1. EC: 7 DISK concept Preliminary considerations?

2. Open integration issues
ATLAS UPGRADE
Open integration issues
Envelope for strip end-cap structure and services seems very low.
C.BAULT 25 October 2012

3. Open integration issues
ATLAS UPGRADE
Open integration issues
Some envelope value should be defined:
Inner radius of end-cap, to have enough clearance insertion with PST
C.BAULT 25 October 2012

4. EOS
Once we accept close ground connection of two sides the next step is to combine services for two sides into one connector and one cable bundle (with common shield)
This is now the baseline
Next step is then to bring all GBTs (and optical links) to one side, and only bond-pad (and EOS power) on the other
This is under consideration
If we drop forward error correction (not needed for data (VCSELs) anyway) then there might be enough BW in future GBT to read out complete stave, so one GBT/link pair per stave only 4

5. Comparison to EC services
Similar service arrangements (16 ducts instead of 32 service modules)
In the barrel have abandoned castellated service layout – what are the consequences of EC?
One EOS for two sides is likely going to be the solution for petals as well (if staves can do with one GBT, petals certainly will)
Could (should) use similar components in type I service ducts, but segmentation different
Cooling should be simpler (more balanced loads), loads are smaller so fewer manifolds with more branches (1 or manifolds per service duct?)
Standard fibre ribbons will not be optimal for 7-disk EC
Electrical harnesses could be very similar (just 14 cable bundles instead of 8)
Similar interface at PP1
However, need to think about connector orientation (barrel uses cryostat chamfer)
We are pushing hard throughout the tracker to reduce number and size of services
Service tables have been made early summer – implications for ECs still need to be understood
Some issues I see:
Service supports close to petal (mechanical isolation)
Insulating break in cooling pipe (where? Stress relief?)
Radial envelopes (no castellation)

9. EC: 7D concept
...Maximum number of petals should be replaced if needed...
...Isolate services from sensors (petals)...
....Provide enough stiffness...
...Reduce the system as much as possible in radius direction...

10. EC: 7D substructure #1 Inner shell:
“skins + (honeycomb or low density foam)”
Could be also optimized with openings for mass reduction
CF disks 8mm thickness “skins + honeycomb”
optimized with openings
“Petals attached to substructure #1 (disks)”
“CF Frames to keep disks separated (provide stiffness)”

11. EC: 7D substructure #2
“CF Rings attached to rails... sustain service trays”
“Number of CF Rings to be confirmed by FEA”
“Substructure #2 is isolated from substructure #1”

12. EC: 7D Front view services
16 service trays concept; the total number of service-channels are 18 (the ones over the rails are split in two)

13. EC: 7D Front view services
16 service trays concept; the total number of service-channels are 18 (the ones over the rails are split in two)

14. EC: 7D Services trays
Petal layout (both sides)

15. EC: 7D cooling pipes
Petals cooling pipes should not interfere with insertion of adjacent petals (as much as possible...)

16. EC: 7D cabling

17. EC: 7D Envelope (approx. dimensions)
R1020: Services
R1025: Out. Ring
R975: Petal
R996: In. Ring
R992: Gap
R978: Disk
R967: Silicon
R384: Silicon
R377: Petal
R368: Gap
R370: Disk
R360: Inner Cylinder

18. EC: 7D Installing petals on sides

19. EC: 7D Installing services
Disks allow to put petals in place using adequate petal protections
All services trays should be checked out for correct operation
Petals in place can now be tested

20. EC: 7D Installing all petals left
The main goal of this system is to replace every single petal when needed (with the exception for petals under rails)

21. EC: 7D Petal insertion

22. Optional layout: difficulties end-insertion

23. EC: 7D Petal considerations
320mm
310mm
Number of ears (just one):
Petal width decreases
Cabling and cooling -> unique exit
EOS dimensions Upgrade
(M. Stanitzki)
Sensor position:
No overlap between sensors mounted on petals
3mm active sensor overlap adjacent petals on same disk
No overlap considered between disks
Approx. 12mm
Sensor-to-disk
Electrical connections on both sides (disk-side)

24. EC: 7D Petal considerations
290 mm
How much petal width can be reduced?

25. Conclusions New layout for EC modeled EC envelope
Approximated dimensions
EC constraints defined
Service channels modeled (grouped in 16 trays concept at outer radius)
Need to be optimized
Cooling pipe minimum bending radius
Fibers might need better electrical isolation
New Petal modeled
EOS
Petal width is being reduced as EOS gets optimized (M. Stanitzki)
One EOS
Cabling and cooling -> unique exit along EOS
Electrical connections
On both petal sides

26. Next Steps Next steps: Cabling and piping routing FEA Petal design
Interferences study
with adjacent petals
with service rings
Service trays
service tray width optimization
minimum bending radius
pipe length
FEA
Substructure #1
Obtain disk openings width
Obtain inner cylinder optimized structure
Rods diameter to be optimized (increase first mode frequency)
Substructure #2
Obtain service rings optimized thickness
Obtain number of rings needed
Petals
kinematic constraints on piping connections
Petal design
EOS
EOS width optimization
Bus cable
Bus cable width optimization