CMS Tracker: Cost, Schedule, Planning and M&O

CMS Tracker: Cost, Schedule, Planning and M&O • Joe Incandela, University of California Santa Barbara • US CMS Silicon Tracker Project Manager • May 20, 2003 • Outline: • Project Cost, Schedule, Planning and Our Response to Schedule issues • M&O • Basic considerations and assumptions • Project end and transition to M&O • Maintenance and Operation Plan • Summary

Cost Performance Infrastructure is mostly complete Some test equipment awaited or being built Very likely need a K&S 8060 wirebonder at UCSB for hybrids Increased scope: silicon probing hybrids completion But ! have managed to hold the costs flat. Saved 120k$ on used K&S 8090. Renegotiated with INFN Pisa to have them do the TIB cylinder saving another 120k$ Labor held down until Calendar ’03 started: No labor contingency was used until this year! We now technicians at both UCSB and FNAL Have likely burned a bit of contingency But not yet at full strength Conclusion: If we can complete by end of FY05, then we will also be on budget or very near. Cost Considerations

Task changes • Deleted • WBS 8.7: *DELETED*TIB Support Structures ($126,000) • New or restructured • WBS 8.3.4-8.3.6: Probing at U. Rochester $141,000 (based partly on shift from KSU) • WBS 8.5: Travel and Transportation $327,000 ($120k savings on wirebonder plus restructuring of previous tasks) • WBS 8.4.4: Completion of hybrids at UCSB $68,000 • Plus a number of smaller restructurings… • No new costs to project so far • It will probably be impossible to make such large changes in future without using contingency • But, we’re just about ready to go anyway …

The Group • Fermilab (FNAL) • L. Spiegel, S. Tkaczyk +2+2 technicians • Kansas State University (KSU) • T.Bolton, R.Demina, W.Kahl, S.Korjenevski, R.Sidwell, N.Stanton • University of California, Riverside (UCR) • Gail Hanson, Gabriella Pasztor, Patrick Gartung • University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) • A. Affolder, S. Burke, C.Campagnari, A. Gupta, D. Hale, J.Incandela, S. Kyre,S. Levy, C. Mills, S.Stromberg,R. Taylor, D. White +3 technicians +2 undergraduates • University of Illinois, Chicago (UIC) • E. Chabalina, C. Gerber • University of Kansas (KU) • P. Baringer, A. Bean, L. Christofek, D. Coppage • University of Rochester (UR) • R. Eusebi, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hocker, P. Tipton Recent additions (over past year or so) are indicated in blue

UCSB production line Current situation Post Docs (all Full time) 2 UCSB (one on startups) 1 UCR Engineers 3 ME (1 on project), and 1 EE Technicians 3 Full time on project Students 2 undergrads as of June (one on startups) 1 Computing Masters student (on startups) 1 grad student this summer (possibly 2) FNAL production line Current situation Post Docs KSU, UIC, KU, RU Only 1 is full time Guest Scientist FNAL Technicians 4 at FNAL now (2 paid by RU) Students Grad students starting from UIC and KSU Manpower

Comments UCSB does all engineering (3 FTE off project) UCSB will need a bit larger work force due to the new hybrids task Training students in the testing. Have 3 trained wirebond persons. FNAL has a decent pool of technicians to draw on. More post-docs needed Support from DOE and NSF for post-docs would help a lot. Future needs We’ve got enough manpower in place or in process to handle the ramp up to at least 150 modules per month For peak rates, including rod assembly and testing, we will likely need to increase both technicians and postdocs/students We want to play this by ear… By Autumn we should have a better idea of our needs. Manpower (2)

Schedule Performance So far not so good: Roughly 18+ months delay of startup Hybrid and chip problems last year Initial production of components and limited test equipment this year But ! We’re in pretty good position now Situation is much better than past CDF and D0 silicon projects Large component flows are in progress Test stands and software work! Our suite of hardware not yet complete but we’re ok for now Software needs a bit more improvement but basically working Expectation: We expect to make 180 modules by August 5-10% complete by Autumn Peak production early ’04 Modules complete ‘05 Schedule Considerations

Our Response • What we’ve done to enhance the success probability of this project: • Introduced large number of changes and additions to tooling and test equipment • More robust fabrication and better quality products • More robust and informative testing for optimal quality insurance • Have taken on as much as we possibly can to assist in parts flow • Completion of hybrids (wirebonding pitch adapters and thermal cycle/electrical testing) now to be done at UCSB instead of CERN. • One US CMS person (from UCR) now at CERN providing support for US parts flow • Have made RU a qualified probing center to assure flow of sensors to US is not limited by probing in Europe. • Regina Demina is responsible for monitoring all parts flow issues, technical and otherwise. • A. Affolder is responsible for monitoring all test equipment delivery status

US CMS Tracker Status • Work Completed/Remaining • Basic Infrastructure complete • Test hardware/software not complete • adequate for ramp up • Need Long-term test hardware and software to handle peak. • Main Risks: • Disruptions in parts flow • Wirebond & probing added. • K&S 8060 for hybrids… • Missing test equipment • (not yet critical) • Manpower • Up to now we have managed to use little or no contingency!

Tracker Milestones (v33) • V33: TOB in April ‘05. • Aggressive, not 95% CL • We currently schedule completion by April 2005 • High probability of completion by Sep. 30, 2005

Tracker Project Resources • Likely that some effort will spill into FY05: • UCSB currently pat, FNAL now gaining a few people • Both need to increase by several technicians for peak – but not now!

Tracker FY03 Planning 2 Rochester technicians involved in FNAL production lines Mostly production labor No contingency used (yet)

CMS Tracker: M&O Outer Barrel (TOB) ~100 m2 Pixels End Caps (TEC 1&2) Inner Barrel & Disks (TIB & TID) 2,4 m 5.4 m volume 24.4 m3 running temperature – 10 0C

Basis of estimates for our I&C and M&O plans Experience considered: CDF Run 1b and Run 2a D0 Run 2a Scaling factor for resources ~ 1 despite large increase in channel and module counts Considerations TOB = CERN+US CMS but… CERN has large general infrastructure responsibility US CMS group the obvious choice for the main M&O team. Operational expertise lies with those having the most testing experience during construction Our groups will have integrated very useful experience from Tevatron Run 2. Resource driving assumptions: US will assume a major portion of responsibility for TOB M&O Need continuous coverage of 6 main M&O areas Detector should be ready for physics as early as possible Basic Considerations

CDF/DO Experience CDF Silicon installation and commissioning group CDF Silicon Cables exiting the bore of the outer tracker “ Our current commissioning effort is taking so long partially because of inadequate resources (both physicist and non-physicist). So, I would advise that for commissioning especially, you do not underestimate the need for … resources - ask for enough dedicated engineers to complement as many physicists as you can get. ” -- co-leader of CDF silicon operations group in mid 2002. • CDF and D0 installation & operation • A very big job which takes many months and many people • Current (~steady state) operations requires on the order of 7 high level experts with backup of ~10 additional operators and monitors • We assume that some monitoring can be done remotely for TOB

Project end & Transition to M&O • US must anticipate the need to cover much of the effort for the installation and commissioning (I&C) and probably the lion’s share of the maintenance and operation (M&O) of the TOB. • I&C resources thru FY05 are included in the construction project. • Installation/testing of rods in wheels (Jan 04 – April 05). • 2-4 FTE Sr. Physicists, 7 Post-docs, students. • Testing modules on rods before installation. • Limited system tests. • 1 FTE Engineer (base). • Rod & Module repairs, cooling system, mechanics. • Laboratory space and equipment for testing and repairs. • In late 2005, large M&O support team must be in place. • We estimate ~12 FTE physicists at CERN together with continued engineering and technical support & associated M&S and operating costs for maintaining a small laboratory space for testing and repairs.

Operation ~2-3 phys. 1/2 eng. 1/2 tech. 24/7 on-call to avoid dead time. Includes Leadership: to organize overall effort, make executive decisions for effort allocation and interpretation of diagnostic results. Interface with experiment and rest of CMS admin. (~1 FTE of overhead here alone). DAQ ~ 1.5 phys. 1/2 eng. 1/2 tech. Front end and higher level modules. FEDs and EB managers. Diagnostics, testing, (repairs, re-testing ?), swapping of critical DAQ modules. Radiation protection and cooling ~1.5 phys. 1/4+1/4 engineer, 1 tech. Monitoring, repair. System issues: cooling tech present or on call at all times to deal with problems as they arise. Crates and power supplies. 1.5 phys, 1/2 eng. 1/2 tech. Startup crucial. Techs needed for testing all supplies prior to installation, then retest after installation. Safety interlock issue. A serious ongoing maintenance issue. Monitoring and calibration databases 4 phys. 1/2 tech. at CERN Need some presence for calibrations. CDF does some remotely and sees remote calibration control to be a serious problem. We expect additional manpower (possibly students) will work remotely. Need to catch problems in data and in calibration techniques. Very significant effort just to maintain a good channel list. Alignment 1.5 phys. Laser alignment runs, hardware maintenance. Offline alignment and monitoring of alignment constants. M&O for Tracker Outer Barrel: 6 Main M&O areas

Other areas • Not included in our resource projections: Module Failures analysis and development of failure prevention methods: • CDF has required considerable resources to • Understand why some silicon modules have failed • Example: Resonant wirebond breakage • Develop failure prevention strategies • For resonant wirebond breakage - developed completely new operating procedures to prevent repetitive readout sequences that led to exactly periodic current swings. • “If these resources are forced to come from operations, as was the case at CDF, things will be strained and commissioning and/or operational efficiency will be affected.” – Chris Hill, CDF silicon operation co-leader 2002.

Tracker: Transition to M&O • Abrupt shift to M&O in FY06 reflects the fact that we anticipated and included adequate resources for pre-ops in original project file.

Tracker M&O Resources • Basis/Assumptions in review: • US will have to play a major role : • The most experienced • CERN the other TOB group but significant infrastructure responsibilities • Run 2a CDF/D0 experience • 6 main operational categories need continuous coverage at CERN

Summary & Conclusions • Spring ’05 scheduled completion of construction • This is 3 months more than official v 33 schedule and has 6 months of contingency (to the end of FY05) • I&C is already included in construction project • Costs have been held in check • Manpower is ramping and will not a big worry now • Infrastructure we will likely need: K&S 8060 at UCSB for hybrids • For M&O – we must anticipate a large role • We’ll have the appropriate expertise • Detector needs to be operational as quickly as possible. • Based mainly on CDF/D0 experience: • Significant physicist manpower required: • Comparable to CDF in Run 2 for example. • Must have continuous coverage of 6 main operations areas. • Hopefully some resources available to contribute to failure analysis and prevention…

CMS Tracker: Cost, Schedule, Planning and M&O