Add Phase 2 Trackers T21 + T22 + T23 (Mechanical Update in Outer Tracker + Sensors studies in Inner Tracker)

[ghugo83]

PR description:

This PR:

• Introduces a Tracker baseline, called T21. It has a Phase 2 Outer Tracker with updated TBPS (changes in Layer 1 to facilitate IT insertion) and TEDD (update sensors Z inter-spacing in all TEDD).
• Introduces T22, a Tracker based on T21, but with 50x50 um2 pixels everywhere in Inner Tracker.
• Introduces T23, a Tracker based on T21, but with 3D sensors in TBPX L1 + TBPX L2 + TFPX R1.

T21:
tkLayout description: http://ghugo.web.cern.ch/ghugo/layouts/T21/OT800_IT615/layoutpixel.html
Geometry scenario: 2026D63.
Workflows: 294xx (no PU), 296xx (PU).

T22:
tkLayout description: http://ghugo.web.cern.ch/ghugo/layouts/T22/OT800_IT621/layoutpixel.html
Geometry scenario: 2026D64.
Workflows: 298xx (no PU), 300xx (PU).

T23:
tkLayout description: http://ghugo.web.cern.ch/ghugo/layouts/T23/OT800_IT700/layoutpixel.html
Geometry scenario: 2026D65.
Workflows: 302xx (no PU), 304xx (PU).

Following comparisons should be made:

Validate new Outer Tracker:

Compare T21 versus T20 (2026D63 versus 2026D56).
Should not expect any meaningful change in the tracking performance (maybe an extremely tiny degradation).

Inner Tracker sensors studies:

Now have a common base to compare different sensors options.
Only bricked pixels sensors option is missing (I included that geometry in another private branch).

25x100 -> 50x50:
Compare T22 (50x50, planar) versus T21 (25x100, planar) (2026D64 versus 2026D63).
An interesting fast sim estimate is available at:
25x100: http://ghugo.web.cern.ch/ghugo/layouts/T21/OT800_IT615/errorstracker.html
50x50: http://ghugo.web.cern.ch/ghugo/layouts/T22/OT800_IT621/errorstracker.html
With obviously, especially visible here at high pT, a significant degradation of pT and transverse impact parameter resolution, and an improvement of longitudinal impact parameter resolution. Of course less visible at low pT (multiple scattering).

planar -> 3D:
Compare T23 (3D) versus T21 (planar) (2026D65 versus 2026D63).
tkLayout track parameters code fully debugged and operational in the case of 3D sensors.
Though, would need to fix 3D local resolution parametrization used as input in tkLayout, to get meaningful fast sim results on that front as well.

PR validation:
Following was done for CMSSW validation:

• Checked XMLs make sense from Tracker design point of view, in concordance with Mechanics.
• 0 overlap within full 'Tracker' volume, checked with Fireworks + Geant4 tools, for the 3 Tracker geometries.
• Checked workflow numbering.
• Checked that workflows with D63, D64, D65 scenarios run smoothly with no extra error / warning.

FYI: @dpiparo @VinInn @cvuosalo @civanch @ianna @emiglior @skinnari @mmusich @jalimena @fabiocos @kpedro88

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-30976/17421

• This PR adds an extra 304KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File Configuration/Geometry/python/dict2026Geometry.py modified in PR(s): [DD4hep] Reorder XML Files in 2026 Scenarios #30963, update the tracking material for Phase2 geometry D49 #30126

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @ghugo83 for master.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/AlCa
Configuration/Geometry
Configuration/PyReleaseValidation
Configuration/StandardSequences
Geometry/CMSCommonData
Geometry/TrackerCommonData
Geometry/TrackerGeometryBuilder
L1Trigger/TrackerDTC

@chayanit, @wajidalikhan, @ianna, @kpedro88, @rekovic, @tlampen, @pohsun, @civanch, @makortel, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @mdhildreth, @tocheng, @qliphy, @fabiocos, @benkrikler, @christopheralanwest, @pgunnell, @silviodonato, @franzoni can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@erikbutz, @fabiocos, @vargasa, @makortel, @mtosi, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @tocheng, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @rovere, @lecriste, @felicepantaleo, @ebrondol, @mmusich, @dgulhan, @slomeo, @venturia this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[kpedro88]

@cvuosalo yes, that's the fix I'm talking about

[kpedro88]

+upgrade

[bsunanda]

@cvuosalo @kpedro88 @ianna I can fix O5, O6

[kpedro88]

@bsunanda that would be great, thanks!

[ghugo83]

@cvuosalo @kpedro88 @ianna I can fix O5, O6

@bsunanda O6 and O7.
O4 files dictionary was fixed at #30963, and O5 here (on top of this PR).

[ghugo83]

@ghugo83 Concerning the elementary materials: It sounds like enforcing a consistent properties for elementary materials is a large project on its own and out of the scope of this PR.

Yes exactly. Also that would just save up a few lines, for getting the same results, with risks of regressions, and that file will for sure still exist in tkLayout anyway.
Time would be much better invested updating cfg files for the Tracker description itself (but that's cumbersome), impacting the Material Budget results.

[bsunanda]

@kpedro88 @ghugo83 @cvuosalo @ianna I shall wait till this PR is merged

[chayanit]

+1

[silviodonato]

+operations

[silviodonato]

do you have any comments @cms-sw/alca-l2 @cms-sw/l1-l2 ?

[tlampen]

+1

[bsunanda]

@silviodonato Can this PR be merged - I am waiting for this to update some of the Ox parts of Phase2 scenarios

[silviodonato]

merge