1 / 11

U vs. L Layout Issues: How should we proceed toward a determination?

U vs. L Layout Issues: How should we proceed toward a determination?. (An open-ended discussion with random slides attached…). OUTLINE: Layouts Common Issues / Distinguishing Issues U-Shape L-Shape (Si and Si+Diamond ) How to Proceed. How to Proceed? (1).

avari
Télécharger la présentation

U vs. L Layout Issues: How should we proceed toward a determination?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U vs. L Layout Issues:How should we proceed toward a determination? (An open-ended discussion with random slides attached…) OUTLINE: • Layouts • Common Issues / Distinguishing Issues • U-Shape • L-Shape (Si and Si+Diamond) • How to Proceed

  2. How to Proceed? (1) • Work Package I – Finalize ‘Strawman’ layout • Contribute ideas (by 25th January) • Study selected layouts with parametric simulation • Study selected layouts with full simulation • Contribute engineering cartoons • Thermal simulations • Foil R&D assessment • Impact on electronics design • Plus • CAD drawings, cooling options, RF shield studies, physics impact of design variations (SU) • Addition of hybrid geometry option (SU) • Work Package II – CO2 vs LN2 cooling choice • Specify baseline CO2 solution • Specify baseline LN2 solution • Risk Assessment (…From Paula’s survey) R. Mountain, Syracuse University

  3. Possible Layouts (Jan) cartoon VELO L-Shape Layouts and Others – Marco Gersabeck -velo.upg.100119 R. Mountain, Syracuse University

  4. Comparison (Marco) VELO L-Shape Layouts and Others – Marco Gersabeck -velo.upg.100119 R. Mountain, Syracuse University

  5. Distinguishing Issues? U-Shape L-Shape • Sensor Periphery: • Active area close to R7.0 only in H direction – limited by ASIC size • RF Foil: • Design close to current – so AlMg3 possible • Can pursue composite, but we have a fallback • Cooling: • Has 10 chips • Sensor Periphery: • Can get active area closer to R7.0 in both H,V – principal physics reason for L-shape • RF Foil: • Must be a new design • Must be new material – can’t be AlMg3 • This is a strategic gamble • Cooling: • Has 12 chips • Many of these differences erased by using Diamond R. Mountain, Syracuse University

  6. Common Issues? (1) • Physics: • Simulation of efficiency, resolution, coverage, etc. • A given, not detailed here but the questions are well known • Also, material effects, number and spacing of stations vis-à-vis U vs L, etc. • ASIC: • What is the ultimate size of the ASIC? • How much modification is needed • How many submissions can be made, given time constraints • Sensor Periphery: • Silicon limited by rad damage to R7.0 at closest, but guard ring of ~0.5 mm moves active region back to R7.5 • Guard ring of 0.5 mm – feasible? Some questions were raised • Edgeless silicon – R&D stage, what is max size sensor made edgeless? • Note that Diamond will allow recovery to R7.0 • Sensor Size: • Split silicon into two – if sensor/ASIC registration gives low yield • How many ASICs can be accurately bonded to a single sensor? • If split, will introduce either overlaps or gaps in coverage (maybe both) In order of importance (?) R. Mountain, Syracuse University

  7. Common Issues? (2) • Overlap: • Is an overlap (~0.1 mm, 1-2 pixels) necessary? Can gaps be tolerated? Does a staggered layout help? How bad is the effect of the additional material? • Inner Aperture: • Square geometry at inner radius gives no coverage in corners – significant? • RF Foil: • Reduced RL reduces MCS for both cases • Cooling: • Placement of cooling pipes – effect in fiducial volume? • Diamond eases the cooling requirements • ASIC Readout: • Issue of column direction readout rate and multiplicity? – How serious? • Motion Control: • Have to adjust the position in V direction? – raised previously • Other … R. Mountain, Syracuse University

  8. U-Shape (Paula) R. Mountain, Syracuse University

  9. L-Shape (SU: Si only) R. Mountain, Syracuse University

  10. L-Shape (SU: Si+Diamond) R. Mountain, Syracuse University

  11. How to Proceed? (2) What can we determine in the next “two” months? • RF Foil: • Determine if there are any first-order show stoppers, by • Evaluating a realistic L-shape design with CMA • Determining basic material parameters, vacuum-tightness, shielding • Diamond: • Work out U-shaped diamond layout (problem?) • Critical, but can’t prove it in short term… • Simulations: • Continue current work, aim at some killer issue, like… • Thermal: • Continue simulations (kill CO2?), plus <your input here>… • Plus: • Pin down issues related to sensor periphery, size of ASIC, etc. • Seriously evaluate potential of higher-risk technologies, like edgeless silicon, TSVs, etc. • And … I think we can only kill an idea in a two-month period, but we cannot prove it. R. Mountain, Syracuse University

More Related