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

[Andy Haas <andy.haas AT nyu.edu>]

Hi John,
I've added a couple bullets of more detail to my QA/QC slide. Here, as usual:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MCdLnGynBkoLT498P19bdY7UjZnBHQyhEXkebIMqnug/edit?usp=sharing__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!He3incaUqOl1juOkjWSftvFruA7jSNgxqoenDP_WuxUaICABC76DwwTG5auGUa-mafTEd50qqm9_5B5_mwGBNgsvU0Hwc0XyDXmJShxV$
 
See you tomorrow, Andy.

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 1:17 PM John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu> 
wrote:
>
>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlas-2Dhllhc.docdb.bnl.gov_cgi-2Dbin_public_ShowDocument-3Fdocid-3D1574&d=DwIGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=y4qQBOsjsdgJNx-_8SvpS9786vHE4GOddPXp1ozJgWc&m=a6OQCnBfULRpxoEoD2RkwAVSEd4IO_1i8mL3TUSVJiGhfekLLmBD98ei_XtLNA6G&s=Uvmun9oNlfzPWUYnkE75wvRmHwblycL1f73Te-lv7F8&e=
>  ).
>
>         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$
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l mailing list
> Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.bnl.gov_mailman_listinfo_usatlas-2Dhllhc-2Dlartl2l3-2Dl&d=DwIGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=y4qQBOsjsdgJNx-_8SvpS9786vHE4GOddPXp1ozJgWc&m=a6OQCnBfULRpxoEoD2RkwAVSEd4IO_1i8mL3TUSVJiGhfekLLmBD98ei_XtLNA6G&s=aTMkY8-J998_Q5CrB_zMe__mb7HhVAvvczhcHuVrpmQ&e=