19.6.2013 Forum on Tracking Detector Mechanics at Oxford Aleksis - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

19.6.2013 Forum on Tracking Detector Mechanics at Oxford

4.6.2013 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN 1

2 4.6.2013 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Abbaneo, Duccio
• Conde García, Antonio
• Honma, Alan
• Mersi, Stefano
• Onnela, Antti
• Postema, Hans

• Benefits of tilting the modules
• How it works (modelling)
• Challenges with this geometry
• Mid-section
• Ring sections
• Few words on rods and end disks

(if we have time)

4.6.2013 3 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

PS modules 2S modules

4

• S. Mersi

4.6.2013 5 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Traditionally implemented with

rods

4.6.2013 6 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

PS modules 2S modules

• S. Mersi

4.6.2013 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Base line concept
• Distinct barrel and end gap geometries
• Relatively small surface area of the PS

modules not used to greatest extent -> more modules

• Tilted module concept
• Gradual transformation from barrel to

end cap –like geometry

• PS module surface area better utilized ->

less modules

7

• Some degree of modularity
• Reasonable assembly, structures, etc.
• Reduce the number of modules

4.6.2013 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN 8

• Ideal case: module faces always

perpendicular to particle tracks

• PS module shape facilitates

compact inner rings (closest to the beam line

4.6.2013 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN 9

• Number of modules in the barrel

section: 2836 vs. 4164

• Less modules -> less material..
• Less power consumption
• Less material in active volume
• Fewer services required..
• Lower cost

4.6.2013 10 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Coordinates generated on an excel

table (Duccio Abbaneo, Stefano Mersi)

• Copied to a design table in Catia
• Adjustment by eye (at this stage)

4.6.2013 11 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• ..And we get a CAD model

4.6.2013 12 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 13 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Avoid clashes: some geometries

simply impossible

• Staying ‘close’ to optimal

coordinates

• Routing of services, cables..
• Different support structure needed

as compared to rod assemblies, not much experience

4.6.2013 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN 14

• Ideal solution.. modules are always
• ptimally aligned ..but

4.6.2013 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN 15

• Clashes, clashes and clashes
• Deviation from optimal coordinates

required to avoid clashes

4.6.2013 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN 16

• The module positions can be

adjusted in various ways:

• (Radius) Each module ring can be

adjusted individually – but the adjacent ones have to compensate

• (Angle) Module pairs – upper and

lower modules on the same ring – can also be adjusted

• Other adjustments include:

coverage and gap

4.6.2013 17 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Deviations from optimal positions

and angles necessary to avoid clashes

4.6.2013 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

beamline

18

4.6.2013 19 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Upper layer provides hermiticity

(one hit)

• Lower layer modules can then be

tuned for best clearance (with limitation)

• Three layers
• Layer 1 has less modules than 2

and 3

• But is also more packed due to smaller

radius

• Layer 3 has the most modules
• But is slightly ‘easier’ to populate

4.6.2013 20 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Divide the modules into easy and

not so easy sections

• For example, most congested

modules could form a group..

4.6.2013 21 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 22 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 23 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 24 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Rods including a number of

modules could form a ring-like structure to cover the mid-section

• ..And they could be assembled

something like this..

4.6.2013 25 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Let’s add some connectors

4.6.2013 26 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 27 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Modules after the midsection in

+/- direction

• Larger gaps between modules
• More clearance
• More minimalistic support structure so

save in mass?

4.6.2013 28 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Cooling pipe between the layers

4.6.2013 29 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 30 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 31 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 32 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 33 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Combines both layers into one ring

unit

• Only one cooling pipe
• Limited weight for the support

structure

4.6.2013 34 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• We can fit the modules but..
• How optimal are the coordinates, tilt,

coverage..

• Support structures (weight, rigidity)
• Services (cooling, routing cables)
• Dark clouds..
• Can the PS module be cooled effectively

4.6.2013 35 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 36 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 37 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• We have done preliminary layout

exercises with rods and 2S modules

• Relying on past experience
• Cooling under research: pipe,

inserts, contact area..

4.6.2013 38 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 39 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Research done by Nick Lumb in

Lyon

• Modules arranged into cocentric

disks or into D’s

• Space required depends on the height of

components

• Cooling and services also affect the

thickness of the disks

4.6.2013 40 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

• Nick is also battling with clashes
• Especially in the transition from PS to 2S

modules

4.6.2013 41 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN

4.6.2013 42 Aleksis Chávez Niemelä, CERN