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

[Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>]

Hi L2’s,

Please pass on the L3s as well.

Mike

 

From: Daniel R. Marlow <marlow AT Princeton.EDU>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 10:30 PM
To: Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>
Cc: Denisov, Dmitri <denisovd AT bnl.gov>; Coles, Mark W. (mcoles AT nsf.gov) <mcoles AT nsf.gov>
Subject: Questions Part B

 

Hi Mike,

 

   Please find a more extensive set of questions comprising the “Part A” questions from before

(which remain the same) plus an additional set of “Part B” questions.    Although these arrive late, the answers aren’t “due” until after lunch tomorrow, so I trust you will have time to prepare them.

 

Cheers,

Dan

 

Questions for ATLAS

 

 

1) It is understood that the variance analysis is not yet being posted to IPD.   It would,

   however, be useful to see what you have collected thus far (in any convenient format).

  

2) The June monthly report says that the EV report has bugs.   Please explain the origin of the

   problem.   Is it e.g., related to the tool being used or the data.

  

3) The EAC reported in the June report is not same as the BAC. What is the primary reason

   for this?

 

4) In the subsystem presentations two contingency  numbers were usually given, for 70% CL

   and for 90% CL. When adding up the contingency for the total project which of these CL's were used?

 

5) A possible one year slippage of the overall ATLAS upgrade schedule was mentioned as a possibility.

   This might cause a standing army cost increase. Even though the US responsibility is defined as

   delivery of subsystems, and thus insensitive to standing army costs, a delayed overall schedule

   might delay the completion of US deliverables due to delays of prerequisite parts from overseas

  collaborators. How has this possibility taken into account in the contingency estimation?

 

6) The HTT project builds on FTK is key ways.   Please reflect on the aspects of FTK that were

   successful and aspects that were less than successful.   Which lessons are appropriate to HTT?

   How will these lessons help you manage risk to cost and schedule in HTT?

 

7) The key to the proposed change management plan is the CCB.  Please explain how this committee

   functions, e.g., by consensus, majority vote, unanimity?  How are conflicts of interest among

   its members managed/mitigated?

 

8) The core management team has used the US-ATLAS Phase-1 upgrade project cost and scheduling

   data to inform your expectations for the MREFC HL-LHC project.   Could you make available to

   us any documentation you have on “lessons learned in Phase 1”?

 

Part B

 

9) Provide a pointer to NSF project milestones that are linked to international milestones

    and indicate how this is tracked in the RLS.

 

10) Top level talks emphasized the difficulty of controlling the risks of international

    contributions to the US project. We would like to a specific list of those contributions,

    if any, and the plans for mitigating these risks (where possible).  Integration aspects such

    as power, cooling, space (rack and cable), and common projects such as lpGBT or bPOL are

    of particular interest.

 

 

Muon (+Trigger)

 

11) Point 5j in the NSF charge reads "Performance verification and acceptance test policies for

   all deliverables are defined and complete. Documentation describes how acceptance tests will

   verify that deliverables meet design performance specifications and safety requirements.

 

    i. QA plans and activities are integrated into the RLS.

   ii. QA and radiation exposure policies are applied consistently across the project."

 

   Can you tell us what the status of this documentation is and point us to it? In particular is the

   SMDT integrated in RLS (this question applies to both trigger and muon).

 

12) In the “NSF review tracking_2017 v7” excel spreadsheet, there many cells which indicate

    the response is “underway” or recommendation status is “in progress”. Indicate

    which of these have been completed and which are still in progress.

 

 

LAr questions:

 

13) It seemed from the plots showing performance of the ADC in terms of energy resolution,

    the ultimate goals  were not met for the latest, v2, prototype. Please be more

    specific on the progress of the ASIC development and what known issues were addressed

    between v1 and v2 and what issues, so far, need to be addressed in a v3. As homework,

    can you tell us what improvements to the performance, either in hardware, software, or

    firmware can  we expect with the current v2 chip before the FDR?

 

14) Can you be a little more specific on your concerns of the  rad hardness of the

    Amplifier shaper? Given what is known about radiation damage in similar circuits,

    what are the potential impacts of what is known/unknown about potential radiation

    damage to this external (DOE) circuit on the NSF part of the project?

 

15) The improvement to the Higgs>gamma gamma mass resolution seems an important benchmark.

    It was unclear from the presentations whether it was just an impact on the trigger

    or if it affects the offline resolution.  It is also not clear what algorithm for

    digital filtering was used, and how that corresponds to the currently envisioned

    algorithm, and what portion of the improvement comes purely from the dual gain ADC.

    Can you clarify?

 

16) Can you clarify how the calibration of the gain of the “4x” part of the ADC relative

    to the “1x” part will be done?  What is the needed accuracy on this calibration?

 

17) While measurements of the two-channel coherent noise made using the LAr Analog

    Testboard meets specifications, what confidence do you have that the fully

    populated board will also meet the coherent noise specifications?  What is

    the remediation plan if the coherent noise level is too high?

 

18) In the interest of high visibility, how well is the US contribution to the

    LpGPT working. Is the jitter measurement enough to demonstrate that the US

    contribution is solid?

 

19) Have any tests of the performance of the off-the-shelf ADC that will be

    used if the 65nm fails been done?  If so, can you describe these tests?

    What are the considerations that go into deciding whether or not to prototype

    at FEB2 with this chip?  Has it been radiation tested?

 

Tile Calorimeter

 

20) In your documentation, you describe simplifications of the Tile ELMB2 motherboard.

    Can you explain what allowed this simplification and if it has any impact

    on the performance of the circuits?

 

21) What is the magnetic field at that location in ATLAS?  Have the components been

    tested in that field?

 

22) How will the experiment pilot inform the production?  Does the production start

    before that pilot program sees beam?

 

23) Does the long board get extensive temperature cycling?  Are their hidden vias?

 

24) Are there really fuses in the low voltage power supply?