LHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade (LADU) Project

1. LHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade (LADU) Project Jon Kotcher Construction Project Manager John Hobbs Deputy Construction Project Manager (Interim) & NSF Upgrade PI DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting National Science Foundation Arlington, VA April 3, 2013

2. Outline • Motivation, context • Background, status, recent history • Project scope, organization • BNL CD-1 Director’s Review • Agency guidance, project cost • Response to FY13 funding reduction • Looking toward FY14 • Update on ATLAS upgrade discussions • Summary of JOG issues DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

3. Phase I Motivation (1) • Increase in instantaneous luminosity in Phase I (X2-5) causes significant rate problems in the current trigger system. • Phase I Upgrade strategy is to enhance upstream functionality in the trigger system in order to reject background & remain within rate budget, while retaining signal efficiency. • Design Phase I to be compatible with envisioned Phase II to the extent possible. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

4. Phase I Motivation (2) • Enhanced rejection while retaining high pT relative efficiencies >95%. muons electrons Current Trigger EM Upgrade Rough benchmark: Without upgrades, changing thresholds in order to contain rates results in ~ 50% loss of efficiency for events triggered on massive-object, single-lepton decay. Impacts W, WH, ttbar, top, SUSY, … Rate Limit X4-8 DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

5. LADU Subprojects WBS 1.1: Liquid Argon Calorimeter Trigger WBS 1.2: MuonNew Small Wheel • U.S. Focus: • Increased granularity in the Liquid Argon Calorimeter Level 1 trigger. • Forward Muon (New Small Wheel) front-end readout, trigger, and alignment systems. • Integration of calorimeter information for use in topological and other triggering (TDAQ). WBS 1.3: Trigger/Data Acquisition DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

6. The LHC Timeline • LHC startup, √s = 900 GeV , bunch spacing 50 ns 4x √s=7~8 TeV, L=6x1033 cm-2 s-1, bunch spacing 50 ns ~20-25 fb-1 Go to design energy, nominal luminosity √s=13~14 TeV, L~1x1034 cm-2 s-1, bunch spacing 25 ns , bunch spacing 25 ns LS2 is 12 months (CY18) ~75-100 fb-1 Injector and LHC Phase-1 upgrade to ultimate design luminosity √s=14 TeV, L~2x1034 cm-2 s-1, bunch spacing 25 ns , bunch spacing 25 ns ~350 fb-1 HL-LHC Phase-2 upgrade, IR, crab cavities? ?, IR √s=14 TeV, L=5x1034 cm-2 s-1, luminosity levelling S. Bertolucci, HCP2012, Kyoto DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

7. Status Overview • We have rapidly pulled together a project plan, including: • Scope definition • Project personnel • Cost, schedule, staffing estimates, milestones, etc. • Contingency • BoEs • NSF/DOE split • Risk assessments, mitigation • Documentation (PEP, CDR, NSF proposal, Acquisition Strategy, etc.) • This represents a highly collaborative effort between the project, the collaboration, and among U.S. ATLAS management. • Rapid convergence of technical approaches owes much to upgrade R&D program (M&O). DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

8. Phase I/II Coordination • Plans at CERN currently suggest a subsequent Phase II upgrade that will be much broader in scope. • The evolution of the US plans for Phase II will need to be developed concurrently with Phase I, and by many of the same people. • While CERN’s schedules may change, given the effort and planning resources involved, US ATLAS upper management has begun mapping out the approach to the coordination of the Phase I/II upgrades. • Many issues: resources/R&D needs, Phase I design forward compatibility, potential Phase II staging options, scheduling options and their impacts, etc. • Nevertheless, the clear priority right now is to launch and deliver Phase I, and we are proceeding with that clear focus. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

9. Recent History • November 17: Kotcher began as LADU Construction Project Manager (CPM). • November 28: Selection of Stony Brook University as the NSF institution for LADU. John Hobbs, PI and Interim Deputy CPM. • March 6: Offer to a dedicated Deputy CPM went out, and has been accepted. • Odds and ends being finalized, August start is anticipated. • Hobbs will remain heavily engaged in both the Phase I and II upgrades, and continue to serve as NSF PI. • This will have completed the upper tier of the upgrade management. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

10. LADU Project Organization Project management will be fully integrated, while respecting each of the stakeholder’s requirements. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

11. LHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade Project, by WBS • 1.1 Liquid Argon Calorimeter Trigger Readout (LAr) • 1.1.1 Baseplanes • 1.1.2 Layer Sum Boards (LSB) • 1.1.3 Liquid Argon Front End, Trigger Digitizer Boards (LTDB) • 1.1.4 Liquid Argon Back End, Trigger Digital Processing System (LDPS) • 1.2 Forward Muon System, New Small Wheel (nSW) • 1.2.1 Micromegas (MM) Electronics • 1.2.2 Alignment • 1.2.3 Thin Gap Chamber (sTGC) Electronics • 1.3 Trigger/Data Acquisition (TDAQ) • 1.3.1 e/j Feature Extractor (FEX) Firmware • 1.3.2 e/jFEX Read-Out Drivers (ROD) • 1.3.3 e/jFEX Fiber Plant • 1.3.4 TileCal/jFEX • 1.4 Project Management DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

12. Major Milestones, Project Target Dates • Aug 29, 2011 – DOE CD-0 approval for the upgrade. • Dec 14, 2012 – first draft of WBS, including funding sources for all deliverables. • Dec 19-20 – internal scrubbing with project personnel and US ATLAS management at BNL. • Jan 11, 2013 – draft of Conceptual Design Report; draft of NSF upgrade proposal; fully loaded WBS, with backup material; due in to upper management. • Jan 17-18 – independent cost, schedule and technical review by external reviewers held at SUNY Stony Brook. • Jan 30–Jan 31 – BNL Associate Laboratory Director’s (ALD) review of operations and upgrade. Preparation for March 6-7 joint NSF/DOE review. • Feb 8 – Final project material in place prior to uploading into MS Project/Primavera. • March 6-7 – NSF/DOE annual review. • March-May – Individual scrubbing meetings with project personnel; focus on BoEs, cost estimates, schedule. • April 3 – NSF/DOE Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting. • April (TBD) – Submission of NSF proposal; ATLAS scoping decisions may influence this date. • July 11-12 – BNL ALD review of DOE CD-1 for upgrade. • August 28-29 – DOE CD-1 review (at Fermilab). DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

13. BNL Director’s Review for CD-1 (Lissauer) • July 11-12, at Brookhaven. • Review Committee (assembled and charged by ALD): • Ed Blucher (Chicago) • Bill Christie (BNL) • Dmitri Denisov (FNAL) • Diane Hatton (BNL) • Marvin Johnson (FNAL) • Jim Strait (FNAL) • Bill Wisniewski (SLAC) • Plus one reviewer for DAQ, TBD. • Having an agency charge in hand in May would help us to prepare. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

14. Planning Documents Required for DOE CD-1/NSF Proposal Submission& Review • Project Execution Plan (PEP) • Integrated Project Team (IPT) Charter • Acquisition Strategy • Safety and Hazard Analysis • Quality Assurance (QA) • Security and Vulnerability Assessment • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • Conceptual Design Report (CDR) • Cost, schedule, staffing estimates • Bottoms-up risk-based contingency estimates • Cost Books, Bases of Estimate (BOE) • Risk Analysis and Mitigation • Project Management Plan • Draft MoUs • Each document is under development by an identified principal. A draft of each is in hand. • Documents are being developed in conjunction with BNL experts (safety, QA, IT, etc.), where required, and with the Federal Project Director. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

15. Definition of Project Completion: CD-4 • We are in the process of adapting the definition of project completion according to the recommendations from the March 2013 Annual Operations Review. • Principal stages in end game: • Bench tests in US to verify performance parameters prior to shipment. • Visual inspections and limited test-stand acceptance testing on the surface after deliverables arrive at CERN. This will verify the physical integrity and performance of the components after shipment, and will define CD-4 and KPPs. • Any recovery up to and including this surface verification, if required, will remain the responsibility of the project. • This extension is easily accommodated within the project cost envelope(s). • Installation and commissioning (I/C) will remain outside the upgrade project scope, and its costs covered by the M&O program. • Integrated I/C plan in place, and will be part of the resource-loaded schedule. • This approach limits the project’s exposure to CERN schedules. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

16. Agency Guidance • DOE costs below reflect DOE-only. Cost range: $22M-34M. • NSF: project is requesting $13M, through FY18. Tables from DOE CD-0, August 2012. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

17. Project Cost (AY M$) • NSF proposal • LAr: Trigger Digitizer Boards (LTDB), sPU design and production • TDAQ: e/jFEX ROD production, fiber plant • DOE proposal • LAr: Demonstrator board, Layer Sum Boards, front-end motherboards, LTDB integration • TDAQ: e/jFEX firmware and Tilecal/jFEX • All of Muon New Small Wheels DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

18. Full Project Base Cost Profile NSF + DOE DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

19. Cost/Funding Profiles, NSF & DOE DOE Black = agency guidance NSF Distribute (15, 20, 35, 30)% of the contingency in FY14-17. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

20. Near-term Pre-Construction Funding • DOE had budgeted $2M (OPC funds) for the upgrade in FY13, $1M of which was provided early in the FY. • This has been allocated and distributed to the project. • The additional $1M has been reduced to $500k in response to the sequestration. • It is possible that some funds will also be provided by NSF at year’s end, depending on availability and project approval status. • All of the above funds will count against the project’s bottom line. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

21. Schedule-Driven Nature of the Upgrade • Long Shutdown 2 (LS2) has a well-defined start and duration (CY18), set by our international partners. • Time for design and construction is not generous (FY14-17). • Adequate funding is needed to support timely project ramp up, and offset any downstream schedule delays: time lost up front is lost forever. • There is currently a shortfall in FY14 DOE funding relative to our projected needs. • $2.5M, which includes a limited amount of contingency. • The problem is exacerbated by the recent $500k reduction in FY13 OPC funding. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

22. Adapting to FY13 Funding Reduction • We have held extensive and iterative discussions with the L2 managers on how their requests for the remaining FY13 funds could be modified and/or reduced. • Specific cuts and their impacts have been examined in great detail. Both deferrals and reductions of all kinds were on the table. • While the Operations Program is able to loan funds to the upgrade from management reserve to help bridge this shortfall, it does not come without feeling the hit. • We have therefore made every effort to preemptively reduce the FY13 upgrade activities wherever possible in order to help relieve the significant budgetary pressures on the overall program. • Boundary conditions: (1) maintain project progress, and (2) retain all key personnel (no layoffs). DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

23. Priorities for Remaining FY13 Funds • Liquid Argon (WBS 1.1) • Demonstrator Board for in situ probe of the viability of using COTS components in the upgraded Liquid Argon system. This board must be fabricated in time for installation during LS1. • Muon nSW (WBS 1.2) • A prototype submission of the nSW Front End (FE) chip is scheduled for a MOSIS submission in May ($176k). • The FE chip is a US responsibility, and is required by international ATLAS to enable forward progress on all aspects of nSW design. • Next viable window for submission would be November 2013, which would introduce an unacceptable six month delay. • TDAQ (WBS 1.3) • Requests for fabrication of Demonstrator Board for TileCal2jFEX had previously been deferred to FY14. This will have minimal impact. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

24. Summary and Resolution of FY13 Funding • With the approval of the US ATLAS Management Advisory Committee, the Operations Program has agreed to loan the outstanding $241k to the upgrade in FY13. This will enable the project to remain on track in the near term. • MoUs incorporating these adjustments are in preparation. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

25. Looking Ahead: FY14 (1) • We intend to begin bifurcating the NSF/DOE funding in FY14, using NSF (DOE) funds for NSF (DOE) upgrade scope. • To do this, we will need NSF funds in hand sufficiently early in FY14. • More generally, we are concerned that, despite our collective best efforts, circumstances may force the reconsideration of the final allocations and time scales for release of FY14$, from both agencies. • This could endanger upgrade progress and, potentially, its viability. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

26. Looking Ahead: FY14 (2) • To help ameliorate this problem, we intend to begin negotiating forward funding agreements with US ATLAS institutions involved in the upgrade. • We assume that, in this climate, such funding will be needed sooner or later, in any case. • This is best initiated once the upgrade has more traction in Washington – ~ end summer. • However, the time scales on which these agreements can be put in place, and the cumulative amount available, may not be sufficient to adequately cover shortfalls, particularly in FY14 (~ $2.5M). • We believe it would be profitable to discuss the FY14 funding situation in more detail as the situation clarifies, and the opportunity exists to provide input to the decision-making. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

27. Update on ATLAS Upgrade Status (1) • Aware of the demands of the U.S. approval process, U.S. ATLAS has rapidly converged on an upgrade organization and project plan. • The scope of the U.S. effort is consistent with the ATLAS upgrade plans that are defined in the Phase I LoI, which was approved by the LHCC in March 2012. • The financial framework laying out the cost sharing agreement between the different countries was endorsed by the CERN RRB in October 2012. The U.S. proposal is consistent with this framework. • Approvals for all subprojects in which the U.S. is involved will be finalized by Fall 2013. TDRs/LHCC approvals: • nSW in Spring 2013. • LAr and TDAQ in Summer/Fall 2013. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

28. Update on ATLAS Upgrade Status (2) • The second ATLAS Liquid Argon Upgrade Week took place the week of March 11. It was well attended by the US. • Negotiations are converging, but outstanding issues remain. The goal is to have verbal agreements between the principals in hand in June. • TDAQ week is April 8, where negotiations are expected to converge via verbal agreements on the same (June) time frame. • The muon nSW is more advanced, with formal LHCC approval of the TDR scheduled for May. • ATLAS Muon Week was held the week of March 25. • We remain closely involved in all of the relevant discussions. • The project is taking the evolution of alternatives into consideration in its planning. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

29. JOG Issues for the Upgrade (1) • Can we have a DOE CD-1 charge in hand in May in order to help us to prepare for, and get the most out of, the July 11/12 BNL Director’s Review? • In order to begin funding subprojects in an agency-specific manner in FY14, we will need to be in a position to allocate funds from both agencies early in FY14. Is this an unreasonable expectation? • There is a significant DOE funding shortfall in FY14 ($2.5M) that will impact the project schedule. Forward funding alone, even if secured in time, may well be insufficient. Can we discuss the possible means of ameliorating this problem on a May/June time frame, prior to our final preparation for the July Director’s Review? DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

30. JOG Issues for the Upgrade (2) • We remain concerned about the overall availability of funds in this climate. As this project is schedule-driven, the only remaining lever to adjust in response would be scope. If/as yearly shortfalls grow in likelihood, can we discuss the impact to the project with the agencies prior to funding decisions being made? • While it is natural to carry alternatives through CD-1, the timing of the submission of the NSF proposal is more intimately linked to the scope negotiations within ATLAS. Is there flexibility that can be exploited to optimize the submission date? DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

31. Backup Slides DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

32. Definition of Project Completion: CD-4 • Project scheduled for completion in 2018. Contains approximately 10 months of schedule float. • Installation and commissioning (I/C) are not part of upgrade project scope. • Project complete when deliverables are on the loading dock at CERN. • Bench tests will verify performance parameters prior to shipment. • I/C costs covered by operations (M&O) program. • Project personnel have completed initial pass at quantifying the I/C needs. Example: MuonnSW I/C in FY17 & 18 DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

33. Contingency Comparisons at CD-1 • This upgrade: • Complex electronic designs, components. • Engineering, design and production at multiple sites, significant integration considerations. • Well-defined and finite shutdown CERN (LS2): schedule-driven project, funds will be needed to hold the delivery schedule. • Project Management believes holding 40% contingency at this stage is prudent. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

34. Risk Codes for Contingency Estimation DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

35. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

36. Integrated Management Approach • Single resource-loaded schedule (RLS) being developed. • Includes both NSF and DOE activities. • Installation and commissioning is being integrated into the RLS. • Project Office populated by both BNL and Stony Brook personnel. • Full project will be “statused” monthly, and reported out to the appropriate stakeholders. • In addition, close coordination between Upgrade and M&O. • Discussions of resource planning and allocations, major programmatic and technical decisions, and any other issues of significance. • Weekly meetings, and more frequent ad-hoc discussions. • We are creating an integrated U.S. ATLAS effort that aims to optimize the allocation of limited resources. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

37. Comment on Personnel • A number of technical personnel are being cut from the core program during the comparative review process. • These sometimes represent people who are key to fulfilling our international commitments, on whom the ATLAS experiment has come to rely. • Their technical expertise is often experiment-specific, developed over many years. • Such people can frequently not be replaced on any reasonable time scale, or, often, at all. • They can of course be funded out of project and operations, but those who can find more stable work, will. • Allocating adequate contingency in an effort to reduce the impact of this will make everything more expensive, and ultimately reduce the scope we can take on. • Note that money cannot solve the problem in all cases. • The upgrade relies on such people to deliver on our obligations. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

38. W Boson • Use the rate vs. threshold predictions for electrons and muons, along with pT spectra to study efficiency vs. rate. Impacts a variety of physics signatures: W, WH, ttbar, top, SUSY physics. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

39. DOE-only Project Cost (with contingency) DOE-only Distribute (15, 20, 35, 30)% of the contingency in FY14-17.= agency guidance DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

40. General Context (1) • The LADU Construction Project represent the first major construction effort on U.S. ATLAS since the deployment of the original detector. • This initial phase is limited in scope: • Approximately $47M max Total Project Cost (NSF + DOE), over ~ 5 years. • Additional funding from operations and generic R&D being provided in FY13 and FY14. • It has been launched under tight time constraints: • NSF proposal submission in April. • DOE Critical Decision 1 (CD-1) review August 28-29. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

41. Two Principal De-Scoping Decisions • Descope forward muon (MM) chamber production. • Design and international roles and responsibilities in very early stage; timing does not mesh with DOE process. • Would require large contingency, encroach on other important scope. • Cost growth was a concern, impact would be felt project-wide. • Heavy construction effort that is beyond scale and spirit of this upgrade. • Other countries will take this on. • ATLAS Forward Proton Detector began in scope contingency, but has been removed from project. • Recent ATLAS internal review noted that physics case needs improvement, technical issues need to be resolved, and called for organizational improvements. • Fundamental mismatch between AFP approval and upgrade schedules, and therefore the ability to support it in the construction project. • Group has been encouraged to seek other sources of funding. • Proposals to operations program, of finite duration and level of effort, will be considered. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

42. Meshing with International ATLAS (2) • We have had detailed discussions about the relationship between the U.S. and ATLAS approval processes with the agencies. • The timing is considered to be consistent with the U.S. approval process, and the carrying of alternatives at a project’s early stages. • The Project has performed an alternatives analysis that examines the impact of decisions yet to be made. • We are moving forward with the agencies with the understanding that modifications to the U.S. scope may be necessary after initial agency approvals are obtained. • A natural consequence of an asynchronous international approval process. • We have also discussed the situation with ATLAS management. • U.S. experience and expertise in these upgrade systems is well-recognized. • We are, and will remain, actively involved in negotiating the U.S. role with our international collaborators as the upgrade scope is finalized. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

43. Level 2 Milestones From PEP draft DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

44. Financial Guidance Provided to Subsystems • Based on agency guidance, management distributed guidelines to project principals for use in developing the base estimates for their subsystems (mid-Nov). • Based on a number of factors, including (not priority-ordered): • Initial plan submitted by and vetted with project principals. • History and nature of past U.S. ATLAS technical role. • Estimated amount of total project contingency that will be needed for a project at this stage (~ 40%). • Priority of physics goals subsystem upgrades will address. • Overall scope that can be accommodated within financial constraints. • Deliverables describe a coherent, self-contained and “trackable” project plan for each agency. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

45. Final Remarks • The U.S. ATLAS Phase I upgrades consist of technical improvements designed to best exploit the physics in the Phase I running environment. • Its scope has been carefully tailored, with an eye toward the spirit and scale of the intended effort, available time and resources, and the dictates of the physics. • A strong organization is in place, and a working project plan is in hand and being prepared for baselining. • An integrated organizational approach, both within the Construction Project and with the Operations Program, is being developed. • We remain closely involved with both the agencies and our international partners as scope definitions are finalized. • The transition to project mode has been made. DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA