U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade Level 2 and Deputies-NSF only Management Mailing List

[Hal Evans <hgevans AT indiana.edu>]

No - the percentages are fine - it should be clear that they lead to integer numbers of boards.

Thanks  -  Hal

On 7/17/19 11:08 AM, Elliot Lipeles wrote:

Do you want me to calculate board counts?

I assumed that scope contingency could be done a bit rougher (?).

Elliot

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:06 AM Hal Evans <hgevans AT indiana.edu> wrote:

Thanks Elliot,

I'll correct to the exact numbers in the next version. That will make it easier to relate this to board counts.

Cheers  -  Hal

On 7/17/19 11:01 AM, Elliot Lipeles wrote:

Hi all,

I reworked the numbers carefully (at bottom is my spreadsheet with notes)

The first numbers  (2/3 TP + 1/3 RTM + 5/6 TFM) are ~ right the exact numbers are ( 70% TP + 83% TFM + 31% RTM) these are % of originally planned US contribution. The cost savings is $1615k.

The second numbers (1/3 TP + 2/3 TFM + 0 RTM)  are approximately right, exact numbers are (40% TP + 67% TFM + 0% RTM) with a cost savings of $1530k.  (a bit different than what I had in the PEP because I had a typo and the reduction in the RTM cost wasn't included).

Let me know if you have any questions,

Elliot

TP TFM RTM
Comment US Fraction 0.551 1 0.24

Pre-production+production costs 4,200,843 1,162,728 217,193 2017 dollars!






International Fraction 0.449 0 0.76
1- US fraction











Reduce internation by 1/6th ~ 17% TP TFM RTM Total
US fraction of original total still in US 0.38 0.83 0.07
5/6-International fraction Factor US production is reduced by 0.70 0.83 0.31
above/original us fraction Scope Cost Saved 1270672.41 193788.00 150828.47 1615288.89 above*original us cost











Reduce internation by 1/3rd ~ 33.3% TP TFM RTM Total
US fraction of original total still in US 0.22 0.67 0.00

2/3-International fraction (RTM just zeroed)

US reduction fraction 0.40 0.67 0.00
above/original us fraction Scope Cost Saved 2541344.83 387576.00 217193.00 3146113.83 above*original us cost


incremental saving of second cut 1530824.94






Escallation 2017 to 2024 1.229873865

if all escalated, but parts ~75% of cost not escallated

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 6:58 PM Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net> wrote:

Hi Hal,

I looking at your sheet when updating the info for the PEP, I think there are a number of date errors?

Descoping tab:

* What I had previously updated when I asked the L2s to update the PEP was for Muon dates for reducing sMDTs of 12/2021, 5/2022, 9/2022, 1/2023 vs what you show as 12/2019, 5/2019(!), 9/2019(!), 1/2019(!).  The other Muon dates are also clearly wrong 6/2019 and 3/2019.
* Is the LAr decision date really 9/2019?
* Elliot has supplied me with $1,600 cost for 2/3 TP + 1/3 RTM + 5/6 TFM -- you have a different cost and a different number of RTM boards (2/3) , so I am wondering which is correct
* Also he gave me $1,300 cost for 1/3 TP + 0 RTM + 2/3 TFM vs yours which shows 1/3 TP +  1/3 RTM + 2/3 TFM -- which is correct?

Cheers, Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l <usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of Hal Evans
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 9:21 AM
To: Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] scope contingency/opportunity

Hi all,

I've compiled all of your scope contingency/opportunity numbers into the attached table. I made a few minor modifications.

1. Trigger: I included an additional Trigger Opportunity - updating the gFEX algorithms for Phase-2.

2. Opportunity Dates: some of these were given only at the granularity of a year. I updated those to MMM-YY format, choosing a date arbitrarily.

Please have a look and let me know if I've made any mistakes.

Having this all compiled together highlights the fact that we are very thin on Physics impact/motivation for the contingency/opportunities. I realize that this will be difficult, but we should really include some sort of discussion of how these decisions could affect ATLAS physics.
This can be hand-wavy (but obviously the more quantitative the better).
The point is to demonstrate that we've thought about this NSF requirement for scope contingency/opportunity.

Please try to get me some input on this by Thursday.

Thanks  -  Hal

--
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
  Hal Evans                        hgevans AT indiana.edu
            https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__pages.iu.edu_-7Ehgevans_&d=DwIDaQ&c=aTOVZmpUfPKZuaG9NO7J7Mh6imZbfhL47t9CpZ-pCOw&r=Z0wuTxQYnTTMlYma4lGZlO3skeCGVBrGGurYkWbhJsJuG5HaY82rmCNSdFOV7C4Z&m=49gTTyvVBnKd4JHf2bt3xiChfuWQepSFBd7zL7jIRNs&s=j1948e9ANvzfc-_oDaKNVLPoNi3XU9wJdj48WpRgsjM&e=
  Tel: (812)856-3828                Fax: (812)855-5533
  253 Swain Hall West               Indiana University
  727 E. Third St.               Bloomington, IN 47405
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^

_______________________________________________
Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l

-- 
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
 Hal Evans                        hgevans AT indiana.edu
           http://pages.iu.edu/~hgevans/
 Tel: (812)856-3828                Fax: (812)855-5533
 253 Swain Hall West               Indiana University
 727 E. Third St.               Bloomington, IN 47405
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^

-- 
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
 Hal Evans                        hgevans AT indiana.edu
           http://pages.iu.edu/~hgevans/
 Tel: (812)856-3828                Fax: (812)855-5533
 253 Swain Hall West               Indiana University
 727 E. Third St.               Bloomington, IN 47405
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^