# Presentation: 183534

## U.S. DeliverablesCost and Schedule Summary

- M. G. D. Gilchriese
- U.S. ATLAS Review
- November 2, 2000

## Outline

- US institutions and management
- Definition of goals and baseline scope
- Summary of proposed U.S. deliverables by WBS
- Summary costs
- Principal management contingency decision dates
- Critical path
- Schedule contingencies

## US Institutions and Management

- 							_ALB   LBL   UNM   UOK   OSU_
- 1.1.1 Pixels(Gilchriese)
- 1.1.1.1 Mechanics(Gilchriese, Anderssen)	          	           x
- 1.1.1.2 Sensors(Seidel, Hoeferkamp)	   		   x       	       x	  x
- 1.1.1.3 Electronics(Einsweiler, TBD)                                               x		           x
- 1.1.1.4 Hybrids(Skubic, Boyd, Gan)	   	                   x      x	                  x       x
- 1.1.1.5 Modules(Garcia-Sciveres, Goozen)	                           x          x         x       x
- 1.1.1.6 Test Support(Gilchriese)                       		           x
- (Physicist, Engineer)
- SUNY Albany, LBL, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Ohio State
- In addition, off-detector electronics(ReadOut Drivers for both pixels and SCT) are separate project(Wisconsin, Iowa State and LBL) and will not be presented at this review.

## Pixel Detector Inserted from Outside Inner Detector

- Pixel Detector

- Semiconductor Tracker(SCT)

- Transition Radiation Tracker(TRT)

## ATLAS Pixel Baseline

- Three barrel layers

- Three disk layers

## Goals vs Baseline Scope

- The current ATLAS baseline is a 3-hit pixel system with three barrel layers and 2x3 disk layers.
- The recent decision to make it possible to insert/remove the full pixel detector from outside the Inner Detector volume requires a considerable structure to support the pixel system and to provide a thermal enclosure for the Semiconductor Tracker (SCT).
- The US _goals_ are identical to the ATLAS baseline - a 3-hit system - _and_ to provide the support structure/thermal enclosure.
- The US _baseline scope_, however, corresponds to a 2-hit pixel system and to about six months of design effort for the support structure/thermal enclosure.
- US ATLAS management decisions will be required(dates given later) to move items from the _management contingency_ pool into the baseline scope to reach some or all of the goals.

## Pixel Layout - US Goals

- 3-hit system

## Layout - US Baseline Scope

- 2-hit system

## Goals vs Baseline Scope - Performance

- The tracking performance of a 3-hit pixel system and a 2-hit pixel system was compared almost three years ago(ATLAS Internal Note INDET-NO-188).
- The b-tagging performance(jet rejection) of ATLAS, for fixed efficiency, was found to be degraded by about 30% going from a 3-hit to 2-hit pixel system.
- This study was done with a more robust disk system(2x5 disks to have best coverage in higher density track region)
- Since then, the material in the tracking system has increased, and the number of disk decreased. New simulation studies will be done with the most recent layout over the next six months. It is likely that the degradation of performance going from 3 to 2 hits will increase, particularly in the forward region.
- Nevertheless it’s the US position that the _initial_ _performance_ of ATLAS will be _adequate_ with two pixel hits, given our cost and schedule constraints.
- Fully-insertable system allows _upgrade_ albeit removal and re-installation requires some months.

## Deliverables

- Will go through proposed deliverables for each WBS item.
- In some cases, terminology will only be clear after subsequent talks - appreciate your patience.
- Differences between goals and baseline scope are highlighted in red.
- Schedules are in US fiscal years.
- Costs are in FY00 dollars.

## 1.1.1.1 Mechanics

- _Goals_
- 6 disk structures(sectors, rings, mounts)
- Global support frame
- Mounts to SCT
- Support/SCT thermal enclosure/rails
- Patch panel 0(PP0) - 360
- Type II cables for 1782 modules
- Services support structure
- Level of effort for outer and B-layer installation tooling and equipment
- Test equipment
- Assembly/test/installation of disk system

- _Baseline Scope_
- 6 disk structures(sectors, rings, mounts)
- Global support frame
- Mounts to SCT
- 6 months design effort
- Patch panel 0(PP0) - 241
- Type II cables for 1192 modules
- Services support structure
- Level of effort for outer and B-layer installation tooling and equipment
- Test equipment
- Assembly/test/installation of disk system

## 1.1.1.2 Sensors

- _Goals_
- Preproduction order is launched
- Testing of preproduction
- Fund fab of 251 production wafers
- Testing of 251 wafers

- _Baseline Scope_
- Preproduction order is launched
- Testing of preproduction
- Fund fab of 168 production wafers
- Testing of 168 wafers

## 1.1.1.3 Electronics

- _Goals_
- Contribution to FE-D3 prototype
- Contribution to 1st and 2nd 0.25  prototypes
- Contribution to optical IC prototypes
- Fund fab of  74 0.25  (8”)wafers
- Probing of 168 8” wafers.
- Fund fab of 110 DMILL 6” wafers
- Probing of 250 DMILL 6” wafers.
- 20 test systems
- One-half of minimum DMILL 8 wafer run for optical ICs
- Probing of one-half of optical IC wafers

- _Baseline Scope_
- Contribution to FE-D3 prototype
- Contribution to 1st and 2nd 0.25  prototypes
- Contribution to optical IC prototypes
- Fund fab of 49 0.25  (8”) wafers
- Probing of 112 8” wafers.
- 20 test systems
- One-half of minimum DMILL 8 wafer run for optical ICs
- Probing of one-half of optical IC wafers

## 1.1.1.4 Flex/Optical Hybrids

- _Goals_
- 1782 flex hybrids in detector
- Components and loading of same
- Die attach/wire bond of MCC to yield 891 in detector
- 300 disk pigtails in detector
- Assembly of disk pigtails to flex.
- 50 optical hybrids in detector

- _Baseline Scope_
- 1192 flex hybrids in detector
- Components and loading of same
- Die attach/wire bond of MCC to yield 596 in detector
- 204 disk pigtails in detector
- Assembly of disk pigtails to flex.
- 34 optical hybrids in detector

## 1.1.1.5 Modules

- _Goals_
- Thinning of 335 8” wafers
- Dicing of 335 8” wafers
- Die sort for 335 8” wafers
- Thinning of 500 6” wafers
- Dicing of 500 6” wafers
- Die sort of 500 6” wafers
- Probing of bare modules to yield 446 in detector
- Assembly/test to yield 446 in detector
- Attachment/test of all disk modules to sectors
- Test equipment for modules

- _Baseline Scope_
- Thinning of 224 8” wafers
- Dicing of 224 wafers
- Die sort for 224 wafers
- Probing of bare modules to yield 298  in detector
- Assembly/test to yield 298 in detector
- Attachment/test of all disk modules to sectors
- Test equipment for modules

## 1.1.1.6 Beam/System Tests

- _Goals_
- Level of effort test beam support
- Level of effort system test support at CERN

- _Baseline Scope_
- Level of effort test beam support
- Level of effort system test support at CERN

## Base Costs(FY00$K) - Level 5

## Management Contingency(FY00$K) - Level 5

## Management Contingency - Major Decisions

- Pixel support/SCT thermal enclosure/rails
- Well matched to US capabilities in composite design and manufacture
- Have committed to about 6 months (intense) design effort to produce conceptual design and cost/schedule to keep design moving.
- Management decision required _**March 2001**_ to proceed beyond conceptual design. Very rough cost estimate today is $0.5M + design engineering labor.
- Atmel/DMILL front-end ICs
- Summary already covered by Rossi and will be discussed in detail by Einsweiler.
- If next prototype successful, advance overall production schedule at some cost, head towards 3-hit system.
- Management decision required by _**January 2002**_ to realize schedule advantage.

## Critical Path - US Baseline Scope

## Schedule Contingencies

- We have some float in the US baseline scope schedule, as you will see in more detail by tomorrow.
- Nevertheless, it is useful to understand possible fall-back positions in case there are problems with the schedule.
- One general approach is to speed up production, assembly and placement of modules - this is under study(but not yet included in our schedule). So far we have assumed about one-half the expected rate for module assembly/attachment/testing steps.
- Additional bump bonding vendors and/or increase production rate assumptions
- Additional module assembly/testing sites within global collaboration.
- Potential savings about 4-5 months
- The other general approach is take advantage of the ability to insert the pixel system with the ID in place
- The LHC machine schedule is tight and the current estimate is only 1-2 months of  two-beam running in 2005 at best.
- Delaying installation of some or all of the pixel system to be ready for 2006 run would gain about 8 months in the schedule.