ibl project introduction - istituto nazionale di fisica...

IBL Kick-off Meeting - Introduction G. Darbo – INFN / Genova IBL kick-off Meeting, 8 July 2009 o

IBL Project Introduction

IBL Kick-off Meeting Thoiry, July 8th

G. Darbo - INFN / Genova

Indico AGENDA page: •  http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=56905

IBL Kick-off Meeting - Introduction G. Darbo – INFN / Genova IBL kick-off Meeting, 8 July 2009 2

Welcome   This kick-off meeting aims to:

•  Have together the IBL Management Board and the Institute Leaders

•  Present the status of the design and of the resources that needs: human and money

•  Have a feedback from Institutes how contribution could come: what are the wishes in the deliverables and task to cover

•  See what in the project is over covered and what is not

•  Define a baseline of the IBL construction MoU

  This meeting is important for the IBL to converge and to become a real project


IBL kick-off Meeting – Draft Agenda   9:00 – Introduction – G.Darbo (20 min)

•  What is IBL project – first project in the upgrade phase I – deliver a 4th layer for the pixel detector – model of resources

•  Scope of the meeting   9:30 – Technical Presentation of IBL project - H. Pernegger (30 min)

•  Where exists a technical baseline •  Where are open technical options and what are the planned steps for a convergence •  Where technical solutions have not discussed or are very little developed •  Manpower figure

10:15 Coffee Break   10:45 Project Cost – G. Darbo (20 min)   11:15 Round table – “Wishes and Interest of Institutes” – Chair C. Gößling 12:45 Lunch   14:15 Sharing of Work – “Interactive Session” G.Darbo, C. Gößling

•  Fill online a table with work sharing – “the big picture” •  Keep note of inputs from round table

16:45 Coffee Break   17:15 Memorandum of Understanding – M.Nordberg

•  What should be inside – look at ATLAS construction MoU •  How to map “the big picture” into the MoU

  18:00 End of the meeting


IBL Organization   The IBL (Insertable B-Layer) is an ATLAS Upgrade project:

•  It will deliver a fourth pixel layer, including a new beam-pipe, to the Inner Detector •  When delivered, it will become a part of the Pixel Detector and of the Inner Detector

and the organization will be “absorbed” into the Pixel & ID   The organization structure has:

•  IBL MB: Management Board to execute the project •  IBL IB: Institute Board, which starts today as an extension of the existing Pixel IB and

will be chaired by C, Goessling.

Module WG

IBL MB (Management Board)

Stave WG

I&I WG

Off-det WG

IBL IB (Institute Board)

Pixel Institutes

in IBL

New Institutes

in IBL

ATLAS UPO

ATLAS UPGRADE

IBL

IBL PL IBL TC


Management Board (MB)

Module WG (2 coordinators)

• FE-I4 • Sensors • Bump-Bonding • Modules • Test & QC • Irradiation

Stave WG (1 Phys + 1 Eng.)

• Staves • Cooling Design & Stave Thermal Management • HDI • Internal Services • Loaded Stave • Test & QC

IBL Integr.-Install. (2 Eng.)

• Stave Integration • Global Sup. • Beam Pipe (BP) • Ext.services inst. • IBL+BP Installation • Cooling Plant • Test & QC

Off-detector (1 Phys + 1 E.Eng.)

• Power • DCS • ROD • Opto-link • Ext.serv.design/proc. • Test Beam • System Test

IBL Management Board Membership: • IBL PL + IBL TC • 2 coordinators from each WG • Plus “extra” members

Ad-interim membership IBL Project Leader: G. Darbo IBL Technical Coordinator: H. Pernegger “Module” WG (2 Physicists): F. Hügging & M. Garcia-Sciveres “Stave” WG (1 Phy. + 1 M.E.): O. Rohne + D. Giugni “IBL Assembly & Installation” WG (2 M.E. initially, a Phy. Later): N. Hartman + R. Vuillermet “Off-detector” WG (1 Phy. + 1 E.E.): T. Flick + S. Débieux “Extra” members: Ex officio: Upgrade Coordinator (N. Hessey), PO Chair (M. Nessi), Pixel PL (B. Di Girolamo), ID PL (P. Wells), Pixel Chair (C. Gößling) Offline “liaison” Pixel Off-line coordinator: A. Andreazza TDR editor (temporary): K. Einsweiler


MB & WG Operation IBL organization is starting up:   Management Board (IBL MB)

•  Weekly meeting on Monday – closed meeting – issues tracking

  The 4 Working groups (WG) cover the whole project: •  WG1 – Module •  WG2 – Stave •  WG3 – Integration & Installation •  WG4 – Off-detector

  Mailing lists – open subscription to ATLAS active members •  IBL General: [email protected] •  WG1: [email protected] (alias [email protected]) •  WG2: [email protected] (alias [email protected])

(it was the [email protected]) •  WG3: [email protected] (alias [email protected]) •  WG4: [email protected] (alias [email protected])

•  To subscribe: https://e-groups.cern.ch/


Collaborative Workspace https://espace.cern.ch/atlas-ibl/default.aspx


IBL Cost   Total cost 9.6 MCH:

•  Use this cost to “shape the project” – revise when better understanding of the design (TDR)

•  Funding Model: M&O-A, M&O-B, New project money •  In discussion with the RRB scrutiny group the sharing in the 3 categories •  The IBL WBS with costing details will be presented in my next talk


When is IBL Ready to Install?   Difficult answer…:

•  In February (AUW) we have been told that the installation date was delayed by one year •  End of 2012 -> end to 2013

•  Today we feel that the 2013 is optimistic •  Earliest starting date for Phase I is the 2013/2014 shutdown. •  The availability of LINAC4 (around 2014) will define the shutdown for

Phase I, upgrade, when the IBL would be installed. •  The Upgrade Project Office (May 12th) suggests to use 2014/2015 as a

guideline for the IBL installation date. •  We are now working with a schedule that foresee an installation date in

2014/2015 •  The FE-I4 and Sensor/Module are on the critical path, and installing earlier

than 2014/2015 would require some compromises in the performance.


What to Discuss Today

  Define the “big picture” of the coverage of the whole project. •  What is covered by interested groups and what is not •  See where there are conflicts – can we solve some? •  Use the “cost” and “funding model” to size the sharing between countries and

institutes •  Annotate input from the discussion (and then from FA) to further develop the

project


Contributions to the Project   Contributions to the project could come as:

•  Participating Institute – M&O-B/New-project •  Sensor, Hybridisation, Electronics, Stave & TM, Integration, part of

mechanics •  Leading Institute(s) , Contributing Institutes , Interested Institutes "•  Leading must be one or maximum two institutes •  Leading and Contributed institutes will cover a fraction of the cost for the

given WBS package. Interested Institutes are not charged money/in kind contribution "

•  Participation through the Upgrade Project Office – M&O-A •  Beam-pipe, IBL insertion/beam-pipe extraction, cooling plant, external

services, power supply, DAQ … •  Central design – possible in-kind contribution to deliverables (reduction

of M&O-A contribution)


Some “Envelopes” to Shape Participation

  IBL Total Cost: 9.6 MCH •  M&O-A: 4.0 MCH •  M&O-B (for Countries with “pixel M&O-B” budget line – listed in the table): 4.4 MCH

•  CZ, F, D-BMBF, D-DESY, I, RZ, US, CERN •  New project contributions: 1.2 MCH

•  CH, E, N, NL, UK

  IBL M&O-B: 4.4 MCH •  There are not a-priory boundaries

amongst Countries – use as reference the old Pixel CORE to evaluate how countries are consolidated in the “pixel technology” needed for IBL

•  FA will have in “mind” the old CORE contribution in financing the project.

  IBL New project: 1.2 MCH •  New money is needed and new Countries are interested and have the key

technical expertise to be added.

OLD Pixel CORE Sharing


Matching Responsibilities, Deliverables & Money

  Contribution in funds to the project to match taken responsibilities and deliverables:

•  ~80 % covered from Leading and Participant Institutes (through their FA) •  ~20 % are “tax” - weighted on the fraction of the total contribution

  There are 3 large common orders (2.5 MCH) •  Sensors (0.5 MCH) – Spread in cost for different technologies (0.3 to 1.6

MCH) from planar, 3D and diamond. •  Spread the cost to several countries – everybody interested in sensors

– readjust in the future

•  FE-I4 (1.35 MCH) - Bonn and LBNL (Leading) have large contribution, CPPM, Genova and Nikhef contribute. Geneva propose itself as “big” contributor.

•  Bump-bonding (0.65 MCH) – We need two vendors qualified for a tender. There are no reasons to have two for production (small quantity).


“Implicit” Rules   IBL project is appealing to an Institute if:

•  Has continuity of contribution from prototyping, design, construction, qualification till commissioning and running of the detector

•  A deliverable (or part of a deliverable) is associated to the money that is put in •  can use resources existing in the lab or can help in increasing the technical/engineering expertise.

  Detector is small and we could be tempted into doing many early assembly steps (module assembly, bare stave assembly, stave loading with modules, cooling plant, internal services) in a centralized place.

•  Could seem a more efficient way to get a better performing detector…

  … but it would not work, because: •  CORE detector and leading technical expertise is spread in many labs, and we (and the labs) would

loose such expertise with this construction model •  Funding Agencies would be very sensitive, and would react negatively to finance a project with this

construction model

  Rule: do as much as possible in the labs, and when designing keep in mind this as a strong constraint!

•  Only detector integration and large system test need to be centralized in a single place.


Explicit Rule: MoU   The IBL project cannot be constructed on “Taxes”:

•  M&O-B and New project money will come only when an MoU will be signed

  MoU means that the construction responsibilities are clearly defined and accepted by the players in the game:

•  Funding Agencies will not release money if they will not see a corresponding role of their Institutes in the IBL project

•  Keep this in mind when later today we will tentatively assign construction responsibilities

  MoU will finally define •  Construction responsibilities •  Contribution to deliverables and funds


Scheme to Help Convergence   Use IBL WBS (mainly deliverable based) to associate Institutes using 3

categories: •  Leading Institute(s) : one or max two – resources and money

contribution •  Contributing Institutes : resources and money contribution •  Interested Institutes : do not bring money

•  Leading institutes need fair balance with: •  Expertiese on the item and technical background •  Resources available – potentially available •  Contribution in money from the own Country

•  Use the cost in the WBS in assigning WBS packages to Leading/Contributing institutes


Practicality: Template

  Select WBS: •  Assign Institutes (1 , 2 , 3 ) •  Assign percentage of money contribution (MO-B/New Project) •  Leave a tax: flexibility to the project, or in case of low package coverage •  Evaluate conflict level •  M&O-A items can be taken in kind and money contribution will be deducted.

ibl project introduction - istituto nazionale di fisica...

Documents