R. Lee CMS EMU Alignment: 28 Feb, 20021 COCOA Simulation and Study of the EMU Alignment System...

R. Lee CMS EMU Alignment: 28 Feb, 2002 1

COCOA Simulation and Study of COCOA Simulation and Study of the EMU Alignment Systemthe EMU Alignment System

COCOA Simulation and Study of COCOA Simulation and Study of the EMU Alignment Systemthe EMU Alignment System

Robert Lee

CMS Endcap Alignment Muon EDR 28 February 2002


EMU Simulation StudiesEMU Simulation StudiesEMU Simulation StudiesEMU Simulation Studies

Uses updated COCOA Software

Detailed Model of Geometry and Components Includes

• CSC Chamber Definition

< 10 µm Agreement on ME ±1 w/ Production Drawings

< 5 µm Agreement on ME ±2, ±3, ±4 w/ Prod. Drawings

• Transfer Plates

• Secondary Sensors: Inclinometers, Proximity Sensors

Realistic Estimation of Uncertainties on CSC Construction and Strip Placement

First Estimation of System Uncertainties


CSC Definition in COCOACSC Definition in COCOACSC Definition in COCOACSC Definition in COCOA

CSC Definition:2 DCOPS Placed Relative to the ‘Reference Center’ of the Chamber


Uncertainty in DCOPS - Reference Uncertainty in DCOPS - Reference Center Relationship*Center Relationship*


Uncertainty Origin Magnitude (µm)

Central Alignment Pin - Notched Alignment Marks 25

Notched Alignment Mark - Numbered Reference Strip 25

Intrinsic Strip Positioning (from milling) 30

Averaged Centerline Across 6 Assembled Planes 87

Positioning of Primary DCOPS Alignment Pins/Holes 25

Diameter of Primary DCOPS Alignment Pins/Holes 25

Placement of Mounting Plate On Chamber 50

Placement of DCOPS Mounting Plate 50

DCOPS Calibration, Construction** 65

Maximal Shearing Effect (Averaged across 6 layers, No Reliable Data?)

25

Final Estimation of Uncertainty Along X Axis of Chamber: 144 µm

* Estimates based on data supplied by O. Prokofiev, N. Chester, Muon TDR, CMS Internal Notes** Estimate based on 40 µm 1st Pixel Calibration + COPS Sensor Board Calibration, J. Moromisato et al, Oct 2000

CSC X-Axis (Perpendicular to Centerline, CMS R) :




Final Estimation of Uncertainty Along Y Axis of Chamber: 551 µm

* Estimates based on data supplied by O. Prokofiev, N. Chester, Muon TDR, CMS Internal Notes** Estimate based on 40 µm 1st Pixel Calibration + COPS Sensor Board Calibration, J. Moromisato et al, Oct 2000

CSC Y-Axis (CMS Z) :

Uncertainty Origin Magnitude(µm)

Panel Thickness (Maximal deviation) 508

Frame to Panel Placement 127

Mounting Bracket Chamber-Shim Standoff 100

Mounting Bracket Al. Plate 125

DCOPS Calibration, Construction** 65

Uncertainties which are asymmetric are estimated as symmetric at max deviation Examples: Panel Thickness Uncertainty is +508 µm - 245 µm

Mounting Bracket Chamber-Shim Standoff +100 µm - 0 µm Average Sheering Effect between layers is asymmetric


Other Uncertainties in the COCOA Other Uncertainties in the COCOA EMU SimulationEMU Simulation

Other Uncertainties in the COCOA Other Uncertainties in the COCOA EMU SimulationEMU Simulation

Hardware (Transfer Plates, Z Standoffs, etc) • Estimates from production drawings

MAB Uncertainty• ±135µm ±30 µrad on MAB Placement

• ±35µm MAB Deformation

• ±50µm ±10 µrad on DCOPS Placement on MAB

Measurement Uncertainties• Performance of all devices set to long term, uncorrected

resolutions found in 2000 ISR tests

• Secondary LINK Laser Line Uncertainty set to ±20µm and ±10 µrad

• Link 2D Sensor Modeled as making 5um measurements


COCOA Model of EMU SimulationCOCOA Model of EMU SimulationCOCOA Model of EMU SimulationCOCOA Model of EMU Simulation


Full EMU COCOA SimulationFull EMU COCOA SimulationFull EMU COCOA SimulationFull EMU COCOA Simulation

Full EMU Simulation Model has :• > 19000 Lines Text in Input File• > 6200 Entries to Fit • > 6000x1500 Matrix Constructed for Fit

THIS IS A PROBLEM !!! • Computer(s) Crash with error indicating

problem is with memory (allocation & usage)• This can be debugged• Temporary Solution is to Compare Subsets of

Full System, look for correlations


Comparison of Subset SimulationsComparison of Subset SimulationsComparison of Subset SimulationsComparison of Subset Simulations

• All Sub-Systems Had Full Transfer Line

• Largest Sub-System has 6 ME Disks • ME ±2, ±3, ±4 w/ Transfer System

• All Permutations of 2 ME Disks + Transfer System were examined (56 Separate Simulations)

Conclusion :Estimates of equal size systems are comparable (<10%)

Estimates from smaller systems are comparable to estimates from larger systems (<10%)


Simulation ResultsSimulation ResultsSimulation ResultsSimulation Results

CMS R (µm) CMS Z (µm)

ME ±1/2( inclinometer = short term ISR)

160 – 175(90-95)

370 – 420(370-385)

ME ±1/3 210 – 225 670 – 880

ME ±2/1, ±3/1, ±4/1 190 – 210 400 – 420

ME ±2/2, ±3/2, ±4/2 220 – 250 400 – 450

Uncertainty in Reconstruction of CSC Reference Center*

* Translation to any strip position in chamber at wide end is <40µm in quadrature with above


Correlations Between Components Correlations Between Components

Understanding Details: MEUnderstanding Details: ME±±1 Inclinometers1 Inclinometers


Understanding Details: MEUnderstanding Details: ME±±1 Inclinometers1 InclinometersME±1 CMS RPhi CSC Resolution vs ME±1/2 CSC Inclinometer

Resolution

ME 1/3y = 0.0193x + 203.41

R2 = 0.9407

ME 1/2y = 0.1491x + 66.834

R2 = 0.9925

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

ME1/2 Inclinometer Resolution (urad)

CS

C C

MS

RP

hi U

nc

ert

ain

ty (

um

)

ME1/3 Chambers

ME1/2 Chambers

Short Term ISR Resolution

Long Term ISR



Understanding Details: CSC Ref. TolerancesUnderstanding Details: CSC Ref. Tolerances


Understanding Details: CSC Ref. TolerancesUnderstanding Details: CSC Ref. TolerancesCMS RPhi CSC Resolution vs DCOPS-Reference Center Tolerance

ME 1/2y = 0.3875x + 124.1

R2 = 0.9959

ME 2/1y = 0.3511x + 156.56

R2 = 0.9769

ME 1/3y = 0.3414x + 172.9

R2 = 0.9878

ME 2/2y = 0.3186x + 178.7

R2 = 0.9382

ME 3/1y = 0.3164x + 181.47

R2 = 0.9902

ME 3/2y = 0.311x + 199.13

R2 = 0.991

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250

DCOPS-CSC Reference Center Tolerance (um)

CS

C C

MS

RP

hi U

nc

ert

ain

ty (

um

)

ME 1/2

ME 1/3

ME 2/1

ME 2/2

ME 3/1

ME 3/2


Correlations Between ComponentsCorrelations Between ComponentsUnderstanding Details: Pixel ResolutionUnderstanding Details: Pixel Resolution

Correlations Between ComponentsCorrelations Between ComponentsUnderstanding Details: Pixel ResolutionUnderstanding Details: Pixel Resolution

CMS RPhi CSC Resolution vs DCOPS CCD Pixel Resolution

ME 1/3y = 17.688x + 189.13

R2 = 0.9739

ME 1/2y = 0.6128x + 170.26

R2 = 0.9927

ME 2/1y = 12.5x + 212.15

R2 = 0.992

ME 2/2y = 12.91x + 195.61

R2 = 0.9905

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

CCD Resolution (pixels)

Un

ce

rta

inty

in C

SC

CM

S R

Ph

i Lo

ca

tio

n (

um

)

ME 1/2

ME 1/3

ME 2/1

ME 2/2


ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions

• System performance matches our expectations

• Rotations of Chambers about axis parallel to CMS Z Axis have been examined as well (local RФ)

• Uncertainties in EMU and CSC components are understood

• Some room for additional error• Uncertainty on components in simulation are more

likely over-estimated than under-estimated.

R. Lee CMS EMU Alignment: 28 Feb, 20021 COCOA Simulation and Study of the EMU Alignment System...

Documents

Transcript of R. Lee CMS EMU Alignment: 28 Feb, 20021 COCOA Simulation and Study of the EMU Alignment System...