U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade LAr Level 2 and Level 3 Managers Mailing List

[John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

FYI.  In round 2, we have a number of LAr-specific
questions to address.  They are all about FE, so I suggest
Tim handles preparing short written responses to 13, 16,
18, 19 and I will handle the rest.

If we all meet at 9 am tomorrow, we will have an hour
to go over things before our 10-12 session, and then
more time over lunch before the Q&A session at 1:30.

                John

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] FW: Questions Part B
Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 02:34:02 +0000
From:   Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>
To: 	usatlas-hllhc-pomgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov 
<usatlas-hllhc-pomgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, 
usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov 
<usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>



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