**PPD Cost Review**

**of the**

**CDF and DZero**

**Run IIb**

**Silicon Proposals**

**June 14, 2001**

**Table of Contents**

[A. Executive Summary 3](#a.-executive-summary)

[B. Committee Membership 4](#b.-committee-membership)

[C. Charge to the Committee 5](#c.-charge-to-the-committee)

[D. Details of the Cost Review 8](#d.-details-of-the-cost-review)

[1. Silicon Sensor Cost 8](#silicon-sensor-cost)

[2. SVX4 Chip Cost 10](#svx4-chip-cost)

[3. Hybrids and Cables Cost 14](#hybrids-and-cables-cost)

[3.(b) Additional Explanation from CDF about parts 3 & 4 of this review.
18](#b-additional-explanation-from-cdf-about-parts-3-4-of-this-review.)

[4. External cabling and DAQ 21](#external-cabling-and-daq)

[5. Beam Tube Cost 28](#beam-tube-cost)

[6. Internal Mechanical Components Cost
29](#internal-mechanical-components-cost)

[7. External Mechanical Components and Infrastructure
32](#external-mechanical-components-and-infrastructure)

[E. Reality Check against the Run IIa devices
33](#e.-reality-check-against-the-run-iia-devices)

# A. Executive Summary

A Particle Physics Division team of eight people reviewed the April 2001
PAC presentation cost documents provided by CDF and DZero for their Run
IIb silicon proposals. DZero provided a WBS structure with 66 lines and
CDF provided a WBS structure with about 20 lines. CDF provided some
manpower estimates in their presentation to the PAC last fall. DZero has
not provided any manpower estimate. The committee investigated the cost
estimates in some detail and asked questions to clarify the costs for
the two detectors. The committee was unable to review the manpower.

At the same time as this financial review, a Silicon Task Force was
meeting to investigate possible common solutions between the two
detectors that might result in cost savings. This plus the questions
from our committee spurred the collaborations to re-evaluate their cost
estimates during our review. In other words we were reviewing a moving
target in spite of our best efforts. The fact that the target was moving
also indicates the state of the designs and the state of the cost
estimates. These are estimates associated with proposals, not those of
more detail and precision usually associated with Technical Design
Reports. Please bear this fact in mind in reading this Cost Review
Report.

Spreadsheets summarizing our committee's evaluation are attached on the
next page.

**The bottom line for DZero is that the committee believes the DZero
cost + contingency should be reduced slightly from \$ 9.96 M to \$ 9.92
M. In general the committee believed that DZero had been overly
conservative in several places and we reduced the base cost estimate by
a total of \$ 650 K while increasing the contingency by about the same
amount.**

**The bottom line for CDF is that the committee believes the CDF cost +
contingency should be increased from \$ 5.90 M to \$ 8.10 M. The
committee found several places where CDF was probably too optimistic or
left items out of their estimate, so we increased the CDF base cost by
\$ 1260 K and increased the contingency by \$ 940 K.**

Before our review the two estimates differed by \$ 3.16 M. After our
review they still differ by

\$ 1.82 M. The DZero estimate is higher and the difference is composed
of several parts:

\$ 610 K is added contingency for new flex circuits which may be needed,

\$ 610 K is for infrastructure items that CDF claims not to need (see
recommendation in section 7 below),

> \$ 320 K is for silicon sensor "ancillary costs" -- masks, prototypes,
> probing, testing , radiation tests, vendor qualification. CDF takes a
> different approach to these costs as described in section 1 below.

\$ 230 K is for SVX4 chips needed for the higher channel count DZero
design.

**Finally we note that both cost estimates now have a contingency above
60%. The committee believes this is a more realistic figure given the
state of the designs.**

# B. Committee Membership

John Cooper, chair

Mike Crisler

Marcel Demarteau

Jim Fast

Brenna Flaugher

Joe Howell

Ron Lipton

Stephen Pordes

Jeff Spalding

Our committee had a large overlap with the Silicon Task Force chaired by
Marcel Demarteau and Brenna Flaugher. Ron Lipton and Jeff Spalding are
members of the Task Force.

Ron Lipton and Marcel Demarteau were co-managers of the DZero Run IIa
silicon tracker project, and Jeff Spalding was co-manager of the CDF Run
IIa SVXII silicon project.

Marcel Demarteau is head of the PPD Technical Centers Silicon Detector
Facility, and Brenna Flaugher is the deputy head of that facility. Jim
Fast is the leader of the engineering support team for the facility.

In addition during the course of our review Marcel Demarteau was named
as the Level 2 Manager of the DZero IIb project and Brenna Flaugher was
named co-Level 2 Manager of the CDF IIb project.

All this is to say that our review team was somewhat embedded in past
and future silicon projects. Nevertheless, the whole team labored to
treat both projects fairly. Usually this meant that the CDF member of a
team had to restrain the DZero member from being too hard on the DZero
proposal ( and vice versa for the CDF proposal )! We really did give
each project\'s cost a hard look and were limited mostly by the state of
the designs.

# C. Charge to the Committee

\-\-\-\-- Original Message \-\-\-\--

From: John Cooper \<<jcooper@fnal.gov>\>

To: Pordes, Stephen \<<stephen@fnal.gov>\>; Michael Crisler
\<<mike@fnal.gov>\>; Demarteau, Marcel \<<demarteau@fnal.gov>\>; Brenna
Flaugher \<<brenna@fnal.gov>\>; Jim Fast \<<jfast@fnal.gov>\>; Joseph W.
Howell \<<howell@fnal.gov>\>; Jeff Spalding \<<spalding@fnal.gov>\>; Ron
Lipton \<<lipton@fnal.gov>\>; John Cooper \<<jcooper@fnal.gov>\>

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 6:23 PM

Subject: 1st Meeting: Review of DZero/CDF IIb plans

To all,\
\
    Here is a summary of what we did today and the resulting assignments
for\
each person.\
\
A.  Contrary to my original message saying we should divide into two
teams\
to separately review the cost of each detector, it now seems better to
work\
as one committee and review the two together.  This follows because the\
designs are similar but the costs seem to be a factor of two different. 
The\
PAC noted these contradictions and we need to be able to explain the\
difference in our report.  Note our report has to get done in time for
me to\
carry it to Aspen on June 15.\
\
B.  We should all understand there are two efforts in progress.  One is
the\
review by this committee of the costs of the detectors as submitted by
the\
collaborations.  Another is the effort by a different committee (with
many\
overlapping members, chaired by Marcel and Brenna) to see if the
detectors\
can exploit commonalities to conserve \$ and resources and reduce risk /
keep\
to the short timescale imagined for construction.\
    Our cost review committee should keep in mind that we are reviewing
a\
specific submission that may be changing during the next few months \--
still\
we can and will only review what was submitted to the PAC on the paper
we\
have in our hands today.  We won\'t deal with a moving target.\
\
C.  Ron Lipton and Jeff Spalding will provide benchmark numbers from the
Run\
IIa devices.  We have in mind \# channels = \# \$ to serve as a reality
check.\
I hope we can get these numbers next Friday?\
\
D.  The committee should be aiming at\
    1.  stating some \"findings\" \-- i.e. here is what each
collaboration has\
said about the number of items they need, the number of spares, the cost
per\
item, the contingency assumed, the number of FTEs required (techs,\
engineers, physicists separately), then\
    2.  stating our opinion (\"comments\" / \"recommendations\" in
DOE-speak)\
about changes that should be made to the estimate or to the contingency\
along with our reasons for the changes, and\
    3.  eventually providing these written findings and comments to the\
collaborations so they get a chance to comment (the timescale is kind
of\
short for this, but at least they will get to comment via email to me
before\
I talk at Aspen).\
\
E.  We noted that DZero has a WBS structure with the following
elements:\
\
Sensors\
SVX4\
Readout System (flex cables, hybrids, interconnect cables,\
                              adaptor boards, upgrades to off-detector\
readout)\
Module Fabrication\
Detector Assembly & Test\
Mechanical Support\
Installation\
\
while CDF has a table with the elements:\
\
Silicon\
SVX4\
Signal Cables\
Hybrids\
PS & crates\
HDIs\
Port / Junction Cards\
Beampipe\
Mechanics and Cooling\
\
F.  So we melded the two breakdown structures and made the following\
assignments (those who were absent got volunteered, hopefully for
something\
they think they can do !):\
\
Silicon Sensors \-- Marcel Demarteau\
\
SVX4 \-- John Cooper\
\
Hybrids / cables out of the detector volume \--\
         Stephen Pordes and Ron Lipton\
\
Adaptor / junction cards, PS & crates, high mass cables, upgrades to\
off-detector readout \-- Mike Crisler and Jeff Spalding\
\
Module fabrication (incl. fixtures, wirebonding, burn-in)\
& Final Assembly (incl. mechanical support, testing)\
& Cooling (incl. test stations and the final system)\
& Beampipe\
    \-\-- all done by Jim Fast, Joe Howell, and Brenna Flaugher

**(At the next meeting we decided to move DZero WBS items 1.1.4.1.2 and
1.1.4.2.2 and 1.1.5.2 - 5 out of this part of the review and into the
Hybrids / cables part done by Pordes and Lipton)\
**\
Installation & Checkout \-- Brenna Flaugher & Jim Fast\
\
SiDet Infrastructure (incl. \$, machines, people) \-- Marcel Demarteau\
\
G.  So the members of the committee can start to sort all this out and
if\
questions arise, we should talk to only the following:\
             Joe Incandela for CDF\
             A person to be named soon for DZero **(later DZero named
Rich Partridge)**\
(collaboration(s) concerned that all questions go through an official\
contact to avoid having us get different answers from different\
collaborators and us choosing the answer we like).\
\
H.  We meet again and again on Fridays at 3 PM to assess progress even\
though different people will be out of town each week. **(the committee
met five times during May and June)**\
\
Thanks,\
    John

#  D. Details of the Cost Review

### 1. Silicon Sensor Cost

**Findings:**

The two projects presented the following total cost for silicon sensors,
assuming an average spare count as listed in the last column:

cost contingency spare count

CDF 1,039k 519k 13%

DØ 1,652k 471k 36%

The CDF project includes only the cost of silicon sensors in their cost
estimate. The DØ project has included ancillary costs. Subtracting the
ancillary items, the sensor cost for DØ silicon is \$1,230k, using their
nominal spare count.

Using the same spare count for both projects, the cost of the silicon
sensors for DØ is slightly lower than the cost for CDF.

> cost spare count

CDF 1,039k 13%

DØ 1,017k 13%

DØ 1,230k 36% (nominal)

**Comments:**

The cost estimate for silicon sensors does not differ widely between the
two projects. The CDF project has 2112 sensors in their baseline design
whereas DØ has 1656 sensors in their baseline. CDF has on average a
slightly lower cost per sensor. The difference of about 25% in cost per
sensor is adequately accounted for in the contingency.

The DØ silicon cost estimate is \$1,230k. The total DØ cost estimate is
\$1,652k, due to the inclusion of ancillary costs:

Masks + NRE 160,000

Prototype sensors 112,000

Probing 60,000

Radiation Tests 40,000

Vendor Qualification 50,000

CDF assumed that the mask costs are included in the sensor quotes from
Hammamatsu. The remaining items can be attributed largely to a
difference in approach. CDF views Hammamatsu as a reliable vendor and
does not plan on prototyping, qualifying the vendor, or doing extensive
probing. DØ takes more of the Micron approach assuming large costs are
associated with qualifying the vendor. CDF has not included any costs
for a radiation test.

Prototyping modules and staves, and irradiating a small sample of
modules will be a crucial part of the development of an acceptable
technical design and should be included in the cost estimate. The spare
count used by CDF seems to leave too small a margin to accommodate an
adequate series of prototyping.

The fluctuation in exchange rate between the Japanese Yen and the US
dollar should be included in the contingency. Over the course of the
last year the exchange rate has varied between 103.9 -- 126.8 JPY.

**Recommendations:**

The CDF project should determine if mask costs are included in the
quotes from Hammamatsu. If not, the M&S cost should be increased
proportionally.

The DØ average spare count seems liberal. It is based on a spare count
of 75% for the inner layers. It is recommended that the project revisit
the average spare count estimate. If the spare count can be reduced to
20%, the M&S cost is reduced by \$140k.

The CDF average spare count seems marginal. It is based on a spare count
of 10% for the outer layers. It is recommended that the project revisit
the average spare count estimate. If the spare count is increased to
20%, the M&S cost is increased by \$65k.

The CDF project has not included any prototyping and irradiation tests
in their cost estimate. It is recommended that the baseline cost be
increased by \$40k to allow for tests of final module and stave
assemblies.

The contingency estimates by both projects adequately cover variation in
vendor quotes, and fluctuations in exchange rate.

### 2. SVX4 Chip Cost 

[Findings:]{.underline}

1\. **Masks**

DZero assumes a mask and NRE expense of \$ 128 K for the SVX4 chip prior
to actual production. They also assume a 50% DZero share of this cost so
that DZero will see a total of \$ 64 K. They put a 25% contingency on
this number to get to a total mask cost of \$ 80 K.

CDF does not explicitly show a cost for the mask. In response to
questions, CDF indicated they considered this part of the development
costs. Since the development was proceeding as a joint effort from PPD,
they did not include such costs but would be happy to include them once
the amounts are known.

2\. **Production**

DZero has proposed a device with 962,000 channels. Each SVX4 chip has
128 channels, so they would need 7,512 chips in the final device. Their
chip production cost estimate assumes they buy 15,000 chips (100% extra
chips) at a cost of \$ 375 K. This is a base cost of \$25 per chip. They
put a 25% contingency on this number to get to a total chip cost of \$
469 K. In response to questions, DZero indicated that their Run IIa
experience was that they used 1.75 times as many chips as channel count
and that in their cost estimate they had rounded this up to 100% to
provide a larger cushion and to allow for the possibility of poor yield.
DZero actually assumed a chip yield of 60% in estimating their cost.

CDF has proposed a device with 540,672 channels. Their plan uses 4,224
SVX4 chips each with 128 channels. Their chip production cost estimate
assumes they buy 6,336 chips (50% extra chips) at a cost of \$ 222 K.
This is a base cost of \$ 35 per chip, clearly different from the DZero
assumption. CDF puts a 50% contingency on this number to get to a total
chip cost of \$ 333 K.

CDF\'s experience in Run IIa construction was that they needed about 1.5
times as many chips as channel count for the SVXII portion of the
detector.

3\. **Testing**

DZero includes costs for test fixtures (\$ 15 K + 50% contingency) and
for testing the chips ( \$ 50 K + 100% contingency ).

CDF has no similar testing detail in their cost estimate. In response to
questions, CDF indicated they had assumed this would not require new
equipment and that it would be done with in-house labor

[Comments on Chip Cost Estimates:]{.underline}

0\. **Development Costs**

Neither group includes the development cost for the SVX4 chip. This is
being done in collaboration among LBNL, Fermilab, and Padova. The basic
costs up through the first prototype submission are \$ 274 K of LBNL
labor paid by Fermilab and a submission cost of \$ 170 K. This total of
\$ 444 K should be split between CDF and DZero in their cost estimates.

If the first prototype submission is not successful, more design and
another prototype round will be required. A crude estimate of this
contingency is another \$ 50 K of labor costs to be paid by Fermilab to
LBNL and another \$ 170 K submission cost for a total contingency of \$
220 K. Again half of this contingency should be added to each
collaboration's contingency estimate.

1\. **Masks**

Ray Yarema tells us the mask cost is \$ 135 K. A mask is part of the \$
170 K prototype development cost, but experience says this may not be
the final mask. For Run IIa, many changes were made in the masks for
SVX2 and SVX3 at the time of the first production run. In fact in some
sense these first production runs in IIa were prototype runs with extra
wafers as we gambled to keep to the schedule.

For SVX4, the design could possibly end up as one mask, but may easily
lead to two separate masks, one for DZero and one for CDF. That\'s the
current trend in the design. In this case each project\'s share would be
a minimum of \$ 68 K and a maximum of \$ 135 K.

This review concludes we should plan on a production mask cost and would
therefore increase the DZero M&S cost for the mask from \$ 64 K to \$ 68
K. Similarly the contingency should be increased from \$ 16 K to \$ 68
K. Thus the total cost of masks increases from DZero\'s estimate of \$
80 K to \$ 135 K.

CDF assumed no mask cost, so this review suggests they should add an M&S
cost of \$ 68 K and a contingency of \$ 68 K for a total of \$ 135 K.

2\. **Production**

Ignoring for a moment the \$ amounts, the raw chip counts for each
collaboration differ as follows: DZero needs 7,512 chips and DZero
assumes they need 100% extra chips + 25% contingency while CDF needs
4,224 chips (56% of DZero) and CDF assumes they need 50% extra chips +
50% contingency. The basic difference between the two is the nearly
factor of two in chip count planned in the DZero design relative to the
CDF design. The two collaborations are close in their assumptions of
"extra + contingency".

We find it confusing to mix the concepts of \"extra chips needed during
construction\" with \"yield of good chips from the vendor\" with
\"contingency\". This review will assume the \"extra chips needed during
construction\" are part of the base cost, and combine the \"yield of
good chips from the vendor\" with a \"contingency\" estimate. The net
result will be to reduce the DZero extra chip multiplier from 2.00 to
1.75. In addition we will calculate a range of costs based on reasonable
and pessimistic yield assumptions and use the difference between the two
estimates as the measure of contingency. We will not use a flat %
multiplier for contingency.

Ray Yarema tells us that an eight-inch wafer should contain 423 chips,
but the crucial question is the yield of good chips from the wafer. A
reasonable estimate is 75 % yield, but it could be as low as 50 %. No
one yet has experience with the yield of large chips in the 0.25-micron
process. We are dealing with only one foundry for this process, TSMC,
but we deal with them through a broker, MOSIS. One buys \"lots\" of
wafers at \$ 42 K per lot from MOSIS. MOSIS starts wafers in lots of 12,
guaranteeing 10 good wafers. However, we know TSMC starts wafers in lots
of 12, but guarantees only 6 good wafers. In other words, not only is
there a chip yield on each wafer, there is also a wafer yield from each
lot to consider. All this puts the per chip cost anywhere in the range
of \$ 13 - \$ 33. Remember that DZero assumed \$ 25 per chip and CDF
assumed \$ 35 per chip.

Using the DZero number of 13,146 ( = 1.75 \* 7,512 ) chips needed and a
75 % chip yield per wafer along with a 10 wafer yield per lot gives a
lower bound need of 41.5 wafers. 41.5 is close enough to 40 to use 4
lots of 10 guaranteed wafers as the estimate, so we arrive at a total
cost of \$ 168 K. An upper bound comes from using a 50% chip yield per
wafer along with a 6 wafer yield per lot. Then we need 62.0 wafers or
approximately 10 lots of 6 guaranteed wafers at a total cost of \$ 420
K.

Therefore this review would reduce the DZero M&S cost for the production
chips from \$ 375 K to \$ 168 K. However, the contingency should be
changed from \$ 94 K to \$ 252 K (= 420 - 168) to cover the range of
wafer and chip/wafer yields. Additional risk of completely botched
production runs is assumed to lie inside the vendors \"guarantee\" of on
wafer yield. Thus the total cost of production chips changes from
DZero\'s estimate of \$ 469 K to \$ 420 K.

Using the CDF number of 6,336 ( = 1.5 \* 4,224 ) chips needed and a 75%
chip yield per wafer gives a lower bound need of 20 wafers or 2 lots of
10 guaranteed wafers at a total cost of \$ 84 K. The upper bound comes
from using 50% chip yield per wafer along with a 6 wafer yield per lot.
In this case we need 29.9 wafers or 5 lots of 6 wafers at a total cost
of \$ 210 K.

Therefore this review would reduce the CDF M&S cost for the production
chips from \$ 222 K to \$ 84 K. However the contingency should be
changed from \$ 111 K to

\$ 126 K to cover the range of wafer and chip/wafer yields. Thus the
total cost of production chips is reduced from \$ 330 K to \$ 210 K.

3\. **Testing**

Chip testing could be done at LBNL (since they are the lead integrator
of the chip design and tested SVX3 chips for CDF for Run IIa). The cost
is estimated at 4 weeks of setup time and then 1 wafer a day of testing
by an engineer. This would cost \$ 35 K - 50 K for DZero and \$ 21 K -
28 K for CDF.

The chip testing could also be done in house at Fermilab and the M&S
cost would be about \$ 20 K to add equipment to an existing probe
station for a test stand.

A mixture of models could be used if there are two separate chip masks
in the end. This review will treat each project the same and assume a \$
10 K base cost plus a contingency based on their wafer counts.

[Recommendations on Chip Costs:]{.underline}

For DZero WBS element 1.1.2 - SVX4 Readout IC\'s, change as follows (all
amounts in \$K):

M&S cost Contingency (%) Total Cost

**DZero Estimate:**

0\. Development \-- \-- \--

1\. Mask 64 16 80

2\. Chip Production 375 94 469

3\. [Testing 65 58 122]{.underline}

> **DZero Total: 504 167 (33%) 671**

**Review Estimate:**

0\. Development 222 110 332

1\. Mask 68 67 135

2\. Chip Production 168 252 420

3\. [Testing 10 40 50]{.underline}

> **TOTAL: 468 469 (100%) 937**

Similarly for the CDF chip line in their cost estimate:

M&S cost Contingency (%) Total Cost

**CDF Estimate:**

0\. Development \-- \-- \--

1\. Mask \-- \-- \--

2\. Chip Production 222 111 333

3\. [Testing \-- \-- \--]{.underline}

> **CDF Total: 222 111 (50%) 333**

**Review Estimate:**

0\. Development 222 110 332

1\. Mask 68 67 135

2\. Chip Production 84 126 210

3\. [Testing 10 18 28]{.underline}

> **TOTAL: 384 321 (84%) 705**

Even though the basic chip count differs by a factor of two between CDF
and DZero designs, the equal sharing of the mask cost and of the SVX4
development cost makes the two cost estimates more similar as seen by
this review. Including the development costs, mask costs, and testing
costs, the real per chip cost estimate is in the range of \$ 43 - \$ 83
when we sum over the two experiments.

### 3. Hybrids and Cables Cost

This note summarizes our findings on the costs of hybrids, analog signal
cables, test stands and digital interconnection cables for the D0 and
CDF Run 2b proposals. The two experiments have different readout schemes
and therefore there are uncertainties in comparing costs. The following
chart summarizes the local electronics designs:

  ---------- ------------- --------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------
                           **CDF**                                   

                                                                     

  Detector   analog cable  Hybrid    Hybrid      Hybrid    digital   
                                                           cable     

                                     mini port                       
                                     card                            

                                                                     

                                                                     

                           **D0                                      
                           Layers                                    
                           0,1**                                     

                                                                     

  Detector   analog cable  Hybrid                Digital             
                                                 cable               

                                                                     

                                                                     

                           **D0                                      
                           Layers                                    
                           2-5**                                     

                                                                     

  Detector   Hybrid                  Detector    Hybrid              

                                                                     

                                                           digital   
                                                           cables    
  ---------- ------------- --------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------

**Analog cables:**

Finding

This is a technically challenging copper-on-flex cable which has a
minimum pitch of 50 microns at the wirebond regions and flares to 100
microns in the region between connections. CDF uses these cables
throughout the detector; D0 uses them on layers 0 and 1 only. CDF has
used similar cables in L00 but the CERN shop, which produced them, is
not interested in producing the cables for Run 2b. CDF has a quote from
a Japanese firm Keycom, which has produced prototypes based on the L00
masks. The quote does not include details of yields or numbers of cables
that could be fit on a frame. Based on the Keycom quote CDF has
estimated costs of \$66-\$333/cable assuming 50% yield. They then added
50% spares and 75% contingency. Max Levy (Philadelphia), which produced
fine pitch circuits for L3 and D0, had quoted \$1000/cable for similar
designs. At the time of the cost estimate D0 did not have a quotation
for the analog cables. They recently received a quote from Dyconex
(Switzerland) that appears to be about 20% higher than Keycom.

  ---------- -------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------- -----------
             **\#**   **fract.**   **\#**       **item**               **fract.**               **proto.+**   

             **in     **spares**   **bought**   **cost**   **cost**    **cont.**    **cont.**   **test**      **total
             det**                                                                                            cost**

  **D0       240      0.58         376          \$1,000    \$376,000   0.5          \$188,000   \$139,000     \$703,000
  analog                                                                                                      
  cables**                                                                                                    

  **CDF      1776     0.5          2664         \$135      \$360,552   0.7          \$252,381                 \$612,933
  analog                                                                                                      
  cables**                                                                                                    
  ---------- -------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------- -----------

Comment

There are only a few companies in the world with the technology to
produce these cables. CDF uses the cables throughout their detector and
therefore the cost per cable has a large effect on their overall costs.
There is a huge discrepancy between the D0 and CDF estimates for this
item. D0 has been conservative based on their past experience with
complex flex cables. CDF relies on a single company which has produced
prototypes but who has not yet provided a detailed quotation. The CDF
cost would rise to \$3M if they have to buy cables at the cost in the D0
estimate. This is clearly unacceptable and might cause a redesign of the
detector. Similarly, if based on the Keycom quote, the D0 estimate would
be reduced to \~\$200k, dominated by prototyping and testing costs.

Recommendation

This is a critical area for both experiments. We recommend that the
collaborations move aggressively to qualify additional vendors and
understand costs. Unacceptable costs could very well cause CDF to change
their detector design. We suggest that CDF increase it's estimate by
\$300,000 to include prototyping costs and accommodate the possibility
of using multiple vendors where one might be more costly. We also
suggest that D0 reduce its estimate by \$400k using the recent Dyconex
quote as a baseline. This provides some consistency of the cost
estimates between the two experiments.

The experiments use 50-70% contingency for this item. These cables are
likely to be subject to currency fluctuations and we suggest that an
additional 20% contingency be added to account for this risk (\~\$70k
[for each experiment]{.underline}).

This is a critical item for Run2b, Fermilab needs to monitor flex cable
vendors closely and provide appropriate support for prototype work to
develop multiple vendors.

**Hybrids:**

Findings

The hybrids used by D0 and CDF, while they cannot be identical, could
use similar technology and share some of the development. CDF intends to
use a ceramic hybrid technology similar to the hybrids used in run2a.
These were designed and tested by LBL and it appears that the costs are
well understood. In their estimate LBL is considered a vendor which will
supply tested hybrids at the given unit cost. The spare count is low
because some additional hybrids are absorbed in the LBL unit cost. CDF
mounts the hybrids on a ceramic "mini port card" while the D0 hybrids
are freestanding. The port card should be a simple object and is not a
cost driver. The junction card is also a well understood item which is
not a cost driver.

In Run 2a D0 used a flex-on-beryllium technology that is more complex
than the ceramic hybrid used by CDF. It is likely that D0 will switch to
a ceramic hybrid for at least the inner layers in run 2b. In either case
the costs are will understood and based on past production. D0 has
separated the cost of hybrid substrates from the hybrids themselves.
This is only relevant if the flex-on-beryllium option is used. The
estimated cost of these substrates is \~\$335k and has been added to the
total cost for the D0 hybrids given below.

  ----------- -------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ----------- -------------- ----------- ------------- -------------
              **\#**   **fract.**   **\#**       **item**               **fraction**               **proto.+**   

              **in     **spares**   **bought**   **cost**   **cost**    **cont.**      **cont.**   **test**      **total
              det**                                                                                              cost**

  **D0        804      0.37         1100         \$388      \$427,600   0.6            \$252,480   \$181,620     \$910,500
  hybrids**                                                                                                      

  **CDF       1368     0.1          1504         \$495      \$744,000   0.5            \$372,000                 \$1,116,000
  hybrids**                                                                                                      

  **CDF Mini  286      0.3          \$371        \$265      \$98,315    0.5            \$49,157                  \$147,472
  port card**                                                                                                    

  **CDF       57       0.2          \$68         \$300      \$20,400    0.5            \$10,200                  \$30,600
  Junction                                                                                                       
  card**                                                                                                         
  ----------- -------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ----------- -------------- ----------- ------------- -------------

**(note from J. Cooper: The CDF Junction Card is declared by fiat to be
part of the next section of the review done by Crisler / Spalding. I'm
trying to make sure we don't double count anything.)**

Comments

The costs of the hybrids are reasonably well understood and comparable
between D0 and CDF despite the different technologies considered. The D0
cost estimate including beryllium substrates is conservative and may be
reduced if the experiment chooses to use ceramic hybrids throughout or
uses a less expensive material for a flex substrate.

Recommendations

The hybrid estimates are reasonable. CDF should include an estimate for
hybrid prototypes (\~\$25k). The D0 estimate should be revised when
there is a clearer understanding of which technologies will be used. A
choice of a conventional hybrid substrate throughout could save
\~\$300k. Hybrid substrates should be included in the hybrid part of the
WBS structure.

**(note from J. Cooper: The next item, digital cables was double counted
by two different teams of reviewers. By fiat, I am ignoring this one
from Lipton / Pordes and using the review in the next section done by
Crisler / Spalding)**

**Digital Cables:**

Findings

The digital cables are expected to be of similar technology (copper on
flex) for both experiments. The 3:1 ganging on the junction port card
reduces the number of cables in CDF with respect to the D0 design.

  -------------- -------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ----------- -------------- ----------- ------------ -----------
                 **\#**   **fract.**   **\#**       **item**               **fraction**               **proto+**   

                 **in     **spares**   **bought**   **cost**   **cost**    **cont.**      **cont.**   **test**     **total
                 det**                                                                                             cost**

  **D0 digital   708      0.41         1000         \$200      \$200,000   0.5            \$100,000   \$56,100     \$356,100
  cables**                                                                                                         

  **CDF digital  286      0.3          371          \$300      \$111,300   0.5            \$55,650                 \$166,950
  cables**                                                                                                         
  -------------- -------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ----------- -------------- ----------- ------------ -----------

Comments

Both have extensive experience with such cables and the cost estimates
seem consistent with their experience extrapolated to the length and
complexity of the new cables.

Recommendations

CDF should include \~\$40k for prototype work.

**Test Stands:**

Findings

Both experiments plan to reuse much of the Run2a testing infrastructure.
The detector modules have become much longer so the changed so new
burn-in stands will need to be constructed. There will also be some
additional costs for interfaces to new cable types. Detector test stand
costs are only included in the D0 estimate. CDF estimates that
refurbishing existing stands might cost \$40k. D0 estimates \$277k for
test stands with the bulk of this cost (\$195k) devoted to new module
burn-in stands.

Comments

The CDF "estimate" is really at the level of a guess and is not included
in the estimate presented to the PAC. The D0 estimate is based on a
complete rebuilding of the module testing system.

Recommendations

Both collaborations should work to provide a more detailed estimates of
testing needs. A minimum of \$50k should be added to the CDF estimate
for this purpose. The D0 cost estimate needs to be more fully justified,
can more items be reused? There is a potential cost reduction of \~150k
if new construction is minimized.

**Summary:**

The estimated cost of the items considered is \$2.3M for D0 and \$2.0M
for CDF. In general we feel that D0 has tended to be perhaps too
conservative in their estimates. CDF estimates have less margin and, in
many cases, less detail. Despite the more detailed nature of the D0
estimates the level of understanding of the costs is similar in many
cases. The major disparity in item cost is for flex cables. Our
recommendations constitute a \~15% cost reduction for D0 and a \~20%
increase for CDF. It is quite possible that the D0 costs can be
substantially reduced when a better understanding of flex cable, test
stands and hybrid costs is achieved.

It is very important that prototypes of the flex cables be produced and
prices understood as soon as possible.

**(note from J. Cooper: Again, note the digital cable portion of this
part of the review has been removed from the overall roll-up executive
summary for both detectors, and the CDF junction card has been removed
from this part of the executive summary for CDF.)**

###  3.(b) Additional Explanation from CDF about parts 3 & 4 of this review.

### 

While J. Cooper was trying to sort out a double counting problem, CDF
added this to the record of the review:

\-\-\-\-- Original Message \-\-\-\--

From: Joe Incandela \<<incandel@fnal.gov>\>

To: John Cooper \<<jcooper@fnal.gov>\>

Cc: Jeff Spalding \<<spalding@fnal.gov>\>; Pordes, Stephen
\<<stephen@fnal.gov>\>; Michael Crisler \<<mike@fnal.gov>\>; Ron Lipton
\<<lipton@fnal.gov>\>

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:05 PM

Subject: Re: On the CDF estimate

\> John\
\> The problem is that things are continuing to evolve even as they\
\> converge. I have the following in my cost book for a design like the
one\
\> presented to the PAC in April (i.e. 6 double layers with 6 fold\
\> readout segmentation along the beam axis):\
\>\
\> 180 mini-portcards before spares which we estimate now at 20%
bringing the\
\> total to 216.\
\>\
\> In the PAC presentation I did have 286 before spares.  The
difference\
\> stems mainly from the fact that the mini-pc\'s were originally going
to be\
\> for 4 hybrids and now are intended for 6. I had guesstimated the\
\> single-sided ones at a cost of \$265 each. For the 6 hybrid
double-sided\
\> minipcs Sergio has given me an estimate of \$250 each. Anyway, DAQ
counts\
\> and costs are currently as follows:\
\>\
\> Item Minpc\'s hdi\'s jpc\'s FTMcables FTMmodules PowerSup PSCrates\
\> Qty 180 180 90 450 45 45 9\
\> %spares 20 30 20 20 20 12 15%\
\> unit\$ \$250 300 400 200 1.7k 6k 10k\
\> Tot k\$ 54k\$ 70.2k 43.2k 108k 91.8k 300k 100k\
\>\
\> For the PAC presentation we had\
\> Item    Minpc\'s hdi\'s   jpc\'s   FTMcables&modules\
\> Qty     286     286     57      285\
\> %spares 20      30      20      20\
\> unit\$   \$265    300     300     265\
\> Tot k\$  98.3k\$ 111.3k   20.4k   90.6k\
\>\
\> For power supplies and crates we had 300k + 200K contingency\
\>\
\> Note that the nos. we had for the PAC presentation were pretty
crude.\
\> Although roughly correct and fairly similar in the end, it is pretty
much\
\> my own guesswork and based upon some misunderstandings I had about
the DAQ\
\> configuration and what needs to be done. The numbers above, which I
hope\
\> are the same as those I gave to Jeff Spalding, are more thoroughly\
\> considered and representative for the layout we presented in April.\
\>\
\> For completeness, I include the role up summary of all of our more
recent\
\> and improved estimates for the layout presented to the PAC in April.\
\>\
\> Item Cost Contingency Sum\
\> Sensors 1,130,144 282,536 1,412,680\
\> Chips 196,560 98,280 294,840\
\> 2 Chip Hybrids 208,035 41,607 249,642\
\> 4 Chip Hybrids 726,750 145,350 872,100\
\> mini-pc 54,000 18,900 72,900\
\> hdi sets 70,200 35,100 105,300\
\> jp Cards 43,200 15,120 58,320\
\> FTM modules\
\>   and Cables 199,800 69,930 269,730\
\> Misc. Adaptor/test\
\>   devices 50,000 20,000 70,000\
\> Power Supplies\
\>  & Crates 400,000 266,667 666,667\
\> Power Cables 20,000 10,000 30,000\
\> Beam pipe 200,000 100,000 300,000\
\> Mechanics\
\>  & Cooling 1,000,000 500,000 1,500,000\
\> Signal Cables 488,762 366,572 855,334\
\> Elec. Test\
\>  & Burn-in 100,000 50,000 150,000\
\> Totals 4,887,451 2,020,061 6,907,512\
\>\
\> We did not re-estimate the chips cost which does not include
development\
\> costs (estimated at around 400-600k for a common CDF and D0 chip -
FNAL\
\> labor not included) but did include CDF production and testing (3k
per\
\> wafer - testing labor assumed to be FNAL and therefore again not
included\
\> in estimate which was understood to be M&S only).\
\>\
\> Anyway, the interesting thing is that the main difference we find
between\
\> the numbers presented to the PAC and those here is for the mechanics
which\
\> went up from 1M\$ with contingency to 1.5M\$ with contingency. When\
\> comparing to the conservative hybrids model cost (slide included in
the\
\> powerpoint I showed in April) which is included in our more recent\
\> estimates, the total cost goes up from 6.45M\$ to 6.91M\$ which can
mostly\
\> be accounted for by the change in the mechanics and cooling.\
\>\
\> Let me know if you have any further questions.\
\>\
\> Joe\
\>\
\>
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\
\> J.R.Incandela Telephone 1 630 840 8554\
\> Fermilab MS 318\
\> PO Box 500, Batavia IL 60510-0500 Facsimile 1 630 840 2968\
\>
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\
\>\
\> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, John Cooper wrote:\
\>\
\> \> Joe,\
\> \>     I\'m trying to assemble the final report and having trouble
getting the\
\> \> numbers to balance.  We have a confusion because Crisler /
Spalding and\
\> \> Lipton / Pordes reviewed different parts of your estimate but
appear to\
\> \> actually have reviewed part of the estimate twice, thereby double
counting.\
\> \>\
\> \>     I could probably work this out but I am confused by you
telling Crisler\
\> \> / Spalding about mini port card counts of 180 while Lipton /
Pordes assumed\
\> \> the count of 286 in your documented response to the PAC questions
during the\
\> \> April PAC meeting.   Crisler / Spalding just assumed you were
breaking down\
\> \> the cost estimate given by you to the PAC, but in fact I suspect
you were\
\> \> correcting that estimate in your reply to their questions?\
\> \>\
\> \>     Any idea what happened here?   The count change from 286 to
180 appears\
\> \> on a couple of lines.\
\> \>\
\> \> Thanks,\
\> \>     John\
\> \>

### 4. External cabling and DAQ

Attachments

Questions sent to Joe Incandela and Richard Partridge

Joe's reply

D0 reply

Clarification on the TX chip availability from William Wester

Findings and Comments

Both CDF and D0 provided initial cost estimates for the cabling, DAQ and
power component costs. In general the unit cost estimates are based on
experience with the Run IIa detectors and are believed to be reasonable.
While the overall architecture for the cabling and DAQ is understood for
both experiments, the quantities needed and in some cases the detailed
design and costing is uncertain.

The total costs for the portcards, junction cards, DAQ changes, power
supplies and all cables between these components are listed below

Cost Estimates (\$K)

> w/o with % contingency

D0

1.1.3.2.3 adapter boards 294 370 26

1.1.3.3 off-detector readout [360]{.underline} [630]{.underline} 75

> 654 1000

CDF

Mini-portcards 54 73 35

Flex cables 70 105 50

Junction cards 43 58 35

FTMs and FTM cables [200]{.underline} [270]{.underline} 35

367. 506

**(note from J. Cooper: Again to be careful not to double count, the
mini-portcards will be removed from this part of the review and instead
I used the Lipton / Pordes information from the previous section)**

D0 has additional DAQ costs associated with an increase in channel count
over the Run IIa detector to be replaced. The CDF design remains within
the existing channel count.

There are some differences in the methodology applied; CDF does not
include design and prototyping costs while D0 breaks these costs out
explicitly, but only for the adapter boards. This is a small difference.

Amount of contingency for the D0 adapter boards seems too little at 25%.

What's missing from these cost estimates:

**Cables**:

D0 is hoping to be able to reuse cabling from the Run IIa. If the SVX4
chip or hybrid designs require new cables, an additional cost of \$600K
will be added.

CDF's estimate for power cables (\$20K) seems light -- they are
confirming this estimate. (Jeff wants to add another \$50K.)

**Power Supplies**

D0 will reuse existing power supplies -- with some additional ones
needed, but covered in their assembly and testing costs. Jeff find's
this hard to believe (that the existing power supplies will provide the
higher bias voltages needed).

CDF left out the cost of new power supplies --- 45+spares needed ---
estimated by Nicola Bacchetta at \$400K w/o contingency.

**( note added by J. Cooper: The power supplies were NOT left out of the
CDF estimate given to the PAC, but were left out of the primary email
from Joe Incandela on 6/4/01 (attached below). So the real change from
the PAC estimate is an increase in the base cost from \$ 300 K to \$ 400
K, with a contingency increase from \$ 200 K to \$ 267 K.)**

**TX and DDR Chips**

D0 needs (a few thousand?) TX (transceiver) chips.

CDF needs about 4000 TX chips and 400 DDR chips. The DDR chips exist (an
additional wafer is being purchased from Honeywell for \$25K which is
not included in this estimate). William Wester confirms that about 400
DDR and 4000 TX chips exist from the Run IIa submission (ordered for D0
but not used). Two more wafers exist at Honeywell (mixed DDR and TX) and
can be bought at \$25K each. This will add about 400 DDR and 1,200 TX.
It is likely that an additional run will be needed to satisfy the TX
need for both D0 and CDF. [The need should be quantified and the
submission made very soon]{.underline}. If the masks still exist, the
cost would be for a few more wafers --- guess \$100K. William should
estimate.

**Conclude**:

If new flex cables are needed, add \$600K to D0. Maybe add more if new
power supplies are needed.

**(note from J. Cooper: added this as a contingency item in the
executive summary)**

Add \$ (100 + 67) K and ( 50 + 17 ) K to CDF.

**(note from J. Cooper: see note on power supplies above)**

Add \$150K, or so, for more TX wafers (2 exist plus run another four
\[?\] if Honeywell will take such a small order).

**(note from J. Cooper: Executive summary splits this cost between the
two detectors and also added 67% contingency to the cost)**

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:44:47 -0500\
From: Jeff Spalding \<<spalding@fnal.gov>\>\
To: <partridge@hep.brown.edu>, <incandel@fnal.gov>,
<spalding@fnal.gov>,\
     <mike@fnal.gov>\
Subject: IIb silicon costs\
\
\
Rich, Joe,\
\
As part of the PPD cost review, Mike Crisler and myself are charged
with\
looking at the cost estimates for all the \"external\" cabling, DAQ and\
power supplies. Attached is a ps/pdf file with a diagram of what I
think\
we cover, using the vocabulary of the CDF Run IIa detector. I think the\
boundary for Mike and I is somewhere around the portcards \-- we cover\
everything further out. Can you include the information on the
portacrds\
themselves, so they don\'t fall into a crack. We are of course late
with\
this request, so prompt consideration would be appreciated. If you can\
reply as best you can soon, via email, we can follow up with discussion\
by phone later in the week.\
\
thanks\
\
Jeff and Mike

\-\-\-\-- Original Message \-\-\-\--

From: Richard Partridge \<<partridge@hep.brown.edu>\>

To: \<<spalding@fnal.gov>\>

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 4:18 PM

Subject: RE: time\'s up

-   Hi Jeff,\
    \>\
    \> Alice Bean and Marvin Johnson wrote up a brief document on the
    readout/DAQ\
    \> costs. I haven\'t gotten any complaints (yet!) about a few edits
    I made, so I\
    \> am passing this on to you.\
    \>\
    \> Regards,\
    \>\
    \> Rich\
    \>

**D0 Run2b Cabling cost Description**

May 31, 2001

Here we describe the anticipated D0 Run2b silicon readout system. This
design is in flux as we further design and model the system and the
channel counts may change. We will describe the system as presented in
the April 2001 PAC report. Figure 1 shows a diagram for the readout
chain for layers 2-5.

Figure 1. Readout chain for Layers 2-5

\-\-\-\-- Original Message \-\-\-\--

From: Joe Incandela \<<incandel@fnal.gov>\>

To: \<<spalding@fnal.gov>\>

Cc: Joe Incandela \<<incandel@fnal.gov>\>; Sergio Zimmerman
\<<zimmer@fnal.gov>\>; Brenna Flaugher \<<brenna@fnal.gov>\>; Nicola
Bacchetta \<<bacchetta@pd.infn.it>\>

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 4:58 PM

Subject: Costs for DAQ etc

-   \> Jeff\
    \>\
    \> Here are the numbers for the things I Think you wanted from me.
    Let me\
    \> know if you need other things as well:\
    \>\
    \> First of all, we costed a system with 6 layers each having both
    axial\
    \> and stereo sides. The way it works out there are 2 and 4 chip
    hybrids\
    \> for the inner and outer layers respectively. We have typically 8
    readout\
    \> barrels in z per layer (except for 90 degree layers which will
    have 16).\
    \> In any case, it works out to 1056 4-chip hybrids and 384 2-chip.
    We\
    \> group 8 hybrids into one double-sided mini-portcard which then
    connects\
    \> to a junction portcard. Both the mini-portcard and Junction
    portcard\
    \> have transceivers and there is a long ISL style flex cable
    between them.\
    \> The junction portcards also have the DDR chips and voltage
    regulation.\
    \> The system has a total of 180 miniportcards (2 chip and 4 chip
    types\
    \> summed) and 90 junction portcards. From the junction portcards we
    have\
    \> new cables to the FTMs, and we have new FTMs. It turns out we
    need 45\
    \> FTMs in the worst case so we do not need more FIBs.\
    \>\
    \> The costs are based on various estimates as discussed below. The\
    \> installed quantities, spares, and unit costs are as follows:\
    \>\
    \> Item Qty. Spares unit\
    \> mini-portcards 180 20% \$250\
    \> Flex to Junction pc 180 30 \$300\
    \> junction pc 90 20 \$400\
    \> FTM Cables 450 20 \$200\
    \> FTM Modules 45 20 %1,700\
    \>\
    \> The item costs, contingencies and totals in k\$ are:\
    \>\
    \> Item Cost Cont. Total\
    \> mini-portcards 54k 18.9k 72.9k\
    \> Flex to Junction pc 70.2 35.1 105.3\
    \> junction pc 43.2 15.1 58.3\
    \> FTMs and FTM Cables 199.8 69.9 269.7\
    \>\
    \> To these items we add a couple other things:\
    \> 1. Miscellaneous adapters, test equipment etc. 50k + 20k
    contingency.\
    \> 2. Power cables (may not be necessary) 20k + 10k cont.\
    \>\
    \> The total for these DAQ items is thus:\
    \> 606 k\$ of which 170k is contingency.\
    \>\
    \> I have not included the power supplies. Do you need this also ?
    Nicola\
    \> should have the numbers. Nicola, please send them to me as well.\
    \>\
    \>\
    \> So how do we get these numbers ?\
    \> FTM modules cost is based on RUn 2a.\
    \> The long HDIs cost are based on what ISL paid for longer ones.\
    \> The mini-pc and junction pc as well as the power cables, and FTM
    cables,\
    \> miscellaneous testing and adapter costs are all obtained from S.\
    \> Zimmerman. We assumed g-10 for the mini and junction pc\'s.\
    \>\
    \> Joe

This is Wester\'s answer about chips\
\
\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- Forwarded message \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:04:47 -0500\
From: William Wester \<<wester@fnal.gov>\>\
To: Joe Incandela \<<incandel@fnal.gov>\>\
Cc: Sergio Zimmermann \<<zimmer@fnal.gov>\>, Jeff Spalding
\<<spalding@fnal.gov>\>,\
     <mike@fnal.gov>, Brenna Flaugher \<<brenna@fnal.gov>\>,
<bacchetta@fnal.gov>\
Subject: Re: Transceiver chips\
\
\
Here is what we have in-hand:\
\
For DDRs, we have 405 Lot 1 (should not be used for analog) known good
die.\
For TXMs, we have 4344 known good die.\
\
If we buy the two remaining wafers (these have both DDR and TXM) from\
Honeywell for about \$25K, I would expect after yield to have an
additional\
400 Lot 2 DDRs (OK for analog) and 1200  transceivers.\
\
On the Transceivers, D0 purchaced some of the parts and we need to\
understand their needs as well for RunIIb.\
\
William\
\
Joe Incandela wrote:\
\>\
\> Dear Sergio and William\
\>\
\> A couple of questions: Everyone is free to add what info they have.\
\>\
\> 1.)     I understand there are thousands of tx chips around. Jeff and
I\
\> estimate the Run 2b detector will need around 4000 good ones as
follows\
\> 1300 hybrids and around 45 ftm\'s each with 8 readout chains -\> 1
tx\
\> per hybrid on the minipc 1 tx\
\> per hybrid on the jpc, 1 tx per readout chain on the jpc\'s,\
\> and 1 per readout chain in the ftm\
\> =1300\*2 + 45\*8\*2 = 3300 + 700 spares = 4000\
\>\
\> Do we have this many good tx chips available to CDF ?\
\>\
\> 2) Sergio estimated the power cables at 20k + 10k contingency. Jeff
says\
\> that besides the fibers, the cables for run 2a were of order 120 k.
How\
\> come we are getting by so cheap ? Did we estimate all power cables ?
Are\
\> we reusing all control lines ? Are we missing anything ?\
\>\
\> Joe\
\>\
\>
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\
\> J.R.Incandela                                   Telephone 1 630 840
8554\
\> Fermilab MS 318\
\> PO Box 500, Batavia IL 60510-0500               Facsimile 1 630 840
2968\
\>
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

### 5. Beam Tube Cost

Finding:

D0 assumes a total cost of \$225K for M&S for a new Be beam tube. They
have included 35% contingency for a total of \$303.75K.

CDF assumes a cost of \$200K with a 50% contingency for a total of
\$300K.

Comments:

These costs are in good agreement with past costs and current budgetary
estimates. Schedule is a significant concern with the beam tubes.
Previous experience has been that the delivery times can be as long as18
months.

Recommendation:

A common design for the two collaborations would likely reduce the total
time required to deliver both beam tubes and may allow the laboratory to
purchase a third tube as a spare for both groups in case one of the
tubes is damaged during silicon assembly or installation. This would
reduce schedule risk and catastrophic failure risk in an economical way.

# 

#  

### 6. Internal Mechanical Components Cost 

Finding:

Items included in this category for D0 include WBS numbers 1.1.4.1.1,
1.1.4.1.3-5, 1.1.4.2.1, 1.1.4.2.3-5, 1.1.4.3, 1.1.4.4, 1.1.5.1, 1.1.6.1
and 1.1.6.2. The total cost for these items is \$1.5M for M&S and \$2.7M
with contingency.

For CDF the cost estimate for mechanics and cooling was \$0.6M, with
\$0.4M contingency for a total of \$1.0M. This cost was based on the ISL
cost, scaling up by a factor of two and adding 67% contingency. A more
detailed estimate from CDF produced a cost of \$1.0M plus 50%
contingency for a total of \$1.5M. This estimate is attached.

Comments:

D0 presented two different outer layer stave designs to the PAC. The
cost estimation was done on the \"edge-cooled\" design. A significant
fraction of the cost in this design comes from Beryllium (or beryllia)
components (spacers and silicon supports). D0 has commented that this
design does not require gluing components to the active region of the
sensors and that the R&D required to determine if this is an issue for
the radiation levels expected is underway. The procurement cost of the
alternative \"center-cooling\" design is expected to be lower at the
expense of higher in-house resource needs, particularly composite
fabrication at Lab 3. D0 estimated the cost for the inner layers
assuming the same basic construction as for the outer layers; this
doesn\'t apply since ladders (and thus all the parts listed) will not be
constructed for these layers.

A large fraction (81 %) of the D0 cost is in the cooling tubes, spacers
and silicon supports so this review attempted to gain a better
understanding of these costs. D0 provided the following breakdown of
components between installed, prototype and spare parts. The totals for
all 6 layers are:

  ------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------------ --------------
                      installed   prototype   spares             total

  Cooling tubes       228         0           65                 293

  Spacers             1896        520         202                2618

  Silicon supports    1896        520         202                2618

  Total stave parts   \$812K      \$138K      \$115K             \$1,065K
  cost                                                           

                                              Contingency (93 %) \$986K

                                              Final total        \$2,052K
  ------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------------ --------------

The amended CDF estimate includes the following more detailed breakdown:

For Layers 3, 4 and 5, eight modules will be combined into one ladder
structure (4 on the phi side, 4 on the z-side). Layers 0, 1 and 2 do not
have ladders, but do require complicated carbon fiber support
structures. Layer 0, the smallest and thus most difficult, based on CDF
L00 experience. Additional items such as a fixture for installing the
ladders on a cylinder, support and cooling for the hybrids and junction
cards, and installation fixtures are each estimated at \$50K. The beam
pipe supports are estimated at \$20K and cooling for the outer silicon
layers at \$25K. An additional \$50K is included for miscellaneous
items.

  ---------------------------- ---------- --------------------------------
  Item                         Cost       Notes

  Fixtures for ladder assembly \$110K     \$25K each inner layer, \$35K
                                          for all outer layers

  Handling frames & boxes      \$76K      \$10K/layer, \$15K for layer 5

  Fixtures & material for      \$113K     For 170 (with 108 installed)
  ladders                                 

  Support structure for outer  \$205K     \~50 % of cost from high
  layers                                  conductivity carbon fiber with
                                          50% wastage

  Layer 0-2 support structures \$170K     L0 is \$70K, L1 & L2 are \$50K
                                          each

                                          
  ---------------------------- ---------- --------------------------------

The base cost for CDF comes to \$1.0M and a 50% contingency is assigned
for a total of \$1.5M. The assumption for cooling is that the Run2a
chiller system with a water glycol mix will be sufficient for Run 2b.

To provide a more direct comparison of CDF and D0 costs this review has
chosen to sum the costs associated with layer 0 and with layer 5 in each
case. Layer 0 and Layer 5 are the most similar of all the layers of the
two detectors in the current designs.

*Layer 0 comparison:*

The M&S cost estimates for CDF and D0 layer 0 are:

+--------------------------------+--------------------+----------------+
|                                | CDF                | D0             |
+--------------------------------+--------------------+----------------+
| Fixtures & Holding Frames      | \$35K              |                |
+--------------------------------+--------------------+----------------+
| Support cylinder & Fixture     | \$70K              |                |
+--------------------------------+--------------------+----------------+
| Cooling tubes, spacers,        |                    | > \$88.4K      |
| silicon supports               |                    |                |
+--------------------------------+--------------------+----------------+
| Adhesives & Hardware           |                    | \$10K          |
+--------------------------------+--------------------+----------------+
| Assembly Fixtures              |                    | \$15K          |
+--------------------------------+--------------------+----------------+
| Cylinders                      |                    | \$13.6K        |
+--------------------------------+--------------------+----------------+
| Totals                         | \$105K             | \$127K         |
+--------------------------------+--------------------+----------------+

We note that while these estimates are fairly similar and in line with
what the reviewers feel is reasonable, the distributions within the
totals are quite different, owing in large part to D0 estimating the
costs based on the "staves on a cylinder" type layout of their outer
layers vs. the amended estimate from CDF based on a layout more
consistent with the current designs of both projects.

*Layer 5 comparison:*

The outer 3 layers of the CDF detector are identical to each other. The
outermost layer has 48 ladders out of a total of 108. To estimate the
cost of layer 5 we scale the outer layer totals above by 0.44 (48/108).
Similarly D0 layer 5 was scaled by .36 (30/84)

  --------------------------------- --------------------- ----------------
                                    CDF                   D0

  Fixtures & Holding Frames         \$30K                 

  Carbon Fiber Material             \$50K                 

  Support cylinder & Fixture        \$80K                 

  Cooling tubes, spacers, silicon                         \$356K
  supports                                                

  Adhesives & Hardware                                    \$25K

  Assembly Fixtures                                       \$30K

  Cylinders                                               \$13.6K

  Totals                            \$160K                \$424.6K
  --------------------------------- --------------------- ----------------

Here the different emphasis of the two estimates is more dramatic. The
reviewers feel that D0 has underestimated the cost of the support
cylinder and associated mounting flanges. As described previously, the
D0 cost is for the \"edge-cooled\" design does not require gluing
components to the active region of the sensors The alternative
center-cooling D0 design is very similar to the CDF design and therefore
would have lower part costs.

Recommendation:

This review finds that the designs are still in too much flux to pin
down costs in detail. However, a rough estimate indicates that a total
M&S of \$1.2-1.5M with an added contingency of \$0.5-1.0M would be a
reasonable estimate. Designs that greatly exceed this cost are likely to
have levels of complexity and/or schedule risk that are not favorable to
the time scale of these projects. Lower estimates are unrealistic for
devices of this scale. A detailed review of the costs for the mechanical
components should be undertaken in the fall when the TDRs are available
and the design details are better understood.

**(note from J. Cooper: Given the range of estimates by the reviewers, a
base cost of \$ 1.35 M and a contingency of \$ 0.75 M was inserted into
the executive summary rollup of the review for each detector.)**

### 7. External Mechanical Components and Infrastructure

Finding:

D0 included several costs in their WBS structure that are associated
with the silicon, but are not part of the package being installed (WBS
numbers 1.1.6.3-7, 1.1.7.1-3). The total cost associated with these
items is \$685K (\$909K with contingency).

CDF provided no equivalent costs.

Comments:

The \$150K allocated for the cooling system includes \$70K for a new
chiller at D0 to allow the inner layers of silicon to be cooled to a
lower temperature for greater radiation tolerance, \$20K for a
chiller/pump system with instrumentation for a full tracker cooling test
at SiDet and \$60K to replace and modernize existing computer controlled
system devices in the existing cooling system. The latter is based on
the typical obsolescence time of 3-5 years for such components.

The \$80K for dry gas purge similarly consists of \$50K for augmenting
the capacity of the system and \$30K to rebuild the two existing
compressors at their 3-5 year service lifetimes.

The \$100K for interlocks and monitoring consists of \$60K for 300
channels (2 per stave plus 72 elsewhere) of temperature monitoring at
\$200/channel, \$10K for augmentation of the dew point monitoring and
interlock system and \$30K for spare modules (D0 has exhausted their
inventory of spare modules with the Run IIa system).

The \$40K for alignment monitoring is based on the desire to have
feedback and remote alignment capability similar to that provided by the
inchworms at CDF. Significant alignment work was done for Run IIa while
the CFT was still at Lab 3; this will not be possible for Run IIb. The
cost estimate includes R&D, mechanisms, instrumentation and control
system.

The cooling and dry gas entry under Installation (1.1.7.3) was clarified
to be primarily charge-back from Fermilab weld and machine shops and
electrical work associated with the installation of the low temperature
cooling system and augmentation of the dry gas purge. The figure is
based on the unexpectedly large cost incurred during Run IIa
installation.

Recommendation:

This review recommends that a standard be established by the lab as to
what items should fall under the Run IIb upgrade vs. operational costs
associated with compressor rebuilds, replacement of obsolete control
system components and the like which will be required on the same time
scale as the new detectors. Whatever that decision, both CDF and D0
should evaluate those costs and report them as appropriate, either in
their Run IIb budgets or in their operations budgets for the appropriate
years.

# E. Reality Check against the Run IIa devices

# 

Since Jeff Spalding and Ron Lipton were each managers of the Run IIa
Silicon Projects, they were asked to provide the actual costs of those
devices. At our May 18 meeting we came to the following conclusions:

**For CDF:**

The total cost of the IIa CDF SVXII was \$ 11.5 M in FY95\$. This did
not include L00 or the ISL. It did include the data acquisition system.
A CDF spreadsheet is attached in the written version of this report but
is not available electronically.

With the spreadsheet in hand, Jeff concluded that the \"thing being
replaced for Run IIb\" (e.g. don\'t count the DAQ again) cost about \$
7.7 M + the cost of sensors and hybrids for L00. His estimate for the
total was in the range \$ 8.0 - 8.5 M.

For Run IIb, two things stand out as being cheaper: The sensors are
expected to be \$ 1.7 M less, and the SVX chip is expected to be \$ 2.0
M less, giving a net of \$ 5 M in FY95\$.

**Scaling for inflation of 3% per year for 6 years leads to an estimate
of \$ 6 M in FY01\$ with an uncertainty of about \$ 1 M.**

**For DZero:**

The total cost of the IIa DZero device was \$ 7.9 M in then-year \$. A
DZero spreadsheet is attached in the written version of this report but
is not available electronically.

With the spreadsheet in hand, Ron concluded that the \"thing being
replaced for Run IIb\" cost about \$ 5.5 M in then-year \$, and he
included the IIa disks since the IIb detector replaces their function.

For Run IIb, no particular item stands out as being cheaper: Most of the
DZero IIa sensors were already single-sided, and the SVX2 chip was
already much cheaper than the SVX3 used by CDF.

**Scaling for inflation of 3% per year for the appropriate number years
leads to an estimate of \$ 6 M in FY01\$, again with an uncertainty of
about \$ 1M.**