Run IIb Project Status

1
Run IIb Project Status

• Vivian ODell

2
Run IIb Upgrade Project

• Project Status Overview
• Ingredients of the upgrade
• Baselined Costs
• Management
• Current Status
• Cost
• Schedule
• Response to July Directors review

3
Run IIb Luminosity Projections
2.8e32 peak 8 fb-1 integrated
Accelerator draft plan Peak luminosities
D0 Peak AS 9.35E31
Peak Luminosity (x1030cm-2sec-1)
D0 Peak BS 9.36E31
Upgrade installation
4
Run IIb upgrade

• Project consists of
• New Silicon Layer Zero detector
• inner layer of silicon
• Mitigate tracking losses due to radiation damage
  and detector aging
• Provide more robust tracking and pattern
  recognition for higher luminosities
• Improve impact parameter resolution
• Trigger Upgrade
• Complete upgrade program to keep trigger rates
  down as luminosity increases
• L1 upgrades (Calorimeter, Central Track Trigger,
  Cal Trk-Match)
• L2 upgrades (Silicon Track Trigger, L2 b
  processors)
• New electronics for central fiber tracker (AFE
  II)
• Helps tracking efficiency in higher
  luminosity/occupancy environment
• Not (yet?) formally part of the project more on
  this later
• DAQ/Online upgrade
• Upgrade needed to handle higher luminosities
• Upgrade level 3 processing power, database host
  servers, control systems
• Most of the technical work on this is done.
• Still buying computing (ALAP)

5
Run IIb Upgrade Organization

• Installation /commissioning not formally part of
  the project
• Clearly important
• We have a structure in place working on this
• More on this later in this talk
• Project personnel are overseeing installation
• Recently added L1 Calorimeter installation
  management team (see talk by Darien Wood)
• Will be updating org chart soon

6
Silicon Layer Ø

• Universities on DØ-LØ
• Brown
• California State,Fresno
• CINVESTAV Mexico
• Fermilab
• University of Illinois Chicago
• Kansas State University
• Kansas University
• Louisiana Tech University
• Michigan State University
• Moscow State University
• Northwestern University
• Rice University
• University of Rochester
• SUNY-Stony Brook
• University of Washington

See talks by A. Nomerotski/W. Cooper
7
Run IIb Trigger Upgrade

• Level 1
• Calorimeter trigger upgrade
• sharpens turn-on trigger thresholds
• more topological cuts
• Calorimeter track-match
• fake EM rejection
• tau trigger
• L1 tracking trigger upgrade (CTT)
• improved tracking rejection especially at higher
  occupancies
• Level 2
• L2 Processor upgrades for more complex algorithms
• Silicon Track Trigger expansion
• More processing power
• use trigger inputs from new silicon layer Ø
• New Readout Electronics for Central Fiber Tracker
• Not yet part of the project

See talks by B. P. Padley D. Wood E. Barberis
8
Central Fiber Tracker readout upgrade (AFE II)

• AFE II TriPT will
• Improve noise floor and pedestal stability
• Better hit efficiency
• Addresses analog readout saturation issues
• Readout architecture much more flexible
• Added functionality of the TriPT (z information)
• Significant reduction in track reconstruction
  time
• RD for AFE II is going well
• AFE TRiP and TripT all currently under test
• This is not formally part of the Run IIb upgrade
  program
• Need internal DØ review
• Part I held 12/06/05
• Part II held 1/24/2005
• Reviewers working on report
• If review is positive, the project would like to
  review the cost/schedule estimates
• After completing cost/schedule review ask for
  formal laboratory review
• If all reviews positive, then will go ahead with
  project
• Have earmarked Run IIb project money for this
• 1.47M 0.7M Contingency

See talk by P. Rubinov
9
Installation/Commissioning

• Installation and commissioning is NOT part of the
  Run IIb project
• However project people are heavily involved in
  planning and overseeing installation and
  commissioning
• Costs are not born by the project must come out
  of operating
• Installation tasks are not reported on in the
  same way as the project
• However, we do have a fully resource loaded
  schedule
• But this is a living document as we learn about
  installation
• The schedule has been run through COBRA
• We can get fully burdened costs, etc with the lab
  cost management tool
• Schedule recently extensively updated to include
  what we have learned from the L0 aperture
  measurements
• Results are very preliminary we are still
  reviewing this
• With new information on installing Layer 0, total
  collision hall access 14 weeks
• Previous schedule had detector closed after 10
  weeks
• Project plan includes full system technical
  commissioning before installation
• Some preparatory work was done in the FY04
  shutdown
• Some layer 0 infrastructure installed
• CTT/L1 Cal infrastructure for pre-installation
  commissioning
• Installation/Commissioning schedule includes all
  installation and commissioning tasks needed to
  bring the system up
• Project on track for installation during 2005
  shutdown
• Again, we request flexibility in shutdown
  scheduling

See talk by R. Smith
See talk by G. Blazey
10
Cost Analysis

• Status of Project Cost

11
DZero RunIIb Directors Review
Total Project Costs, burdened AY k as
rebaselined January 2004
Includes MRI InKind RD over lifetime of the
project
12
DZero RunIIb Directors Review
Total DOE MIE Costs, burdened AY k as
rebaselined January 2004
Includes AFEII costs 1.47M in trigger costs
0.7M in contingency This is the rebaselined total
for the project Estimated AFE cost (2.1M) is in
the trigger profile
13
Project Reporting

• Vehicles for reporting
• Use MS Project to track progress of project
• Monthly updates by L2/L3 managers
• Update complete/forecast dates
• Use parts of COBRA (lab project reporting
  machinery)
• reports actual costs/baseline scheduled
  value/earned value
• Monthly reports
• Monthly reports to Lab and DOE management
• Include milestones/costs/obligations
• Change requests
• Generated whenever there is a significant change
  in project
• Schedule
• Cost
• Scope

14
Cost Performance Report 12/31/05
15
Cost profile plots by L2 (Trigger)
PO in place (Cost Accrued)
Cumulative to 12/31 BCWS 1,475 ACWP 839 BCWP
1,496 BAC 2,182
16
Cumulative SPI/CPI (Trigger)

• SPI BCWP/BCWS, CPI BCWP/ACWP
• Spending largely at Universities
• Accounting done by accruing according to earned
  value
• Can only accrue if a PO is in place

17
Cost profile plots by L2 (Online)
Cumulative to 12/31 BCWS 557 ACWP 101 BCWP
497 BAC 973
18
Cumulative SPI/CPI (Online)

• SPI BCWP/BCWS, CPI BCWP/ACWP
• Labor has not been charged off properly
• working to fix this now
• Some large purchases not yet invoiced

19
Cost profile plots by L2 (Layer 0)
Cumulative to 12/31 BCWS 791 ACWP 592 BCWP
747 BAC 980
20
Cumulative SPI/CPI (Layer 0)

• SPI BCWP/BCWS, CPI BCWP/ACWP
• Most of the DOE MIE cost is in Fermilab labor

21
DOE MIE Current Spending Estimate To Completion
22
Silicon Closeout, ETC
DOE MIE Only

• Silicon Closeout complete
• 607k under budget
• Not all invoicing complete, but the obligations
  are complete. This is the final Silicon Closeout
  cost.

23
Updated Cost and Contingency

• Average contingency at L3
• Estimated on tasks to go at deeper levels
• Large uncertainty on AFEII costs
• Not yet reviewed by project
• The money set aside for the AFEII is from the
  original estimate
• Once we complete the AFEII review we will have a
  better estimate
• Installation costs still fermenting
• Installation is off project
• We want to ensure that installation is paid for!

24
Cost Contingency for Project Admin (1.4)

• Project Administration
• FY03 BAC 284k, ACWP 129k
• Project office began later in FY03 than we
  thought it would
• FY04 BAC 222k, ACWP 231k (4 high)
• FY05 BAC 229k, ACWP 48.6k
• FY06 BAC 118k (full salaries until 03/06)
• Most of project completed by 12/05.
• Depending on AFE, may need project office beyond
  this, but at a much reduced level
• Not sure what is needed for project closeout
• Estimate
• Adjusted BAC (removing additional FY03 money)
• 854.5 155.4 699.1
• Contingency
• Schedule contingency
• Assume 5 months at current cost (18.5k/month)
  92.5k
• Cost contingency on ETC
• About 10 from past experience
• Total contingency in of 122k (42 )

25
Contributions to the Projected Cost Underruns by
Subproject

• Silicon closeout is done. We know the underrun
  here.
• Substantial savings of 607k.
• New trigger estimate shows a potential savings
• We were conservative with the original estimate.
• Online systems estimate based on current prices
  and known work
• This estimate will pay for the Run IIb scope
• Ongoing replacement of L3 nodes is an issue
  should be paid from operating after RunIIb scope
  complete
• We cant forget about this!
• Layer 0 original estimate was very conservative.
• We feel comfortable with this current estimate
• Most of the Project Administration underrun is
  due to the underrun in FY03.
• We have not reviewed and updated the AFEII
  project cost. We are uncomfortable with reducing
  our total contingency until we do this.

26
Schedule Analysis

• Status of Project Schedule

27
Project Schedule Directors Milestones
28
Float Analysis since Rebaselining

• workdays current forecast date is ahead of L1
  DOE Milestone date by month

29
Schedule and Float

• From previous 2 slides we learned
• Online float/schedule fairly stable
• Good confidence in schedule and cost here
• Reworked cost/schedule to coincide with changed
  philosophy
• Earmarked some contingency for possible
  additional L3 nodes see Stus talk.
• Silicon Layer 0 float/schedule fairly flat
• But just now going into module production will
  learn a lot about the schedule in the next 2
  months or so
• We will revisit the schedule float as we get more
  information from module production
• L1 trigger float/schedule has some interesting
  features
• Downward slope caused mainly by ADF delays
• Prototype board is now under test and PRR is
  scheduled for Feb 11.
• Current tests look good.
• Some delays also in the CTT
• PRR recently held, DFEA2s should be going into
  production soon
• BU has recently added additional effort for
  debugging and testing at Fermilab
• L2 trigger has slid down as well
• Due to L2 STT slipping this is partially due to
  taking time to understand the TFC situation
  before moving ahead
• This is not an issue.
• L2 Beta has also slipped effect of wanting to
  buy processors as late as possible.

30
What does this mean?

• Pacing items
• L1 Cal Trigger
• Many delays in design and layout of ADF
• Part of this will be made up in one less
  prototype cycle
• 1st prototype ADF v2 has been tested and works
  well
• PRR for ADF scheduled for Feb 11
• First module of production run scheduled to be
  tested mid-March
• L1 CTT
• Runs neck and neck with L1 Cal as pacing item
• Critical path is DFEA2 boards
• Recently had PRR
• Will likely enter production soon
• First module of production run scheduled to be
  tested mid-May
• L0 Silicon
• Module production has begun
• Start installing modules April 1 so towards the
  end of April we will have learned a lot about the
  integration effort. L0 folks are focused on the
  schedule risks.
• Installation fixturing is also a pacing item,
  although in principle not part of the project.
• Lots of understanding of installation/fixturing
  developed after 04 shutdown
• We will understand our schedule much better after
  these items

31
Response to July Review

• Response to July Review

32
Directors Review Cost Schedule

• Cost Recommendations
• Performance management indicators do not
  consistently reflect actual costs for the work
  that has been completed. The area with the
  largest discrepancies is for work being done at
  the universities for which invoices have not been
  received. More effort should be put into getting
  estimated expenditures from the universities so
  the costs can be more accurately estimated and
  accrued, so a more detailed analysis of the cost
  variances can be performed to determine if
  corrective actions are required.
• This has been fixed. We are now accruing costs at
  Universities according to reported earned value,
  providing they have a PO in place. In addition
  Universities are required to request
  authorization for any spending on approved codes
  larger than 1,500 and for any overspending on
  their project of any amount so that we can track
  any costing issues.
• Schedule Recommendations
• Pitch Adapters for Layer 0 Silicon Detector were
  not part of original scope and have been added to
  the work, are in the prototype state and are
  being paid on MRI funds. This scope of work was
  not added via a Change Request and not added to
  the schedule. Currently there are issues in the
  prototype phase. This additional scope could have
  impact on the schedule for Layer 0. The Pitch
  Adapter should be added to the project scope via
  the Change Control process and then added into
  the project schedule.
• This has been done. See Change Request. Both
  and schedule impact are minimal.
• Layer 0 has Ready to Move milestone with a
  baseline schedule milestone of 5/25/06 an
  aggressive schedule date of 7/21/05. Layer 0
  Management forecasts an approximate 2 months
  earlier completion date, but they have not
  modifying the aggressive/working schedule. The
  aggressive/working schedule should be modified to
  reflect the current forecast for work completion.
• This has been done. The Silicon Layer 0 project
  file contains the most up to date thinking on
  milestone forecast dates.

33
Directors Review Cost Schedule (Continued)

• Schedule Recommendations (Continued)
• The four DOE Level 1 Milestones in the PEP have
  the same completion dates for the equivalent
  Level II Directorate's Milestones, which does not
  allow any contingency between the milestones. To
  minimize the risk of the Level 1 milestone dates
  being missed, a heightened level of awareness
  needs to be adopted for these four milestones.
  This can be addressed by emphasizing these
  milestones separately in the Project's Monthly
  Report. Additionally, the Directorate should
  assess whether or not the dates of the equivalent
  Level 2 Directorate Milestones should be modified
  to allow float between the Level 1 and Level 2
  milestones.
• This has been addressed by adding a section to
  the monthly report, highlighting the four DOE
  Level 1 Milestones. We have not modified the
  dates of the L2 Directors milestones for this.
• There were several examples of variances between
  the current working schedule and how work will be
  performed. There are concerns from the project
  management that the effort to update the
  schedules and costing tool for the smaller
  changes could be difficult with the present level
  of project office support. The Project Manger
  should address this concern as soon as possible.
• We have updated these areas. We are trying to
  make do with the level of support we have.

34
Directors Review - Management

• Recommendations
• Resolve the issues about DOE Headquarters/DOE
  Field Office/Directorate milestones.
• Done. (addressed in previous slides)
• Include all tasks (ex pitch adapter) in the
  project schedule.
• Done. (addressed in previous slides)
• Formalize the L0 Silicon testing plan after May
  05 (end of production) and before the 05
  shutdown.
• We are working on this. See talk by A.
  Nomerotski.
• Initiate communications with Division Heads and
  Directorate to obtain manpower resources in an
  appropriate manner.
• We have addressed this. We have already received
  support from PPD for the AFE upgrade and for help
  at SiDet.
• Insure availability of key personnel at SiDet for
  the L0 Assembly during the 04 shutdown.
• We have addressed this.
• Present a plan for the assessment and analysis of
  the risks connected with the L0 Installation.
• This is being actively worked on, especially in
  light of the Layer 0 aperture measurements. See
  talk by W. Cooper.

35
Conclusions (I)

• Project is making impressive technical progress
• All trigger components are either in production
  or very close to it.
• This is good news!
• Layer Ø continues to move quickly
• Module production has begun
• Online systems have redesigned server options
• Allows us to take full advantage of Moores law
• These changes have been put into the project
  plan, and a change request will be forthcoming
• Costs are under control
• Tools in place to understand and track them
• Full project on schedule for 2005 installation
• We would like the lab to remain flexible in
  scheduling the shutdown

36
Conclusions (II)

• Installation/Commissioning plans have been
  revisited
• Learned a lot about Layer 0 installation during
  FY04 shutdown
• Also reworked the L1 Cal trigger installation
  with input from the project
• Resource loaded installation schedule exists and
  we continue to update it as our understanding
  matures
• New installation cost estimates from COBRA
• We would like some reassurance that the
  installation costs will be covered by the lab
• We would like to have some flexibility in
  assigning installation tasks
• e. g. U of Washington is designing support
  fixtures we would like to be able to pay their
  engineering and MS costs from an installation
  budget
• SC-IPC (Standing Committee on Installation to
  Physics Commissioning) has studied the additional
  effort needed for DZero to return to physics
  running after installation