1 / 16

COSTS to COMPLETION

CMS RRB-T 2001-112. COSTS to COMPLETION. M. Della Negra RRB13 23 October 2001 Costs to Completion Funding Towards financial plan Additional funds Additional Staging Additional Collaborators. More details in Document ‘Cost to Completion’ CMS RRB-D 2001-112.

glenns
Download Presentation

COSTS to COMPLETION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CMS RRB-T 2001-112 COSTS to COMPLETION M. Della Negra RRB13 23 October 2001 Costs to Completion Funding Towards financial plan Additional funds Additional Staging Additional Collaborators More details in Document ‘Cost to Completion’ CMS RRB-D 2001-112

  2. Review of Cost to Completion For the 2001 LHCC Comprehensive Review and the October RRB CMS was asked to prepare best estimates of ‘cost to complete’ the initial CMS detector optimised to exploit the first physics run starting August 2006 (7 months at 2*1033, i-e 10fb-1). The proposed initial CMS detector is the complete CMS detector except for ME4/2 and the 3rd forward pixel disks, which are staged. The Detector costs have been reviewed by the LHCC CORE working group (Chair: W. Bartel) on 21 September. The Magnet cost has been reviewed by Magnet Advisory Group on 1 Oct. The M&O working group has identified a ‘new’ line of costs not covered by the construction budget, related to pre-operations of the detector called Commissioning and Integration (C&I).

  3. Physics Potential of CMS At L0=2x1033 cm-2s-1: 1 fill (6hrs) ~ 26 pb-1 1 day ~ 60 pb-1 1 month ~ 2 fb-1 1 year ~ 20 fb-1 1 year 3 months LHCC: CMS detector is well optimised for LHC physics. To fully exploit the physics potential of the LHC for discovery and detailed studies we need the COMPLETE CMS detector. In particular a complete ECAL “from the beginning” is necessary for the low mass Hgg decay channel. MH = 130 GeV

  4. Construction: Commitment Profile Apr 01 RRB By end of next year ~70% of the detector will have been committed. There have been some over-runs BUT most of the contracts placed have been within the foreseen estimates.

  5. Cost (MCHF) Funding (MCHF) MoU(98) Sep01 MoU Best estimate 465.8 500.8 457.7 445.4 Shortfall 500.8-445.4 = 55.4 MCHF Overrun 500.8-465.8 = 35.0 (7%) Underfund 465.8-445.4 = 20.4 (4%) Evolution of ‘Shortfall’ RRB11 RRB12 RRB13 (MCHF) Oct00 Apr01 Oct01 20.0 44.3 55.4 (6.2) (6.2) New: Commissioning & Integration (C&I) 12.4 Overall Summary: Cost to Completion 1995 prices

  6. Cost and Funding MCHFTotal Cost Total Cost Income Income Missing MoU(1998) Sep 2001 (MoU) (Best Est.) Magnet(CP) 121.9 124.1 122.3 120.9 3.2 Tracker 87.4 77.6 73.4 70.2 7.4 ECAL 85.4 100.8 89.0 87.8 13.0 HCAL 41.8 44.4 42.8 42.4 2.0 Muons 60.8 71.3 ## 61.9 58.0 13.3 TRIDAS 37.5 37.7 37.4 37.7 0.0 Computing 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 Infrastructure 27.4 28.1 27.3 24.8 3.3 SubTotal 465.8 487.6 457.7 445.4 42.2 Xtra work SX52.2 2.2 $ exchange 0.0 # 11.0 11.0 TOTAL 465.8 500.8 457.7 445.4 55.4 ## ME4 staged # For the MoU 1.3CHF/$, now 1.65CHF/$ Underfund 465.8-445.4 = 20.4 Overrun 500.8-465.8 = 35.0 55.4 MCHF missing (+12.4 MCHF for C&I)

  7. Funding Shortfalls 1. Magnet 3.2 MCHF Common Project(+3.2, new ) 1.1 Overrun 2.2 Cable contingency, winding 1.2 Underfunding 1.0 2. Tracker 7.4 MCHF 2.1 Conditional in MoU 3.2 US Contingency? 2.2 Missing in MoU 4.2 MoU:stage 50% far end electronics? 2.3 Overruns? 0.0 ? 70% of tracker committed mid 2002 3. ECAL 24.0 MCHF (+6.0) 3.1 CHF/$ (crystals, electronics) 11.0 @1.65CHF/$ (9+1+1) 3.2 Overrun (crystals,mech., Presh.) 8.0 (6+1+1) 3.3 Overrun (electronics) 5.0 4. HCAL 2.0 MCHF 4.1 HF underfunding 2.0 HCAL Savings (done!) 5. Muons-DT 3.6 MCHF (+0.8) 5.1 Underfunding 1.6 5.2 Overrun(TRACO, Torino, Cooling,..) 2.0 Italics: new since RRB12

  8. Funding Shortfalls 6. Muons-CSC 5.8 MCHF (+1.5) 6.1 ME1/1 (electronics, cables, conn.) 4.3 US Contingency? 6.2 ME4/1 electronics (mech. covered) 1.5 US Contingency? Restore ME4/1: new since RRB12 7. Muons-RPC 3.9 MCHF (+0.6) 7.1 RB (HV, gas, cooling, cables) 1.6 piping work on the yoke critical (+0.4) 7.2 RE (HV, gas, cooling, cables) 1.5 piping work on the yoke critical (+0.2) 7.3 RE (bakelite, VLSI, kapton) 0.8 critical. RRB12: can use CF 8. Infrastructure 3.3 MCHF (+0.8) 8.1 Realistic beryllium beam pipe (extra cost) 0.8 8.2 SCX Cooling and Ventilation Plant (extra cost) 1.5 8.3 YE4 (Support of RE4 and shielding of ME4) 0.5 new collaborators? 8.4 Forward Cylindrical Shielding around HF 0.5 new collaborators? 9. Extra Work in the Surface Hall (SX5) 2.2 MCHF (-1.8, C&I) 9.1 Tracker patch panel 0.6 9.2 ECAL patch panel 1.6 TOTAL (uncovered) 55.4 MCHF (44.3 + 11.1) Italics: new since RRB12

  9. Towards a Financial Plan For the April 2002 RRB: The CMS Collaboration proposes to draw-up a financial plan to complete the CMS detector for first physics in Aug06 in close consultation with the Funding Agencies. Ingredients Additional Funds within the construction period or long-term commitment with possibility of help from CERN to manage profile. Additional Staging Additional Collaborators

  10. Additional Funds Most of the CMS shortfall resides in sub-detectors. Natural to consider first extra funding from countries that have major responsibilities in particular sub-detectors. Target requests to achieve a balanced coverage of the shortfall. Shortfall Target Requests to Magnet 3.2 Increase Common Fund by 3% Tracker 7.4 Italy, Germany, Belgium, Finland,.. ECAL* 24.0 CERN, France, UK, Italy, USA,.. HCAL(HF) 2.0 Done Muon DT 3.6 Italy, Germany, Spain MUON CSC 5.8 USA, Russia MUON RPC 3.9 Italy, Pakistan, Korea, China Infrastructure 3.3 CERN Extra Work in SX5 2.2 C&I 12.4 Sharing as Capital investment? TOTAL 67.8 MCHF We request all countries to consider an increase of at least 12.5% + 2.5% (C&I) of their MoU funding. * Switzerland is not in the list as it is already making an exceptional contribution to ECAL (44.2 MCHF)

  11. Additional Staging Staging does not lead to savings in the long term but can modify the spending profile. The quality of physics results has to be balanced against the size of postponed expenditure. Staging for August 2006 detector (under consideration): Tracker: Staging in the Pixel system being evaluated ECAL: one or both endcaps staged at the start being evaluated HCAL: Reduced longitudinal sampling 2.0 MCHF done MUON: ME1/1 read upper part only ~1.5 MCHF Restage ME4/1 ~1.5 MCHF TRIDAS Start with 50% of DAQ Capacity ~ 8 MCHF

  12. Previously Applied Staging for High Luminosity Operation Reminder of Staging already applied for High Luminosity Detector ~15 MCHF 1. ME4/2 mechanics and electronics 9.2 MCHF 2. Neutron Shielding (extra) 1.0 3. 3rd forward pixel layer ~2.5 4. Double RPC RE2 station ~2.0 5. Extra Installation Costs ? Decision on these items after looking at first data

  13. Funding Profile Example Assume a physics run in 2006 Assuming additional ~15 MCHF worth of detector items staged beyond 2006, over and above those for the high luminosity operation, 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Construction 90.0 80.0 65.0 12.0 7.0 Completion 11.0 15.0 14.0 8.0 7.0 C&I 1.8 3.4 3.9 2.9 0.4 M&O Cat A 1.0 2.1 3.5 6.0 9.3 15.0 15.0 15.0 M&O Cat B # 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 High Lumi . 5.0 5.0 5.0 Grand Total 93.1 85.9 84.1 36.6 41.0 37.6 36.6 29.6. # Preliminary E.g. does not include electronics spares needed for M&O phase after startup.

  14. Physics Implication of Staging In the above example about 15 MCHF of detector expenditure have been shifted beyond 2006. (8 MCHF of DAQ + ?) A larger shift of funds would require a significant delay in the completion of CMS. The spending that can be staged in ECAL is being evaluated. It appears that only a small fraction of the Endcap (EE) cost can be shifted as we have to secure continuity in crystal production, buy in bulk electronics and mechanics components, much ahead of the time of installation. The physics damage will be significant. The quality of physics results will have to be balanced against the size of postponed expenditure.

  15. Additional Collaborators? Brazil YE4+ farm Iran FCS? Ireland farm Mexico Silicon Tracker NZ farm+Pixels Serbia Corner Pieces Magnet Thailand ME electronics boards US-NP (HI) farm+Pixels Could total ~13.0 MCHF

  16. Conclusions The RRB is requested to take note of the ‘Costs to Complete’, M&O, C&I. For the April 2002 RRB: The CMS Collaboration proposes to draw-up a financial plan to complete the CMS detector, for the physics run in 2006, in close consultation with the Funding Agencies. The RRB is requested to allow us flexibility in the use of the available resources. What additional help (commitment) can each Funding Agency give (make)?

More Related