U.S. Deliverables Cost and Schedule Summary M. G. D. Gilchriese U.S. ATLAS Review Revised Version November 29, 2000.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
M. Gilchriese US ATLAS Pixel Meeting July 18-19, 2002 UC Santa Cruz.
Advertisements

HFT Technical Overview September 26, HFT 2013 TPC FGT 2011 STAR Detectors Fast and Full azimuthal particle identification EMC+EEMC+FMS (-1 ≤ 
ATLAS SCT Endcap Detector Modules Lutz Feld University of Freiburg for the ATLAS SCT Collaboration Vertex m.
Module Production for The ATLAS Silicon Tracker (SCT) The SCT requirements: Hermetic lightweight tracker. 4 space-points detection up to pseudo rapidity.
M. Gilchriese Mechanics Labor and Disk Sectors US Pixel Meeting November 2001.
October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann1 US CMS Software and Computing Milestones and Funding Profiles Matthias Kasemann Fermilab.
March 20, 2001M. Garcia-Sciveres - US ATLAS DOE/NSF Review1 M. Garcia-Sciveres LBNL & Module Assembly & Module Assembly WBS Hybrids Hybrids WBS.
D. Lissauer, BNL. 1 ATLAS ID Upgrade Scope R&D Plans for ATLAS Tracker First thoughts on Schedule and Cost.
M. Gilchriese Status Report Sectors, Rings, Frame December 2002.
U.S. ATLAS Executive Meeting Upgrade R&D August 3, 2005Toronto, Canada A. Seiden UC Santa Cruz.
13 Dec. 2007Switched Capacitor DCDC Update --- M. Garcia-Sciveres1 Pixel integrated stave concepts Valencia 2007 SLHC workshop.
DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS /March 2001 WBS 1.1 Silicon Subsystem M. G. D. Gilchriese Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
Pixel Support Tube Requirements and Interfaces M.Olcese PST CDR: CERN Oct. 17th 2001.
M. Gilchriese Upgrade Stave Assembly and Robotics August 3, 2007 LBNL.
SLHC Pixel Layout Studies S. Dardin, M. Garcia-Sciveres, M. Gilchriese, N. Hartman LBNL November 4, 2008.
K.K. GanUS ATLAS Pixel Meeting1 Opto-Board K.K. Gan The Ohio State University WBS
Ron Madaras, LBL U.S. Pixel Meeting, SCIPP, July 9-10, 2003 Patch Panel 1 (PP1) Brief Review Cost and Effort Estimate.
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.
PAP Review January 2000 WBS 1.1 Silicon Subsystem M. G. D. Gilchriese (LBNL)
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.
L. Greiner 1IPHC meeting – May 7, 2012 STAR HFT Plans for the next year A short report on HFT/PXL plans for post May 2012 TPC – Time Projection Chamber.
P i x e l C a r m e l Sept. 9, 2002M. Garcia-Sciveres - The ATLAS Pixel Detector1 The ATLAS Pixel Detector Pixel 2002 Workshop M. Garcia-Sciveres.
Concluding Summary WBS1.1.2 SCT Subsystem A. Seiden BNL March 2001.
M. Gilchriese - November 12, 1998 Status Report on Outer Support Frame W. Miller Hytec, Inc E. Anderssen, D. Bintinger, M. Gilchriese LBNL.
M. Gilchriese Overview of Production Plan for Pixel Global Support and Disk Support Rings M. G. D. Gilchriese Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory February.
Muon trigger upgrades, missing since not aimed towards DOE funding PHENIX upgrades: view presented to DOE R&D $3.5M Construction $16.6M Au-Au p-p 200 Si-Si.
M. Gilchriese Sectors, Rings, Frame Assembly and Installation July 18.
Santa Cruz Meeting August 12 th 2008 Layout options & Schedule Issues David Lissauer 8/12/2008 1David Lissuaer, Santa Cruz Meeting.
U.S. Deliverables Cost and Schedule Summary M. G. D. Gilchriese Revised Version December 18, 2000.
2 Silicon pixel part Done and to be written Written! Under way To be done Introduction 1.Hybrid Pixel Assembly Concept 2.Silicon sensor 1.First thinned.
ATLAS PIXEL SYSTEM OVERVIEW M. Gilchriese Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory March 11, 1999.
Thin Silicon R&D for LC applications D. Bortoletto Purdue University Status report Hybrid Pixel Detectors for LC.
CMS Si Tracker Project - US CMS Meeting at Riverside – May 19, US CMS Tracker Outer Barrel (TOB) Silicon Project Tim Bolton (for Regina Demina)
Communications G. Darbo – INFN / Genova IBL MB#15, 5 October 2009 o Bump Bonding Selex / INFN Roma, October, 30 th 2009 G. Darbo - INFN / Genova.
L. Greiner 1IPHC meeting – May 7, 2012 STAR HFT Plans for the next year A short report on HFT/PXL plans for post May 2012 TPC – Time Projection Chamber.
M. Gilchriese U.S. Pixel Mechanics Overview M. G. D. Gilchriese Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory April 2000.
Tevatron II: the world’s highest energy collider What’s new?  Data will be collected from 5 to 15 fb -1 at  s=1.96 TeV  Instantaneous luminosity will.
1 US Cost & Schedule Summary W. R. Edwards US Project Manager CD-2/3a Review January 8, 2008 BNL.
M. Gilchriese ATLAS Pixel Upgrade Thoughts on US Role.
UCSC August 12, 2008 U.S. Upgrade R&D Meeting: Strip Detector  Seiden.
M. Gilchriese Pixel Detector Status ATLAS Collaboration Meeting BNL June 5, 2001.
DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS /March 2001 WBS Pixel Overview and WBS Pixel Mechanics M. G. D. Gilchriese Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
M. Gilchriese - November 14, Module Decision - To Do List By pixel meetings associated with February 22-26, 1999 ATLAS week Beyond making and testing.
Brenna Flaugher Sept. 24 th Lehman Review1 Run IIB Silicon Upgrade: Cost and Schedule Lehman Review Sept. 24, 2002 Brenna Flaugher Run IIB Silicon Project.
M. Gilchriese Items from Talks U.S. Pixel Meeting Santa Cruz July 2003.
R. Boyd 1 February  Dr. M. Saleem  D. Jana  M. R. Meera Labbai  R. Boyd.
M. Gilchriese Stave Prototype Status Summary July 5, 2006.
ATLAS Pixel Detector July 2003 SC Pixel Meeting N. Hartman LBNL 1 Pixel Support Tube WBS Santa Cruz Cost Workshop July 9, 2003.
Local Supports to IDR Discussion ATLAS Upgrade Week November 2014.
TC Straw man for ATLAS ID for SLHC This layout is a result of the discussions in the GENOA ID upgrade workshop. Aim is to evolve this to include list of.
Leo Greiner IPHC1 STAR Vertex Detector Environment with Implications for Design and Testing.
ATLAS Pixel Detector September 2002 N. Hartman LBNL 1 Pixel Support Tube: Cost and Production Schedule September 2002.
Walter Sondheim 6/9/20081 DOE – Review of VTX upgrade detector for PHENIX Mechanics: Walter Sondheim - LANL.
M. Gilchriese - September 2000 Pixel Insertable Layouts September 2000.
David M. Lee Forward Vertex Detector Cost, Schedule, and Management Plan Participating Institutions Organizational plan Cost Basis R&D Costs.
M. Gilchriese WBS Pixel System DoE/NSF Review May 2003.
Geoff HallLECC LHC detector upgrades Introductory comments on electronic issues Organisation of this short session.
Leonardo Rossi – EB 68 – Oct 5, Pixel status and schedule Rad-hard electronics (has always been) on the critical path for the construction of the.
Steinar Stapnes, LHCC June The ATLAS inner detector TRT endcap A+B TRT endcap C TRT barrel SCT barrel SCT endcap Pixels uWhole ID sits inside bore.
DPF2000 ATLAS Pixel Detector M. G. D. Gilchriese Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory August 2000.
Straw man layout for ATLAS ID for SLHC
CMS Phase 2 Tracker R&D R. Lipton 2/27/2014
Detector building Notes of our discussion
P. Morettini Towards Pixel TDR PM - ITk Italia - Introduction 8/2/2017.
End-cap Mechanics FDR Overview of the Project
Hybrid Pixel R&D and Interconnect Technologies
P. Calafiura, C. Day, C. Leggett, J. Milford, D. Quarrie, C. Tull
Presentation transcript:

U.S. Deliverables Cost and Schedule Summary M. G. D. Gilchriese U.S. ATLAS Review Revised Version November 29, 2000

2 Outline US institutions and management Definition of goals and baseline scope Summary of proposed U.S. deliverables by WBS Summary costs Principal management contingency decision dates Schedule contingencies

3 US Institutions and Management ALB LBL UNM UOK OSU Pixels(Gilchriese) Mechanics(Gilchriese, Anderssen) x Sensors(Seidel, Hoeferkamp) x x x Electronics(Einsweiler, Denes) x x Hybrids(Skubic, Boyd, Gan) x x x x Modules(Garcia-Sciveres, Goozen) x x x x Test Support(Gilchriese) x (Physicist, Engineer) SUNY Albany, LBL, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Ohio State In addition, off-detector electronics(ReadOut Drivers for both pixels and SCT) are separate project(Wisconsin, Iowa State and LBL) and will not be presented at this review.

4 Pixel Detector Inserted from Outside Inner Detector Pixel Detector Semiconductor Tracker(SCT) Transition Radiation Tracker(TRT)

5 ATLAS Pixel Baseline Three barrel layers Three disk layers

6 Goals vs Baseline Scope The current ATLAS baseline is a 3-hit pixel system with three barrel layers and 2x3 disk layers. The recent decision to make it possible to insert/remove the full pixel detector from outside the Inner Detector volume requires a considerable structure to support the pixel system and to provide a thermal enclosure for the Semiconductor Tracker (SCT). The US goals are identical to the ATLAS baseline - a 3-hit system - and to contribute to final installation(equipment and engineering). The US baseline scope, however, corresponds to a 2-hit pixel system and no contribution to equipment for final installation. US ATLAS management decisions will be required(dates given later) to move items from the management contingency pool into the baseline scope to reach some or all of the goals.

7 Pixel Layout - US Goals 3-hit system

8 Layout - US Baseline Scope 2-hit system

9 Goals vs Baseline Scope - Performance The tracking performance of a 3-hit pixel system and a 2-hit pixel system was compared almost three years ago(ATLAS Internal Note INDET-NO- 188). The b-tagging performance(jet rejection) of ATLAS, for fixed efficiency, was found to be degraded by about 30% going from a 3-hit to 2-hit pixel system. This study was done with a more robust disk system(2x5 disks to have best coverage in higher density track region) Since then, the material in the tracking system has increased, and the number of disk decreased. New simulation studies will be done with the most recent layout over the next six months. It is likely that the degradation of performance going from 3 to 2 hits will increase, particularly in the forward region. Nevertheless it’s the US position that the initial performance of ATLAS will be adequate with two pixel hits, given our cost and schedule constraints. Fully-insertable system allows upgrade albeit removal and re-installation requires some months.

10 Deliverables Will go through proposed deliverables for each WBS item. In some cases, terminology will only be clear after subsequent talks - appreciate your patience. Differences between goals and baseline scope are highlighted in red. Schedules are in US fiscal years. Costs are in FY01 dollars.

Mechanics Goals 6 disk structures(sectors, rings, mounts) Global support frame Mounts to SCT Pixel support tube/endplug thermal barrier Patch panel 0(PP0) Type II cables for 1782 modules Services support structure Level of effort for outer and B-layer installation tooling and equipment Test equipment Assembly/test/installation of disk system Baseline Scope 6 disk structures(sectors, rings, mounts) Global support frame Mounts to SCT Pixel support tube/endplug thermal barrier Patch panel 0(PP0) Type II cables for 1192 modules Services support structure Test equipment Assembly/test/installation of disk system

Sensors Goals Preproduction order is launched Testing of preproduction Fund fab of 251 production wafers Testing of 314 wafers Baseline Scope Preproduction order is launched Testing of preproduction Fund fab of 168 production wafers Testing of 210 wafers

Electronics Goals Contribution to FE-D3 prototype Procurement of TSMC test chips Contribution to 1st and 2nd IBM prototypes Contribution to optical IC prototypes Fund fab of  (8”)wafers Probing of 168 8” wafers. Fund fab of 110 DMILL 6” wafers Probing of 250 DMILL 6” wafers. 20 test systems One-half of minimum DMILL 8 wafer run for optical ICs Probing of one-half of optical IC wafers Baseline Scope Contribution to FE-D3 prototype Procurement of TSMC test chips Contribution to 1st and 2nd IBM prototypes Contribution to optical IC prototypes Fund fab of  (8”) wafers Probing of 112 8” wafers. 20 test systems One-half of minimum DMILL 8 wafer run for optical ICs Probing of one-half of optical IC wafers

Flex/Optical Hybrids Goals 1782 flex hybrids in detector Components and loading of same Die attach/wire bond of MCC to yield 891 in detector 300 disk pigtails in detector Assembly of disk pigtails to flex. 50 optical hybrids in detector Baseline Scope 1192 flex hybrids in detector Components and loading of same Die attach/wire bond of MCC to yield 596 in detector 204 disk pigtails in detector Assembly of disk pigtails to flex. 34 optical hybrids in detector

Modules Goals Thinning of 335 8” wafers Dicing of 335 8” wafers Die sort for 335 8” wafers Thinning of 500 6” wafers Dicing of 500 6” wafers Die sort of 500 6” wafers Probing of bare modules to yield 446 in detector Assembly/test to yield 446 in detector Attachment/test of all disk modules to sectors Test equipment for modules Baseline Scope Thinning of 224 8” wafers Dicing of 224 wafers Die sort for 224 wafers Probing of bare modules to yield 298 in detector Assembly/test to yield 298 in detector Attachment/test of all disk modules to sectors Test equipment for modules

Beam/System Tests Goals Level of effort test beam support Level of effort system test support at CERN Baseline Scope Level of effort test beam support Level of effort system test support at CERN

17 Base Costs(FY01$K) - Level 5

18 Management Contingency(FY01$K) - Level 5

19 Management Contingency - Major Decisions Tooling and design of final installation –This is equipment for insertion of pixel system into support tube. –US contribution to tooling and project-supported engineering for design of this is in management contingency. –Decision date is September 2002 Atmel/DMILL front-end ICs –Summary already covered by Rossi and will be discussed in detail by Einsweiler. –If next prototype successful, advance overall production schedule at some cost, head towards 3-hit system. –Management decision required by January 2002 to realize schedule advantage.

20 Schedule Contingencies We have some float in the US baseline scope schedule. Nevertheless, it is useful to understand possible fall-back positions in case there are problems with the schedule. One general approach is to speed up production, assembly and placement of modules - this is under study(but not yet included in our schedule). –Additional bump bonding vendors and/or increase production rate assumptions –Additional module assembly/testing sites within global collaboration. –Potential savings about 4-5 months The other general approach is take advantage of the ability to insert the pixel system with the ID in place –The LHC machine schedule is tight and the current estimate is only 1-2 months of two- beam running in 2005 at best. –Delaying installation of some or all of the pixel system to be ready for 2006 run would gain about 8 months in the schedule.