1. What is Stave Carrier Frame Required to Do?
An individual stave will be a valuable object: 24 modules/~£30k => its progress through to completion as part of the barrel detector needs careful planning. Design of Carrier Frame depends on the details. So far have first prototypes of frames for Stavelet.
QM UL
WP4 Jan 2012 QMUL Graham Beck

2. Stavelet Carrier Frame (lid + base removed)
…with top half-rail removed to show the (previous design) mounts:
Ally prototype was precisely machined: not suitable for production quantities due to complex profile of mounting rail.
Production version (1 per stave) could be e.g. extruded ally, CFRP… => need final design before tooling/manufacture.
Module Mounting Frame
(stavelet + carrier in position)
Prototype assembled from several lengths
- OK for full length stave (only a few needed)
WP4 Jan 2012 QMUL Graham Beck

3. Carrier Frame Functionality
Protect Stave from Bare “Plank” through to Insertion on the barrel.
Must be compatible with assembly procedures and tests required.
Assembly procedures include:
Module Mounting (in hand)
Addition of support fixtures after module mounting?
Insertion onto Barrel (should also enable Removal)
Test Schedule will need to be defined. Important: Assuming QA of modules prior to mounting, what tests are needed of completed staves (either individually or sampled)?
Metrology: What is required at STAVE level? (Care how constrained mechanically!)
RichardN re statement in Barrel Module paper: “.. 70microns is a ‘global’ constraint over the width of the object for unknown out of plane.  Local deformations could be larger. … across a module one would not want an unknown bow which resulted in one edge being further out in R than was assumed by an amount  = resolution/sin(tilt angle +small correction). …..
I think we will want to survey the shape of modules on the stave assuming that this shape is not much affected by the overall bow of the stave which can be added on separately. If the ‘relative to stave’ bow is small (<100microns or so) it will not add anything to the physics.”
WP4 Jan 2012 QMUL Graham Beck

4. Thermal cycling ? (what is relevant QA? Metrology . . .?).
Basic Stave test: cooling and power: test connectivity, temperatures, basic performance
Thermal cycling ? (what is relevant QA? Metrology . . .?).
Electrical Performance (“SCTDAQ”): IV –Readout - Noise - Stability - Warm/Cold
=> Frame (with lids in place) should be light-tight, nitrogen flushable (gas connections, electrical connections) …
Irradiation ?
Requirements will evolve - we must anticipate what might be needed before we can design a frame for mass production!
How many attempts at frame extrusion (e.g.) can we afford? Maybe one (IanW). Should cost!
For near future / next frames:
Consider adapters between the stave support arms and an extrusion with a simple profile RN: At least until trigger layer resolved.
(Fred’s idea?) Hold stave within frame by retractable pins, independently of support arms.
WP4 Jan 2012 QMUL Graham Beck

5. Other “Muddy” Issues Frame/Support Fixtures compatible with wire bonder ? Stave Shape: EOS vs SMC, Size/Position of DCDC converters… Transport Crate (no work on this yet)
WP4 Jan 2012 QMUL Graham Beck