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

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

Hi Tim and Andy,

	As was discussed at the meeting with them last Friday, the NSF review 
committee seems quite interested in discussing QC planning.  Here are 
some of the relevant comments:

- "the panel expressed interest in knowing about QA/QC – especially 
impacts on vendors, and also about ATLAS’s plans for acceptance test of 
items delivered to CERN."

- "We would like to request an adjustment to the review schedule next 
week to enable Paul O’Connor, Rich Abbot, and George Angeli to look at 
electronics production QA/QC, testing, and verification testing upon 
delivery at CERN for each of the technical areas."

- "The panel has concern about QA/QC risks associated with the current 
supply chain environment.
	Please comment on how these concerns are incorporated into ATLAS plans. 
Please plan to discuss COVID and consequent supply chain and labor 
shortage impacts on vendor QA/QC. How is ATLAS validating QA/QC at the 
vendors? (Please include this in the first day’s plenary presentations.) 
Please justify to the panel that sufficient labor has been budgeted to 
carry out QC and verification tests."

	I propose that each L3 prepare a few dedicated QC slides, along the 
lines of what we already did for Cost&Schedule.  Then, if and when 
during the review the "QC reviewers" appear in our breakout, we could 
bring up those slides to guide the discussion.
	I have prepared such slides for the FEB2, and placed them at the end of 
the "regular talk" and before the "Cost&Schedule" slides.  You can see 
my draft version in slides 20-25 of the new version of my talk on docdb 
(https://atlas-hllhc.docdb.bnl.gov/cgi-bin/public/ShowDocument?docid=1574).

        I suggest Tim and Andy also prepare such slides.  Some particular 
comments:

Tim - ADC is well advanced, so will be looked to for an example of 
well-advanced QC plans.  I suggest you show a summary table of 
parameters measured in prep. for FDR, and say a subset (still being 
finalized) will be measured in the robotic test setup and stored in the 
dB.  Also, have an idea of how many minutes per ASIC it will take to 
perform the test, and make sure the time (and manpower) you have 
allocated in the RLS is adequate to get it all done as scheduled

Andy - are SRTM tests going to be done at Assembler, or just at SBU? 
(For FEB2, we will do some tests at Assembler, like we did last time, 
but that might well not be worth the effort for the smaller number of 
SRTM boards??)   Give some idea of what sort of tests are needed to 
QC-qualify a board (list does not need to be final, but should be 
indicative).  How much time per SRTM will it take to do the QC test, and 
make sure the time (and manpower) you have allocated in the RLS is 
adequate to get it all done as scheduled.
        Some other questions:
- any tests needed with the LASP, or SBU can just use the SRTM plus its 
own Testerboard?
- any plans to do some of QC-related tests elsewhere (eg. NYU)?
- what "acceptance test" is needed at CERN?  (for FEB2 it is basically 
just visual inspection plus leak test)

	These slides would be needed for Tues. morning.  Make a start of them 
as soon as you can, and send around a draft when you have something ready.

        Regards,
                John
--
______________________________________________________________________

John Parsons
Nevis Labs,             Email: parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu
 Columbia University    Phone: (914) 591-2820
P.O. Box 137            Fax: (914) 591-8120
Irvington, NY 10533     WWW: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/*parsons/__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!CMRbo49w5aBUDiUzdbo9QJj0HZ-ECtjcaWNVXYtyRU1gmmLg8d01_2L7XUINhfQq0nzKcSJ7r2KPo5S6GVT0PDJ0DdUIAiJLiGvyFClPbJ08KA$
      

______________________________________________________________________