Question 1 1. How is the sub-project going to align the US-CMS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• 1. How is the sub-project going to align the US-CMS

deliverables with the international milestones and

• constraints. What is the plan for reacting to changes in those?

For USCMS, we plan to revise, by CD1, our resource-loaded schedule with appropriate milestones that we believe are realistic and achievable technically and with our expected resources, and external constraints including consideration of international CMS milestones. For deliverables where we drive the international milestones, we expect to be able to strongly influence the exact date or definition of the international

• milestone. For cases where an international milestone is

delayed, e.g. delivery of production of HGCROC, we would need to submit a US Change Request after CD2, or prior to CD2, work with the Project Office to update our RLS appropriately.

1

Question 1

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1

• 2. If you intend to be tightly coupled with the international

milestones, what is the path to changing any milestones if it becomes clear that they are not realistic?

We do not intend to be tightly coupled with the international CMS HGCAL milestones. The USCMS milestones, which will be updated by CD1, will be realistic and achievable technically and with our expected resources, and external constraints including consideration of international CMS milestones. We expect that at least some of the international CMS milestones will evolve with time. For the international CMS milestones that we believe are unrealistic, we will discuss with them to convince them to make them

• consistent. In our previous experience, international CMS is reasonable

and have in the past changed the exact definition of their milestone, or for example in Phase 1, split a (common) Production Readiness Review into multiple ones for different components when delays have occurred.

2

Question 2

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1

• 3. What is the process and timeline for deciding if the ECON will

be one ASIC or two?

• Basic process: evaluate advantages / disadvantages of both options, decide plan within

USCMS, present plan to CMS; involve CMS in process appropriately to improve efficiency

–

M&S cost comparison: packaging, Si area, test infrastructure

• Responsible for evaluating: Hirschauer et al
• Labor cost comparison: chip design, test infrastructure design
• Responsible for evaluating: Hoff, Deptuch, Hirschauer, et al
• Risk comparison: cost difference for additional MPW run (DAQ/trigger ECON vs

single ECON)

• Responsible for evaluating: Hirschauer, et al
• Flexibility : obtain simpler DAQ chip (no algo, no lpGBT outputs) first, variety of

trigger:DAQ ratios on motherboard,

• Responsible for evaluating: All, input from international CMS
• Timeline: The evaluation can be completed by February 9, 2018. The results will be

incorporated in an updated planning for CD-1 regardless of the outcome.

3

Question 3

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1

What is the R&D needed between now and the CD-1 review to be able to have confidence in the cost range?

• Little or no R&D per se is needed to have confidence

in the CD-1 cost range.

• ~1/3 of the total cost is in silicon sensors, whose cost is not

sensitive to R&D

• The cost driver for module and cassette production is labor.

Additional information about the labor required will be gained from assembly work on the mockup

• The scintillator system is reasonably well understood based on

prior experience (HE/HB, CALICE)

• Electronics are relatively straightforward – not subject of R&D, just

systematic design effort

4

Question #4 (1)

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1

• The main effort required to increase confidence in the

cost range involves factors such as

• Finalizing configuration details (e.g. the layout of and therefore the

number of different types of motherboards)

• Completing analysis of existing cost data (e.g. the actual time

required to manufacture the mockup cooling plate)

• Updating quotes for material costs where appropriate.
• The timescale for the R&D program is that of CD-2:
• Defining the precise designs that will be baselined
• Narrowing the CD-1 cost range to a baseline CD-2 cost estimate.

5

Question #4 (2)

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1

We were shown simulatjons with an outdated geometry and confjguratjon. What is the plan and tjmescale for a simulatjon that validates the design you are planning to build, in advance of CD-1? The standalone simulatjon refmects the geometry descriptjon of the TDR. This simulatjon, together with an earlier version of the geometry, validates that the design will allow us to achieve similar physics performance as for Run 2. The earlier version of the geometry had square cells and a coarser transverse cell size than the geometry described in the TDR, it did not include gaps between sensors, and it fjlled in the

• uter edges more completely than we might have. The results from these two sets of simulatjons indicate

that we achieve the necessary physics performance. While the simulatjon cannot answer all optjmizatjon questjons, it is suffjcient to validate the identjfjed baseline as meetjng the physics requirements. The implementatjon of the geometry of the TDR, already validated by the standalone simulatjon, into the full CMS reconstructjon will make marginal changes to the results from the earlier full reconstructjon. We expect that the fjner granularity of the TDR geometry will further improve the reconstructjon performance while introducing dead area around the sensors would lead to some degradatjon. We do not expect that updatjng the simulatjon to include mixed cassetues would impact the performance since the results in the TP were obtained with a coarser geometry in the BH sectjon. We can test the impact of introducing dead regions and compare the intrinsic resolutjon for electrons, photons, and hadrons without gaps before CD1. We also expect to have the completed physics analyses available for the TDR available by the end of December which would further validate the design. Updatjng the geometry and having a full Pfmow reconstructjon available will involve signifjcant structural changes and reconstructjon development which we do not expect to be ready by the tjme of CD1.

6

Question 5

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1

• What is the physics impact of eliminating all of the half-

modules?

– Partial-modules are used at inner and outer radii

corresponding to high and low eta, as well as in the transition region at the silicon and scintillator module

• boundary. The fraction of partial modules is generally not
• small. For example, in plane 20 in CE-E, 66 are partial vs

282 full modules.

– Impact of elimination of partial modules is more severe in

the inner radius because particle density per geometric area is higher.

– Tagging jets from VBF events peak around |eta|~3, thus

losing coverage resulting in degradation of jet energy resolution and MET. At this eta, half a module corresponds to Δη~0.2 which is sizable.

7

Question 6

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1

Example: Plane 20

• 7. Clarify the cold test plan for the 10 completed

cassettes, including what equipment is needed.

• Throughput of cassette production facility is 10 cassettes/wk.
• Cold test facility has two objectives:
• Verify connectivity after cooldown.
• Collect MIP tracks from cosmic rays for initial commissioning.
• Two week cycle for cold testing.
• Equipment needed for cold test:
• Cold box with capacity for 10 cassettes: already accounted in 402.4.5.2.
• 10 cassettes × 18 fibers/cassette = 180 fibers
• Spec for backend boards is to read 96 fibers → need two DAQ boards

for cold test.

• Assume 300 hrs of FW engineering to adapt for cold test stand.
• Two DAQ boards (2 × $30k) require one [small] ATCA crate ($15k) and
• ne DTH control board ($25k). Plus cables and connectors, DAQ PC,

estimate $112k.

• Needs to be added to cassettes WBS 402.4.5.2.

9

Cold test plan

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1

• 8. Silicon is the dominant cost driver. We understand

that the current basis of estimate is more than three years old. What is the plan for updating the cost estimate prior to CD-1?

• The base cost estimate, which based on a quote from October 2015,

will not be updated in advance of CD-1, but it will be fully updated before CD-2 as part of the planned market survey. The purchase of the silicon is organized in common by CERN through a vendor negotiation which includes the full endcap calorimeter requirements. We consider the cost estimate to be solid, with the primary uncertainties from the centrally-calculated exchange-rate

• uncertainties. We use the more-expensive p-on-n as the baseline

costs, but include one opportunity in risk register that we can use the n-on-p for 300um modules, which would result in a cost savings of 900k.

10

Silicon cost

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1

The HL-LHC Upgrade Project has a defined configuration management plan as documented in https://cms-docdb.cern.ch/cgi-bin/DocDB/ShowDocum ent?docid=12907 Before the CD-1 Director’s review, the Endcap Calorimeter L2 area will produce formal requirements tables and an interface control document in the project-standard format. These documents will be included in the project-wide document-management system.

11

Configuration Management

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1

The high-level design-maturity evaluation was presented in the L2 summary talk. As a preparation for the CD-1 Director’s review, the endcap calorimeter will update the formal evaluation of design maturity at the L3 granularity of the project.

12

Design maturity

Answers to Questjons

• J. Mans, 2017 December 1