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

[Tim Andeen <tandeen AT utexas.edu>]

Hi John, Just a reminder, I’ll be teaching during your talk tomorrow, but if there are questions I’ll be online most of the day. -Tim

On Apr 17, 2023 at 4:43:35 PM, Andy Haas <andy.haas AT nyu.edu> wrote:

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=

_______________________________________________
Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l mailing list
Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l