150 likes | 230 Views
Pixel Replacement Studies. Mid-Term Options with Largest Coverage Possible 26 May 2011. Summary from Oxford UW. Almost full coverage to 2.5 Eta (i.e. 10.45 degrees) at +/- 120mm from IP IBL for first layer – standard layout – 14 staves Ibeam for layers 2 and 3 – 24 staves
E N D
Pixel Replacement Studies Mid-Term Options with Largest Coverage Possible 26 May 2011
Summary from Oxford UW • Almost full coverage to 2.5 Eta (i.e. 10.45 degrees) at +/- 120mm from IP • IBL for first layer – standard layout – 14 staves • Ibeam for layers 2 and 3 – 24 staves • Radii 60.8 and 99.6 • 40 single chip, active edge modules on layer 2* • 34 4-chip, active edge modules on layer 3 • Bent stave (double sided) for layer 4 – 30 staves • 32 4-chip modules in straight section* • 8 (4 per elbow) 4-chip active edge modules • This could, of course, be designed double sided all the way along • *Holes on layers 2 and 4 • *Layer 2 due to module limit at 40 • *Layer 4 due to desire for even number of modules on flat portion of stave
End view – layer radii * Layer centerline radii. *Lowest radius extent of elbow module (centerline)
End view – layer tilt angles Layer Tilt angles Relative to radius Angles are approximate
Oxford UW Design – Side View in Frame Flat EOS Region (~100mm)
Investigation of Increasing New Pixel Layout Dimensions • Two Options • Increase L3 alone • Increase L3 and Ibeam • Diskette • Add or not? • Mechanically a pain… • These plots investigate ONLY • Inclusion of diskette in “New” Layout • Expansion of Layer 3 radius
Pixel layout with Increased R outer layer and inclusion of 1 module tall disketteSCT active area is shown for comparison PST diskette Larger R Ibeam (Red) Scale compressed in Z.
L3 Elbow SCT Disks Diskette
Largest Pixel Replacement Possible PST Diskette, Z=940 New Pixel Endframe Pixel Mount Ibeam Beamline
Diskette Small Hole w/ 30 modules Covers with 32 Cable space outer radius
Summary • Two issues • Radius to 188? • Inclusion of diskette? • Increasing outer layer to R188 looks feasible • Frame still fits • Pixel mounts violate frame locally, but there is space for them to do this • What about the diskette? • Diskette is large enough to avoid services from rest of detector • Z position of diskette is within nominal frame limits, so actually fairly easy to accommodate • However, is the extra material and complexity worthwhile? • Increasing R makes mounts and frame more complex • Diskette makes services and assembly more complex • Neither is a show stopper, but is it worthwhile? NEED SIMULATION