1. University of Wisconsin-Madison
Cocoa ME+1 Blessing
James N. Bellinger
University of Wisconsin-Madison
6-April-2009
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

2. Data used 0T 3.8T PG Distancemeter 16-Nov average DCOPS 11-Nov event
Link Oct
3.8T
Distancemeter 1-4 Nov average
DCOPS Oct event
Link Oct PG
PG within disk UR-0058 (2006) (Oleg cleaned it up)
Supplementary UR-0103 (2008)
PG of disk UR-0124 (after Craft)
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

3. Cocoa Fit Types Ideal 0T 3.8T Special
Ideal Geometry for Endcap+Link, default data 0T
Data from 0T, Link fit geometry/data from 0T
Transfer plates from PG, rest of Endcap ideal
3.8T
Data from 3.8T, Link fit geometry/data from 3.8T
Special
Transfer plates from PG, initial chamber pos PG
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

4. Cocoa Hierarchy: A CMS SLM Transfer Plate Chamber 3 type Laser
SLM Ref DCOPS
Transfer Ref DCOPS
Laser Z-sensor
Chamber 3 type
Outer DCOPS
Inner DCOPS
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

5. Cocoa Hierarchy: B CMS SLM-continued Chamber 2 type Link Ring
Outer sensorbox
Outer ASPD
DCOPS
Inner sensorbox
Inner ASPD
Link Ring
Link lasers
MAB
Z-sensor laser target
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

6. Cocoa Ideal Fit vs DDD Only 6 entries. Cocoa Ideal minus DDD geometry
Ring 3 only
Cocoa Ideal geometry fit is fine: “chi-squared” is with 872 “degrees of freedom”
Cocoa pos – DDD pos
Mean,
microns
RMS, X
-17 69 Y
-55 52 Z -7 1
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

7. Chamber Z deviations Cocoa 3.8T and 0T vs Ideal
0T Fit -Ideal
3.8T Fit-Ideal X Y Z
ME+1/3/03
2.78
-2.00
-1.24
2.77
-1.97
-3.17
ME+1/3/09
2.87
-0.77
-4.50
2.73
-0.73
-4.70
ME+1/3/14
-1.12
0.37
-3.39
-0.98
0.50
-3.60
ME+1/3/20
-2.52
-1.13
1.36
-2.60
-0.84
ME+1/3/27
0.95
-2.22
2.54
1.33
-2.32
-0.62
ME+1/3/33
-0.43
-1.60
8.25
0.10
-1.09
-0.92
ME+1/2/02
1.30
-3.07
1.06
1.38
-3.35
-7.18
ME+1/2/08
2.94
-1.96
-0.68
3.00
-1.95
-8.04
ME+1/2/14
0.59
-1.21
-1.00
0.72
-1.08
-7.81
ME+1/2/20
-1.18
-0.46
2.36
-0.20
-5.87
ME+1/2/26
1.39
0.05
5.55
1.50
0.02
-3.11
ME+1/2/32
0.04
-0.26
5.21
-0.07
-0.40
-3.74
Cocoa 3.8T
Cocoa 0T
Cocoa Ideal
Ideal fit uses
ideal geom
and nominal
measurements
HSLM6 bad
due to blocked
IR target
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

8. Chamber center Z deviations
Cocoa
Fit 3.8T - Fit 0T mm
Fit 0T - P.G.
ME+1/3/03
-1.93
-1.39
ME+1/3/09
-0.20
0.33
ME+1/3/14
-0.21
0.25
ME+1/3/20
-2.20
-1.81
ME+1/3/27
-3.16
-3.27
ME+1/3/33
-9.17
4.06
ME+1/2/02
-8.24
-0.90
ME+1/2/08
-7.36
1.94
ME+1/2/14
-6.81
2.82
ME+1/2/20
-8.23
-5.34
ME+1/2/26
-8.67
0.45
ME+1/2/32
-8.96
4.02
The Cocoa 0T fits
are not far from
the PG numbers
The 1_2 chamber
deviations with
field agree w/
Celso's numbers
The HSLM6 fits are
bad because of a
blocked IR target
Rms=1.4
Rms=2.9
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

9. Fit Ring (average of all chambers) Position Deviations from Ideal
0T-Ideal X Y Z
3.8T- Ideal
+1/3
.59
-1.17
-1.05
.65
-1.07
-2.59
+1/2
1.01
-1.33
1.46
1.07
-1.31
-6.40 PG
(disk)
.58
-1.37
0.57 NA
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

10. ME+1/3 chamber tilts (mrad)
3.8T-0T
ME+1/3/03
-0.40
2.43
2.83
ME+1/3/09
-0.71
1.85
2.56
ME+1/3/14
-0.88
0.89
1.77
ME+1/3/20
0.39
2.04
1.65
ME+1/3/27
-1.73
-0.55
1.18
ME+1/3/33
2.10
-2.10
AVERAGE
-0.67
1.33
2.00
At disk top
At disk bottom
Tilts (mrad) determined from DCOPS Z positions at upper and lower
ends of each chamber
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

11. PG targets and Cocoa 0T Fits: Z of DCOPS dowels
XFER
PG Pred
1/3Out
1/3In
XFer
Cocoa
Coco- PG
HSLM1
-0.79
-1.21
-1.37
HSLM2
4.53
8.48
1.80
HSLM3
2.32
2.12
0.51
HSLM4
-1.19
-0.83
-1.86
HSLM5
-0.53
6.39
-0.93
HSLM6
8.78
7.19
1.59
Uses the DCOPS PG targets to predict the DCOPS dowel positions
for the Xfer DCOPS and the ME+1/3 DCOPS
Different target holders at ME+1/3/09_outer and ME+1/3/27_outer?? Inconsistent
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

12. DCOPS from PG vs Cocoa 0T Fit Summary
DCOPS Dowel positions: 0T Cocoa fit – predicted from PG of DCOPS targets
Reference: mean= 0.87, rms=2.21mm
ME+1/3_outer: mean= 2.99, rms=3.86mm
ME+1/3_inner: mean= -0.37, rms=1.34mm
HSLM6 is not included
RMS is large, and at least partly attributable to PG problems
“Reference” = reference DCOPS on transfer plate
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

13. Deviations from Ideal
Chamber mounting errors: should not exceed a few mm
PG measurement errors: supposedly 300 microns but I don’t believe that anymore
Cocoa fitting errors
Real distortions because of the field
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

14. Cocoa Estimated Errors
Cocoa returns some estimated errors for quantities in the coordinate system of the mother volume
(Cocoa uses a hierarchical system description)
If I assume that off-diagonal entries are 0, I can transform this to the CMS coordinate system
I have no sense of how well Cocoa estimates errors
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

15. 3.8T Cocoa ME+1/3 Chamber Centers
mm, Cocoa errors X Y Z
ME+1/3_03
± .15
± .28
± .09
ME+1/3_09
± .30
± .17
± .09
ME+1/3_14
± .24
± .21
± .09
ME+1/3_20
± .12
± .30
± .09
ME+1/3_27
± .30
± .12
± .09
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

16. Now Compare Cocoa to DDD
Cocoa errors and chamber mismounts both contribute to this
Remove overall disk rotation and translation to get a picture of the internal shifting
Only 6 chambers available for ME+1/2
Only 5 chambers for ME+1/3 (PT6 bad)
Does NOT display chamber tilts
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

17. Expect Z shift of ring due to disk bending will be gone
Rotation of disk will be gone
Chamber mismounting, sensor mismeasure, and Cocoa fit error will remain
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

18. ME+1/3 deviation changes with field
5 measured centers
Overall rotation
and translation is
removed
No more than a few
dozen microns
difference between
the patterns found
with field off and
field on
Max dev =1.6mm
Animated cm
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

19. Cocoa Estimates
Cocoa vs Ideal deviation RMSs are comparable to and smaller than (on the average) PG vs Ideal deviation RMSs: next slide’s table
Cocoa better than PG?
Deviation averages aren’t always 0 because of missing measurements
BUT
Cocoa may be biased to finding things close to the ideal, since the ideal geometry is one of the inputs!
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

20. “Cocoa(0T) vs Ideal” vs “PG vs Ideal” Variation of Deviations
PG Apin
ME+1/2
ME+1/3
X devs
0 ± 1.2
0 ± 0.8
0 ± 0.7
Y devs
0.1 ± 0.7
0.2 ± 0.6
0.2 ± 0.9
1.1 ± 1.5
Z devs
0 ± 0.4
-0.5 ± 0.8
3.1 ± 6.0
1.8 ± 5.5
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

21. Check for Bias
Create a new 0T SDF file using PG measurements instead of Ideal geometry as the starting point for chamber positions
Compare fits from this special run to the normal 0T run
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

22. Special (PG) 0T – normal 0TX Y Z
ME+1/3_03
2.13
0.39
0.01
ME+1/3_09
ME+1/3_14
-0.76
0.73
0.13
ME+1/3_20
-2.64
-0.7
0.31
ME+1/3_27
-0.39
-1.86
-0.01
ME+1/3_33
0.52
-0.66
PG not
available
Rms=.15
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

23. Special 0T – normal 0T: notes
The difference between using PG and Ideal geometry as a starting point has little effect on the Z fit: 10 microns in most places
HSLM2 did not have good PG measurements for the alignment pins, so the Special run used Ideal measurements
X and Y are not well constrained without the presence of the Transfer Lines.
The fact that the Z measurement is bad at PT6 is irrelevant to this comparison, which studies fit stability
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

24. Special (PG) 3.8T – Ideal 3.8T X Y Z ME+1/3_03 2.136 0.388 0.016
-0.003
0.000
-0.002
ME+1/3_14
-0.759
0.725
0.134
ME+1/3_20
-2.638
-0.703
0.319
ME+1/3_27
-0.385
-1.865
-0.012
ME+1/3_33
0.099
-1.085
-0.917
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

25. Cocoa Input All measurements to be blessed use
PG initial starting positions for transfer plate
PG initial starting positions for chambers
Link fit position for link disk
Link fit position for MAB laser line
Calibrated ASPD positions wrt P4
Calibrated DCOPS CCD positions wrt dowel
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

26. Cloud on the horizon: ME+1/2 chamber Z centers
Fits
My B=0
Celso B=0
Diff B=0
My B=3.8
Celso B=3.8
Diff B=3.8
ME+1/2_02
.86
.88
ME+1/2_08
.78
.77
ME+1/2_14
.67
.61
ME+1/2_20
-.09
-.15
ME+1/2_26
.51
.48
ME+1/2_32
.21
.23
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

27. Why the difference? Not sure yet Change with field is the same
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

28. Conclusions
Cocoa fit for ME+1/3 chambers is stable with respect to initial conditions in Z
Photogrammetry includes spurious outliers
Cocoa deviations from the ideal are tighter than PG deviations, even if PG values were the starting point
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

29. Blessing for ME+1/3 chamber Z
0T Pos mm
0T Tilt mrad
3.8T Pos mm
3.8T Tilt mrad
ME+1/3_03
-0.40
2.43
ME+1/3_09
-0.71
1.85
ME+1/3_14
-0.88
0.89
ME+1/3_20
0.39
2.04
ME+1/3_27
-1.73
-0.55
Average
-0.67
1.33
Δ from nominal
-0.94mm
-0.67mrad
-4.08mm
1.33mrad
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

30. Photogrammetry errors for the Z of the alignment pins are not 300μ
Evaluate the PG
Photogrammetry errors for the Z of the alignment pins are not 300μ
Loveless says the pins were not inserted to nominal depth
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

31. PG targets on chambers Targets on DCOPS (not used in next slide)
Targets on alignment pins
Coded targets on chambers
Use alignment pins to define chamber axis
Use X/Y of coded target to predict a Z
Compare predicted w/ measured Z
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

32. Coded Target Z – Predicted Z
ME+1/3 chambers
Alignment pins used
to predict Z of
coded target given
its X/Y
Rms=1.4mm
Looks like a single
distribution, NOT
a narrow one with a few typos mm
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

33. Crosscheck coded targets
Oleg says some were on wrong chambers
Use his corrected table
Look at deviation of coded target from alignment pin axis line
Nothing looks badly wrong; largest deviation is 145mm from axis (min 75mm)
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

34. DCOPS targets
DCOPS on Transfer Plate, chamber 3 outer and chamber 3 inner have three 1.27mm PG targets on top.
These were included in the survey.
In the following table the three measurements were averaged for each of the 18 visible DCOPS
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

35. Variation of PG Z for DCOPS
Ref
Ave
Rms
3 out
3 in
HSLM1
0.169
0.097
0.193
HSLM2
0.037
0.385
0.198
HSLM3
0.054
0.067
0.197
HSLM4
0.040
0.099
HSLM5
0.082
0.737
0.148
HSLM6
0.092
0.238
0.302
PG target position 3-point ave/rms
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

36. DCOPS PG Variation Along Line
HSLM1
HSLM2
HSLM3
HSLM4
HSLM5
HSLM6
Ave Z
Rms Z
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

37. Evaluation of DCOPS targets
Consistency of measurement:
The Transfer Plate DCOPS are measured significantly better than the rest
HSLM5 outer DCOPS are not very consistent
Consistency along line:
Chamber mounting variations contribute!
HSLM2 and HSLM5 show unreasonably large fluctuations
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

38. Chamber surface Z’s from PG
Apin
outer
inner
Coded
DCOPS
3 outer
3 inner
Diff outer
Diff inner
HSLM1
HSLM2 NA
-0.84
HSLM3
-696.3
HSLM4
-0.09
HSLM5
HSLM6
-700.4
Rms=.53
Rms=.37
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

39. Z’s from PG vs data
HSLM5 outer chamber 3 DCOPS measurements are clearly out of line
The DCOPS readings from HSLM5 correspond to corrected values shown at right.
Not much variation
XFer
3 Out
3 In 2
18.98
16.72
17.10
18.26
mm, corrected data values
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

40. PG Conclusions
Assuming the Alignment pin and coded target errors are comparable, the variation on these is 1mm and not 300 microns.
If coded error=300μ, Apin error is 2mm
If the variation is due to random errors: for a DCOPS target at
Transfer Plate: 140μ
Outer chamber edge: 470μ
Inner chamber edge: 350μ
Disregard PG measures with large disagreements with either other PG measurements or with data?
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

41. Displays Omitting lines illustrating chamber surface
Triangles show the slope well enough
PG information not displayed
Diagram is very cluttered already
HSLM1-5 are animated to show 0 to 3.8T shifts
HSLM6 has bad data for the DCOPS at 3.8T and bad Z information for the distancemeter
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

42. Distancemeter and dists Chamber surface estimates Red=Real Green=Sim
DCOPS
dowels
Chamber surface
estimates
Red=Real
Green=Sim
ME12 ASPD
IR target
MAB
ASPD
ASPD P4
Animated
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

43. Animated
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

44. Animated
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

45. Animated
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

46. Animated
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

47. 3.8T is bad IR target obscured, Z is bad
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

48. Animated
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

49. Animated
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

50. Animated
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

51. Animated
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

52. Animated
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

53. 3.8T is bad
IR target
obscured
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

54. Blessing for ME+1/3 chamber Z
0T Pos mm
0T Tilt mrad
3.8T Pos mm
3.8T Tilt mrad
ME+1/3_03
-0.40
2.43
ME+1/3_09
-0.71
1.85
ME+1/3_14
-0.88
0.89
ME+1/3_20
0.39
2.04
ME+1/3_27
-1.73
-0.55
Average
-0.67
1.33
Ave Δ from nominal
-0.94mm
-0.67mrad
-4.08mm
1.33mrad
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

55. Caveats
The average Z position omits hSLM6, and can therefore be biased wrt disk rotations
I have no error estimate for the tilts yet
Error estimates for the Z’s follow
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

56. Error Estimates Cocoa estimates the error in Z to be 90 microns
Probably the usual artificial error fitters’ return
I can’t trust the PG values for Alignment pins
There are problems with PG values for the DCOPS targets
The PG coded targets require some convolution to get to the appropriate Z location: show later
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

57. Error Estimates: outer Z
The outer position Z measurement is limited by
MAB laser line uncertainty
Assumed perfect
Tolerances in machining
50 microns is what we usually claim
Tolerances in carbon fiber thickness
100 microns maximum → 30 microns rms
Paper target thickness
50 microns?
Tolerances in transfer plate
50 microns
Measurement error
Seems to be negligible
Add in quadrature for 90 microns
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

58. Error Estimates: Inner Z
Inner Z measurement uncertainty driven by mismatch with Celso’s fit
We agree to a few dozen microns for ASPD positions, but not on the chamber center!
This is an artificially large error estimate
Assume Link system Z estimates are perfect
Ratio of distances scales the effect on ME1/3 chambers by .36
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

59. Error Estimates: Inner Numbers
Average disagreement w/ Celso on chamber center
470 microns (call this systematic)
RMS of disagreement
350 microns
Contribution to error on ME+1/3 center is 36% (ratio of distances)
130 micron plus 170 micron systematic error
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

60. Error Estimates: Fit Summary
Quadrature of inner mismatch, outer error, cocoa fit
180 microns with 170 micron systematic error
Assumes perfect Link results for MAB and LinkDisk
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

61. Error Estimates: Coded Targets
Coded targets are not at center
Use fit Z and tilt to predict Z at coded target position (about 110 micron change)
Mean difference = .387mm (ignore hSLM6)
RMS = 1.47mm
Known uncertainties:
Post-craft disk rotation .6mm
Post-craft disk position .5mm
Nominal coded target Z .3mm
Worse than DCOPS target ests
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

62. DCOPS PG targets For a DCOPS target at
Transfer Plate: 140μ
Outer chamber edge: 470μ
Inner chamber edge: 350μ
Chamber center variation of 410 μ
Exaggerated because of DCOPS PG errors
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

63. Error Summary From Cocoa and boundary estimates From Coded Target PG
180 microns plus 170 microns systematic
From Coded Target PG
1470 microns plus 390 microns systematic
From DCOPS target PG
410 microns
The Cocoa + boundary estimate is probably too conservative
I don’t know why the coded target PG is so large
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

64. Tilt Error
No estimate as yet
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

65. BACKUP
MATERIAL
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

66. Method for Predicting Z from PG
Get PG (X,Y,Z) wrt disk center from UR-0058 or UR-0103
Rotate disk as specified in UR-0124
Translate disk as specified in UR-0124
(Post-Craft numbers from UR-0124)
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

67. PG Issues Photogrammetry is not always correct
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

68. PG errors and chamber mismounts
PG deviations from Ideal include
PG error, typos, and wrong targets
Real chamber mismount
Overall shifts and rotations of the disk
Subtract the overall shifts and rotations to get a better picture of the PG errors and mismount errors
In what follows PG Chamber centers are derived from alignment pin locations
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

69. PG vs DDD, ME+1/2 Chamber centers Overall rotations and translations
are removed
Deviations
combine PG
error and
chamber
mounting
Max x/y
dev is
2.2mm cm
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

70. PG vs DDD, ME+1/3 Chamber centers Overall rotations and translations
are removed
Deviations
combine PG
error and
chamber
mounting
Max x/y
dev is
2.6mm
Still a
tilt? cm
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

71. PG to DDD summary
Deviation of PG from standard geometry in the X/Y plane is at most 2.2mm for ME+1/2 and 2.6mm for ME+1/3.
RMS for X deviations is
.7 for ME+1/2
.8 for ME+1/3
RMS for Y deviations is
.9 for ME+1/2
1.5 for ME+1/3
RMS for Z is about 6. and 5.5mm
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

72. Z’s from PG vs data
The HSLM6 outer Z seems out of line with the rest in the line, but agrees with the alignment pin estimate
Data shows O(4mm) deviation at 3 Outer also
PG deviation is OK
XFer
3 Out
3 In 2
18.32
15.79
21.32
23.45
mm, corrected data values
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

73. Comparisons of Ideal with Cocoa Rings
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

74. 0T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal 6 measured centers Overall rotation
and translation is
removed cm
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

75. 0T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal 5 measured centers Overall rotation
and translation is
removed cm
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

76. 3.8T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal 6 measured centers Overall rotation
and translation is
removed cm
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009

77. 3.8T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal 5 measured centers Overall rotation
and translation is
removed cm
James N. Bellinger 20-March-2009