1. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 Pixel Insertable Layouts September 2000

2. M. Gilchriese - 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 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

3. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 3 Current Baseline Layout

4. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 4 Proposed Reduced Layout

5. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 5 Reduced Layout - Barrel End View

6. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 6 Reduced Layout - Side View

7. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 7 Reduced Layout Rapidity Coverage Z=0

8. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 8 Reduced Layout Rapidity Coverage Z=11cm

9. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 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 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.

10. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 10 Two-Hit Option 1

11. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 11 Two-Hit Option 2 Could also remove disks at 700.

12. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 12 Two-Hit Option 3

13. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 13 Two-Hit Insertable Layouts Different two hit layouts follow for different number of disk sectors.

14. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 14 10 Sector Disks

15. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 15 10 Sector Coverage Z=0

16. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 16 10 Sector Coverage Z=11cm

17. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 17 9 Sector Disks

18. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 18 9 Sector Coverage Z=0

19. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 19 9 Sector Coverage Z=11 cm

20. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 20 8 Sector Disks

21. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 21 8 Sector Coverage Z=0

22. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 22 8 Sector Coverage Z=11cm

23. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 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. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 24 3 Hit 8-Sector Layout

25. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 25 Coverage Z=0

26. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 26 Coverage Z=11cm

27. M. Gilchriese - September 2000 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(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.