Status of the Interface Documents with Other Consortia Marco - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Status of the Interface Documents with Other Consortia

Marco Verzocchi - Fermilab Cold Electronics Workshop – Brookhaven National Laboratory 18 July 2018

What is an interface document ?

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 2

What is an interface document ?

• So far documents written by one group, checked / edited by second

group, some minimal review by technical coordination (comments by Terri Shaw & Farshid Feyzi)

• We’ve done at least two iterations on all documents, but the amount of

review (by consortia members, by technical coordination, by other people in DUNE) is still pretty limited

• In principle we should start putting these documents under formal

approval / revision control this Summer

• I will refuse to sign any CE interface document and make them official

until I see certain things implemented in other interface documents (for example CISC-DAQ) because I think that the experiment design is still too vague and that CE could suffer as a consequence of other poorly drafted documents

• Refusing to sign documents is the only weapon I have, I am trying to

point out where I see problems

• You can also help by looking at multiple interface document and

spotting inconsistencies

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 3

What is an interface document ?

• An interface document should be a living document
• When our understanding of how the detector is built and how it

should be operated improves, this should be reflected in the interface document

• When something has been done (for example APA and CE

should together decide on X, design Y), this task should be removed from the interface document or marked as “DONE”

• Interface document should not just be verbal: technical

drawings, pieces of code could also be included if appropriate (in some cases that is the real interface)

• I prefer to have a TODO list in the interface documents to

highlight areas that are still in need of discussion

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 4

Evolution from protoDUNE

• Fewer interface documents for protoDUNE
• In some cases the reason was “Bo is going this for both

consortia, he doesn’t need an interface document”

• Going forward, this may still be the case in case the

responsibility for certain items is reassigned to a different group

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 5

How Technical Coordination sees them (i)

• Interface control drawings vs consortia drawings
• Engineering drawings and documents that are specific to consortia are

controlled by consortia

• Fundamental dimension and parameters are documented in interface

control drawings and maintained by technical coordination

• A team from by TC and consortia will manage drawings
• Central repository has not been defined yet
• Design Review Process
• Design reviews are responsibility of consortia at the 30% and 60% levels

with TC participation

• Design reviews at the 90% level and for pre-production are responsibility of

TC

• TC will include subject matter experts to review engineering analyses
• Design review process and deliverables under development

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 6

How Technical Coordination sees them (ii)

• Drawings are 2d projections with dimensions in projection plane
• 2d integration drawings are controlled by TC
• Only dimensions that are strictly shown are controlling
• All dimensions need a reference which is a controlled document
• 3d model files by consortia or TC are supporting and must agree with

2d drawings

• Decide on interface planes and dimensions and keep them
• Tolerances are minus, not plus
• Do not reserve space by increasing dimensions
• Gaps belong to technical coordination
• Regular verification

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 7

A few comments

• These are the rules for mechanics, hopefully for electronics we can work

with Terri to develop more reasonable rules

• Fortunately we don’t deal (much) with mechanics
• While I can agree with a lot of what Farshid recommends on envelopes,

not having a central repository for CAD drawings is completely crazy

• If this continues, we should agree to use EDMS at CERN
• It is there, it works, we can use it
• I would prefer to have central repository for all drawings and bill of

materials for all detector components. I will not be there in 2055 to dismantle and recycle the detector ? Or is the plan just to let the cavern flood and possibly pollute the water ?

• The DØ detector will never be dismantled because a) it costs too much, and b)

the people who know how it was built are now almost all out of the game

• Since I like evil plans, I try to squeeze these recommendations in certain

interface documents

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 8

How many interface documents ?

• There are at least 11 interface documents between the CE

consortium and other consortia / groups

• Some have gone through a couple of iterations, others are still

missing

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 9

APA Consortium

• Document (DocDB 6670) last updated in May
• Some have gone through a couple of iterations, others are still

missing

• Mostly based on discussions with Alberto Marchionni, need to

make sure that the document is reviewed by their engineers

• Pretty detailed for where we are now, but need to evolve with

drawings (CR-FEMB connection, cable routing, cable clamps) and more details for the integration, installation, and testing activities

• And we need to agree that there is work needed on

understanding failures of individual channels and whether these are related in any way to the connection between boards

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 10

DAQ Consortium

• Document (DocDB 6742) last updated in May
• So far we have focused on one issue (link between WIB and

CUC), discussed briefly a second (clock distribution), and then realized that there is much more to be discussed

• In writing the interface document with Software and Computing

I’ve realized that there are parts that actually belong to the interfaces with DAQ and CISC (to be discussed)

• Need to define the data format, need to finalize (by the TDR)

decision on the link speed and the fibre plant, how to synchronize, how to handle calibration, …..

• Lots of room for more discussion, more details in the interface

document

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 11

CISC Consortium

• Document (DocDB 6745) last updated in May
• Will probably undergo a significant revision following meeting of Technical

Coordination with DAQ, CISC, Software and Computing, Cold Electronics (because we are trouble maker)

• I have three worries
• Other consortia seems to think that there is no need to plan for systems for the ITF
• The ITF should be the final dress rehearsal for SURF. Everything should be of the same

quality

• Telling me that “we should have the system in time” is not the answer, it should be a

deliverable of the CISC / DAQ consortia

• Boundary between DAQ and CISC responsibilities on run control, detector

configuration, online monitoring

• Hardware interlock system (I want one as good as the one used in ATLAS/CMS, I

don’t want software interlocks that will not work if the DAQ or the CISC are down)

• All systems are as good as they are built, but hardware interlocks generally work better than

software ones

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 12

HV Consortium

• Document (DocDB 6739) last updated in May
• Needs to evolve with drawing and probably more details about

testing during the detector installation

• HV wants to do some tests and we (and APA, possibly PD) should

profit by doing other tests at the same time (no access in the cryostat, check for shorts when ramping HV, RF shielding)

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 13

PD Consortium

• Document (DocDB 6718) last updated in May
• We share the chimney and most probably we (CE) will have to

take some responsibility for the cabling of the PD (reduce personnel in the cavern)

• Interface quite detailed, our main worry is that PD respects all

the grounding rules and that we have sufficient testing to demonstrate that there is no cross-talk between the two systems

• We are going to follow certain rules for the design and test of

electronics, how do we ensure that PD follows the same rules ? Do we need to put this explicitly in the interface documents (for example: design to avoid hot carrier effect, measurements of lifetime of components….)

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 14

Installation and Integration (i)

• Partially discussed by me and Jim in earlier presentations
• Documents (DocDB 7000 and DocDB 7000) last updated in

June

• Latest updates on planning for integration facility and for

installation are not yet reflected in these documents (some reassignment of responsibilities still to be included)

• One of the main issues with installation is the maximum number
• f people in the cavern. Farshid has a draft optimization of

resources which does not sound right to me (CE is the consortium with the largest amount of work to do in the cavern, and we are the least represented consortium in the team doing the work….)

• This is something still in flux that will change more in the next 2

months

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 15

Installation and Integration (ii)

• For the installation facility we are just starting
• Earlier I’ve shown a first version of the APA, PD, CE work plan
• This includes requirements to CISC and DAQ
• Still need to describe in detail our requirements for the laboratory

space, working areas for PD/CE installation, and for the cold boxes

• This is urgent
• Hopefully no restriction on personnel at the installation facility
• We will be requiring office and meeting space at the integration

facility in this interface document

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 16

Software and Computing

• Document (DocDB 7108) is at the level of first draft, that has not

yet been reviewed

• Will not circulate it until boundaries between S&C, CISC, and

DAQ are understood (meeting next week)

• I cannot claim I fully understand the boundaries between S&C

and DUNE Physics, some interfaces that for the moment are in this document should probably be moved to the interface with DUNE Physics

• The CE consortium will have software activities, some related to

testing, some related to simulation and reconstruction

• For the latter Dave and I need some help in defining a timeline and

milestones, which we do want to track

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 17

Physics and Calibration Task Force

• Documents (DocDB 7081 and DocDB 7054) do not exist
• Presentation later by Elizabeth mostly on protoDUNE analysis,

but there is more that we need to do to enable physics

• Simulation of detector material (currently in interface with S&C)
• Simulation of electronics response (currently in interface with S&C)
• Calibration data
• Similarly for Calibration (already discussed yesterday)
• In both cases we need to define the exact scope of the work to

be done by CE consortium and reflect it in milestones that we are going to track

• Help in defining milestones welcome

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 18

Facility

• Document (DocDB 6973) is at the level of first draft and I do not

consider it as reviewed by Technical Coordination, I have a lot of questions for TC in this document

• This is really the interface document that describes how we

interact with Technical Coordination and with the Facility

• There is an entire section on reviews that was triggered by a

presentation by Farshid in a Technical Board meeting

• Farshid presented a review plan, that in my mind needs to be

customized by each consortium (not stored in DocDB)

• I have edited the review plan to my taste (and to the reality of when

we will have certain information available for reviews)

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 19

Reviews (i)

• Different level of reviews foreseen by Farshid
• Preliminary Design Review
• Prior to the submission of TDR (but in the case of CE we will not have

all the results from system tests on ASICs and FEMBs)

• Engineering Design Review
• Prior to launching the pre-production of the detector components
• For the ASICs and FEMB this may include LBNC participation
• Production Readiness Review
• Once pre-production components have been fabricated and tested, give

the go-ahead for the full scale production

• Manufacturing Progress Review(s)
• 50% and 100% of first detector, 50% of second detector (number and

frequency decided by me)

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 20

Reviews (ii)

• Additional reviews that we will be requesting
• Integration Readiness Review
• Integration Progress Review (again 50% and 100% of detector 1,

50% of detector 2)

• Installation Readiness Review
• Installation Progress Review (again 50% and 100% of detector 1,

50% of detector 2)

• Operational Readiness Reviews:
• Prior to TCO closure
• Prior to LAr filling
• Prior to stable data taking

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 21

Reviews (iii)

• The role of CE consortium, Technical Coordination, Executive

Board in reviews:

• Technical Coordination organizes reviews, CE consortium may call

for additional ones

• Hopefully reviewers chosen jointly by CE consortium and Technical

Coordination (for ASIC decision may also involve LBNC)

• Review committees formulate recommendations (or endorse / reject

recommendations suggested by the CE leadership)

• Final decision on the recommendations is taken by the DUNE

Executive Board

• This is my understanding of how reviews should work, it’s

written down in my version of the interface document (not sure Technical Coordination will agree)

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 22

Comments

• Interface documents of higher quality in cases where we can

find the time to have constructive discussions between consortia leaderships

• Less when dealing with an inexperienced representative
• Less when dealing with a representative who has an agenda that

doesn’t really match that of the consortium leader(s)

• There are a lot of cases where the interfaces of A with B and C

assume certain interfaces between B and C. If we are A, we have not a lot of influence in what is written in the interface document between B and C

• But we need to check all the time, we cannot make the assumption

that if we write B and C will do a certain thing in their interface document, this will actually happen

• A stronger review team under technical coordination could help

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 23

Conclusions

• Interface documents are an area where you can help even by simply

reading and commenting (not just to CE)

• Your understanding of the detector construction will immediately

become much clearer

• Your experience will allow you to say “this is wrong, this should be

done differently”

• Please do this, it is extremely important, in some cases the design of

the interfaces reflects past experience / biases of some of us, and there could be better way of doing things

• We should have routine (every 3 months now, later once a year)

updates and reviews of the interface documents

• For example, reading again the APA-CE interface document from May I

already found something which is out of date….

• This may also require having official contacts with other consortia /

groups (but this doesn’t always work too well)

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 24

Reading Assignments

Interface with Readers APA Consortium DAQ Consortium CISC Consortium HV Consortium PD Consortium Facility Installation Team Installation Facility Calibration Task Force DUNE Physics Software and Computing

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 25

Contact people with other groups or consortia

Interface with Contact APA Consortium DAQ Consortium CISC Consortium HV Consortium PD Consortium Facility Installation Team Installation Facility Calibration Task Force DUNE Physics Software and Computing

18 Jul 18

• M. Verzocchi | Status of the Interface Documents with Other

Consortia 26