1 / 23

SCT Material Analysis and Methodology for End-cap Components

This document delves into the analysis and methodology for the end-cap components of the SCT material, detailing key principles, methodologies, and mass estimations for various components. The document presents a thorough examination of the material composition, dimensions, and location in a clear and organized layout. The end-cap sections, regions, and services are carefully assessed, highlighting notable observations and discrepancies in estimated versus measured values. Through comparisons with CAD estimates and consistency checks, the document provides a comprehensive overview of the material properties, uncertainties, and model validations.

lbutler
Download Presentation

SCT Material Analysis and Methodology for End-cap Components

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SCT EC Material Stephen Haywood Rutherford Appleton Lab

  2. Introduction • General • End-cap • End-cap contributions from: • Paul Bell, Jason Tarrant, Ian Wilmut • and • Brian Anderson, Jeff Bizzell, Richard Brenner, Tim Brodbeck, Pawel Bruckman, Janet Carter, Colin Dabinett, Katharine Dickinson, Peter Ford, Martin Gibson, Harry Gulliver, Nigel Hessey, John Morris, Koichi Nagai, John Noviss, Val O’Shea, Luis Sospedra, Tony Weidberg, Patrick Werneke • Barrel: Alessandro Tricoli • GeoModel: Pat Ward, Grant Gorfine, Moustapha Thioye SCT Material 2

  3. Guiding Principles • TDR: To x-calibrate Ecal and InDet, look at E/p; need to understand X0 at O(2)% of its value. • Specify volumes by mass and effective radiation length × density. • Sometimes G4 volumes need to be shifted to avoid clashes and allow them to be “alignable”. • Try to identify every component • Look for objects ≥ 1cm3 or 1 g • Material is more important at lower radius – and easier to determine • Try to retain reasonable spatial precision, but small objects or those at large radii smeared • Shape is not important (for objects << 1 X0). • Composition is important – factor of 3 variation in rX0. • Location of transverse radius important at O(1)% level. SCT Material 3

  4. Web • Note • Summary Info • Summary Plots – Pat Ward SCT Material 4

  5. Methodology • Observed sub-detectors being constructed • Weighed sets of components where possible – very complicated spreadsheets, documents & many drawingsE.g. Disk spreadsheet: 10 sheets, some 100 r × 15 c • Extracted masses from CAD • Did not have as much time as would have liked. • Raw Info (Eng)  “Model” (AT & SH)  G4 Geom Description (PW) • Attempt to weigh SCT in TRT – inconsistent, so ignored. • “Workshop”: • Alessandro & Stephen check Pat has correctly implementedModel • Alessandro & Stephenexplain Model to RAL Engineers SCT Material 5

  6. End-cap • 6 Regions: • Modules – done by Peter Kodys • Disks & Services • Support Cylinder & Services • Support Structures (ITE & Front/Rear Supports) • External Radial Services • External Cryostat Services & PPF1 • Surprises: • ITE glue: estimate 0.5 kg, measure 1.2 kg; ITE Assy weighs 6.3 kg • RTE glue: estimate 70 g, measure 510 kg; Pad weighs 1.2 kg • OTE glue: OTE-A weighs 2.1 kg, OTE-C weighs 3.2 kg • Araldite on Airex hard to control SCT Material 6

  7. End-cap Mass SCT Material 7

  8. Checks • Some comparisons between measurements & CAD estimates • Discuss with Engineers • Check spreadsheets on separate occasions – small mistakes found • Consistency checks SCT Material 8

  9. PPF0 in VP1 … thanks Bill SCT Material 9

  10. Model vs G4 Geom Description Not totally trivial to extract X0 from Model – see next X0 vs h Integrals agree to 0.5% SCT Material 10

  11. SCT Material 11

  12. X0 integrals • Differences between association of volumes. • X0 not directly proportional to Mass due to • Composition • Solid angle SCT Material 12

  13. Difference between EC-A & EC-C SCT Material 13

  14. Uncertainties • Sealant: • 400 g estimated for STFT; could be wrong by factor of 2-3 • Coolant: • Vapour fractions uncertain; total estimate 6 kg • Omissions: • Some identified recently; too small to be worth effort to change • Hard to estimate numbers. So guess: • In Tracking Volume: <5 kg on 140 kg, i.e. <4% • Total EC (including PPF1): <10 kg on 260 kg, i.e. <4% SCT Material 14

  15. Model SCT Material 15

  16. SCT Material 16

  17. Mass • Composition • Numbers • Dimensions • Location 6 spreadsheets ~10 Sheets 1-3 Volumes/sheet SCT Material 17

  18. Pat’s Plots SCT Material 18

  19. Modules / Disks / Cylinder Services/ Ext Services SCT Material 19

  20. Fixed Vtx / Smeared Vtx / f Scan / z Scan SCT Material 20

  21. Modules / Cylinder Services SCT Material 21

  22. CSC-03 vs TDR CSC-03 • It’s got worse ! • Difficult/tedious to understand changes. • It is what it is. • Only issue is for future: what tends to get underestimated? SCT Material 22

  23. Conclusions • Believe Model is a good description of reality • G4 Geom Description is a faithful representation of the Model • Description good to a few percent • All effort in vain if Pixels have not done at least as good a job • We have not looked at SCT (B+EC) Services beyond PPF1 SCT Material 23

More Related