All plots including auxiliary material are available in