U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 U.S. ATLAS Progress 1. Pictures of equipment constructed in the six detector subsystems in U.S. ATLAS. 2. Current issues:  Rate.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TYPE TEXT HERE On July 4, 2012, scientists at CERN announced the discovery of an essential part of the Standard Model of particle physics: the Higgs.
Advertisements

M. Gilchriese US ATLAS Pixel Meeting July 18-19, 2002 UC Santa Cruz.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: May 8-10, US CMS Cost & Schedule Mark Reichanadter US CMS Project Engineer DOE/NSF Review 8 May 2001.
Computer Engineering 203 R Smith Project Tracking 12/ Project Tracking Why do we want to track a project? What is the projects MOV? – Why is tracking.
The LAr ROD Project and Online Activities Arno Straessner and Alain, Daniel, Annie, Manuel, Imma, Eric, Jean-Pierre,... Journée de réflexion du DPNC Centre.
DOE/NSF Review of ATLAS, 1 Mar 2000, BNL Muon MDT Front End Electronics (WBS 1.5.9) James Shank DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS Detector (with help from:
MINER A NuMI MINER A DAQ Review 12 September 2005 D. Casper UC Irvine WBS7: Electronics and Data Acquisition  Overview (this talk): D. Casper  Front-end.
MINER A NuMI MINER A DAQ Review 12 September 2005 D. Casper UC Irvine WBS 7.2 & 7.3: Data Acquisition D. Casper (UC Irvine)
Doug Michael Jan. 12, First goal is to be ready to select an optimal technology in ~one year. –Demonstrate that fundamental technologies are ready.
L. Greiner 1IPHC meeting – September 5-6, 2011 STAR HFT Plans for the next year A short report on review results and plans for TPC – Time Projection.
ATLAS detector upgrades ATLAS off to a good start – the detector is performing very well. This talk is about the changes needed in ATLAS during the next.
WP2: Detector development Summary G. Pugliese INFN - Politecnico of Bari.
WBS 1.7: AFE II Project Cost and Schedule Alan Bross DZero Run IIb AFE II Director’s Review April 13, 2005.
RF Cavity / Coupling Coil Module
INFO 637Lecture #31 Software Engineering Process II Launching & Strategy INFO 637 Glenn Booker.
The Key Process Areas for Level 2: Repeatable Ralph Covington David Wang.
March 20, 2001M. Garcia-Sciveres - US ATLAS DOE/NSF Review1 M. Garcia-Sciveres LBNL & Module Assembly & Module Assembly WBS Hybrids Hybrids WBS.
U.S. ATLAS Executive Meeting Upgrade R&D August 3, 2005Toronto, Canada A. Seiden UC Santa Cruz.
From Research Prototype to Production
Project Tracking. Questions... Why should we track a project that is underway? What aspects of a project need tracking?
David M. Lee Forward Vertex Detector Cost, Schedule, and Management Plan Participating Institutions Organizational plan Cost Basis R&D Costs.
M. Gilchriese ATLAS Upgrade Introduction January 2008.
ASPERA-3 Apr. 25, 00 Monthly Status Report ASPERA Monthly Status ReportMonthly 4_25/ Page 1 Monthly Status Report Report due 4/25/00 Schedule statused.
DOE/NSF Review of the U.S. ATLAS Construction Project June 3-4, 2002 WBS 1.1 Silicon Subsystem Abe Seiden UC Santa Cruz.
Slide 1 6-Nov-98PHOBOS Review: Cost & Schedule Cost & Schedule S. Steadman, MIT PHOBOS Cost & Schedule Review Technical Advisory Committee BNL November.
Silicon Inner Layer Sensor PRR, 8 August G. Ginther Update on the D0 Run IIb Silicon Upgrade for the Inner Layer Sensor PRR 8 August 03 George Ginther.
January LEReC Review 12 – 13 January 2015 Low Energy RHIC electron Cooling Kerry Mirabella Cost, Schedule, Personnel.
Concluding Summary WBS1.1.2 SCT Subsystem A. Seiden BNL March 2001.
1 These courseware materials are to be used in conjunction with Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 5/e and are provided with permission by.
U.S. Deliverables Cost and Schedule Summary M. G. D. Gilchriese U.S. ATLAS Review Revised Version November 29, 2000.
ATLAS Muon System WBS 3.5 DoE/NSF M&O Evaluation Group Review BNL 19-Jan-06 Frank Taylor MIT V1.3.
Background Physicist in Particle Physics. Data Acquisition and Triggering systems. Specialising in Embedded and Real-Time Software. Since 2000 Project.
Commodity Node Procurement Process Task Force: Status Stephen Wolbers Run 2 Computing Review September 13, 2005.
G. Carboni – Muon Meeting – April 2002 Muon Meeting LHC schedule is now official (Council Committee) First protons (Pilot run) delayed to
U.S. Deliverables Cost and Schedule Summary M. G. D. Gilchriese Revised Version December 18, 2000.
3.1.1 Optics, Optical Corrector, Mechanical Systems M. Johns, C. Claver.
ATLAS PIXEL SYSTEM OVERVIEW M. Gilchriese Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory March 11, 1999.
Hall D Electronics Review (July 23-24) Elton Smith Hall D Collaboration Meeting August 4-6.
January LEReC Review 12 – 13 January 2015 Low Energy RHIC electron Cooling Kerry Mirabella Cost, Schedule, Personnel.
M. Gilchriese U.S. Pixel Mechanics Overview M. G. D. Gilchriese Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory April 2000.
1 US Cost & Schedule Summary W. R. Edwards US Project Manager CD-2/3a Review January 8, 2008 BNL.
UCSC August 12, 2008 U.S. Upgrade R&D Meeting: Strip Detector  Seiden.
D0 PMG 6/15/00 PMG Agenda June 15, 2000  Overview (Tuts) u Detector status u Reportable milestones u Financial status u Summary  Response to DOE review.
DoE Review June 6, 2000 Cost Estimate  New Cost Estimate u Manpower Costs (Op. SWF) u Equipment Costs (Eq. M&S) u Contingency  Conclusions Mike Tuts.
DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS May 21-23, 2003 CSC Mechanics and Electronics Paul O’Connor Tom Muller BNL May 22, 2003.
US CMS DOE/NSF Review: April 11-13, Trig. - Estimate to Complete.
GLAST LAT ProjectCAL Peer Design Review, Mar 17-18, 2003 W. N. Johnson Naval Research Lab Washington DC GLAST Large Area Telescope Calorimeter Subsystem.
ATLAS Pixel Detector September 2002 N. Hartman LBNL 1 Pixel Support Tube: Cost and Production Schedule September 2002.
Strykowsky 1Project Review November 2, 2005 NCSX Project Review November 2, 2005 Cost and Schedule Ron Strykowsky.
TE-CRG-CE OMP Meeting 06 / 11 / 2014TE-CRG-CE OMP Meeting.
March 25, FVTX Monthly/Quarterly Report June, 2009 Technical Status, Cost & Schedule Melynda Brooks, LANL.
David M. Lee Forward Vertex Detector Cost, Schedule, and Management Plan Participating Institutions Organizational plan Cost Basis R&D Costs.
D0 PMG 2/3/00 PMG Agenda Feb 3, 2000  Overview u Project Manager’s Report – Tuts u Fallback options – Weerts  Silicon Support Cylinder Modifications.
U.S. ATLAS Project Manager’s Review with the Project Advisory Panel March 21-22, BNL Introduction Howard Gordon.
Atlas Software May, 2000 K.Amako Status of Geant4 Physics Validation Atlas Software Week 10 May, Katsuya Amako (KEK)
ATLAS LAr Forward Calorimeters C. Zeitnitz (Universität Wuppertal) for the ATLAS LAr Community.
Technical Board Summary Alan Bross MICE CM17 CERN February 25, 2007.
Single-Phase ProtoDUNE Construction Planning Jim Stewart LBNC January 11, 2016.
Time to resolve Design Issues 1. Disclamer Due to the engineering meeting last week I have not had time to coordinate this material with Tim or the L3.
Copyright © The Conestoga Group PY 674 – Session 2 Review of week 1 material... Chapter 1: PM Overview – Main Text Book / H. Kerzner Ph. D. Focus.
June-18 th -2007ATLAS-MPI; Status of ATLAS Technical Paper, R. Richter1 The ATLAS Technical Paper and back-up papers  Content of the ATLAS technical paper.
MUSE NSF Review March 24, MUSE Project Management Ronald Ransome Rutgers The State University of New Jersey For the MUSE Collaboration.
Cost and Schedule Paul Weinman Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
EPS HEP 2007 Manchester -- Thilo Pauly July The ATLAS Level-1 Trigger Overview and Status Report including Cosmic-Ray Commissioning Thilo.
WBS 1-7 System Assembly & Installation John Voirin August 10-11, 2011.
Completion and Pre-Exploitation Costs for the Initial ATLAS Detector
PANDA Muon Group Meeting, Protvino 7 June 2011 G
ATLAS Canada Alberta Carleton McGill Montréal Simon Fraser Toronto
Presentation transcript:

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 U.S. ATLAS Progress 1. Pictures of equipment constructed in the six detector subsystems in U.S. ATLAS. 2. Current issues:  Rate of Progress in Subsystems  Corrective actions on R.O.P.  Interfaces with ATLAS  Project aspect of computing Bill Willis: goes with picture of atlas with u.s. deliverables labeled, can we redo this one? Bill Willis: goes with picture of atlas with u.s. deliverables labeled, can we redo this one?

U.S. ATLAS 21 July Silicon Tracking  Space frame for the pixel detectors.  Silicon strip module with ABCD electronics chips. Bill Willis: TWO pictures inset, with text beneath? The reason I suggest this is that these pix are not meaningful to this audience anyway Bill Willis: TWO pictures inset, with text beneath? The reason I suggest this is that these pix are not meaningful to this audience anyway

U.S. ATLAS 21 July TRT Straw Tubes Straw factory at Hampton and completed module 0 for the Barrel TRT in the space frame Bill Willis: here we have one nice big picture, of chamber or straws, and tiny corner on electronics, w/or wout picture Bill Willis: here we have one nice big picture, of chamber or straws, and tiny corner on electronics, w/or wout picture

U.S. ATLAS 21 July Liquid Argon EM Calorimeter  U.S. technical people inspecting the aluminum rings and welds at the vendor which is manufacturing the Barrel Cryostat. Bill Willis: here we have two big pix, so two sheets, cryo and feedthroughs, gives room for small comments on other stuff Bill Willis: here we have two big pix, so two sheets, cryo and feedthroughs, gives room for small comments on other stuff

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Liquid Argon Signal Feedthroughs  U.S. developed high density pin carriers for the signal feedthroughs.

U.S. ATLAS 21 July Scintillator Tile Hadron Calorimeter  Submodule stacking at ANL.  Work on front-end electronics ready for Production Readiness Review Bill Willis: one big picture of module in some stage, small comments on electronics Bill Willis: one big picture of module in some stage, small comments on electronics

U.S. ATLAS 21 July Muon Tracking Detector  Complete Prototype of a Monitored Drift Tube Chamber and tooling in Boston Bill Willis: picture of our prototype chamber Bill Willis: picture of our prototype chamber

U.S. ATLAS 21 July Trigger and Data Acquision 12U VME card This assembles Region of Interest (RoI) fragments from several (<12) level 1 sources and distributes them to supervisor CPU's which in turn assign events to LVL2 farm computers for the trigger decisions. This board runs at the required 100kHz. Bill Willis: here there could be a big block diagram and a small photo of the recent version of the Supervisor Bill Willis: here there could be a big block diagram and a small photo of the recent version of the Supervisor

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Our schedule issues  THE THEME OF THIS SUMMARY IS THE U.S. ATLAS SCHEDULE, AND INTEGRATION WITH ATLAS  WE HAVE KEPT U.S. DELIVERABLES ON TRACK IF NEAR THE “TRUE” ATLAS CRITICAL PATH BUT  THERE IS A WIDE-SPREAD TENDENCY TOWARD A RATE-OF-PROGRESS GAP FOR THE “LESS CRITICAL” ITEMS  THESE HAVE BEEN MANAGED FOR MINIMUM COST, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT BASE PROGRAM RESOURCES, AND FLOAT, BUT WE MUST NOW ACCELERATE ALL SYSTEMS, BY CONTINGENCY, OR CHANGE SCHEDULES, IF “NOT U.S. DRIVEN”

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999

Cost and Schedule Variances

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Lehman Review Assessment  Scan lehman will be put here

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Corrective Action, WBS 1. WBS 1, Silicon Strip and Pixel Detectors The Strip readout is seriously delayed due to ASIC design flaws discovered a year ago, but it is a joint effort with Europe, where the U.S. has assumed a larger role since the problem emerged, in order to accelerate the ATLAS deliverables overall, ie the U.S. is advancing the schedule, not delaying it. We want to do more:  We will pay incentive fees to get in “hot fab” lines for two submissions, gaining twice six weeks for $36K  We will add some temporary engineering ($20K) and some test hardware ($24K)  We then expect to make ATLAS Milestone end ‘99

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Corrective Action, WBS 1.2  We want to keep the start of production Milestone of the Straw Tube modules, in September. The U.S. group believes that this can be done, despite the late (June) date of the meeting following up the Dec PRR, where the last necessary decisions are being made. We have encouraged them to get temporary help to keep this schedule and get production ok.  The U.S. has assumed a larger role in the readout electronics than foreseen, leading to a net improvement in the ATLAS schedule but a delay in the U.S. deliverables.  Temporary help for the design engineering will be added, and optional improvements will be dropped or postponed. This will increase float.

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Corrective Action, WBS 1.3  One item in the Liquid Argon Calorimeter, the readout electrodes WBS , now appears to define the critical path of ATLAS, having suffered a delay in procurement by CERN. This was not a responsibility of the U.S. though we are committed to supply a part of the cost, fixed at $2M (29%of the nominal total).  Recently we offered to help improve the schedule for this item by seeking another qualified vendor to produce 29% of the electrodes, with the U.S. to pay the actual cost, including following the procurement.  ATLAS has declined to take up this offer, deciding that their new approach with the selected vendor will succeed in supplying all the pieces needed on an accelerated production schedule, at a favorable cost.

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Corrective Action in WBS 1.3, contd.  Most U.S. deliverables in WBS 1.3 are linked to the electrode delivery in schedule and some are also at risk for design changes if the design of the electrodes were changed to ease their fabrication.  We choose not to put into production the latter, leading to an apparent schedule delay that is misleading, since it is our deliberate choice.  We intend to change the schedule for these items, to reflect the links to the current ATLAS schedule.  We have added engineering in WBS , the Forward Calorimeter, to get the system to the point we need before authorizing production.

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Corrective Action, WBS 1.4  The Tile Calorimeter is the first detector to be installed in ATLAS, so it must be ready on schedule, though there is presently some float in the schedule.  Production of the calorimeter modules has begun at two sites, and no schedule problem is foreseen.  We will monitor the production closely, and add production manpower if needed.  The electronics for which the U.S. is responsible does not seem to offer a schedule challenge, but the digitizer component made in Europe might suffer a delay, and in this case we may offer to help.

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Corrective Action, WBS 1.5  Muons: the U.S. is responsible for most of the tracking chambers in the endcaps, MDT and CSC.  This is the last detector installed in ATLAS.  A big production of chambers built to 5 microns.  Drift Tube production in three sites, OK.  One site qualified by engineering prototype.  Needed: qualified tooling at all three sites, Configuration Control (that ATLAS cannot provide) and Quality Assurance.  U.S. Muons asked to get temporary people to execute these tasks quickly, using Contingency.  Drift Tube Electronics in good shape, U.S. has been providing test electronics for many sites.

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Muon Actions, continued  Cathode Strip Chambers a U.S. responsibility.  Chambers ready for production  More BNL base support for electronics assumed than now available  The ATLAS group at UC Irvine was pursuing one (DSP) of two options for the Silicon Detector strip and pixel Read Out Drivers;  Recently, WBS 1 chose the (Wisconsin/LBNL FPGA) solution as adequate, releasing a part of UCI effort. (Some added effort needed to replace them.)  They have joined the CSC Muons in WBS 1.5, filling a hole. (They will also use their DSP expertise to coordinate with the LA ROD, with possible cost savings.)

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 WBS 1.6 Schedule  The Trigger/DAQ Subsystem has met its R & D Milestones, involving substantial work.  This system is not yet baselined, and is working on a level of effort basis.  We cannot identify any schedule issues at this stage.

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 Cost Implications of Corrective Actions  We are substantial under the budget on the costing of our large procurements so far, probably by more than the charge to Contingency implied by the Corrective Actions described here.  Our Cost to Complete study will give firm estimate of the Contingency balance. It is estimated now to be 52%.

U.S. ATLAS 21 July 1999 U.S. ATLAS COMPUTING  In March and April I received letters from DOS and NSF asking that the U.S. ATLAS Project take on the responsibility for Computing.  The Resources will be provided outside the Project Budget  We intend to maintain the same level of Project Control for the computing as for the rest of the Project  We have named John Huth as Associate Project Manager for Physics and Computing