1. SLIM LAYOUT July, 14 th 2015 Valery AKHNAZAROV Diego ALVAREZ Christophe BAULT Andrea CATINACCIO Daniel DOBOS Heinz PERNEGGER Danilo GIUGNI Eric VIGEOLAS Didier LAPORTE Bart VERLAAT Collaboration of: SLIM SLIM project: A Stiff Longeron for ITK Modules Franck CADOUX Noemi CALACE Yannick FAVRE Didier FERRERE Sergio GONZALEZ SEVILLA Giuseppe IACOBUCCI Sébastien MICHAL Maarten WEBER

2. Slide 2 July, 14 th 2015 Sébastien MICHAL BASELINE HISTORY R=345 mm 30 staves 3 flavours LayerRadius CL Rows 316027 420036 530050 634060 Historically, the fifth layer has been implemented inside the LOI PST (R=345 mm). Then, the sixth layer has been implemented at a given radius in order to have: ▫ A coupling scheme between the two layer  3/4  5/6  4/6 ▫ A longeron of ~40 mm height. A proposal to extend the PST radius at R= 390 mm by Paolo Morettini, March 2015 https://indico.cern.ch/event/383888/

3. Slide 3 July, 14 th 2015 Sébastien MICHAL NEW LAYOUT Can SLIM be implemented inside the LOI PST (R=345 mm) ? We have to find a new coupling scheme for L56 to decrease the radius Layer 5Layer 6 Baseline50 R=300 mm 60 R=340 mm Option 145 R=280 mm 54 R=320 mm Option 240 R= 250 mm 48 R=280 mm x 5/6

4. Slide 4 July, 14 th 2015 Sébastien MICHAL OPTION 1 Layer 6 at maximum radius ▫ ~ 6mm clearance with respect to PST For L56: ▫ 27 staves ▫ 3 flavours of longeron Layer 5Layer 6 Option 145 R=280 mm 54 R=320 mm

5. Slide 5 July, 14 th 2015 Sébastien MICHAL OPTION 2 Layer 5 at minimum radius ▫ ~ 7 mm clearance with respect to layer4 For L56: ▫ 24 staves ▫ 3 flavours of longeron ▫ 30 mm height longeron  ~ 60 % decrease in mechanical Performances Layer 5Layer 6 Option 240 R= 250 mm 48 R=280 mm

6. Slide 6 July, 14 th 2015 Sébastien MICHAL OTHER OPTION Layer 34 could also be accomodated differently Layer 3Layer 4 Baseline27 R=160 mm 36 R=200 mm Option 124 R= ~144 mm 32 R=~185 mm x 3/4 Layer 3Layer 4 Baseline30 R=~175 mm 36 R=200 mm Option 125 R=~153 mm 30 R=~175 mm x 5/6

7. Slide 7 July, 14 th 2015 Sébastien MICHAL NEW COUPLING SCHEME We believe that a coupling scheme with 3 different structures flavours could also work in order to have higher staves Layer 5Layer 6 Option 136 R=~220 mm 54 R= 320 mm x 4/6 Layer 3Layer 4 Option 128 R=~173 mm 42 R=~245 mm Option 224 R=~145 mm 36 R=~209mm

8. Slide 8 July, 14 th 2015 Sébastien MICHAL SLIM LAYOUT Which combination are working together? Layer 3Layer 4Layer 5Layer 6 Option 127 R=160 mm 36 R=200 mm 45 R=280 mm 54 R=320 mm Option 227 R=160 mm 36 R=200 mm 40 R= 250 mm 48 R=280 mm Option 325 R=~153 mm 30 R=~175 mm 36 R=~220 mm 54 R= 320 mm Option 424 R=~145 mm 36 R=~209mm 45 R=280 mm 54 R=320 mm Option 524 R=~145 mm 36 R=~209mm 40 R= 250 mm 48 R=280 mm

9. Slide 9 July, 14 th 2015 Sébastien MICHAL SUMMARY New schemes for SLIM implementation in PST at R=345 mm are working We need input from the physic side to choose the best layout SLIM is less flexible than I-beam with respect to radius accomodation SLIM is much more optimized for higher radius ▫ SLIM stave width=80 mm vs Ibeam / alpine=40 mm 64 staves