Response to the EDRESR Review

1

• Response to the EDR/ESR Review
• Joel Butler
• October 12, 2005

2
Organization and Management

• 6.2.1 The committee noted that the recent large
  influx of personnel from the US is being viewed
  very positively within the pixel project, but
  cautioned of the need for strong coordination in
  deploying these new resources, to ensure that
  coherence is maintained between present and
  future organisations and responsibilities and
  that there is no drag on activities already in
  train. Positive steps should be taken to
  forestall the natural tendency that eager and
  available manpower in the forward system,
  combined with barrel system experts under the
  full pressure of the manufacturing phase, result
  in a (further) divergence between the barrel and
  endcap details.
• The committee should judge for itself. I feel
  that the new resources were badly needed by the
  whole pixel project and that the FPIX groups
  are all working together at least as well as they
  did before. Cooperation with the barrel pixel
  group is more extensive and will continue to
  develop.
• Recent examples include the TBM, the FED, slow
  controls, and databases
• Any new projects not required by the original
  plan are undertaken only by recommendation of CMS
  management, e.g. participation in the 2007 run,
  which is probably only made possible by the
  additional resources

3
Coordination with Barrel

• 6.2.3 Regarding management of the overall
  project, the committee recommends that a
  project-wide coordinator be established for each
  specific topic where commonality between the
  barrel and endcap systems can be profitably
  pursued (as already done effectively for service
  integration).
• This will develop over the next few months
• The software workshop is a step in that direction

4
Electronics Integration

• 6.2.4 Whilst noting the impressive progress in
  electronic development and preparations for
  system integration, the committee recommended
  that a plan for overall electronics integration
  with CMS be developed as soon as possible,
  coherent with the activity currently being
  pursued by several sub-detectors in building 904.
• We will give this priority after the next steps
  in production are initiated

5
Complexity

• 6.4.1 The committee made the general observation
  that the forward detector is inherently more
  complex to construct, involving more varieties of
  modules and other components because of the disk
  geometry. In addition the part of the pixel
  collaboration dedicated to the forward system is
  more complex, with many institutes, distributed,
  long lines of communication, and diverse resource
  constraints.
• Frequent meetings
• technical board (Weekly, Thursday-gtFriday)
• assembly (Weekly, Monday)
• Electronics (Roland, weekly on Tuesday)
• Software (biweekly, Wednesday)
• Slow controls (weekly)
• and frequent ad hoc meetings
• Note and talks available for these meetings
• Organizational complexity seems to be the norm
  for CMS

6
Disruption due to Reorganization

• 6.4.2 The committee endorsed the need to
  re-organise the existing forward pixel project to
  cope with the continuing transition to a full
  production phase and the need to integrate new
  resources. The full WBS plan being prepared is a
  useful, possibly indispensable, tool for
  organising the large number of institutes and
  tasks involved.
• 6.4.3 Given the objective of delivering 2 forward
  pixel disks per end for the first year of LHC
  operation, the committee felt that the
  reorganisation in progress should, where
  possible, reinforce existing facilities,
  expertise and success, avoid duplication or
  re-invention, and exploit synergy with the more
  advanced barrel project.
• We have stuck with the original plan and
  introduced no new production sites
• Purdue, JHU, Kansas, and FNAL
• New groups are handling uncovered
  responsibilities and are mostly doing work that
  can be done remotely or contributing at FNAL

7
Integration with Tracker

• 6.4.4 The committee considers it essential to
  re-integrate the combined pixel project
  organisation and management into the overall
  Tracker organisational structure in preparation
  for the internal pixel integration phase and the
  subsequent integration with the strip Tracker.
• We agree. We note that this will take real
  effort. That effort is now available to the
  overall pixel effort

8
Spares

• 6.5.2 The spares provision for all components be
  thought through in detail before the production
  runs are completed and mass-testing facilities
  dismantled.
• operational spares for FPIX were always planned
  but are now provided by MO funding in the US
• Equipment required for installation,
  commissioning and maintenance will be moved to
  CERN as production begins to wind down and will
  be left there for as long as it is needed
  (possibly for the duration).

9
TBM

• 6.5.4 The operation of the TBM should be
  validated mounted on-panel.
• The operation on-panel and in the barrel module
  has been validated (despite the small flaw in
  this version). Extensive tests have been carried
  out. We are ready to resubmit.
• Full exercise of the TBM05 has been an excellent
  example of a joint effort and good communications
  between the barrel and forward groups

10
Bump Bonding

• 6.6.2 Forward Whilst the committee agreed that
  use of multiple suppliers mitigates the risk of
  supply failure, it was pointed out that this also
  makes QC coordination very difficult. It was
  remarked that since the bump bond contractors
  work with high value input units, the risk of
  high cost losses is great and liability for
  damage must be understood.
• 6.6.3 Taking account of the cost pressures on the
  project, the committee urged that the
  possibilities of using the PSI facilities to do
  forward bump bonding, either in series or
  parallel with the barrel, should be seriously
  considered?
• Nearly all pixel projects have had this done in
  industry
• We have expressed a willingness to do the work at
  PSI provided we can meet our schedule
  requirements without disrupting theirs (I.e we
  need a continuous supply of bump-bonded chips
  starting in early spring). They have told us this
  is impractical given their need for contingency
  in the barrel. pr
• The bump bonding RFP Request for Proposal
  has been issued. There are some indications that
  we will get at least two credible bids at prices
  better than expected and able to meet our
  schedule

11
Production Workflow

• 6.8.1 Forward It was noted that different yields
  for different sensor sizes can perturb the
  production workflow.
• We are aware of this and can deal with it by
  revising workflow if required
• We are also working with the sensor vendor to
  make sure that this problem doesnt occur
• We will be receiving the first of the three
  shipments of sensors very soon

12
Concentration of Resources

• 6.9.6 The committee noted the recent rapid
  advances, with some parts of the process, such as
  plaquette assembly and testing already well
  understood. However, much work remains to be
  done.
• Agree and note recent progress on panel assembly
  and testing
• 6.9.7 The committee felt that concentration of
  production activities and personnel in the few
  centres with proven experience would be wise,
  given the challenges facing the project. This is
  also the best way to integrate new personnel at
  short notice.
• Believe that is being done. There have certainly
  been no changes to the production plan in the
  last year

13
Systems Test

• 6.10.1 The committee was pleased to see the
  preparations for system testing of the barrel,
  beginning imminently, and noted that the forward
  project is on-track to reach the same state of
  preparation in about a years time.
• 6.10.7 Forward system tests should aim to reach
  the same level of realism as System-12 in early
  06.
• We expect to have a full readout chain for a
  panel including the adapter card very soon. That
  will be quickly followed by the test of a blade.
  We feel that these are the key system tests.
• We note the plan, advocated by tracker management
  and adopted by FPIX, to redo the service
  cylinder with an embedded mesh ground grid is a
  recent idea that will require some additional
  work, cost and time. It is not on the critical
  path.

14
Radiation Tolerance

• 6.11.1 The committee recommended a further check
  that radiation tolerance issues are understood
  for all components
• We will do that
• We are setting up a spread sheet to document what
  is known through our own tests and the work of
  others.
• We will use it to determine what has yet to be
  proven
• We are carefully documenting new tests

15
Integration with BCM/PLT

• 6.12.2 Integration of the BCM and proposed
  luminosity monitor structures needs urgent work.
• We are in frequent contact with the designers

16
Common QA/QC

• 6.12.9 Establish and document common procedures
  for QA/QC
• We are developing a detailed plan. Aaron
  Dominguez of University of Nebraska is
  coordinating the various aspects of this
• We are in close cosultation with PSI

17
Databases

• 6.13.1 Take care to avoid unwieldy structures,
  which could cause drag on online operation speed.
   
• 6.13.2 Maintain coherence with overall CMS
  database policy. (Single point of contact for
  both barrel and forward?).
• We are trying to make sure that the database
  developers are aware of requirements, including
  schedule requirements and throughput. We are
  advocating light-weight solutions, but this is
  not always a CMS approach (in my humble opinion)
• We do try to adhere to overall CMS policy and
  maintain contact with key policy makers
• The workshop should help ensure we are moving in
  the right direction

18
Grounding

• 6.14.1 Aluminium components in both barrel and
  endcap be allodined or otherwise plated.
• We have investigated Alodining and will do it as
  part of an updated overall grounding strategy
  recommended by tracker management
• 6.14.2 Conductivity issues in the carbon fibre
  support structures be investigated (pulser
  tests?)
• ????

19
Survey

• 6.16.1 Setting goals to establish relative
  internal initial positions and bulk object
  absolute dimensions and suggests considering this
  at a future review. 
• We have assigned additional people to our
  alignment team and they will work with CMS to
  specify goals and then to develop an alignment
  plan for the detector that is compatible with and
  supports CMS ongoing efforts in this area
• 6.16.2 Defining responsibility for placement and
  survey
• This is at FNAL. We have an engineer who is
  developing a written plan that was presented at
  this workshop (for discussion)
• 6.16.3 Actively controlling that the detector is
  within defined integration envelope e.g. to
  ensure beampipe supports locate correctly.
• Keeping in close touch with designers at CERN

20
Safety

• 6.17.1 Approval for use of the Be substrate by
  CERN SC is VERY URGENT. Christoph Schaefer
  should be contacted for assistance if required.
• An extensive report has been written by Bruno and
  has been submitted to Christoph Schafer
• The report has been passed on to CERN Safety and
  we have received comments from Jonathon Gulley
• We believe that we can successfully respond to
  these comments over the next two weeks and will
  do so in an EMAIL and also by revising and
  extending the report. Presentation by Bruno

21
Completion and Commissioning

• 6.18.4 Similarly, for the forward system, the
  objective of completing the final 3-disk
  configuration, in the first round of upgrades for
  high luminosity, should be born in mind in the
  planning and procurements for the current
  initial detector configuration.
• Since the 2-disk system is a descope, there is
  provision for the third disk in the service
  cylinder, in the placement of electronics, and in
  cabling

22
2007

• 6.18.5 As a corollary to the above comments, the
  committee nevertheless supports the concept that,
  resources permitting, the pixel project should
  aim to exploit an LHC pilot run in 2007 to
  integrate the pixel system at the CMS DAQ, DCS,
  DSS, monitoring and data reconstruction level and
  to obtain operational experience under LHC
  running conditions. The installation of a
  subsystem of the pixel detector consisting of a
  few modules of various types, together with the
  BCM, for the 2007 pilot run should thus be
  seriously considered.
• The forward pixel group has a plan to put in a
  few (2-4) blades from our pre-production on one
  side of the IR in 2007. Incremental funding above
  what is produced in the natural course of
  preparing for production will be provided by MO
  funds. The growth in the size of the group makes
  this possible
• The barrel group has proposed that they could
  make components available to install provided
  personnel to install and operate it can be
  supplied by the forward group. This would be a
  big step in integration. It would require people
  from the forward group to spend significant time
  at PSI to plan this activity and participate in
  the testing of these modules. Funding has been
  made available through the MO project to support
  this. We will be trying to identify people to do
  this