T13: Estimate of Maturity, Risks, Milestones, and the Path ... · Initial BoEs and P6 RLS, cost roll- up done. Detailed tasks and logic being fleshed out. (Detailed milestones are

T13: Estimate of Maturity, Risks, Milestones, and the Path to CD-2 Frank ChlebanaFermilab

US-MTD Technical Review15-16 November 2018

F. Chlebana – T13 Estimate of Maturity, Risks, and Milestones US-MTD Technical Review 2

MTD and US-MTD organizationUS scope and scope options Preparation of detailed plan in P6 and milestones Status of supporting documentation Risks, mitigation, and response Estimate of maturity of design R&D, remaining technical decisions, prototype plan, and

path to CD-2 Summary

Outline


Frank Chlebana, Senior Scientist (Fermilab) Role in US-MTD: Deputy L2 Manager Experience in construction, commissioning, operations,

and project planning while on ZEUS, CDF, and CMS. Former head of the DAQ group at CDF Former CMS HCAL DPG convener HGCal DPG co-convener (ramping down) Deputy L2 manager for the HCAL Phase 1 upgrades Deputy head of the Fermilab CMS Department

Biographical SketchCharge #6


MTD Organization Chart

DocID:13653

: US personnel

This management structure was put in place in the last few months.Grey areas also covered but not recorded here.

Charge #6

https://cms-docdb.cern.ch/cgi-bin/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=13653


US-MTD Organization Chart

L2 Manager: Chris Neu

Deputies:Frank Chlebana

David Stuart

US-MTD Advisory Team

Steve Nahn, Jeff Spalding, Jim Strait

USCMS HL-LHC Project Office:Vivian O’Dell, Anders Ryd

Vaia Papadimitriou, Lucas TaylorBill Freeman, Carol Wilkinson,

TJ Sarlina

L3: Barrel Timing Layer (BTL)Adi Bornheim

L3: Endcap Timing Layer (ETL)

Artur Apresyan

L4: BTL SiPMsMitch Wayne

L4: BTL AssemblyAdi Bornheim

L4: BTL Concentrator CardYurii Maravin

L4: BTL I&CAdi Bornheim

L4: LGAD SensorsChris Rogan

L4: ETL AssemblySlavek Tkaczyk

L4: ETL Front-end ASICsTed Liu

L4: I&CSlavek Tkaczyk

U.S. CMS HL-LHC Advisory Board

L3: Common Systems

Chris Rogan

L4: Back-end ElectronicsToyoko Orimoto

L4: System TestingLindsey Gray

L4: LYSO ScintillatorChris Neu

Charge #6

DocID:13678

All US-MTD positions are filled

We are well integrated into the MTD technical leadership

https://cms-docdb.cern.ch/cgi-bin/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=13678


Overall cost range is between $12 and 15M, including contingency and risk US scope at $15M:

BTL: Assembly of 60% of the BTL trays and associated QC testing, delivery to CERN Design, prototyping, provision and QC testing of 100% of the BTL CCs Prototype, pre-production SiPM studies and QC testing of 50% of the BTL SiPMs Purchase of ~30% of the BTL LYSO crystals and SiPMs

ETL: Assembly of 35% of the ETL modules and associated QC testing, delivery to CERN Design, prototyping, provision and QC testing of at least 40% of the FE ASICs

Common system contributions: Integrated system testing with prototype/pre-production components System infrastructure contribution (eg., CO2 costs)

Scope options: Downscope options:

Build fewer ETL modules Build fewer BTL trays Reduce core contribution to ETL ASICs

Upscope options: Provision of off-detector BE electronics for BTL, ETL or both Building additional ETL modules Purchase of additional core commodities

These scope options have been discussed with international MTD project. In making a scope decision we would further consult with iMTD and iCMS.

US-MTD scope

Updated scope wrt CDR document:• Areas of

engagement unchanged

• Adjustments in level of contribution

• Backend electronics as upscope

Charge #10


KPPs

DocID: 13682


BOEs and Schedule Development

para

Parametric excel sheet allows us to adjustment cost estimates and part numbersUsed to generate the BOE Labor and M&S tables

Basis of estimate documentDetailed description of scope and cost summary

Activity listNotes on each activity and connection logic used to develop the detailed RLS

Vendor quotes and supporting documentation for cost estimates

Cost and schedule will be examined during the OPSS CSR review in Jan 2019

Charge #3

Example DocDB entries for the BTL Concentrator Cards

Basis of Estimates and supporting documentation are uploaded in DocDB and is used when developing the detailed schedule in P6


BOEs and Schedule Development

Vendor quotes for the major cost drivers are available and up to date, and mostly loaded in DocDB

LYSO: Vendor quote availableSiPM: Hamamatsu-SiPM (Sep 27, 2018)Concentrator Cards: BOM parts list, PCB production (Sep 10, 2018)BTL Assembly: Pick and place gantry and stencil printer (Aug 15, 2018)

LGAD: Shipping estimate (Sep, 2018), FBK-LGAD (Nov 10, 2018)ASIC: MWP, Fabrication, Estimates based on contractual agreement between CERN and vendor for 65nm submission ETL Assembly: Vendor contacted

BE electronics: BOM and parts costed in Barrel section of the projectSystem testing: Estimate based on previous experience

Estimates for the major cost drivers are based on recent vendor quotes (or will soon be)

Charge #3


Schedule DevelopmentWe initially developed a coarse schedule in P6 to get cost estimates.

BTL LYSOBLT Module Assembly (threshold KPP)BTL I&C (objective KPP)ETL LGADETL Module Assembly (threshold KPP)ETL I&C (objective KPP)

A more detailed schedule is being developed

BTL SiPMBTL Concentrator CardsETL ASIC

The detailed schedule will be completed and scrubbed ahead of the OPSS CSR review in Jan 2019


Key Dates – BTL SiPMWe have compiled a list of milestones that we will use to monitor progress. These are in the process of being entered into P6 as we build up the detailed schedule

Charge #10


Key Dates – ETL ASICCharge #10


Key Dates – BTL and ETLWe identified milestones for all areas and will include them as the detailed schedule is developed

Charge #10


BTL Key Dates

TDR Submission Q2 2019BTL Engineering Design Review Q2 2020Start of installation of BTL trays onto the tracker support tube Q3 2022Delivery of BTL assembled trays to CERN completed Q4 2022 (threshold KPP)Completion of BLT I&C (objective KPP)TKR installation in support tube Q4 2023

Charge #10

We are working together with iMTD on updating the schedule for the TDR to ensure consistency, and have provided input based on the planning we have done in P6


ETL Key Dates

ASIC availability for module production, Q3 2023Delivery of ETL modules to CERN completed, Q3 2024 (threshsold KPP) Installation and commissioning of ETL modules onto DEEs, Q3 2025 (objective KPP)Installation of DEEs onto HGCal, Q4 2025Commissioning of ETL after installation onto HGCal, Q1 2026

Baseline plan is to install DEEs onto HGCal in UX5 (pit)We have some flexibility to install DEEs on HGCal earlier in SX5 (surface) or at a later date during a YETS

Charge #10


Project Documentation

KPPs: draft update uploaded to DocDB

QAP appendix for MTD in preparation

All document updates will be complete and reviewed ahead of the Director’s Review

WBS dictionary to be updated

Science requirements doneCDR: Updated MTD Chapter will be final on conclusion of this review

Design maturity done. To be inserted in final document

Requirements: done. Interfaces: initial list prepared, full document/template in preparation

Initial BoEs and P6 RLS, cost roll-up done. Detailed tasks and logic being fleshed out. (Detailed milestones are part of this.) Final scrub ahead of OPSS Review.

Risk Workshop held. Final updates to Risk Register to be done.

pHAR updated

Value engineering: 2 paragraphs to be inserted into document

Config Management: 2 links to be added to document

Full documentation set for CD1 and MTD Specific Sections

Need report form this technical review and our follow up


Configuration Management PlanCharge #8

Need to ensure changes to technical specifications and/or requirements are communicated effectively to all affected groups

Overlap between MTD technical leadership and the US-MTD project, ensures efficient communication.

We are following the project wide procedure to ensure changes are recorded, archived, and following the process for distributing changes in a formal manner. Detailed in:

1) The USCMS HL-LHC Configuration Management Plan (DocID:12907)

Details configuration management, interface control and change control.

Specifies the personnel and organizations providing the configuration control, defines the configuration-controlled system, describes the change control process, and specifies the plan for configuration status accounting and acceptance.

2) The MTD Interface Control Document (DocID:13536)

In this document we have assembled our external constraints and interfaces, and have started to assemble the list of responsible people within MTD and at CMS who will sign off on them.

Will review interfaces with Advisory Team to identify any omissionsWill finalize all defined owners of each technical interface and specificationInterface Control Document will be finalized prior to the Directors Review in early CY2019


Risk Workshop

Reviewers found that we have addressed most risks

Summary and descriptions need to be improved and harmonized across the different risks

Ensure all necessary information if filled in.Check start, stop, retirement dates

Clarify mitigation vs response

Identified some risks that should be split into separate risks

Feedback on fine tuning cost and schedule impact

Use spares to mitigate loss/damage during batch production

Charge #4

The Risk Workshop was last week… and we are implementing the reviewers feedback and suggestions…

BTL Risk Workshop: Nov 7, 2018: https://indico.fnal.gov/event/19025/ETL Risk Workshop: Nov 8, 2018: https://indico.fnal.gov/event/19026/Reviewers: Julie Whitmore, Marco Verzocchi, Aseet Mukherjee, David Christian


Risk RankingCharge #4


… plus 15 low ranked risks

Sum (P*Impact) ≈ $0.6M Risk contingency at 90% C.L. will be O($1M)

Timing Layer – Top-ranked risks (high & medium)Charge #4


General Timing Layer RisksCharge #4


Barrel Timing Layer RisksCharge #4


Endcap Timing Layer Risks

(opportunity)

Charge #4


Leading ETL RiskCharge #4

RT-402-8-03-D ETL - Front End ASIC does not meet specifications - requires another pre-production run

Probability: 10%

Schedule Impact: 6 - 7.5 - 9 months

Cost Impact: 907 - 971 - 1035 k$

Estimate: The M&S cost is $690k for masks and wafer and $25k for a single set up to package a few chips. The labor cost for the additional engineering effort is a 3-pt triangular PDF: 0.25-0.375-0.5 FTE. The min/likely/max cost is hence 781/813/846 k$.

Mitigation: This risk is mitigated by carrying out several prototype cycles and having and increased design simulation and verification effort.

Response: Proceed with the necessary additional pre-production run. If we cannot achieve the baseline installation date, then we would have to install DEEs onto HGCal during a later YETS.


Estimate of Maturity of DesignFollowing the standard project approach outlined in: “USCMS HL-LHC Design Completion Definition” DocDB 13417

Each L4 manager provided an assessment of the status for each completion criteria of the design phases

If all criteria within a design phase are achieved, we reach the assigned level of design completion Conceptual Design (15%) Preliminary Design (40%)

Charge #3


Estimate to MaturityUsing this methodology we have estimated the level of maturity for each WBS area as:

Charge #3

The MTD project is past the conceptual design phase and well on the way to the preliminary design phase with an estimated level of maturity of >25%

WBS %402.8.3 BTL402.8.3.1 BTL Lyso Crystals 30402.8.3.2 BTL SiPMs 30402.8.3.3 BTL Concentrator Card 30402.8.3.4 BTL Module/RU/Tray Assembly 20402.8.4 ETL402.8.4.1 LGAD Sensors 30802.8.4.2 ETL FE ASIC 30802.8.4.3 ETL Module Assembly 20402.8.5 Common Systems402.8.5.1 System Test Stands 10402.8.5.2 Backend Electronics 35

Methodology

See docid 13417: USCMS HL-LHC Design Completion Definition Document

See Figure 2 and Table 1 ---->

Methodology

By WBS Section:

(1) List % completion for each of these items

(2) Summarize for the WBS

(3) Summarise for each of these items for the whole project

Note: (2) and (3) are matrixed summary views

providing a cross-check

Sheets in this Workbook

(1) methodology

(2) Summary Table for MTD (public)

(3) Working tables for each WBS section (internal to project)

Interpretation (international equivalent)

Preliminary Design Review = review of the TDR anmd assoc docs by LHCC/UCG

Final Design Review = EDR

We should be past conceptual design and on our way to preliminary

Calibration: Outer Tracker claimed to be at 38% at CD1 (following their TDR review).

Summary Table

MTD Design MaturityValues hand estimated in each sheet

WBS%

402.8.3BTL

402.8.3.1BTL Lyso Crystals30

402.8.3.2BTL SiPMs30

402.8.3.3BTL Concentrator Card30

402.8.3.4BTL Module/RU/Tray Assembly20

402.8.4ETL

402.8.4.1LGAD Sensors30

802.8.4.2ETL FE ASIC30

802.8.4.3ETL Module Assembly20

402.8.5Common Systems

402.8.5.1System Test Stands10

402.8.5.2Backend Electronics35

MTD Design MaturityValues averaged across WBSPrevious version of this table in docid 13417 (October 12, 2018)

Conceptual Design (15%)%

1Alternatives for satisfying the requirements have been evaluated and a preferred alternative has been selected. 90

2R&D tasks identified that will guide the design selection and address risks. 87

3Value engineering performed. 90

4Lessons learned from other experiments are incorporated into the design or planning as relevant. 99

5Initial cost and schedule developed. 87

6Cost and schedule range developed. 100

7Preliminary Hazard Analysis performed. 100

8Preliminary risk analysis performed and documented in Risk Register. 87

9Conceptual Design Report completed. 91

10Conceptual design satisfies Mission Need. 91

Preliminary Design (40%)%

1Baseline design choice has been made. 56

2Preliminary design is sufficiently developed, including preliminary design drawings of major components, final drawings of long duration items to be purchased. 48

3Interfaces have been identified. 57

4Value engineering performed. 66

5Preliminary QA plan developed 45

6Lessons learned from other experiments are incorporated into the design or planning as relevant. 69

7Activity-based resource-loaded baseline cost and schedule fully developed, including a full contingency analysis. 42

8Technical Design Report completed. 46

9Component designs at the 30% level of design completion. 52

402.8.3.1 BTL Lyso Crystals

402.8.3.1 BTL Lyso Crystals: Summary %30


Prototype and Preproduction Plans: BTL

Details of the prototype and preproduction plans were presented in dedicated talks

LYSO (See M. Toliman’s talk)Evaluating the performance of tile vs bar optionTestbeam is ongoing this week to inform the decision, decision ~Dec 2018

SiPM (See M.Wayne’s talk)R&D focus on maximizing PDE at low power consumption, low DCR, and low priceSelect the two most promising devices for a preproduction run Q2 2019

Concentrator Card (See Y.Maravin’s talk)First power only prototype availablePre-production design depends on lpGBT and DCDC convertors (Q2 2019)Design testing jig and QC protocol by Q3 2019Produce 20 pre-production boards with 8 DCDC converters: Q4 2020

BTL Module Assembly (See A.Bornheim’s talk)FE board and sensor board design is ongoing Cooling plate prototype being built to verify performance (Q1 2019)Start design of the tray assembly procedure in Q3 2019 Engineering design reviews planed before final production

Charge #3


Prototype and Preproduction Plans: ETL

LGAD (See C.Rogan’s talk)Extensive bench and beam test program is ongoingR&D focus on radiation hardness, fill factor, and uniformityPre-production sensors with final geometry/doping/design (2020-2021)

ASIC (T.Liu)Added additional time for simulation and evaluation of the prototypesPrototype 1, 4x4 pixel matrix (Q2 2019)Prototype 2, 8x8 pixel matrix (Q3 2020)Evaluation of AltiROC as part of the system testing planPreproduction, 16x16 pixel full size chip (Q1 2022)

Module Assembly (S.Tkaczyk)Build mechanical mock-up of an LGAD-ASIC subassembly (June 2019)Using ETL prototype ASIC, build electrically functioning subassembly prototype using a pick-n-place station and read the atom out using simple test stand DAQEngineering design review planed before final production

We have well developed prototype and preproduction plans to optimize the design and to establish the baseline design in time for the CD-2 review

Charge #3


Summary

The US scope is defined and we are well on the way to develop a detailed RLS in time for the OPSS CSR review in Jan 2019

Identified a set of milestones to monitor progress and we are working closely with iMTD to ensure our planning and schedule are consistent

Risks have been identified and reviewed

We are working through a check list of the work and documentation needed for the CD-1 minireview in Apr 2019

We have a well defined prototype plan that will allow us to optimize the design and to establish the baseline design by CD-2 (Q3 2020)

We are beyond the required level of technical maturity for CD-1, preparing the necessary documentation for the CD-1 minireview, and have a prototype plan to establish the baseline design for CD-2

Slide Number 1OutlineBiographical SketchMTD Organization ChartUS-MTD Organization ChartUS-MTD scopeKPPsBOEs and Schedule DevelopmentBOEs and Schedule DevelopmentSchedule DevelopmentKey Dates – BTL SiPMKey Dates – ETL ASICKey Dates – BTL and ETLBTL Key DatesETL Key DatesProject DocumentationConfiguration Management PlanRisk WorkshopRisk RankingTiming Layer – Top-ranked risks (high & medium)General Timing Layer RisksBarrel Timing Layer RisksEndcap Timing Layer RisksLeading ETL RiskEstimate of Maturity of DesignEstimate to MaturityPrototype and Preproduction Plans: BTLPrototype and Preproduction Plans: ETLSummary

Documents

T13: Estimate of Maturity, Risks, Milestones, and the Path ... · Initial BoEs and P6 RLS, cost roll- up done. Detailed tasks and logic being fleshed out. (Detailed milestones are