1 / 30

GEM Phase-2 Introduction

GEM Phase-2 Introduction. Alexei N. Safonov GEM Phase-2 Upgrade Workshop March 23, 2018. Scope of the Upgrade. GE21 Detector System 72 chambers arranged in 2 layers installed 4 triple GEM modules per chamber On-chamber and off-chamber Electronics complete with firmware & software

lindley
Download Presentation

GEM Phase-2 Introduction

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. GEM Phase-2 Introduction Alexei N. Safonov GEM Phase-2 Upgrade Workshop March 23, 2018

  2. Scope of the Upgrade • GE21 Detector System • 72 chambers arranged in 2 layers installed • 4 triple GEM modules per chamber • On-chamber and off-chamber Electronics complete with firmware & software • Power system • Infrastructure and Services • ME0 Detector system • 36 chambers (aka “stacks”) installed inside the New Nose (EC) • 6 triple GEM modules per stack • On-chamber and off-chamber Electronics complete with firmware & software • Power system • Infrastructure and Services • GE21 and ME0 follow in the footsteps of an ongoing GE1/1 construction project

  3. System Overview • Technically well understood, no state of the art technologies or developments needed • Chamber design involves mechanical structures holding standard CMS GEM module • Module construction replicates the same solutions used in GE1/1 project (an ongoing project that provides an excellent reference point and a wealth of recent experience) • The front end chip (ASIC) requires no additional development, will re-use the same chip developed for GE1/1 • Custom electronics boards for DAQ, similar to many boards built by institutions that are part of the GEM upgrade project in recent past, based on standard technologies (FPGA), backend will use a commonly developed CMS processor card (ATCA format) • Power system relies on commercial CAEN solutions and is nearly identical to that for GE1/1 with some optimization for cost effectiveness • Infrastructure (services/cables/monitoring) follows standard CMS practices and similar recent GE1/1 experience • Modest number of external interfaces and dependences • Interfaces are identified and understood, and continuously tracked • At the moment, mostly through regular meetings and integration working groups, work in progress towards documenting agreements and placing under control • While there are challenges routinely expected from projects of this type, there are few technical risks • Those that exist are well understood and constantly monitored, mitigation in progress, response plans are either well developed or on track to be developed

  4. Main Challenges • GE21 – tight schedule is the main challenge • Driven by installation that CMS TC needs to happen outside LS3, i.e. two consecutive EYETS before LS3 • Once installation date is set, backward counting starts • Assembly of final chambers takes substantial time, which sets the time when the triple GEM modules, on-chamber electronics, mechanical and cooling components are needed • Manufacturing time for components propagates into the EDR date in March of 2019 • Need a full demonstrator with near complete electronics at that time • ESR is set in December of 2019 to allow for one more iteration for the on-chamber electronics design • Result – schedule is very tight, we need to get going • ME0 – schedule also tight, although not as critically tight • For electronics, more potential unanswered questions (in the risk register) require additional R&D and may require design modifications, which would be worrisome • For electronics, mainly radiation hardness – we know FPGAs will survive TID, but we don’t know if the rate of SEUs will be acceptable

  5. Organization • Part of the GEM sub-system organization: • A large collaboration: 38 institutions, over 60 actively participating PhD physicists • Upgrade projects (GE2/1 and ME0) rely on the same structure as the ongoing GE1/1 project • Two deputy PMs directly responsible for GE1/1 and upgrades • Upgrade coordinator is a Level 2 manager • Oversees 2 dedicated and 3 shared Level 3 areas • Dual reporting in shared areas • Effective coordination within the management team • Upgrade coordinator • Technical coordinator • Resource manager

  6. Work Breakdown Structure • WBS structure closely follows the deliverables and maps one-to-one onto the GEM management structure • Cost Breakdown follows similar structure • R&D phase uses the same WBS structure to ensure smooth transition to construction project

  7. InstitutionalResponsibilities

  8. Schedule • Built as a nearly entirely technically driven schedule • No padding or “waiting” to fixed start dates for activities • External constraints kick-starting construction project (EDR, ESR, PRR) and installation windows • Exceptions: resource usage leveling constraints • Module and chamber production sites facilities are used sequentially for GE11-GE21-ME0 projects • Many advantages to re-using the same facilities: preservation of expertise, fostering institutional responsibilities, training experts for operations, cost optimization, minimization of schedule delays due to ramp-up • Baseline schedule assumes 4 sites for module assembly • Substantial likelihood that more will be available – treated as an opportunity (although not in the formal risk register that focuses on threats) • Monitoring floats to the need-by-dates • Ensuring floats are adequate to the risks that have the potential of impacting schedule • Close monitoring of the floats as part of the overall risk management program, active mitigation and advance response planning

  9. GE2/1 Construction Schedule Overview • EDR, ESR, PRR kick-start the project, subject to various constraints • R&D program completion, availability of the facilities for module/chamber assembly, funding availability, resource leveling among three GEM projects (GE1/1, GE2/1, ME0) • Critical path for the GE2/1 project: • Chamber assembly has to finish in time for installation • Assembly is preceded by GEM module and on-chamber electronics production • Shortest float is 5 months for “+” Endcap • Actual floats somewhat larger due to staggering of batches Shortest float is 5 months

  10. ME0 Construction Schedule Overview • EDR, ESR, PRR kick-start the project, subject to various constraints • R&D program completion, availability of the facilities for module/chamber assembly, funding availability, resource leveling among three GEM projects (GE1/1, GE2/1, ME0) • Critical path for the ME0 project: • Chamber (stack) assembly has to finish prior to insertion into the new nose (not at P5) • Assembly is driven by GEM module production • Nominally, on-chamber electronics is not on the critical path, but it would have been, if production were to take ~2 extra months • Shortest float is currently 2.5 months for the last stack of the “-” Endcap • The pace is driven by the module production, not stack assembly • Baseline schedule assumes that module production pace is the same both early and late in the production cycle; potential to speed up module production if necessary (also tracked in risk register) Shortest float is 2.5 months

  11. ME0 Milestones • Milestones separate project phases and essential in monitoring project progress

  12. ME0 Milestones • Milestones separate project phases and essential in monitoring project progress

  13. Cost Overview • Cost estimates follow standard practices • Heavy reliance on the experience of the ongoing GE1/1 project • Quality and maturity of the estimates are adequate to the stage of the project • Majority of the costs under QF 1 or 2 • Only a small fraction of the cost under lesser understood categories • Typically correlates with the maturity of designs and remaining uncertainties in the interface areas

  14. Interfaces • Main interfaces • Mechanical for new detectors and components (ME0: space in HGC, geometrical constraints, installation and maintenance access etc.) • Common infrastructure (cable space, services access etc.) • Electronics compatibility (trigger system, central CMS DAQ system) • Installation schedule • Formal coordination of technical interfaces through the CMS TC Office • GEM TC (M. Bianco) serves as a liaison and coordinates TC aspects within the GEM project, including the upgrades • Integration groups and direct interaction (e.g. work with the HGC team using a special ME0 stack mock-up built by us) • Interfaces internal to Muon Project • Muon UCO and TCO offices • Started formal documentation of the interfaces for internal tracking

  15. Internal Interfaces • Within each system, division of work between institutions creates internal interfaces • Just a few examples • Readout Board-FlexPCB-GEB • Interfaces are not just limited to mechanical compatibility or connectors pin-out, but also power, noise, grounding, capacitances, interferences etc. • GEB – OH • Mechanical, power, noise, pin-out, signal standard compatibility etc. • Electronics components and cooling circuits • Mechanical compatibility of designs, effectiveness of the heat removal (requires R&D) • OH – links – Backend • Design compatibility, channel mapping, number of fibers, speed, connector types etc/

  16. Remaining R&D • Focus on design completion and risk mitigation/management • Chamber mock-ups to ensure mechanical compatibility • Close work with HGC and TC colleagues • Chamber and electronics prototyping and integration testing • Identify and eliminate mistakes in designs and manufacturing processes, perform vendor qualification • Radiation hardness and longevity • Electronics and detectors, GIF++, reactor and cyclotron studies • Demonstrators • Full detector plus readout demonstrators for GE2/1 and ME0 prior to launching the construction project • GEM technology sharing • Working out foil manufacturing process as part of vendor qualification in Korea • Production sites qualification and monitoring • Re-using experience of the ongoing GE1/1 project • Many overlaps • Will add schedule

  17. GE21 Milestones in TDR

  18. ME0 Milestones in TDR

  19. Interface and System Level • GE2/1 E5: PRR for On-Detector Services for Installation in LS-2 – Aug 3, 2018 • Implies a complete design for services, including links – the latter is dependent on LpGBT delivery date prognosis, we may have to declare that the LpGBT risk has realized; • Possible LS-2 schedule changes may buy us some extra time • GE2/1 Demonstrator completion and testing prior to EDR in 2019 • EDR is driven by early installation dates for GE21 in EYETS • Detector progress largely on track, electronics requires better progress • ME0 interfaces related to mechanical design and installation schedule synchronization • This is a critical item, but good progress made, including a full mock-up to be jointly used by the HGC and GEM groups

  20. Key Schedule Concerns • GE2/1 Detector Technology Selection (8 May 2018) • Largely done, even if opportunistically • GE2/1 Detector Chamber: Final Demonstrator for EDR (12 Mar 2019) • Linked to electronics developments • Complete design for all components of eight GE2/1 module types • Procurement of foils, PCBs (9 Oct 2018) • Certify industrial GEM foil production (Korea) • Construct and test GE2/1 chamber prototype with four active modules • ME0 Chamber (Stack) Mechanical Design (18 Dec 2018) • Good progress is made, although this is not a critical item for the overall schedule

  21. Detector: Key R&D Areas • Longevity studies • Continue GIF++ aging studies for the full year • Complete fast aging test with X-rays; accumulate additional 400 mC/cm2 (May 2018) • Discharge studies • Finalize data analysis for tests with neutrons at CHARM facility (11 July 2017) • Completion delayed because a second test was conducted in Oct 2017 • Get results on discharge probabilities from slice test (April 2018) • Impact of deliberately induced discharges on GEM performance (J. Merlin et al.)

  22. Electronics R&D: Schedule • GE2/1 R&D T5: Off-Chamber Electronics Preliminary Design Completed and Interfaces Defined – Mar 12, 2018 • Largely achieved already, ideally we would like an interface document, but not sure if this is realistic now • GE2/1 R&D T5: On-chamber electronics prototypes engineering design complete - Jun 1, 2018 • This one will be a challenge as it includes multiple boards, we are scrambling to get this going • GE2/1 R&D T5: On-Chamber Prototype Electronics Manufacturing and Testing is Complete – Oct 9, 2018 • This is electronics for the demonstrator chamber • This part of the schedule is driven by the desire to complete demonstrator validation by March, 2019 to go to the EDR • Critical path

  23. Key R&D Questions • Do we need a new ASIC (although it is a small modification) to adjust for the change in capacitances of the new detectors? • Need either the demonstrator to be completed or have a special prototype version of electronics built (RO board) • Some recent tests by Tuure and his team • Validate vendors for packaging ASICs – new detectors have packaged ASICs soldered directly onto the GEB board • Has not been done yet, potentially could cause issues • Need to exercise both the packaging and multi-chip soldering steps, vendor qualification may be very important • For GE21, a preferred solution seems to include a ”simple” hybrid plug-in PCB carrying a packaged VFAT3 chip • A completely new part, who will build it? • Potential grounding/noise issues: the Readout Board design needs to be done in sync with the GEB • Both need to start design and prototyping • FlexPCB connecting the Readout Board and GEB • Need a prototype to verify that we can get signals across successfully

  24. Electronics Tasks • Optohybrid and backend • Design efforts ongoing, but the schedule is tight • Three items requiring close technical coordination and a dedicated systems engineering effort • Readout board – needs to have electronics experts involvement • Joint task between detector & electronics groups • FlexPCB – a key (and completely new) item connecting RO and GEB • GEB – 8 different types of boards, requires a major institutional responsibility • In conversations with key parties involved in design • Brussels, PKU, India/CERN (readout board design/production)

  25. CMS GEM Upgrade Coordination • Important to have a working structure • Need to fill boxes with actual names soon • Establish working links and connections between groups • Re-start the phase-2 flavor of the coordination meetings • Alternate with GE1/1 focused meetings L3 Management L2 Management Technical Coordination M. Bianco Z. Szillasi (Deputy) Endcap Mechanics M. Bianco S. Brachet DPG T. Kamon J. Lee Phase 2 Simulations TBD Upgrade Physics F. Cavallo R. Venditti GE21 & ME0 Electronics G. De Lentdecker D. Saltzberg Upgrade Coordination A. Safonov M. Hohlmann (Deputy) R&D Phase 2 M. Hohlmann L. Pant Electronics P. Aspell G. de Lentdecker

  26. Organizational Concerns • Mostly on the electronics side • We have a plan and a good understanding but we do not have a well defined division of tasks between institutions • Some areas are well covered: • Long lead time of US funding agencies forced US groups to define fairly detailed schedules and plan for US planned contributions: • OH boards, links, backend • Some areas require better understanding and explicit division of tasks • Particularly the Readout Board-FlexPCB-GEB “triade” • Various external factors make matching job more complicated • Requirement of in-kind contributions by funding agencies in areas where reliable vendors may be hard to find, export control issues related to chips, FPGAs and potentially software tools • Important to have synchronized schedules for different components • Integration testing must include all components, especially important to avoid grounding and noise issues

  27. Risk Register • GE2/1 full risk register (excludes common risks managed at higher level)

  28. Risk Register • GE2/1 full risk register (excludes common risks managed at higher level)

  29. Risk Management • Closely linked to the ongoing R&D work • Examples of risks being retired due to successful mitigation • EPROMs eliminated from all on-chamber electronics board designs with the development of reliable remote FPGA programming capabilities • GE2/1 LpGBT ASIC late arrival: • Large potential impact on GE2/1 due to higher probability of affecting GE2/1 as it is an early project with the installation prior to LS3 • Mitigation: • Closely monitoring the developments to allow deployment of effective response early and minimize schedule impact • Building GE2/1 OH board with the option to switch to existing GBTX format • Well understood details of the response plan, including well understood technical steps required and well understood collateral effects including impact on the cost due to increased number of optical links and increased size of the backend system

  30. Summary • The GE21 and ME0 projects are well understood technically • The ongoing GE11 construction project adds a lot of confidence in the planning of the GE21 and ME0 upgrades • Project organization is adequate to the stage and complexity of the project • Cost, schedule, and resources are well understood • More details in follow up presentations • Risks are identified and tracked; continuously looking for potential new threats • Interfaces are identified and work is in progress on documenting and tracking ongoing work

More Related