Pixel Insertable Layouts

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 clamshelledgtsupport 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 gt
  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 Z0
8
Reduced Layout Rapidity Coverage Z11cm
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 Z0
16
10 Sector Coverage Z11cm
17
9 Sector Disks
18
9 Sector Coverage Z0
19
9 Sector Coverage Z11 cm
20
8 Sector Disks
21
8 Sector Coverage Z0
22
8 Sector Coverage Z11cm
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 Z0
26
Coverage Z11cm
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(dont 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.