M. Gilchriese - September 2000 Pixel Insertable Layouts September 2000

M. Gilchriese - September 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

M. Gilchriese - September Current Baseline Layout

M. Gilchriese - September Proposed Reduced Layout

M. Gilchriese - September Reduced Layout - Barrel End View

M. Gilchriese - September Reduced Layout - Side View

M. Gilchriese - September Reduced Layout Rapidity Coverage Z=0

M. Gilchriese - September Reduced Layout Rapidity Coverage Z=11cm

M. Gilchriese - September 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 1Layer 2 + 2x3 disks + B-layer1 –Option22x2 disks + B-layer2 and B-layer1 –Option 3Only 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.

M. Gilchriese - September Two-Hit Option 1

M. Gilchriese - September Two-Hit Option 2 Could also remove disks at 700.

M. Gilchriese - September Two-Hit Option 3

M. Gilchriese - September Two-Hit Insertable Layouts Different two hit layouts follow for different number of disk sectors.

M. Gilchriese - September Sector Disks

M. Gilchriese - September Sector Coverage Z=0

M. Gilchriese - September Sector Coverage Z=11cm

M. Gilchriese - September Sector Disks

M. Gilchriese - September Sector Coverage Z=0

M. Gilchriese - September Sector Coverage Z=11 cm

M. Gilchriese - September Sector Disks

M. Gilchriese - September Sector Coverage Z=0

M. Gilchriese - September Sector Coverage Z=11cm

M. Gilchriese - September 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.

M. Gilchriese - September Hit 8-Sector Layout

M. Gilchriese - September Coverage Z=0

M. Gilchriese - September Coverage Z=11cm

M. Gilchriese - September 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 1500mm 2 is need for power/optical connection per half-stave or sector(PP0). Available annular space in barrel is roughly 65,000 mm 2 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.