MREFC Overview for pre-FDR - PowerPoint Presentation

1. MREFC Overview for pre-FDR Anders Ryd (Cornell)Preliminary Design ReviewDec. 13, 2018

2. Introduction/OverviewProject Management OverviewCost GuidanceConfiguration ManagementDevelopment PlanQA PlanScope OptionsEducation and OutreachSummaryOutline

3. A. Ryd - Deputy Project Manager and NSF PIProfessor, Cornell 2003 - presentCMS 2005-presentHL-LHC U.S. CMS deputy upgrade project manager (2014-present)CMS Run Coordinator (2010(deputy)&2011)Convener of track trigger integration group (2009 and 2012-2014)Pixel online software/DAQ (2005-2010)SUSY searches and ttHCLEO-c 2003-2011Hadronic D-decays and precision trackingPostdoc, Caltech 1996 - 2003 BABAR; L3 trigger, offline software coordinator, and rare B-decays Ph.D. UCSB 1996 CLEO; Semileptonic B-decays and tracking

4. Summary of CMS HL-LHC UpgradesDOENSFDOEandNSFNSFNSFTrigger/HLT/DAQTrack information in L1-TriggerL1-Trigger: 12.5 ms latency – output 750 kHzHLT output 7.5 kHzBarrel ECAL/HCALReplace FE/BE electronicsLower ECAL operating temp. (8 ⚬C)Muon SystemsReplace DT & CSC FE/BE ElectronicsComplete RPC coverage in region 1.5<h<2.4Muon tagging 2.4<h<3New Endcap CalorimetersRad. tolerant – high granularity3D capableNew TrackerRad. tolerant – high granularity – significant less material40 MHz selective readout (pT>2 GeV) in Outer Tracker for L1 -TriggerExtended coverage to h=4DOEMIP Precision Timing DetectorBarrel: Crystal +SiPMEndcap: Low Gain Avalanche DiodesDOE

5. There have been only very minor updates in scope and requirements since the PDRThe most significant change in scope is in the pixelsOur contribution to services (power, cooling, cables, common mechanics) have been reduced and the U.S. will deliver the inner tracker support tube (ITST)Details in TFPX Mechanics talks by K. Ecklund and J. AlexanderThe NSF contribution to the common fund has been reduced to match the NSF authorship fractionWith the DOE area paying a larger fraction of the U.S. common fund the NSF is supporting additional project management and project controls contractorsIn total these changes are approximately cost neutralBCRCs XXXXXX and YYYYYYY (working on NSF approval)NSF Scope Updates

6. 402.1 HL-LHC CMS Detector Upgrade ProjectProject OfficeProject Manager: V. O’DellDeputy PM: A. RydDeputy PM: V. PapadimitriouAssociate PM (Cost, Schedule, Risk) L. TaylorAssociate PM: C. WilkinsonProject Scientist: C. HillCMS HL-LHC liaison: P. RumerioEducation and Public Outreach: S. RappoccioESH&Q Manager: T. J. SarlinaProject Controls: W. FreemanEVMS Specialist: Rich MarcumProject Finance: J. Teng (DOE), W. Franklin (NSF)Systems Engineer: J. DolphDOE scopeNSF scopeDOE and NSF scope402.3 Barrel Cal. L2 Manager: C. Jessop402.3.3 ECAL L3M: B. Hirosky402.3.4 HCALL3M: A. Belloni402.4 Endcap Cal. L2 Manager: J. MansDep. L2: H. Cheung402.4.3 Sensors 402.4.4 Modules L3M: N. Akchurin, M. Paulini 402.4.5 CassettesL3M: J. Strait, Z. Gecse402.4.6 BH ActiveL3M: T. Kolberg402.4.7 Electronics and ServicesL3M: J. Hirschauer402.5 Endcap MuonsL2 Manager: A. Safonov402.5.3 CSC-OffL3M: D. Wood402.5.4 GEML3M: K. Black402.6 Trigger/DAQL2 Manager: J. BerryhillDep. L2s: K. Ulmer R. Cavanaugh402.6.3 Cal Trig L3M: W. Smith402.6.6 DAQL3M: R. Mommsen402.6.4 Muon Trig L3M: D. Acosta402.6.5 Correlator TrigL3M: N. Tran402.6.7 Track Trig L3M: P. Wittich402.2 OT L2 Manager:S. NahnDep. L2: P. Merkel 402.2.3 SensorsL3M: U. Heintz402.2.4 ElectronicsL3M: Y. Gershtein, A. Canepa402.2.5 ModulesL3M: M. Narain, L. Spiegel402.2.6 MechanicsL3M: S. Gruenendahl, R. Lipton402.2.7 IntegrationL3M: S. Gruenendahl, R. Lipton402.7.3 Sensors & ROCSL3M: S. Wagner402.7 FPIX L2 Managers: J. Alexander, K. EcklundDep. L2: W. Johns402.7.4 ModulesL3M: M. Jones402.7.5 ElectronicsL3M: A. Ivanov402.7.6 Mech. & AssemblyL3M: J. Alexander402.8 MIP TimingL2 Manager: C. NeuDep. L2s: F. Chlebana D. Stuart402.8.3 Common SystemsL3M: TBN402.8.4 Endcap Timing LayerL3M: A. ApresyanV.2.4 2018-10-16402.8.3 Barrel Timing LayerL3M: A. BornheimUpdate for DOE/NSF splitWell defined WBS and WBS Dictionary Separate deliverables for NSF and DOE

7. We have strengthened the management teamS. Rappoccio is our EPO coordinatorV. Papadimitriou is deputy PM for DOE scopeC. Wilkinson is associate PMT.J. Sarlina is the project ESH&Q coordinatorR. Cavanaugh and K. Ulmer has joined as deputy L2 managers for TriggerIn addition P. Rumerio has replaced J. Spalding (ret.) as our CMS HL-LHC liaisonManagement Team Updates

8. Forward Pixel (TFPX)TFPX – primary forward tracking device: NSF Scope|h| < 42x8 disks1728 modules0.8 Gigapixels1.9 m2 silicon areaTFPX – NSF scopeConfiguration slightly changed since CDR, area ≃ sameSensorROCReadOutChipBumpbondHDIHigh Density InterconnectWirebondBeampipeBeamlinemodule

9. Track Trigger and Muon TriggerOuter TrackerDetectorBarrel Muon SystemEndcap MuonSystemTrackTriggerEC BEBMU BEEMU BEBarrel Calo Trigger Layer-1Correlator Trigger Layer-1Correlator / Global Trigger Layer-2Barrel Muon Track FinderEndcap Muon Track FinderBE+L1 System:40,000 kHz event dataprocessing36 Boards 25 Boards5-10 Boards162 FPGA boards+crates,fibers,FW,SWUS CMS Trigger/DAQ scopeOther US CMS scope750 kHz To HLTDAQ/HLT SystemEvent BuilderHLTStorage Manager7.5 kHz To OfflineDTC: Outer Tracker BEEndcap CalorimetersBarrel CalorimetersEB/HB/HF BEBarrel Calo Trigger Layer-23 Boards13 FPGA boards+crates,fibers,FW,SW6 FPGA boards+crates,fibers,FW,SWNSF Scope

10. In Peripheral Crates:Replace DAQ mother boards (ODMB) – one per chamberAdditional high bandwidth optical fibersFED system is replaced with all new crates and modulesForward MuonsCathode Strip Chamber (CSC) readout upgrade:ODMB boards Optical links Backend FED systemData acquisition system for GEM detectors Transfer data to Level-1 muon track finder and central CMS DAQ system

11. Barrel CalorimeterNSF Scope:2448 (+spares) Frontend Boards for ECAL126 (+spares) Barrel Calorimeter Processor Boards for ECAL+HCAL

12. Following the PDR and the internal NSF review we have received guidance from the NSF on:Charge for this pre-FDR (DocDB-13583)General Project Development (DocDB-13547)Costing (DocDB-13570)Education and Public Outreach (DocDB-13571)Our progress and plans for addressing this guidance is available in DocDB-XXXXX (to be moved there from google doc before pre-FDR)In this talk the main points in this guidance will be addressed:Project Development PlanCost Configuration ManagementRisk ManagementScope ManagementEVM Reporting PlansEducation and Public OutreachQuality Management PlanResponse to NSF Guidance following PDR

13. Involved institutions at PDRU.S. CMS Institutions on MREFC ScopeInst.L2 area(s)Inst.L2 area(s)U. of VirginiaBCALVanderbilt U.TFPXBoston U.TFPXU. of ColoradoTrigger, TFPXWayne StateMuonCornell U.PO, Trigger, TFPXNortheasternBCAL, MuonUCLAMuonU. of FloridaTriggerCatholic UATFPXRutgers U.TriggerU. of KansasTFPXUICTFPXU. of MarylandBCALU. of NebraskaTFPXU. WisconsinBCAL, MuonNotre Dame U.BCAL, TriggerU. of MinnesotaBCALPurdue U.TFPXRice U.Muon, Trigger, TFPXTexas A&MMuon, TriggerKansas State U.TFPXNorthwesternTriggerUCSBMuonOSUMuon, TriggerFor FDR adding a few institutions: FIT, UPRM, SUNY Buffalo, UCR, Johns Hopkins, UTK, UCD, Purdue NW

14. PDR Baseline Budget ProfileTravel (M$)0.60.60.50.60.30.12.7Labor (M$)5.35.04.73.70.80.119.6M&S (M$)8.013.09.13.20.20.133.6Total (M$)13.918.614.37.51.30.355.9Year 1 starts April 1, 2020

15. The project development plan was carefully updated and reviewed in Sept. 2018 as part of the preparation of the 2019 R&D budgetsMilestones updated for the critical prototype development for the remaining R&D period and preparations for the FDRReport on these milestones monthly to the NSFProject Development Plan

16. NSF Scope 2019 R&D BudgetWe have finalized the 2019 R&D budgetsVery tight budgets in L2 areas for 2019 Need to ramp up activities before MREFC startThe overall development budget by L2 area (AY k$):This plan is agreed with the operations program (D. Marlow and L. Bauerdick)Budget is more than the original 2016 proposal, mostly to cover Q1 CY2020Very tight budget – closely managed and optimized by L2 managersL2 AreaCY 2017CY2018CY2019CY2020*TotalTFPX1,032.0 1,270.5 1,499.0251.5 4,054.0Trigger304.1 572.0 690.0 137.8 1,703.9 BCAL 357.9 680.0 690.055.3 1,783.2Forward Muons131.8358.9368.538.4897.6Project Office971.1399.2362.2127.11,859.6Total2,796.9 3,280.6 3,609.7 610.1 10,297.3 * CY2020 covers the first 3 months

17. Central updates to rates used by projectLabor, fringe, and OH rates were collected in the fall for all institutions for FY 2019 – will move to base year 2019 for all costsThese rates will be adopted in a new baseline. The estimated cost impact is about $100k on about $19M of laborWill have some impact on the cost from changes in university polices for use of on- vs. off-campus ratesWe have updated exchange rates used by the projectNo large impact on cost, most significant change is in CHF rate changing from 0.95 CHF/$ to 0.977 CHF/$Updates to M&S costs in the L2 areasUpdates to quotes and other cost estimates for M&S are being implementedWe target to have these implemented by Feb. 1, 2019TFPX Mechanics and ECAL Frontend Board will be presented in detailCost Updates for FDR

18. The NSF cost guidance following PDR (DocDB-13570) included a number of recommendations on the format and presentation of the cost materialFollowing discussions with the NSF (M. Coles, R. Yasky, and D. DiGiovana) we have adopted the following changes:For the BOEs:Separate summary tables of costed (on-project) labor and the Scientific Labor (off-project)The labor tables and the M&S table contains a summary of hours and direct costs respectivelyFor each L3 or L4 area corresponding to a BOE we provide a summary cost sheet from P6 containing:Costs by NSF 1030 budget categories and yearTotal direct M&S cost and labor hours that can be checked against the respective BOEUpdates to BOEs and Cost Summaries

19. CMS Version of LFM 4.2.2-1 FlowCEP & WBSCost Estimating PlanKey AssumptionsRulesSchedule RulesTags for sortingExternal ConstraintsWBSWBS DictionaryCost Model Data SetLabor RatesBOEsCost EstimatesLabor Hours Accounts, CTCRisk RegistrySchedule (RLS)WBS-based ActivitiesDurations Estimates and Resources from BOEsTags for sortingPerformance Measurement TechniqueMilestonesLogic and RelationshipsRisk Analysis InputEarned Value ManagementTime-phased Target BaselineActuals input from AccountingContingency ManagementEAC/ETC ManagementRisk AnalysisRisk Monte CarloCost ReportsCost Book Report by WBSNSF Budget FormsLabor ReportsCost ProfilesThen-year budgetsCost Category SummariesBudgets for SOWsOther summariesInstitutional Accounting SystemsActualsAccrualsCommitmentsProcurements InfoFundingChart of AccountsEVM ReportsMonthly EVM ReportsVariancesTPCBudget SummariesSchedule ReportsSchedules (Gantt Charts)Critical PathRisk ReportsRisk S-curvesContingency Confidence LevelsRisk ExposureRisk RankingRisk Management PlanImpact Mitigation

20. Summary Tables in BOEM&S Table includes total direct costSimilar labor tables for costed and Scientific labor includes total hours

21. Sample L4 Area Summary SheetWill cleanup and improve formatting – but this is the basic information we should include.Automatically generated from P6In BOE

22. The Scope, Cost, Schedule, Requirements, etc. presented at the PDR in Dec. 2017 forms the baseline for the projectChanges to the project baseline are trackedThe configuration index provides the set of documents that form the baseline (Lucas and I are working on implementing this - should have by pre-FDR)Changes are approved according to our Configuration Management PlanSamples of configuration changes include:Updated Project Management PlansUpdated Costs, e.g. PO, TFPX Mech., and ECAL FEUpdated RequirementsConfiguration Management

23. Sample Baseline Change RequestPO Changes due to rebalancing Common Fund payment between NSF and DOE(Following guidance by NSF.)

24. Sample BCR Cont.Summary of changes and cost impactWe use the Fermilab Baseline Change Request Tool

25. The Configuration Index (CI) was a recommended by the PDR review.We have implemented the CI:Link to L. Taylor and A. Ryd have discussed implementation – will have by pre-FDREssentially a sharepoint page that index documents based on version Need to have the PDR page point to the documents at the time of the PDR!Configuration Index

26. Risks have been reviewed/updated based on:Guidance from NSF/PDRRemove risks that are carried by NSFRisk for loss of DOE scientific laborRisks have been split according to guidance for TFPX SiInterface change risks moved from one project management risk to individual risks for each L2 areaReview of project risksRe-evaluation of risks based on more advanced technical statusThese are updated in the risk registerThe current snapshot of the risk register is available onlineRisk Assessment

27. The NSF guidance included recommendations to update and clarify the management of the Risk Management process. Lucas has reviewed these changes and agrees with them. They will be incorporated in the Fermilab risk management process. We should summarize these here and describe the plans before the pre-FDRRisk Management

28. Descope Options - BurndownNSF Descope Options = $7.2M or ~13%(Details in L2 talks and CMS-DOC-#13357)Many options expire in first ~2.5 year. Strategic re-planning will shift drop dead dates out in timeFrom PDR

29. Up-scope Options - BurndownNSF Upscope Options = $8.7M or ~16%(Details in L2 talks and CMS-DOC-#13357)From PDR

30. Need to decide what to say about Scope Management Plans at pre-FDRNSF guidance complain that options expire earlyBut we maintain ~10% descope options about 2.5 years into the project10% is the guidance at PDR – beyond PDR the level of descoping option is by agreement with NSFDiscussing this with NSF (M. Coles and R. Yasky) they said that the main issue was more about the options being realistic and just pushing the cost (e.g. by reducing spares) to e.g. the operations programAt PDR we said that with strategic planning we could extend decision points later in timeWe should also add additional up-scope options by FDRDiscussed some ideas with TFPX – should be added to scopeing planScope Management

31. The goal is to demonstrate earned value reporting in 2019 before the FDRWe have prepared for this in the fall of 2018 by:Collecting actuals based on invoices and accruals for expenses not yet invoicedDelays in invoicing from some institutions is a challenge. We will continue to work to improve the invoicing and make the expectation very clear in the SOWs.Collecting schedule statusWe have done this a few times this fall and it has helped work out a number of bugs in the system and getting universities familiar with this processProgress Towards EVMS Reporting

32. Financial Summary ($M)With 23/24 months costs included seems we have large amounts of unspent funds in BCAL, Muons, and TriggerQuarterly financial reporting based on invoicingCollecting the actuals (including accruals) is an important step towards implementing EVMS and we should show something about this at the pre-FDRResults from Nov. 2018 statusingL2 AreaObligatedInvoicedAccrualsUnspent% Unspent402.1 PO1.3701.0900.0330.24718402.3 BCAL*0.9710.4570.1700.45247402.5 Muons0.4910.1460.1500.19440402.6 Trigger0.9340.4320.1530.34937402.7 TFPX2.3021.7930.2640.24611Total6.0663.9180.7701.48825* Statusing still not completeWhat do we want to say at pre-FDR?

33. The next step towards establish earned value reporting is to load the actuals in COBRA for processingFor the R&D period where we will exercise this next year we have many activities that are LOE typeBut the process can be developed to provide this informationWe are also adding and documenting the PMT (Performance Measurement Technique) for the scheduled activities to define how value is earnedWe have defined the Control Account structureTo allow independent statusing of NSF and DOE scope we have separated NSF and DOE scope in the PO and Trigger L2 areas where we had mixed scopeNSF PO has changed from WBS 402.1 to 402.0NSF Trigger has changed from WBS 402.6 to 402.9The WBS numbering below the L2 remains the sameDeploying Earned Value Reporting

34. Though NSF expect us to exercise EVMS before the FDR their expectation seems reasonable:This is consistent with our plan to start producing EVM reports for the R&D early next year (Feb?)About NSF Expectation for EVMS

35. The NSF has provided guidance (DocDb-13571) on the expectations for the Education and Public Outreach (EPO) PlansWe had a meeting at the NSF on Aug. 21, 2018 to discuss EPO plans for the MREFCS. Rappoccio (SUNY Buffalo) has taken on the role as EPO coordinator for the U.S. CMS MREFC Upgrade projectHe is developing the EPO plans for the project and coordinates the effort across the institutions involvedWe are also developing collaborations with professionals in physics education with experience in evaluation of these types of programs for undergraduatesWe are talking to N. Holmes (Cornell) ….These plans will be discussed in detail by S. RappoccioEducation and Public Outreach

36. The U.S. CMS HL-LHC upgrades have developed the Quality Management PlanExplains in more detail the CMS process for approval and Quality ManagementHow the U.S. CMS project works with CMSDetails in C. Wilkinson’s talkQuality Management

37. We are also preparing for the independent cost estimate. This will focus on two aspects of the cost:Commercially Procured itemsContingencyThe TFPX Mechanics and ECAL FE boards will be ’pilots’ for this in Jan. The full project will start the process in March.We are also starting the process of preparing the proposal for submission in advance of the FDRWe are working with Cornell’s Office of Sponsored Programs to prepare this materialICE and MREFC Proposal

38. We are working on addressing the points for the the FDR…Summary

39. For the U.S. CMS project we have formalized some aspects of the systems engineering process for the management of the upgrade projectClearly documented Science and Technical requirementsInterface DocumentationLead Systems Engineer (J. Dolph)Coordinate System Engineering across L2 areas Define and review documentationDevelop Configuration Management PlanEnsure Quality Management Plan followed Systems Engineer Contacts in each L2 area in U.S. CMS ProjectExperienced engineer (or scientist) Contact for subsystem technical interfacesDocument interfaces and follow any proposed changes in the interfaces that affects the U.S. upgrade project and bring it to the appropriate attention (e.g. L2 managers)Contact to Int’l CMS for coordination with Technical Coordination through the (int’l) subdetector projects technical coordinatorsProvide oversight of development within the L2 area to meet requirements U.S. CMS Systems Engineering Plan

40. Our Project Scientist (C. Hill) has updated and completed the science flowdown (CMS-doc-13337)We identify 4 major science goalsThese derive directly from the P5 science driversThis flows down to 14 science requirements, e.g.Efficient trigger for Electroweak scale (MW/2) physicsRadiation tolerance for 3/abMore details in the next talk by C. HillThe science requirements flows down to the engineering requirements of each L2 areaThis will be covered in the L2 talks in the technical breakout sessionsThe Science Flowdown

41. The main purpose of the Configuration Management Plan (CMP) (CMS-doc-12907) is to ensure that: Baselines are defined and documentedScopeCostScheduleRequirementsDocumentation is identified, released, and controlledA Configuration Control Board (CCB) is established and functions according to the CMP guidelinesChanges to the baseline are evaluated and controlledApproved configuration changes are implemented and trackedConfiguration status accounting is accomplishedConfiguration Management Program

42. Change Control ProcessProjectControlsProject ManagersOversight,SponsorL2 ProjectSTARTCreateCR formApprove[ PMs ]Needs FPD/DOE or NSFapproval Determine CR Scope, Schedule, and Cost Impacts[ Project Controls ]Review CR[ PM, CCB ]Revise ProjectPlan (WBS, RLS)[ Project Controls ]Submit ChangeRequest (CR)[ L2 PM, CAM ]Implement CRRecord as-builtconfiguration[ L2 PM,CAM,team ]YYNNReviseReviseENDNYENDUpdateCR statusUpdateCR formUpdateCR statusUpdateconfigurationUpdateconfigurationApprove[ L2 PM ]Needs approval ofPMsYNNUpdateCR statusYYNUpdateCR statusUpdate configur-ation and inform stakeholders[ L2 PM, CAM]UpdateconfigurationApprove[ FPD/DOE Or NSF ]Approve[ L2 PM ]

43. The MREFC project opens many opportunities for education and trainingMany undergraduate students are now involved in the R&D and development activitiesThis involvement will grow during the construction phase were in several areas contributions from students play an important roleE.g. TFPX module assemblyThis project also provides a vital opportunity to train graduate students and post docs in instrumentation With the large scale, and long times, involved in modern particle physics experiments the opportunity for graduate students and postdocs to be involved in the upgrade activities is a great opportunity to train the future generation of experimental particle physicistsEducation and Outreach Plan

44. The ES&H coordinator (Greg Snow, UNL) supports the Project Management in the oversight of matters regarding safety and health for the planning, fabrication, operation, and installation of any aspects of the HL-LHC upgradeThe ES&H coordinator, and the NSF PI, work with the PIs and other safety personnel at the subaward institutions to ensure relevant safety protocols established at the subaward institutions are properly followed and that personnel is adequately trained to carry out the workThe ES&H coordinator tracks any ES&H issues, such as accidents and near accidents, in a databaseThis is described in the NSF PEPEnvironmental Safety & Health

45. The baseline scope for the HL-LHC upgrades is well definedScope now well established with int’l CMSRequirements have been documentedCost and schedule is captured in our resource loaded scheduleWe have a base cost of $56.06M Detailed analysis of risk and MC simulation for contingency has been developedThe risk-adjusted TPC at 90% C.L. is $75M with 34% contingencyThe Project Development Plan will ensure readiness for start of MREFC activitiesnManagement, Staffing, and Execution Plan (PEP) adequately defined and in placeSummaryConclusion: Preliminary Design Project Definition (scope, cost, schedule) are sufficiently developed for setting total project cost