1 / 15

Pixel Replacement Studies

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

keelie-holmes
Download Presentation

Pixel Replacement Studies

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 Replacement Studies Mid-Term Options with Largest Coverage Possible 26 May 2011

  2. 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

  3. End view – layer radii * Layer centerline radii. *Lowest radius extent of elbow module (centerline)

  4. End view – layer tilt angles Layer Tilt angles Relative to radius Angles are approximate

  5. Oxford UW Design – Side View in Frame Flat EOS Region (~100mm)

  6. 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

  7. Possible Layout Changes(from Oxford Week Version to Now)

  8. 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.

  9. L3 Elbow SCT Disks Diskette

  10. Largest Pixel Replacement PossibleInside Current PST

  11. Largest Pixel Replacement Possible PST Diskette, Z=940 New Pixel Endframe Pixel Mount Ibeam Beamline

  12. Diskette Small Hole w/ 30 modules Covers with 32 Cable space outer radius

  13. Overall Layout Model

  14. 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

More Related