material calculation of petal core variants sergio díez cornell with input from many people cern...

Material calculation of petal core variants

Sergio Díez Cornell with input from many people

CERN AUW, 3rd Nov 2014

Petal core material, AUW Nov 2014 2

Petal core material

This is an updated calculation of the total petal core material based on the current petal model Bus tapes, locking points, E breaks included NOT included: silicon, SE4445, hybrids, ASICs, WBs, EoP, etc.

Disclaimer: Most of the values come from volumetric estimations provided by the CAD software. No mass

measurements were made (we don’t have petals yet) Due to this, adhesive estimations are the ones with biggest uncertainties

• Assumed 100% coverage and constant glue thicknesses in all glue interfaces• The most obvious error is on honeycomb-facings glue: honeycomb structure is simplified as a full

block with very low density; this is ok for the honeycomb estimation, but most likely overestimates greatly the amount of glue

A more accurate calculation should be expected once petal cores are produced (and weighed) Expect also some minor “systematic uncertainties” on X0s (check backup slides)

• i.e., used X0 of Korex for N636 HC The “baseline” is just the default version I have considered for this study

3 Nov 2014


Current petal core model

3 Nov 2014

Locking points are PEEK

This pipe section and connectors are not included

(top bus tape and facing not shown here)

Lateral C-channels are CF

Top and bottom closeouts are PEEK


Baseline petal core X0

3 Nov 2014

Item Material Total mass (g)

Density(g/cm3)

Volume (cm3)

Normalized thickness X0/ρ (cm) %X0

Facings K13C2U/EX1515 (45 gsm, 43% RC) 56.759 1.6 17.737 0.04507 29.24 0.154%

Bus tapes Cu/Polyiamide/adhesive 51.373 various 16.92 0.04300 various 0.227%

C-Channels K13C2U/EX1515 (45 gsm, 43% RC) 8.514 1.6 5.321 0.00676 29.24 0.022%

Closeouts + Locking points PEEK

16.643 1.32 11.122 0.01602 31.9 0.050%

Allcomp K9 Allcomp (0.23g/cc) 15.999 0.23 34.780 0.08837 185.6 0.048%

Honeycomb YSH50A-75 +EX-1515 (1/4) 27.709 0.048 577.281 0.73338 1006 0.073%

Adhesives Hysol9396/BN (30%) 18.979 1.49 12.714 0.01602 25.4 0.064%

Pipe + E breaks Ti /Al2O3 7.216 4.54/3.97 1.439 0.00205 3.58/7.04 0.054%

TOTAL: 203.192 g 0.692%

Spreadsheet with detailed calculations:https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/Atlas/StripsUpgradeLocalSupport/Diez_petalcore_material_31_10_2014_v2.xlsx

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/Atlas/StripsUpgradeLocalSupport/Diez_petalcore_material_31_10_2014_v2.xlsx


Bus tape variants

Different bus tapes considered:

“Baseline”: bus tape covers full area• “C” is part of the bus tape:

3 Kapton layers (25+50+12.5 µm) 3 adhesive layers (25 µm each)

• “A” and “B” are part of the bus tape (barrel approach)

Parylene isolation: bus tape only covers “A” and “B”• “C” is a thin (40 µm) parylene layer, no HV

power traces 20 µm should be enough for HV isolation,

but surface may not be perfectly flat (difference between 20 and 40 µm is 0.013 %X0)

• “B” is a bridge on top of the R5 sensors

3 Nov 2014

“A”: sides

“B”: bridge

“C”: HV contact and isolation


Material calcualtion for bus tapes

3 Nov 2014

Item Number Material Total Mass(g) Density(g/cm3) Volume (cm3) Total thick (cm) X0 (cm) %X0TOPKAPTON (kapton cover layer), 12.5um 2 Polyiamide 4.174 1.42 1.470 0.00373 28.6 0.01306%

Adhesive, 25 um 2 Adhesive 6.701 1.14 2.939 0.00747 35 0.02134%BOTTOM (Cu shield layer), 12 um 2 Cu 5.385 8 0.337 0.00086 1.43 0.05980%INNERKAPTON (adhesiveless Kapton), 25 um 2 Polyiamide 8.347 1.42 2.939 0.00747 28.6 0.02611%

Adhesive, 25 um 2 Adhesive 6.701 1.14 2.939 0.00747 35 0.02134%TOP (Cu traces), 18 um 2 Cu 2.813 8 0.176 0.00045 1.43 0.03124%Adhesive, 25 um 2 Adhesive 0.557 1.14 0.244 0.00062 35 0.00177%BOTTOMKAPTON (Kapton) 50 um 2 Polyiamide 16.695 1.42 5.878 0.01494 28.6 0.05222%

51.373 0.04300 0.22687%

Item Number Material Total Mass(g) Density(g/cm3) Volume (cm3) Total thick (cm) X0 (cm) %X0TOPKAPTON (kapton cover layer), 12.5um 2 Polyiamide 1.331 1.42 0.469 0.00119 28.6 0.00416%

Adhesive, 25 um 2 Adhesive 2.138 1.14 0.938 0.00238 35 0.00681%BOTTOM (Cu shield layer), 12 um 2 Cu 5.385 8 0.337 0.00086 1.43 0.05980%INNERKAPTON (adhesiveless Kapton), 25 um 2 Polyiamide 2.687 1.42 0.946 0.00240 28.6 0.00841%

Adhesive, 25 um 2 Adhesive 2.157 1.14 0.946 0.00240 35 0.00687%TOP (Cu traces), 18 um 2 Cu 2.813 8 0.176 0.00045 1.43 0.03124%Adhesive, 25 um 2 Adhesive 0.557 1.14 0.244 0.00062 35 0.00177%BOTTOMKAPTON (Kapton) 50 um 2 Polyiamide 5.374 1.42 1.892 0.00481 28.6 0.01681%HV insulation (Parylene) 40 um 2 Parylene 7.015 1.1 3.18884 0.00810 39.4 0.02056%

29.458 0.02321 0.15643%

“Baseline”: Bus tape covering full area

“Parylene”: Bus tape on the sides, parylene on the center


X0 of petal variants

3 Nov 2014

Petal variants

Item “Baseline” Parylene isolation

PEEK closeouts N636 HC “light core”

Facings 0.154% 0.154% 0.154% 0.154% 0.154%

Bus tapes 0.227% 0.156% 0.227% 0.227% 0.156%

Closeouts + Locking points 0.073% 0.073% 0.072% 0.073% 0.072%

Allcomp 0.048% 0.048% 0.048% 0.048% 0.048%

Honeycomb 0.073% 0.073% 0.073% 0.056% 0.056%

Adhesives 0.064% 0.064% 0.064% 0.064% 0.064%

Pipe + E breaks 0.054% 0.054% 0.054% 0.054% 0.054%

TOTAL 0.6923% 0.6219% 0.6909% 0.6758% 0.604%


Material comparison (I)

3 Nov 2014

22.3%

32.8%10.6%

6.9%

10.5%

9.2%

7.8% Facings

Bus tapes

Closeouts + Locking points

Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks

22.3%

32.8%10.6%

6.9%

10.5%

9.2%

7.8% Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks

24.8%

25.2%

11.8%

7.7%

11.7%

10.2%

8.6%Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks

“Baseline”

0.6923 %X0Total mass: 203.192 g

Parylene isolation

0.6219 %X0Total mass: 181.277 g


Material comparison (II)

3 Nov 2014

22.3%

32.8%10.6%

6.9%

10.5%

9.2%

7.8% Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks

22.3%

32.8%10.6%

6.9%

10.5%

9.2%

7.8% Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks

“Baseline”

0.6923 %X0Total mass: 203.192 g

N636 honeycomb

0.67585 %X0Total mass: 193.96 g

22.8%

33.6%10.9%

7.0%

8.3%

9.4%

8.0%Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks


Material comparison (III)

3 Nov 2014

22.3%

32.8%10.6%

6.9%

10.5%

9.2%

7.8% Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks

22.3%

32.8%10.6%

6.9%

10.5%

9.2%

7.8% Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks

“Baseline”

0.6923 %X0Total mass: 203.192 g

All PEEK closeouts

0.6909 %X0Total mass: 202.089 g

22.3%

32.8%10.4%

6.9%

10.6%

9.2%

7.8%Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks


Material comparison (IV)

3 Nov 2014

22.3%

32.8%10.6%

6.9%

10.5%

9.2%

7.8% Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks

22.3%

32.8%10.6%

6.9%

10.5%

9.2%

7.8% Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks

“Baseline”

0.6923 %X0Total mass: 203.192 g

“Light core”: Parylene, N636, all PEEK closeouts

0.6040 %X0Total mass: 170.94 g

25.52%

25.90%

11.91%

7.88%

9.34%

10.55%

8.90%

Facings

Bus tapes


Allcomp

Honeycomb

Adhesive

Pipe + E breaks


What does it really mean?

The %X0 of the barrel modules+adhesive between Si and core (not including power components) is equal to 1.20 %X0 One should expect a similar number for the petal modules Detailed calculation will come first design of all hybrid flavors is available

Using the barrel estimate for the modules:

3 Nov 2014

Core option Core (%X0) Core + electronics (%X0) Core contribution Percentage of material saving wrt baseline

Baseline 0.692% 1.892% 36.59% 0.00%

Parylene + bus tape 0.622% 1.822% 34.13% 3.72%

All PEEK closeouts 0.691% 1.891% 36.54% 0.08%

N636 honeycomb 0.676% 1.876% 36.03% 0.87%

"Light core" option 0.604% 1.804% 33.48% 4.67%


In summary

Material saving is one of the main arguments in favor of parylene coating (the other one is thermal performance) Parylene gives you around 3.5% less material (although probably less)

However, this may lead to other challenges as opposed to using a well known option from the barrel effort How do you connect your HV? A bridge (+WBs, connectors?) that goes on top of the R5 sensors is still needed, or a bus tape

folding on the top region (L&F-like) How flat and uniform is your coating going to be?

My opinion: material savings are not big enough to justify the extra effort, but of course others may disagree...

→ A comparison of the thermal performance needs to be performed as well (maybe this has been done already?)

3 Nov 2014


Other savings

N636 honeycomb instead of CF gives you < 1% material saving But material is not the main argument here! Although it goes in your favor also

Going for PEEK closeouts does not give you any material savings However it may help to simplify build (and G&S) procedure

3 Nov 2014


Backup

3 Nov 2014


Comments about X0 numbers

Material X0/rho (cm) Comments

Facings and C-channles K13C2U/EX1515 (45

gsm, 43% RC)29.24 X0 scaled from K13D2U/RS3 facings, 80 gsm, using differences in density

CF honeycomb YSH50A-75 +EX-1515

(1/4)1006 X0 scaled from YSH50/RS3 HC using differences in density (provided by

manufacturer)

Allcomp foam K9 (0.23g/cc) 185.6 X0 scaled from Allcomp 0.3 g/cc, new 0.23 g/cc provided by manufacturer

PEEK 31.9 X0 from SCT calc

Ti 3.58 X0 from PDG

Hysol9396/BN (30%) 25.4 Assumes full block of HC with very low density, X0 from barrel calculations, assumes 100% glue coverage and a fixed thickness

Bus tape adhesive layers 35 X0 from barrel, coming from pixel calculations

Polyamide 28.6 X0 from PDG

Parylene 39.4 X0 from LHCB calc

N636 honeycomb N636 PK2-3/16-2.0 1300 Used X0 of Korex

3 Nov 2014

material calculation of petal core variants sergio díez cornell with input from many people cern...

Documents