1 / 27

Pixel Insertable Layouts

Pixel Insertable Layouts. September 2000. Overview of Insertable-Layout Study. Assumptions Attempt to keep basic mechanical concepts of staves, sectors and global support frame but scale dimensions. No thermal or EMI barriers in pixel system

mestrada
Download Presentation

Pixel Insertable Layouts

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. Pixel Insertable Layouts September 2000

  2. Overview of Insertable-Layout Study • Assumptions • Attempt to keep basic mechanical concepts of staves, sectors and global support frame but scale dimensions. • No thermal or EMI barriers in pixel system • But must keep B-layer clamshelled=>support shell for this • Single insertable system • Compare with reduced layout - repeated on next pages. • Insertable-layout drivers/assumptions • Keep B-layer at same radius, rapidity coverage => stave length • Make barrel layers same length. • Current module size and same for barrel and disks • Vary disk outer radii by looking at 10,9 and 8 sector disks. • First disk no closer than 495 mm in Z • Assume pixel envelope scales with disk outer radius

  3. Current Baseline Layout

  4. Proposed Reduced Layout

  5. Reduced Layout - Barrel End View

  6. Reduced Layout - Side View

  7. Reduced Layout Rapidity Coverage Z=0

  8. Reduced Layout Rapidity Coverage Z=11cm

  9. Reduced Layout Two-Hit-Fallback Options • Three two-hit fall back options are(in likely order of decreasing performance but increasing ease of the schedule) • Option 1 Layer 2 + 2x3 disks + B-layer1 • Option2 2x2 disks + B-layer2 and B-layer1 • Option 3 Only B-layer2 and B-layer1 • The number of modules for these are given on the tables on the next pages and summarized below. The rapidity coverage can be determined from the previous plots.

  10. Two-Hit Option 1

  11. Two-Hit Option 2 Could also remove disks at 700.

  12. Two-Hit Option 3

  13. Two-Hit Insertable Layouts • Different two hit layouts follow for different number of disk sectors.

  14. 10 Sector Disks

  15. 10 Sector Coverage Z=0

  16. 10 Sector Coverage Z=11cm

  17. 9 Sector Disks

  18. 9 Sector Coverage Z=0

  19. 9 Sector Coverage Z=11 cm

  20. 8 Sector Disks

  21. 8 Sector Coverage Z=0

  22. 8 Sector Coverage Z=11cm

  23. Radial Envelopes • For the moment assume radial envelope scales with disk outer radius then • Current(11 sector) = 254 mm • 10 sector = 243 • 9 sector = 232 • 8 sector = 221 • Need more detailed services envelope to get better estimate, including possibility of services from one end “doubling back” in case all services exit from one side. • Note smaller sectors have larger dead region per disk. • 11 sector is 0.6%, 10 sector is 1.2%, 9 sector is 2.3%, 8 sector is 3.8% • Since overlap in some cases, these are upper limits.

  24. 3 Hit 8-Sector Layout

  25. Coverage Z=0

  26. Coverage Z=11cm

  27. 3 Hit, 8 Sector Layout Comments • Layer 1 and layer 2 too close together? Cannot reduce radius of layer 1, B-layer shell. • Assuming frame size scales with outer radius/envelope, then barrel services per octant increases by about 5% compared to baseline services layout. If linear, this is about 1mm in barrel services depth. • Disk services per octant nominally reduced by about 15%, but need to take into account quantization and tube diameters. • There are small holes in acceptance(don’t have number). • Current estimate is that 1500mm2 is need for power/optical connection per half-stave or sector(PP0). Available annular space in barrel is roughly 65,000 mm2 but 132,000 needed, assuming single layer. Same problem in baseline but worse as radial dimensions reduced. • My current conclusion: envelope dimension of 221 mm cannot be decreased.

More Related