US CMS Tracker Outer Barrel (TOB) Silicon Project

US CMS Silicon Tracker – PAC Meeting – FNAL - Nov 3, 2000 - Incandela 1

US CMS Tracker Outer Barrel (TOB) Silicon Project

Joe IncandelaFermilab

Level 2 ManagerUS CMS Silicon Tracker Project


Si Tracker Group• Fermilab

• B. Flaugher, J. Goldstein, J. Incandela, R. Lipton, P. Lukens, S. Mishra, T. Nelson, P. Rapidis, L. Spiegel, D. Stuart, S. Tkaczyk

• Kansas State University• T. Bolton, R. Demina, W. Kahl, A. Khanov, S. Korjenevski, W. Reay,

F. Rizatdinova, R. Sidwell, N. Stanton • Northwestern University

• D. Buchholz• University of California, Santa Barbara

• C.Campagnari,(J.Incandela)• University of Illinois, Chicago

• C.Gerber,K.Papageorgiou• University of Kansas

• M. Bailey, P. Baringer, A. Bean, X. Zhao A• University of Rochester

• S.Blusk,A.Hocker, P.Tipton


Tracker Consortia• 4 Consortia:

• Central Europe: • All Forward Modules and installation in petals.• Final assembly of forward tracker.

• CERN• Overall integration, general support structures, cooling and inert

gas flow. Position monitoring and alignment. Mechanics, cooling and final assembly of the outer barrel….

• INFN• Responsible for Inner barrel modules (TIB) • TIB Mechanics and assembly of the inner barrel.

• USA• All Outer barrel modules (TOB) and installation on rods • assemble some support structures for inner barrel


Module


Rod


WheelStereo modules are comprised of two single-sided modules. These are installed back to back with small overlap in z in a drawer-like “rod”. Rods slide into slots in the C-fiber endplate system with very high precision alignments from one rod to next.


Tracker Inner Barrel Supports


The Plan• Build ~6000 modules• Place them in ~750 Rods• Fly them to CERN and install & test them• Build the TIB cylinders and ship them to Pisa• Help commission the tracker • Analyze data


September ReviewProject files:

• Resource loaded schedule• WBS dictionary• Cost estimates• Basis for estimate of each task• Contingency analysis• Institutional responsibilities• Task managers

• Reviewed by PMG committee Sep. 14-15• M. Crisler – chair• Recommendations received and responses

returned Nov. 1, 2000


Re: Specifications/proceduresRecommendations to US CMS Silicon :Project managers should work with the CERN Project Management Group to develop written specifications for mechanical tolerances, level of testing, QA/QC requirements and documentation.Specifications and procedural documentation for CMS Silicon work: Sensors:http://edms02.cern.ch/tmpfiles/edms_tmp_495864_specifications.pdf_dir/edms_tmp_495864_specifications.pdfhttp://edms02.cern.ch/tmpfiles/edms_tmp_495868_quality_control.pdf_dir/edms_tmp_495868_quality_control.pdf

Module specifications, assembly procedure, and quality control:http://cms-ul-tmb.web.cern.ch/CMS_TMB/barrel_silicon/Module_drawings/Main_ones_20-10-2000.ziphttp://cms-ul-tmb.web.cern.ch/CMS_TMB/barrel_silicon/Module_drawings/All_others_20-10-2000.ziphttp://hep.fi.infn.it/CMS/moduletest/ar/module_quac_2.PDFhttp://hep.fi.infn.it/CMS/moduletest/wg.html

Module testing:http://hep.fi.infn.it/CMS/moduletest/draft1.ps

Burn-in:http://web.iihe.ac.be/cmspriv/silicon/Burnin/burnin.ps

The US CMS Silicon group has made numerous contributions to the specifications and procedures. See for instance:http://hep.fi.infn.it/CMS/moduletest/wg.html


Re: ManagementCommittee Report, Section 1: Management IssuesRecommendations to US CMS Silicon:

1. Create an organization chart for the project with all L3 managers identified. Establish roles, responsibilities and authority for each L3 manager and each institution's CMS primary interface person, including budget authority and reporting responsibility.

2. Continue to refine the level of commitment of groups and institutions. Look to better define the scope of work and commitment for present groups and the possible addition of new institutions to the project.

3. Develop a signed MOU with each participating institution that clearly establishes responsibility and commitments.


Organization in US CMSInstitution Interface to Institutional Responsibilities L3 ManagerFermilab L. Spiegel Assembly infrastructure L. Spiegel

Module assembly L. Spiegel

Documentation & database L. Spiegel

Test equipment setup & maintenance S. Tkaczyk

Inner barrel cylinders D. Glenzinski

Rod assembly B. Flaugher

Test boxes & wirebond fixtures design J. Goldstein

Shipping & receiving Technician TBD

UCSB J.Incandela Module repairs at UCSB C. Campagnari

Installation & commissioning at CERN J. Incandela

Dummy rods design J. Incandela

Dummy rods fabrication C. Campagnari

Kansas State R. Demina Probing at KSU R. Demina

Wirebonding & simple repairs at FNAL W. Kahl

Storage boxes R. Demina

UIC C. Gerber Burn-in of modules at FNAL C. Gerber

Module quality testing C. Gerber

Testing boxes fabrication C. Gerber

Rochester P. Tipton Burn-in cooling and interlocks P. Tipton

Module inspection at FNAL Post-Doc TBD

Transport boxes design & fabrication P. Tipton

Kansas A. Bean Hybrid and module testing at FNAL M. Bailey

Test equipment & instrumentation A. Bean

Northwestern D. Buchholz QA/QC at NU D. Buchholz


Physicist Manpower

US CMS Sillicon Tracker Total Physicists

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Q1'01Q2'01

Q3'01Q4'0

1Q1'0

2Q2'02

Q3'02Q4'02

Q1'03Q2'03

Q3'03Q4'0

3Q1'0

4Q2'0

4Q3'04

Q4'04Q1'0

5Q2'05

Q3'05Q4'05

% F

TE

AvailableScheduled


Institutional ManpowerUCSB PhD

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Q1'01

Q2'01

Q3'01

Q4'01

Q1'02

Q2'02

Q3'02

Q4'02

Q1'03

Q2'03

Q3'03

Q4'03

Q1'04

Q2'04

Q3'04Q4'0

4Q1'0

5Q2'0

5Q3'0

5Q4'0

5Q1'0

6Q2'0

6

%FT

E

KSU PhD

0

50

100

150

200

250

Q1'01

Q2'01

Q3'01

Q4'01

Q1'02

Q2'02

Q3'02Q4'02

Q1'03

Q2'03

Q3'03

Q4'03

Q1'04

Q2'04

Q3'04

Q4'04

Q1'05

Q2'05

Q3'05

Q4'05

Q1'06

Q2'06

%FT

E

UIC PhD

0

50

100

150

200

250

Q1'01

Q2'01

Q3'01

Q4'01

Q1'02

Q2'02

Q3'02

Q4'02

Q1'03

Q2'03

Q3'03Q4'03

Q1'04

Q2'04

Q3'04

Q4'04

Q1'05

Q2'05

Q3'05

Q4'05

Q1'06

Q2'06

%FT

E

Fermilab PhD

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Q1'01

Q2'01

Q3'01

Q4'01

Q1'02

Q2'02

Q3'02

Q4'02

Q1'03

Q2'03

Q3'03

Q4'03

Q1'04

Q2'04

Q3'04

Q4'04

Q1'05

Q2'05

Q3'05

Q4'05

Q1'06

Q2'06

%FT

E


Re: Management (2)Committee Report, Section 1: Management IssuesRecommendations to US CMS Silicon:

3. Develop a signed MOU with each participating institution that clearly establishes responsibility and commitments.

ResponseHave all information for Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). Final SOWs and MOUs will be generated via US CMS project office software from the project file as soon as the project is approved and baselined. …then signed and incorporated into the US CMS project.


Re: Technical FeasibilityCommittee Report, Section 2: Technical Feasibility

Recommendations to US CMS Silicon:Procure and commission a gantry system this year.

ResponseOrdered a gantry from Aerotech. Delivery date is Jan 2, 2001.

All ancillary equipment ordered. Will arrive in early 2001.


Re: ScheduleCommittee Report, Section 3: ScheduleRecommendations to US CMS Silicon :

1) Develop together with CMS management a delivery schedule of parts and identify responsible persons for the parts.

2) The TOB has to be installed first. Agreement should be reached with CMS management on setting priority on the delivery schedule.

3) Work out fallback plans with CMS on parts delivery.

4) Adopt a reasonable but aggressive schedule as the baseline that shows explicit contingency to account for delay in delivery of parts.


New Delivery Schedule

• In October we established a new schedule with the tracker group• TOB is ~33% of the total parts count for the tracker. We requested

~50% increase in parts delivery rate during production in order to create explicit schedule contingency.

• The tracker group was able to do this since it represents only ~16% increase in overall parts flow rate.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Q3'01

Q4'01

Q1'02

Q2'02

Q3'02

Q4'02

Q1'03

Q2'03

Del

iver

ed c

ompo

nent

s

SensorsHybridsFrames


Tracker Task Managers

Institution Sensor Frames APV25 FE hybrids Gantry Bonding Receptionqualification (module mounting) & shipping

L2 G.M. Bilei C. Van Der Velde J. Hall U. Goerlach G. Fiore A. Honma project associate Bari - - - - G. Fiore P. Tempesta M. de Palma

Catania - - - - C. Tuve' - -Firenze - - - - - E. Scarlini G. GheriPadova - - - - A. Kaminsky M Tessaro M. LoretiPisa A. Messineo A. Basti - - - F. Bosi F. BosiPerugia M. Angarano - - - M. Biasini - M. T. BrunettiTorino - - - - - J. Clark G. Ferrero

Aachen 1 - W. Braunschweig - - - W. Braunschweig W. BraunschweigAachen 3 - - - - - R. Schulte -

L3 Brussels - L. Van Lanker - - L. Van Lancker - TBDKarlsruhe F. Hartmann - - - - H.J. Simionis H.J. SimionisLyon - - - - R. Haroutunian - S. VanzettoLouvain G. Gregoire - - - - - TBDStrasbourg J. C. Fontaine - - J.D. Berst - F. Didierjean J.D. BerstWien M. Krammer - - - TBD R. Wedenig TBDZurich - - - - - K. Freudenreich U. Horisberger

UK - - M. Reymond - - - TBDUSA - - - - L. Spiegel W.Kahl TBDCERN - B. Glessing - A. Honma A. Honma A. Honma J. Martin


Tracker Task Managers (2)

Institution Data Base Rod/petal/shel/disk Sub-detector& trace-ability module (fast) module (long-term) rod/petal/shel/disk integration integration

L2 D. Contardo - - Bari S. My - - - -

Catania A. Tricomi - - - -Firenze C. Civinini - - - -Padova D. Pantano - - - -Pisa A. Starodoumov R. Dell'Orso P. G. Verdini P. G. Verdini F. Raffaelli E. FocardiPerugia A. Santocchia - - - -Torino L. Demaria - - - -

Aachen 1 W. Braunschweig - - D. Pandulas D. PandulasAachen 3 R. Schulte R. Schulte R. Schulte R. Schulte

L3 Brussels TBD -Karlsruhe F. Hartmann S. Weseler S. Weseler P. Bluem P. Bluem -Lyon N. Giraud S. Perries S. Perries D. Contardo D. Contardo D. ContardoLouvain V. Lemaitre -Strasbourg J.M. Brom -Wien TBD -Zurich n.n. -

UK - - - - -USA L.Spiegel M.Bailey M.Bailey C. Gerber B.Flaugher -

Tests

M. Meschini


Parts Delivery• Fallback plans

• The most likely source of delay is component processing within the CMS tracker group

• We have now made preparations to assist in processing the parts we need:

• Pitch adaptor wirebonding on hybrids• Manufacture of frames• Sensor probing• Dummy rods

• Finally, we have contingency to allow an extension of the module production period


Schedule at Review

Main Production Period:

~3 months of explicit float


Schedule Now

Main Production Period:

~ 8 months of explicit float


Re: CostCommittee Report, Section 4: Cost

Recommendations to US CMS Silicon :1) Re-evaluate the cost of infrastructure (special environment

control, burn-in stations), and engineering for ramp-up time.2) Transfer the cost of an additional K&S 8090 purchase from

contingency to the base estimate.3) Contingency percentage should be calculated based on the

Total Base Cost estimate rather than on the Total Base Cost for US CMS.


Costs At Review (FY00$)

Task Name Cost Contingency %Miscellaneous clean room materials $60,000 $12,600 21%Machined parts $310,100 $99,232 32%Mechanical Assembly Equipment $170,000 $54,400 32%Equipment setup $140,144 $99,274 71%Wirebonding Machinery $66,000 $264,000 400%Burn-in Cooling system with interlocks $68,798 $29,583 43%Boxes $115,000 $47,850 42%Electronic Test $161,800 $90,608 56%Probe-station $57,700 $25,388 44%Miscellaneous instrumentation $50,000 $48,000 96%Sensor Probing $53,640 $15,552 29%Module Production $1,148,715 $643,281 56%Shipments to CERN $100,000 $43,000 43%Final assembly of TOB $156,900 $69,036 44%Installation and Commissioning of the Tracker $216,000 $95,040 44%TIB Support Structures $108,096 $57,654 53%

Totals* $2,982,893 $1,694,497 57%

520k$ of this is covered by the original barter agreement between FNAL and Int’l CMS


Costs Now (FY00$)

WBS Task Cost Contingency %8 US CMS Silicon Tracker Project $3,429,715 8.1 Components $60,000 $6,0008.2 Equipment, Design, & Machining $1,600,528 8.2.1 Machine parts $310,100 $99,232 32%8.2.2 Mechanical Assembly Equipment $268,281 $95,243 36%8.2.3 Wirebonding Machinery $341,260 $45,240 13%8.2.4 Burn-in Cooling system with interlocks $133,812 $57,539 43%8.2.5 Boxes $217,204 $83,661 39%8.2.6 Instrumentation $329,871 $216,077 66%8.3 Sensor Probing $68,880 $38,573 56%8.4 Modules $1,059,312 8.4.1 Preproduction of 80 modules $69,184 $38,743 56%8.4.2 Assembly of 600 modules: ramp-up $152,495 $85,397 56%8.4.3 Assembly of 6000 modules $837,632 $469,074 56%8.5 Transportation $160,000 $100,600 63%8.6 Installation and Commissioning at CERN $372,900 $164,076 44%8.7 TIB Support Structures $108,096 $57,654 53%

Totals $3,429,715 $1,557,109 45%Price has risen 450k$.

520k$ of this is covered by the original barter agreement between FNAL and Int’l CMS


Contingency

WBS Labor Intensive Task Cost Contingency Cont/Cost8.3 Sensor Probing $68,880 $38,573 56%8.4.1 Preproduction of 80 modules $69,184 $38,743 56%8.4.2 Assembly of 600 modules: ramp-up $152,495 $85,397 56%8.4.3 Assembly of 6000 modules $837,632 $469,074 56%8.7 TIB Support Structures $108,096 $57,654 53%

Totals $1,236,288 $689,441 56%

Contingency for labor remains a healthy 56%


Re: Availability of ResourcesCommittee Report, Section 5: Availability of ResourcesRecommendations to US CMS Silicon :1)The US CMS silicon project managers should work with CMS and with their own project plans to try and utilize the currently projected excess of available technicians at SiDet in FY01.Response

It is not possible to advance the production of modules. However, • Engineering of the burn-in stand, test boxes, dummy rods, transport

boxes will start as soon as we are base-lined: These will require FNAL technician manpower for assembly in FY01.

• We will soon setup the first gantry.• We will manufacture the frames for mechanical modules production.• We may manufacture the frames for the first 80 TOB prototype

modules. • The production of the first 80 modules will require technicians for

assembly, inspection, wirebonding, and testing. • We are working with INFN Pisa to advance the schedule for production

of the TIB cylinders.

NEW


Action ItemsAction Items for the US CMS Project:1) Develop a schedule based on reasonable but aggressive

production rate assumptions and based on a realistic parts delivery schedule which shows explicit schedule contingency and schedule float.

2) Respond to the recommendations of this review by November 1, 2000 so that the project can be baselined

Response1. We have developed a new schedule exactly as

recommended.2. We have submitted our responses to the committee

recommendations on November 1, 2000.


Action Item for FNALAction Item for the Fermilab Management:1) Assure that there is a cohesive plan for the management,

design leadership and fabrication of both the CMS silicon tracker and the Run IIb silicon upgrades for CDF and D0. Work with US/CMS silicon tracker managers and the CDF/D0 leadership to establish a plan of bow both sets of projects (CMS and Run IIb upgrades) will be accomplished.


Comment on Run 2b“The CMS silicon project managers have recently led CDF

and D0 Run 2b silicon study groups. Our exposure to … CMS … enabled us to provide important new concepts to the Run 2b effort ... We will carefully consider the roles we can play in the Run 2b projects …after taking into account all of our existing commitments. Many of the scientific personnel of the CMS silicon tracker group have interests in the Run 2b silicon projects. This is driven by physics interests... This situation is not unusual in our field.

We have made every possible effort to ensure a positive synergy between these dual interests… We will make every effort to plan our activities such that we can use our expertise, manpower, and equipment in the most efficient ways, and to the benefit of both the Tevatron and LHC programs.”


Conclusions• We have been reviewed• CMS needs us to build this outer tracker and we

need to get started• We have prepared a good project plan with truly

excellent and effective groups• We have responded to all of the review committee

recommendations • A good project is now an even better one

• We’re ready to go!• It’s time to be base-lined!

US CMS Tracker Outer Barrel (TOB) Silicon Project

Documents