1 / 51

IBL interim-MoU Annexes

IBL interim-MoU Annexes. Rev.2 Apr.2010. Pixel Extended Institution Board CERN, March 1 st , 2010 NCP Meeting – 21/04/2010 Prepared by: G. Darbo - INFN / Genova Indico agenda pages (PEIB & NCP): http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId= 85644

urbain
Download Presentation

IBL interim-MoU Annexes

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 interim-MoUAnnexes Rev.2 Apr.2010 Pixel Extended Institution Board CERN, March 1st, 2010 NCP Meeting – 21/04/2010 Prepared by: G. Darbo - INFN / Genova Indico agenda pages (PEIB & NCP): http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=85644 http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceOtherViews.py?view=standard&confId=75714

  2. IBL Project • IBL project and schedule in dept presented in the last IBL General Meeting with a summary at the last week ATLAS General Meeting. • References: • IBL General Meeting: 11-12 February 2010http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=73688 • Talk of H. Pernegger @ IBL General Meeting • 11/2/2010 - technical project status and schedulehttp://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=1&sessionId=0&resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=73688 • Talks of G. Darbo @ ATLAS Week • 26/2/2010 - summary project statushttp://indicoprev.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=66742

  3. Who does what ANNEX 1

  4. Annex 1 • Project divide into 11 items. To funding Agency money matrix shows only 5 Systems. (less detail) IBL MoU Systems Grouping used in the Annex 4 table MoU Items Grouping used in the Annex 1.x tables

  5. Annex 1.1: Sensor (1/4) • Sensor technology selected after prototyping with FE-I4 • Prototypes with Planar, 3D and Diamond. • Once technology is selected the interim MoU will become the final MoU. • An Institute can leave the IBL project before signing the final MoU if is participation is “Sensor Technology Dependent”. • The Technology Option column in Annex 4 will cover the related and additional costs implied by the technology chosen. • In the prototyping cost only part of the real cost are covered: • Sensor prototype cost largely shared with sLHC R&D. • Cost in the IBL are for “extra wafers” and bump-bonding with FE-I4.

  6. A1.1: Sensors (2/4) • The quoted cost for production should cover Planar sensor or “low profile 3D”. More expensive solutions in the 3D, Diamond and/or thinner FE-I4 modules are maintained in the Technology Option until final decision.

  7. A1.1: Sensors (3/4) • Only work responsibility for prototyping in the iMoU.

  8. A1.1: Sensors (4/4) • Cost sharing for prototyping follows the “work responsibility” on the sensor technology. • Cost sharing for production selected to minimize “technology dependence” on funding source (see next slide).

  9. Sensor Production Contribution

  10. Annex 1.2: FE-I4 • FE-I4 assumes two engineering runs and final production of 3 batch of 24 wafers of the second version. • Work and cost includes wafer testing. • Including hardware (USBpix) and/or outsourcing for testing.

  11. A 1.2: FE-I4 (2/4) • In the item are: • FE-I4 version 1 (engineering run) • Fe-I4 version 2 (engineering run) • Hardware for single mo

  12. A 1.2: FE-I4 (3/4)

  13. A 1.2: FE-I4 (4/4) • Cost sharing is different from version 1 and version 2 due to expected work participation of Geneva in the version 2.

  14. Annex 1.3: Bump-Bonding A 1.3 Summary: • Deliverables: • Bump-bonding and QC for IBL • Prototype: • Vendor qualification.

  15. A 1.3: Bump Bonding (2/4) • The cost was evaluated with rather conservative (40%) yield. Yield is probably better, but more advanced techniques would rise the costs.

  16. A 1.3: Bump Bonding (3/4) Notes: • In the prototype phase the cost of FE-I4 wafer thinning and bump-deposition are in MoU item #3. The sensor wafer processing (UBM/bump-deposition) and flip chip is in MoU item #1. • Qualify the two vendors used by ATLAS Pixel - baseline AgSn - Technology backup Indium.   • KEK develops bump-bonding with Hamamatsu (possible option if the first two fail), participation to common procurement.

  17. A 1.3: Bump Bonding (4/4) • Prototype: • INFN and BMBF to qualify AsSn and In vendors, with Barcelona contributing with dummy sensors.

  18. Annex 1.4: Bare Stave & Cooling Pipe A 1.4 Summary: • Deliverables: • Bare stave with cooling pipe • Cooling pipe to PP1 • Package divided in: • Prototype and production • Baseline: • CO2 cooling and Titanium pipe based on Reviewers’ recommendations.

  19. A 1.4: Bare Stave & Cooling Pipe (2/3)

  20. A 1.4: Bare Stave & Cooling Pipe (3/3) • Substantial prototype work already made and paid: • Almost 50% of the cost of the stave prototype have been contributed by: BMBF, IN2P3 and INFN. • Production and QC site need agreement.

  21. Annex 1.5: Module & Stave Loading A 1.5 Summary • Deliverables: • Flex hybrid (stave/module) design, production QC • Electrical internal services (pipe is in item #4) • Flex Module production & QC • Loading of Modules on stave and QC • PP1 services (both electrical and cooling)

  22. A 1.5: Module & Stave Loading (2/3) • EoS card is equivalent to PP0 of the Pixels. No active component foreseen on it. • Stave 0 is a multi module system with prototype parts (FE-I4.v1, stave, flex).

  23. A 1.5: Module & Stave Loading (3/3) • Clarification: Flex Module is the module dressed with parts ready for loading on stave.

  24. Annex 1.6: R/O Chain A 1.6 Summary • Deliverables: • Opto-board & boxes • Opto fibers • BOC/ROD • Opto plugins • TDAQ parts (TIM, ROD crates, SBC …)

  25. A 1.6: R/O Chain (2/4)

  26. A 1.6: R/O Chain (3/4) • ROD baseline is a “modernized” BOC/ROD using VME. • Deliverables and cost sharing follows this line.

  27. A 1.6: R/O Chain (4/4) • RX-plugin assigned to Ohio (upgrade for the Pixel). • DAQ hardware (187 kCH) proposed as in kind contribution from INFN   • Commissioning of the R/O chain is with the Institutes sharing the Work Responsibilities. • BOC and ROD follow the philosophy of a modernized VME design • TDAQ off-shelf hardware are in-kind from M&O-A.

  28. Annex 1.7: Power Chain A 1.7 Summary • Deliverables: • PP2 regulators and boxes • HV & LV PS • All cables to PP1 • HV-PP4/LV-PP4 • DCS and Interlock

  29. A 1.7: Power Chain (2/4) • Cables and power supplies on M&O-A.

  30. A 1.7: Power Chain (3/4) • LV and DCS cables are M&O-A in-kind • HV and LV PS are M&O-A in-kind • HV Cables only work covered, but stay on M&O-A

  31. A 1.7: Power Chain (4/4)

  32. Annex 1.8: Integration & System Test A 1.7 Summary: • Deliverables: • Integration toolings • System Test infrastructure (cooling included)

  33. A 1.8: Integration & System Test (2/4)

  34. A 1.8: Integration & System Test (3/4) • Note: • This MoU item will see major involvement of CERN and Geneva with responsibilities and full contribution to the cost. More precise sharing of responsibilities is in discussion and this will reflect an update of how “Work Responsibilities” is phrased. • Several institutes will contribute with work in both System Test and Integration.

  35. A 1.8: Integration & System Test (4/4) Note: • CERN and Geneva are the two contributors in cost to this MoU item. • Norway is interested in "System Test”. Expect to be able to cover about a third (i.e. 70kCHF), assuming only half the amount is to be spent during current funding period, which runs till the end of 2011. Norway contribution put into “Technology Options” • Bern - Expression of interest in the Integration and System Test

  36. Annex 1.9: Cooling Plant & Services • Item covered by M&O-A • Interest from some institutes (mainly if CO2) • Nikhef and SLAC

  37. Annex 1.10: Beam Pipe & Interfaces A 1.4 Summary: • Deliverables: • Beam-pipe (M&O-A) • Tooling for installation & mockup • Global supports for IBL and services.

  38. A 1.10: Beam Pipe & Interfaces (2/3)

  39. A 1.10: Beam Pipe & Interfaces (2/3)

  40. A 1.11: Installation A 1.4 Summary: • Deliverables: • Most of the cost is manpower, consultancy for ALARA, etc.

  41. The Project Organization ANNEX 2

  42. Annex 2: IBL Organization • IBL MB decisions and IB decisions • IBL PL and IBL TC responsibilities • Participation of the Institutes to the IBL: Pixel Institutes, new Institutes and participation through the Project Office. • Reporting of IBL PL and TC • Selection of IBL PL and TC (ATLAS rules), term of mandate. • Institutes voting for the IBL PL • Management Board • The IBL Management Board (MB) controls the execution of the project. • The IBL MB meets every two weeks in phone meeting and is chaired by the IBL PL and TC. • Meetings have closed participation to MB members and speakers could be invited to report on specific issues on request of the IBL MB. • The IBL MB uses indico and SharePoint to distribute material for discussion. • Minutes circulated to the IBL collaboration and Issue Tracking is the way the MB works. • Working Groups • The construction activities of the whole IBL project are divided into four working groups. • Each working group has two coordinators. • Sharing of responsibilities between the two coordinators in each working group is defined on the base on a mandate document. • The Working Group coordinators steer the activities they are concerned in periodic meetings that are largely in the form of phone conference.

  43. Institute Board • The Institutions taking part in the project, in a direct way (as opposed through the UPO), with money and manpower, are part of the Institute Board (IB). • The IB is an extension of the Pixel IB and usually meets after the normal Pixel IB with the additional Institutions members in the IBL. • Major technology choices affecting the overall performance of ATLAS have to be brought forward to the collaboration as a whole for decision in the Collaboration Board. • Composition of the IB is ad-iterim until the IBL MoU is finalised. • IBL General Meetings • These meetings are held three or four times a year and constitutes the forum where discussions on any aspect of the Pixel project should take place. • Collaborative Tools & EDMS • To transmit the information in the IBL project is used a “Share Point” Collaborative Workspace. • Share Point is used during the phase of preparation of the documents in their final form. The approved document are referenced and posted in the EDMS structure. • Workgroup meetings and IBL General Meeting are on indico. • To transmit the information, a few open subscription (to ATLAS members) mailing lists.

  44. The Institutes & Institutions ANNEX 3

  45. Annex 3: Institutes/Institutions

  46. The Money Matrix Annex 4

  47. Annex 4 Technology options refer to supplementary costs that are sensor technology specific and will be known before the definite MoU takes effect. So far, France, Italy and US have requested their shares to be moved from M&O to Project part. Note: the numbers in the table "are not final, nor are the suggested financial contributions yet firm, but are meant for a common overall discussion.”

  48. Annex 4 (extended)

  49. Payment Profile ANNEX 5

More Related