1 / 11

BCM’ Mechanical Support Considerations

BCM’ Mechanical Support Considerations. OSU Meeting January 23, 2018 William for the BCM’ group. Location. Stay within (removable) pixel part inside IST Keep sweet spot in z~ 190 c m Flight t ip = ½ ( b n – b n-1 ) 150-220 c m probably also ok Move out to r~ 10 c m η~3.6

violet-delaney
Download Presentation

BCM’ Mechanical Support Considerations

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. BCM’Mechanical Support Considerations OSU Meeting January 23, 2018 William for the BCM’ group

  2. Location • Stay within (removable) pixel part inside IST • Keep sweet spot in z~190 cm • Flight tip = ½ (bn– bn-1) • 150-220 cm probably also ok • Move out to r~10 cm η~3.6 • Mount as an additional FW pixel ring • 4 stations per side • with abort, lumi BCM’ and BLM BCM’ ring η~3.6 M. Mikuž: BCM'

  3. Radiation tolerance is one reason to go to larger radius • At r=10 cm • NIEL fluence (3/ab) • ~3x1015neq/cm2 • TID ~250 Mrad • low neutron fraction • Charged particle flux/BX • ~0.03/cm2 x μ • ~6/cm2 for μ=200 • What is radiation tolerance of electronics? M. Mikuž: BCM'

  4. Other Considerations • At larger radii expect additional showering • Multiplication of primary MIPs • Main background to abort signal • Cable routing determines installation order? • Currently low radius  first in • Higher radius  better accessibility in year-end shutdowns?

  5. More on environment • Checked with Ian & Paul • Inclined layout modelled, services included rather conservatively • Work in progress, update expected soon • Amount of showering (γ ->e+e-;charged/hadrons ratio) increases by 30 % with radius 5->12, but overall charged flux still decreases significantly by more than a factor of 3 • Stick to r ≈ 10 cm for the sensor location for now M. Mikuž: BCM'

  6. [One station or Two (per side)] x Nf • Currently have one station per side • Distinguish incoming (t=-6.2ns) from outgoing/collisions (t=+6.2ns) • Can we put two layers per side • Give independent Dt (on each side) • Two handles on incoming/outgoing populations • How far apart can we put them 10cm = 300 ps • Or consider populating two rings?

  7. Questions to Answer • Cable routing and module volume • Thermal constraints on BCM stations • PP2 needs/location for BCM’ • ROD(s) to generate abort logic and host ring buffers etc.

  8. First Look at Footprint • From Shane’s presentation yesterday: • Module is 3x3 cm2 • Diamond+readout chip occupies small part of footprint • Even if diamond is 1cm2 to allow different pad sizes

  9. First Look at Footprint • From Shane’s presentation yesterday: • Module need be no more than 1cm ‘thick’ • Does connector require it to be thicker? • Do we want to make doublets with 10cm between modules?

  10. Simulations for BCM’ Specs • Compute collision occupancy for m=50-200+ • How much can we trust secondary production rate? • What is the albedo (out-of-time secondaries coming from collision products) • Simulate cross-talk between lumi and out-of-time counts and simulate this in to BCM’ counting rate • Can we convince ourselves (and anyone else) that Dt (per side) might be necessary? • Or prove that it is not necessary

  11. Producing the Support Mechanics • Mircea no longer full-time employee at Toronto • Doing contract work for ATLAS and T2K • In phased retirement (fully gone before 2022?) • Could certainly produce parts • Making designs will be harder • Happy to liaise with Danilo

More Related