# Presentation: 644286

## Response to the EDR/ESR Review
 Joel Butler
October 12, 2005

-  Joel Butler
- October 12, 2005

## Organization and Management

**6.2.1** **The committee noted that the recent large influx of personnel from the US is being viewed very positively within the pixel project, but cautioned of the need for strong coordination in deploying these new resources, to ensure that coherence is maintained between present and future organisations and responsibilities and that there is no drag on activities already in train.  Positive steps should be taken to forestall the natural tendency that eager and available manpower in the forward system, combined with barrel system experts under the full pressure of the manufacturing phase, result in a (further) divergence between the barrel and endcap details.  **
**The committee should judge for itself. I feel that the new resources were badly needed by the whole “pixel project” and that the FPIX groups are all working together at least as well as they did before. Cooperation with the barrel pixel group is more extensive and will continue to develop.**
**Recent examples include the TBM, the FED, slow controls, and databases**
**Any “new projects” not required by the original plan are undertaken only by recommendation of CMS management, e.g. participation in the 2007 run, which is probably only made possible by the additional resources **

## 6.2.3 Regarding management of the overall project, the committee recommends that a project-wide coordinator be established for each specific topic where commonality between the barrel and endcap systems can be profitably pursued (as already done effectively for service integration). 
This will develop over the next few months
The software workshop is a step in that direction

- This will develop over the next few months
- The software workshop is a step in that direction

- Coordination with Barrel

## 6.2.4 Whilst noting the impressive progress in electronic development and preparations for system integration, the committee recommended that a plan for overall electronics integration with CMS be developed as soon as possible, coherent with the activity currently being pursued by several sub-detectors in building 904.
We will give this priority after the next steps in production are initiated 

- We will give this priority after the next steps in production are initiated

- Electronics Integration

## 6.4.1 The committee made the general observation that the forward detector is inherently more complex to construct, involving more varieties of modules and other components because of the disk geometry.  In addition the part of the pixel collaboration dedicated to the forward system is more complex, with many institutes, distributed, long lines of communication, and diverse resource constraints.
Frequent meetings 
technical board (Weekly, Thursday->Friday) 
assembly (Weekly, Monday)
Electronics (Roland, weekly on Tuesday)
Software (biweekly, Wednesday)
Slow controls (weekly)
and frequent ad hoc meetings  
Note and talks available for these meetings
Organizational complexity seems to be the norm for CMS

**Frequent meetings **
**technical board (Weekly, Thursday->Friday) **
**assembly (Weekly, Monday)**
**Electronics (Roland, weekly on Tuesday)**
**Software (biweekly, Wednesday)**
**Slow controls (weekly)**
**and frequent ad hoc meetings  **
**Note and talks available for these meetings**
**Organizational complexity seems to be the norm for CMS**

- Complexity

## 6.4.2 The committee endorsed the need to re-organise the existing forward pixel project to cope with the continuing transition to a full production phase and the need to integrate new resources. The full WBS plan being prepared is a useful, possibly indispensable, tool for organising the large number of institutes and tasks involved.
6.4.3 Given the objective of delivering 2 forward pixel disks per end for the first year of LHC operation, the committee felt that the reorganisation in progress should, where possible, reinforce existing facilities, expertise and success, avoid duplication or re-invention, and exploit synergy with the more advanced barrel project. 
We have stuck with the original plan and introduced no new production sites
Purdue, JHU, Kansas, and FNAL
New groups are handling uncovered responsibilities and are mostly doing work that can be done remotely or contributing at FNAL

**6.4.3 Given the objective of delivering 2 forward pixel disks per end for the first year of LHC operation, the committee felt that the reorganisation in progress should, where possible, reinforce existing facilities, expertise and success, avoid duplication or re-invention, and exploit synergy with the more advanced barrel project. **
**We have stuck with the original plan and introduced no new production sites**
**Purdue, JHU, Kansas, and FNAL**
**New groups are handling uncovered responsibilities and are mostly doing work that can be done remotely or contributing at FNAL**

- Disruption due to Reorganization

## 6.4.4 The committee considers it essential to re-integrate the combined pixel project organisation and management into the overall Tracker organisational structure in preparation for the internal pixel integration phase and the subsequent integration with the strip Tracker. 
We agree. We note that this will take real effort. That effort is now available to the overall pixel effort

- We agree. We note that this will take real effort. That effort is now available to the overall pixel effort

- Integration with Tracker

## 6.5.2 The spares provision for all components be thought through in detail before the production runs are completed and mass-testing facilities dismantled.
“operational spares” for FPIX were always planned but are now provided by M&O funding in the US
Equipment required for installation, commissioning and maintenance will be moved to CERN as production begins to wind down and will be left there for as long as it is needed (possibly for the duration).  

- “operational spares” for FPIX were always planned but are now provided by M&O funding in the US
- Equipment required for installation, commissioning and maintenance will be moved to CERN as production begins to wind down and will be left there for as long as it is needed (possibly for the duration).

- Spares

## 6.5.4 The operation of the TBM should be validated mounted on-panel.
The operation on-panel and in the barrel module has been validated (despite the small flaw in this version). Extensive tests have been carried out. We are ready to resubmit.
Full exercise of the TBM05 has been an excellent example of a joint effort and good communications between the barrel and forward groups 

- The operation on-panel and in the barrel module has been validated (despite the small flaw in this version). Extensive tests have been carried out. We are ready to resubmit.
- Full exercise of the TBM05 has been an excellent example of a joint effort and good communications between the barrel and forward groups

- TBM

## Bump Bonding

**6.6.2 Forward: Whilst the committee agreed that use of multiple suppliers mitigates the risk of supply failure, it was pointed out that this also makes QC coordination very difficult. It was remarked that since the bump bond contractors work with high value input units, the risk of high cost losses is great and liability for damage must be understood.**
**6.6.3 Taking account of the cost pressures on the project, the committee urged that the possibilities of using the PSI facilities to do forward bump bonding, either in series or parallel with the barrel, should be seriously considered?**
**Nearly all pixel projects have had this done in industry**
**We have expressed a willingness to do the work at PSI provided we can meet our schedule requirements without disrupting theirs (I.e we need a continuous supply of bump-bonded chips starting in early spring). They have told us this is impractical given their need for contingency in the barrel. pr**
**The “bump bonding” RFP – Request for Proposal – has been issued. There are some indications that we will get at least two credible bids at prices better than expected and able to meet our schedule**

## Production Workflow

- 6.8.1 Forward: It was noted that different yields for different sensor sizes can perturb the production workflow.
- We are aware of this and can deal with it by revising workflow if required
- We are also working with the sensor vendor to make sure that this problem doesn’t occur
- We will be receiving the first of the three shipments of sensors very soon

## Concentration of Resources

- 6.9.6 The committee noted the recent rapid advances, with some parts of the process, such as plaquette assembly and testing already well understood.  However, much work remains to be done.
- Agree and note recent progress on panel assembly and testing
- 6.9.7 The committee felt that concentration of production activities and personnel in the few centres with proven experience would be wise, given the challenges facing the project.  This is also the best way to integrate new personnel at short notice.
- Believe that is being done. There have certainly been no changes to the production plan in the last year

## Systems Test

- 6.10.1 The committee was pleased to see the preparations for system testing of the barrel, beginning imminently, and noted that the forward project is on-track to reach the same state of preparation in about a year’s time.
- 6.10.7 Forward system tests should aim to reach the same level of realism as System-12 in early 06.
- We expect to have a full readout chain for a panel including the adapter card very soon. That will be quickly followed by the test of a blade. We feel that these are the key system tests.
- We note the plan, advocated by tracker management and adopted by FPIX,  to redo the service cylinder with an embedded mesh ground grid is a recent idea that will require some additional work, cost and time. It is not on the critical path.

## Radiation Tolerance

- 6.11.1 The committee recommended a further check that radiation tolerance issues are understood for all components
- We will do that
- We are setting up a spread sheet to document what  is known through our own tests and the work of others.
- We will use it to determine what has yet to be proven
- We are carefully documenting new tests

## Integration with BCM/PLT

- 6.12.2 Integration of the BCM and proposed luminosity monitor structures needs urgent work.
- We are in frequent contact with the designers

## Common QA/QC 

- 6.12.9 Establish and document common procedures for QA/QC
- We are developing a detailed plan. Aaron Dominguez of University of Nebraska is coordinating the various aspects of this
- We are in close cosultation with PSI

## Databases

- 6.13.1 Take care to avoid unwieldy structures, which could cause drag on online operation speed.
- 6.13.2 Maintain coherence with overall CMS database policy. (Single point of contact for both barrel and forward?).
- We are trying to make sure that the database developers are aware of “requirements”, including schedule requirements and throughput. We are advocating light-weight solutions, but this is not always a CMS approach (in my humble opinion)
- We do try to adhere to overall CMS policy and maintain contact with key policy makers
- The workshop should help ensure we are moving in the right direction

## Grounding

- 6.14.1 Aluminium components in both barrel and endcap be allodined or otherwise plated.
- We have investigated Alodining and will do it as part of an  updated overall grounding strategy recommended by tracker management
- 6.14.2 Conductivity issues in the carbon fibre support structures be investigated (pulser tests?)
- ????

## Survey

- 6.16.1 Setting goals to establish relative internal initial positions and bulk object absolute dimensions and suggests considering this at a future review.
- We have assigned additional people to our alignment team and they will work with CMS to specify goals and then to develop an alignment plan for the detector that is compatible with and supports CMS’ ongoing efforts in this area
- 6.16.2 Defining responsibility for placement and survey
- This is at FNAL. We have an engineer who is developing a written plan that was presented at this workshop (for discussion)
- 6.16.3 Actively controlling that the detector is within defined integration envelope e.g. to ensure beampipe supports locate correctly.
- Keeping in close touch with designers at CERN

## Safety

- 6.17.1 Approval for use of the Be substrate by CERN SC is VERY URGENT.  Christoph Schaefer should be contacted for assistance if required.
- An extensive report has been written by Bruno and has been  submitted to Christoph Schafer
- The report has been passed on to CERN Safety and we have received comments from Jonathon Gulley
- We believe that we can successfully respond to these comments over the next two weeks and will do so in an EMAIL and also by revising and extending the report. Presentation by Bruno

## Completion and Commissioning

- 6.18.4 Similarly, for the forward system, the objective of completing the final 3-disk configuration, in the first round of upgrades for high luminosity, should be born in mind in the planning and procurements for the current “initial detector” configuration.
- Since the 2-disk system is a descope, there is provision for the third disk in the service cylinder, in the placement of electronics, and in cabling

## 2007

**6.18.5 As a corollary to the above comments, the committee nevertheless supports the concept that, resources permitting, the pixel project should aim to exploit an LHC pilot run in 2007 to integrate the pixel system at the CMS DAQ, DCS, DSS, monitoring and data reconstruction level and to obtain operational experience under LHC running conditions. The installation of a subsystem of the pixel detector consisting of a few modules of various types, together with the BCM, for the 2007 pilot run should thus be seriously considered**.
**The forward pixel group has a plan to put in a few (2-4) blades from our pre-production on one side of the IR in 2007. Incremental funding above what is produced in the natural course of preparing for production will be provided by M&O funds. The growth in the size of the group makes this possible**
**The barrel group has proposed that they could make components available to install provided personnel to install and operate it can be supplied by the forward group. This would be a big step in integration. It would require people from the forward group to spend significant time at PSI to plan this activity and participate in the testing of these modules. Funding has been made available through the M&O project to support this. We will be trying to identify people to do this**