Outer Tracker Nominal Position Antonio Pellegrino (on behalf of the LHCb OT Group) CERN, 23-02-2009 Introduction C-Frames Nominal Positions Reference Frames Tables of Nominal Positions Comparison with XML Modifications to nominal values Outlook

Global View January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

In Reality… January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

“A” Side “C” Side OT C-Frames Z X IP T3-Q02-VX T3-Q02-XU T2-Q02-VX January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Nominal Positions ZSurvey XSurvey 682 685 120 Rail Description XSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-XU T1 – Layers L0,L1 {X,U} -7888 28.4 T1-VX T1 – Layers L2,L3 {V,X} -8008 28.8 T2-XU T2 – Layers L0,L1 {X,U} -8570 30.9 T2-VX ST2 – Layers L2,L3 {V,X} -8690 31.3 T3-XU T3 – Layers L0,L1 {X,U} -9255 33.3 T3-VX T3 – Layers L2,L3 {V,X} -9375 33.8 http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/experiments/bfys/lhcb/outerTracker/Installation/Survey/data/Bridge-CERN/OT-Alignment-1.9.doc January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Survey and LHCb Frame   3.601  10-3 rad January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Nominal Positions ZSurvey XSurvey 682 685 120 Rail XSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) ZLHCb (mm) YLHCb (mm) T1-XU -7888 28.4 7888.051 -0.005 T1-VX -8008 28.8 8008.052 -0.037 T2-XU -8570 30.9 8570.056 0.039 T2-VX -8690 31.3 8690.056 0.007 T3-XU -9255 33.3 9255.060 -0.027 T3-VX -9375 33.8 9375.061 0.040 Rounding of ZSurvey  YLHCb ≠ 0, C-Frames centers not exactly in YLHCb = 0 January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

36  (Px,Py,Pz) survey points: mostly only 18 measured (1 Layer) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dowel pins 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 Layers  9 Modules/Layer  2 dowel pins/Module (top/bottom) 36  (Px,Py,Pz) survey points: mostly only 18 measured (1 Layer) January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Stick survey target in here! Targets Stick survey target in here! dowel pins January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Positions along the beam axis T1-L1-Q2-M1 32 10 C 6.5 YSurvey 54.5 M T1-L1-Q2-M1 6.5 XSurvey 15 T January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Nominal XSurvey T1-L0-Q0-M1 -7823.5 T1-L0-Q0-M2 T1-L0-Q0-M3 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L0-Q0-M1 -7823.5 T1-L0-Q0-M2 T1-L0-Q0-M3 T1-L0-Q0-M4 T1-L0-Q0-M5 T1-L0-Q0-M6 T1-L0-Q0-M7 T1-L0-Q0-M8 T1-L0-Q0-M9 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L1-Q0-M1 -7952.5 T1-L1-Q0-M2 T1-L1-Q0-M3 T1-L1-Q0-M4 T1-L1-Q0-M5 T1-L1-Q0-M6 T1-L1-Q0-M7 T1-L1-Q0-M8 T1-L1-Q0-M9 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L0-Q2-M1 -7823.5 T1-L0-Q2-M2 T1-L0-Q2-M3 T1-L0-Q2-M4 T1-L0-Q2-M5 T1-L0-Q2-M6 T1-L0-Q2-M7 T1-L0-Q2-M8 T1-L0-Q2-M9 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L1-Q2-M1 -7952.5 T1-L1-Q2-M2 T1-L1-Q2-M3 T1-L1-Q2-M4 T1-L1-Q2-M5 T1-L1-Q2-M6 T1-L1-Q2-M7 T1-L1-Q2-M8 T1-L1-Q2-M9 January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Vertical Positions 4900 9.323 January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

“Special” OT Modules Z Z Y “F” module are one physical unit +7mm Z S1U S2U S3U S1U -7mm Z Y S1L S2L S3L S1L “F” module are one physical unit “S” modules are realized gluing together two separate parts (“U” and “L”) Y January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Vertical Positions S2 S3 Z Y +7mm -7mm January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Nominal ZSurvey T1-L0-Q0-M1 -7823.5 -2421.6 T1-L0-Q0-M2 T1-L0-Q0-M3 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L0-Q0-M1 -7823.5 -2421.6 T1-L0-Q0-M2 T1-L0-Q0-M3 T1-L0-Q0-M4 T1-L0-Q0-M5 T1-L0-Q0-M6 T1-L0-Q0-M7 - 2421.6 T1-L0-Q0-M8 T1-L0-Q0-M9 -2414.6 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L1-Q0-M1 -7952.5 -2412.3 T1-L1-Q0-M2 T1-L1-Q0-M3 T1-L1-Q0-M4 T1-L1-Q0-M5 T1-L1-Q0-M6 T1-L1-Q0-M7 T1-L1-Q0-M8 T1-L1-Q0-M9 -2405.3 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L0-Q2-M1 -7823.5 2478.4 T1-L0-Q2-M2 T1-L0-Q2-M3 T1-L0-Q2-M4 T1-L0-Q2-M5 T1-L0-Q2-M6 T1-L0-Q2-M7 T1-L0-Q2-M8 T1-L0-Q2-M9 2471.4 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L1-Q2-M1 -7952.5 2469.1 T1-L1-Q2-M2 T1-L1-Q2-M3 T1-L1-Q2-M4 T1-L1-Q2-M5 T1-L1-Q2-M6 T1-L1-Q2-M7 T1-L1-Q2-M8 T1-L1-Q2-M9 2462.1 January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Distance from the Beam Line 472.094 129.67 170 86 342.554 258.23 342.554 341.25 341.25 257.25 341.25 Y=170.625 Y=-86.625 256.625 256.625 340 340 172 340 1.25 1.25 1.25 January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Nominal YSurvey T1-L0-Q0-M1 -7823.5 2816.63 -2421.6 T1-L0-Q0-M2 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L0-Q0-M1 -7823.5 2816.63 -2421.6 T1-L0-Q0-M2 2475.38 T1-L0-Q0-M3 2134.13 T1-L0-Q0-M4 1792.88 T1-L0-Q0-M5 1451.63 T1-L0-Q0-M6 1110.38 T1-L0-Q0-M7 769.13 - 2421.6 T1-L0-Q0-M8 427.88 T1-L0-Q0-M9 170.63 -2414.6 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L1-Q0-M1 -7952.5 3040.60 -2412.3 T1-L1-Q0-M2 2698.04 T1-L1-Q0-M3 2355.49 T1-L1-Q0-M4 2012.94 T1-L1-Q0-M5 1670.38 T1-L1-Q0-M6 1327.83 T1-L1-Q0-M7 985.27 T1-L1-Q0-M8 642.72 T1-L1-Q0-M9 383.88 -2405.3 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L0-Q2-M1 -7823.5 2816.63 2478.4 T1-L0-Q2-M2 2475.38 T1-L0-Q2-M3 2134.13 T1-L0-Q2-M4 1792.88 T1-L0-Q2-M5 1451.63 T1-L0-Q2-M6 1110.38 T1-L0-Q2-M7 769.13 T1-L0-Q2-M8 427.88 T1-L0-Q2-M9 170.63 2471.4 XSurvey (mm) YSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) T1-L1-Q2-M1 -7952.5 2613.53 2469.1 T1-L1-Q2-M2 2270.98 T1-L1-Q2-M3 1928.43 T1-L1-Q2-M4 1585.87 T1-L1-Q2-M5 1243.32 T1-L1-Q2-M6 900.76 T1-L1-Q2-M7 558.21 T1-L1-Q2-M8 215.66 T1-L1-Q2-M9 -41.96 2462.1 January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Tables of Nominals All nominal values of the survey targets (dowel pins) coordinates can be found in the tables in OT Web Page Installation Survey Overview of Raw Data http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/experiments/bfys/lhcb/outerTracker/Installation/Survey/data/C-Frame-Surveys/Dowel-Pins-Nominal/Q02-nominal.xls http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/experiments/bfys/lhcb/outerTracker/Installation/Survey/data/C-Frame-Surveys/Dowel-Pins-Nominal/Q13-nominal.xls January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Comparison to XML (XSurvey and YSurvey) Nominal values in the XML description of the OT Geometry (provided by Jan Amoraal): One nominal value taken at each module centre   (Antonio’s table) – (Jan’s XML) XSurvey YSurvey Comparison shows identical values (differences ~10 m from rounding) January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Comparison to XML (ZSurvey) Rail XSurvey (mm) ZSurvey (mm) ZLHCb (mm) YLHCb (mm) T1-XU -7888 28.4 7888.051 -0.005 T1-VX -8008 28.8 8008.052 -0.037 T2-XU -8570 30.9 8570.056 0.039 T2-VX -8690 31.3 8690.056 0.007 T3-XU -9255 33.3 9255.060 -0.027 T3-VX -9375 33.8 9375.061 0.040 Rounding of ZSurvey  YLHCb ≠ 0, C-Frames centers not exactly in YLHCb = 0 January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Adjustments What knobs can you turn if the survey turns out to be crap? Displace hook block wrt to frame modifies XLHCb Displace roller block wrt to frame modifies ZLHCb Adjust spacer under trolley modifies YLHCb January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Modifications to Nominal Values During the OT installation, various iterations of surveys and adjustments were carried out All 18 dowel pins of one of the two layers of a C-Frame were surveyed typically L0 (X) and L2 (V) (for one C-Frame, both layers were surveyed, as a check) Comparing the surveyed values to the nominal tables, adjustments were made When the adjustment range was not sufficient to achieve the nominal values, the priority was given to limiting rotations avoiding rotations around XLHCb and YLHCb sometime implied modifying the nominal ZLHCb of a half-station (both sides A and C) a slight deformation in the shape of all C-Frames effectively caused an effect of rotation around ZLHCb. This could be eliminated to the cost of a systematical modification (“staggering”) of the YLHCb of all modules. These modifications to the nominal values have not been reported on the OT Web Page, but only through “private communications” (Jan and Marc) January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Modifications to Nominal XSurvey Limiting rotations around XLHCb and YLHCb sometime implied modifying the nominal ZLHCb of a half-station (both sides A and C) Half Station XSurvey (mm) XSurvey (mm) T1-XU -7888 0.0 -7888.0 T1-VX -8008 0.5 -8007.5 T2-XU -8570 2.5 -8567.5 T2-VX -8690 3.5 -8686.5 T3-XU -9255 -9255.0 T3-VX -9375 -9372.5 January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Modifications to Nominal YSurvey A slight deformation in the shape of all C-Frames effectively caused an effect of rotation around ZLHCb. This could be eliminated to the cost of a systematical modification (“staggering”) of the YLHCb of all modules Expected Instead was Compromise  Z   0.46  10-3 rad Y January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Summary and Outlook OT C-Frames were adjusted with respect to survey targets nominal positions typically surveyed one layer per C-Frame (L0 (X) and L2 (V)) Systematic comparison with center modules nominal positions in OT Geometry XML comparison ok differences in ZSurvey due to rounding, easy to correct comparison of dowel pin positions under way deviations of “special” modules in T1 and T3 not yet implemented Modifications to nominal positions were done to limit rotations nominal ZLHCb of a half-station (both sides A and C) systematical modification (“staggering”) of the YLHCb of all modules what is the right place to “book-keep” these modifications?? January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino

Jan’s Transformation in XML  ZCLHCb January 12, 2019 Antonio Pellegrino