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

[Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

Hello all,

Here is a very first draft for the first ten questions.  I assume the 
L2s will collect answers for questions 11+.

Best,

Gustaaf

On 7/29/19 10:34 PM, Michael Tuts wrote:
> 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?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

--
Gustaaf Brooijmans - Columbia University
@Columbia: (212) 854 4527; Nevis virtual phone: (914) 591 2804

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

Attachment: 2019-07-30-FDR-DR-QA.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document