1 / 14

IBL kick off meeting summary and issues

IBL kick off meeting summary and issues. ATLAS Upgrade Project Office CERN, July 21 th 2009 G. Darbo - INFN / Genova I ndico AGENDA page: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=64379. IBL kick-off – July 8 th. IBL kick-off meeting

johnclifford
Download Presentation

IBL kick off meeting summary and issues

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. IBL kick off meeting summary and issues ATLAS Upgrade Project Office CERN, July 21th 2009 G. Darbo - INFN / Genova Indico AGENDA page: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=64379

  2. IBL kick-off – July 8th • IBL kick-off meeting • Venue: July 8th, at Holliday Inn (Thoiry). • 55 Registrants, 31 Institutes represented, 35÷40 Institutes shown interest

  3. IBL kick-off Agenda http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceOtherViews.py?view=standard&confId=56905

  4. Cost • What in prototype costs: • Sensors: Planar, 3D, Diamond (1) • Electronics: FE-I4 • Hybridisation: bump-bonding • Local supports: stave • Beam-pipe: mock-up • External cooling: Thermal management • What not: • All other electronics / mechanical prototypes • Irradiation and test beam (1) Diamond prototype added to cost - if diamond are the IBL sensors, the IBL cost will increase by > 1MCH.

  5. Some Comments on Cost • The IBL project is not uniformly developed on all its part • Revisit cost when TDR will be mature • Contingency not included – how to deal extra cost? • Include contingency? • Extra cost of deliverable has to be covered by the share assigned to the Institute? • Funding scenario: 4.0 MCHF (M&O-A) + {4.4 MCHF (M&O-B) + 1.2 MCHF (fresh project money from new institutes)} – What next: • within this funding model, "old" M&O-B FA’s need to confirm their share of 4.4M (anything removed goes into +1.2M for general "bidding”); • establish the "money matrix” – tentative ; • collect firm pledges; • draft (i)MoU – it appears clear that we need to match financial with “visibility” of the contribution.

  6. Interest in the Project • 35÷40 Institutes (some present themselves in partnership with two or more Institutes). • They are represented by a total of 16 Funding Agencies • Strong interest in sensors across the 3 technology options (planar/3D/diamond) – 22 institutes interested in a sensor technology – for some of them the contribution to the project is conditional to the sensor option. • First round of “serious” expression of interest: • 120 ÷ 150 FTE (Engineers, Physicist, PhD) • 8÷9 MCHF could be available to cover the 6.6 MCHF – some dependency of funding on chosen technology options (sensor/cooling/stave) and on distribution of deliverables amongst Institutes (Institutes will contribute to the project with money if their role/visibility is corresponding).

  7. What (over)-Subscribed & What not • WBS 1 - Sensors: • 3 sensor technologies in the prototype phase: many groups (22) interested in sensors. • Sensor production/test sites: we need two or max three sites for testing sensors after production – no more than one per Country. The past Pixel sensor tests were made in Germany/Italy/US for a much larger number of sensors. • Sensor production cost divided amongst many FA’s – no “majority share” • If diamond will be the chosen sensor technology – revisit project cost. • WBS 2 – Electronics: • The package is quite well covered • Over subscription on ROD – need coordinated discussion between opto-board/BOC/ROD • WBS 3 – Hybridisation • Bump-bonding prototype is oversubscribed – we need more than one bump technology for prototyping and only one for production (cost and quantity are not an issue) • Over subscription (not strong) on flex hybrid technology interconnect technology.

  8. WBS 4 – Local Supports • Bare stave is well covered – groups quite active • Module loading on stave looks over-subscribed – need more discussions and better understanding. • Cooling pipe fittings could have impact on the overall module loading plans • WBS 5 – Internal Services • Covered – no special issues • WBS 6 – Beam-pipe & interfaces (global supports) • This is centrally designed by PO – there are Institutes with mechanical engineering manpower that could take sub part as deliverables – not commitments taken (too early in the definition). • WBS 7 – Surface Integration • Little covered at moment – expression of interest available – need coordination

  9. WBS 8 – External services • Part of WBS on M&O-A not covered: Type 2, 3 and 4 cables and pipes • WBS 9 – External Cooling & Gas • In discussion the new organization of the cooling • CO2 or C3F8 (mixture of C2F6 + C3F8) to be selected • WBS 10 – Installation in the Pit • Completely on M&O-A • WBS 11 – DAQ, DCS & Interlock integration • DCS hardware – Mainly Wuppertal • HV/LV PS (M&O-A) – interested groups • WBS 12 - Irradiation and Test Beam • Many group interested. • An upgrade/refurbishment of the strip telescope would be welcome – who interested?

  10. Schedule – Fixed Date or sLHC I? • Need to know: • Design for sLHC phase I no matter what (follow machine schedule)? • Design for a fixed installation date – install when ready (before Phase I) • When to make it ready? • The Upgrade Project Office (May 12th) suggests to use 2014/2015 as a guideline for the IBL installation date. • We are now working with a schedule that foresees an installation date in 2014/2015 • The FE-I4 and Sensor/Module are on the critical path, and installing earlier than 2014/2015 would require some compromises in the performance.

  11. FE-I4 Review • FE-I4 has gone through a “system & design issue” review on March, 2nd 2009: • http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=52403 • A readiness review before chip closure is foreseen for late September/October: • Kevin will chair the review committee • Review organised by Philippe and Maurice • Engineering run will be done in the IBM/CERN frame contract • Cost will be in the IBL project - ~ 500kCH • Do we need MoU for such a large commitment? • It seems that money could be available by Institutes involved in the project, but will then need to be recognised as IBL contribution! • Need to balance between risk of 2009 submission and that of adding a delay that will propagate to the whole IBL project…

  12. TDR • Kevin and Mar together with PL and TC proposed chapter editors: • Waiting for response… • Editors kick-off meeting July 22nd • Tight schedule if we want to have TDR published 1/4/2009 • TDR as important document to FA’s release of money TDR Chapter Structure • Introduction • Overview • Modules • Staves • Integration • Installation • Off-detector • Prototyping, Testing • Critical Integration • Commissioning • Management

  13. TDR - Schedule

  14. Conclusion • IBL kick-off meeting was quite successful • Large interest in the project – many Institutes, many FTE’s • Enough money looks available for the project • Some over subscription and some little covered • Financial side • Funding model proposed • Money matrix in development • iMoU and firm pledges on the way • TDR • Proposed chapter editor names, waiting for some replies • TDR editors kick-off meeting tomorrow • FE-I4 • Readiness review – funding - submission

More Related