MTD, add new geometry scenario (D33 and D34) for bars along z coordinate #24854
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-24854/6818 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @fabiocos (Fabio Cossutti) for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/Geometry @cmsbuild, @prebello, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @civanch, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @pgunnell, @franzoni, @kpedro88, @zhenhu, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
@lgray @pmeridian FYI |
|
please test workflow 22434.0 not testing the new scenario (26607.0) but at least the integrity of existing MTD workflows |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
@fabiocos please update |
|
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
|
@civanch @ianna @cvuosalo @kpedro88 do you have any comment? I would keep separate this PR and the issue of how to combine with alternative HGCal and/or Tracker setups @ianna I want to clean the test code in Geometry/MTDCommonData to move it to filtered views, but I will do it in a second moment, as this is now urgent for TDR studies |
|
+upgrade |
|
+operations |
|
+1 |
|
@kpedro88 in my understanding the baseline choice is D33, but I let @pmeridian and @lgray to comment |
|
Tempatively we could go with D33. MTD management has not yet taken a final choice (we have brought this up at last steering group, we will re-iterate next Tuesday) |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
geometry-approved
simulation-approved
and removed
geometry-pending
pending-signatures
simulation-pending
labels
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
+1 |
A new MTD geometry scenario (D33) is implemented, with bars (as in D25) but oriented along the z coordinate, instead of phi. RelVals are added in PyReleaseValidation, and the BTLDetId format is updated to accomodate navigation also according to this scenario. This version has a flat geometry, and the passive material layout is updated compared to D24, with the Al support plate in between the crystals and the tracker, and the PCB boards behind. A gap of 4.5 mm is provided between the crystals in z (to accomodate SiPM), crystals are 56 mm long, for a total of 42 modules. The crystal thickness changes in blocks of 14 modules.
Scenario D34 is the same as D33 but without gap between crystals in z, for efficiency studies.
The numbering scheme has been verified with the available test code, and appears correct. The radial crystal position is unmodified wrt the old passive material layout. No overlap is detected, and test workflows for SingleMuon that are added pass correctly.