LHC CMS Upgrade Project CD-1 Alternative Selection and Cost Range

Steve WebsterFederal Project Director

August 26, 2013

CD-1 Executive Session

2

Outline

• Alternatives Analysis

• ES&H

• Key Performance Parameters

• Project Management Organization

• Work Breakdown Structure

• Cost, Funding & Schedule

• Integrated Project Team

• CD-1 Prerequisites

• Project Complexities

• Conclusion

Alternatives Analysis

Alternatives are Limited• LHC is the only collider with sufficient energy and

luminosity to create Higgs Bosons• The detector need to be upgraded

The Mission Need Alterative Analysis focused on Funding Alternatives:

• DOE and NSF continue to work together, with DOE/HEP as the lead agency

• DOE/HEP engage in a partial and independent support of the effort

• No action

3

Environment, Safety & Health

• The Project has assigned a ES&H manager • A safety assessment was performed and it was

determined that work done at Fermilab will be covered under the existing ISM Program

• A Preliminary Harard Analysis Report has been prepared for work performed at Fermilab

• All equipment delivered to CERN will comply with applicable CERN requirements

4

Draft Key Performance Parameters

5

HCALThreshold KPP Objective KPP

Complete production of the HCAL Front End and Back End electronics. Installation of the HCAL Back End electronics and connection to the Calorimeter trigger. Test stand integration of the HCAL electronics and demonstration of the full design functionality. Demonstration that the HCAL Front End Electronics is ready to install.

Complete production of the HCAL Front End and Back End electronics. Complete installation and checkout of the HCAL Front End electronics in the CMS detector. Installation of the HCAL Back End electronics, connection to the calorimeter trigger, and integration with the CMS data acquisition system. Demonstration of the full design functionality.

Draft Key Performance Parameters(Cont.)

FPIX

Threshold KPP Objective KPP

6

Complete four half cylinders, each with three disks. System is demonstrated by read out in test stand at CERN and turned over to CMS Technical Coordination to install.

Four half cylinders, each with three disks and mechanical components for a spare half disk. System is demonstrated by read out in test stand at CERN and turned over to CMS Technical Coordination to install. 

Draft Key Performance Parameters(Cont.)

TriggerThreshold KPP Objective KPP

7

Demonstration of 98% agreement between upgrade trigger electronics at CERN and software emulation of this electronics through test pattern injection based on data taken after LS1, followed by demonstration of reduction of calorimeter and endcap muon trigger rates for electrons, photons, muons and taus with respect to the present system by a factor of two for a reduction of less than 15% in efficiency using the trigger emulator run on data taken after LS1. Incorporation of unganged ME1/1a data into the endcap muon trigger logic.

Demonstration of 99.5% agreement between upgrade trigger electronics at CERN and software emulation of this electronics through test pattern injection based on data taken after LS1 followed by demonstration of reduction of calorimeter and endcap muon trigger rates for electrons, photons, muons and taus with respect to the present system by a factor of two for a reduction of less than 10% in efficiency using the trigger emulator run on data taken after LS1.  Calorimeter Trigger electron and photon position resolution improved. Incorporation of unganged ME1/1a data into the endcap muon trigger logic.

Project Mgmt Organization

8

Work Breakdown Structure

9

WBS# WBS NAME

1Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) Detector Upgrade Project

1.1 Project Management 1.1.1 Project Milestones and Interfaces1.1.2 Project Management and Administration1.1.3 Project Controls and Finance 1.1.4 Project Office Support

1.2 Hadron Calorimeter (HCAL)1.2.1 HCAL Milestones and Interfaces1.2.2 HCAL Management1.2.3 HF Frontend1.2.4 HB/HE Frontend1.2.5 HCAL Backend

1.3 Forward Pixel Detector (FPIX)1.3.1 FPIX Milestones and Interfaces1.3.2 FPIX Management1.3.3 FPIX Components1.3.4 FPIX Assembly and Testing1.3.5 FPIX Pilot System

1.4 Trigger1.4.1 Trigger Milestones and Interfaces1.4.2 Trigger Management1.4.3 Muon Trigger1.4.4 Calorimeter Trigger

Planned Funding (AY $M)

10

Fiscal Year FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18

Total ($M)

OPC 1.5 6.0 7.5

Design

TEC (MIE)   7.75 9.5 8.5 25.75

PED        

Construction      

Total Project Cost ($M) 1.5 6.0 7.75 

9.5 8.5 0 33.25

Contingency is $9.0M, 37% (39% of work remaining)

Proposed CD Schedule

11

Milestone Typical FloatCD-4 14 months (25%)Level 1 milestones—Acquisition Executive 2 months for the CDsLevel 2 milestones—Federal Project Director 6 monthsLevel 3 milestones—Project Manager 3 months

Level 1 Milestone Schedule

CD-0 Approve Mission Need 9/18/12 (actual)

CD-1 Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range 1st Qtr FY14

CD-2 Approve Performance Baseline 2nd Qtr FY14

CD-3 Approve Start of Construction 4th Qtr FY14

CD-4 Approve Project Completion (defined as delivery of components) 1st Qtr FY20

Integrated Project Team

12

• IPT established and functioning

• Membership

– Simona Rolli, DOE Program Manager

– Saul Gonzales, NSF Program Manager

– Steve Webster, Federal Project Director, Chair

– Alan Harris, Deputy Federal Project Director

– Joel Butler/Steve Nahn, Project Manager

– Erik Gottschalk, Deputy Project Manager

– Aaron Dominguez, NSF Principle PI/Deputy PM

– Others as needed, for example:

ES&H, contracting & procurement

CD-1 Prerequisites

13

Acquisition Strategy—submitted for signature Preliminary Project Execution Plan—submitted for signature Integrated Project Team—chartered and functioning, led by FPD Risk Management Plan—completed One-for-one Replacement for Building square footage—NA Preliminary Hazard Analysis—completed Conceptual Design/Report—completed High Performance & Sustainable Building—NA Environmental documents/permits—Categorical Exclusion signed Independent Project/Design Review—July 16-18 Integrated Safety Management Plan—completed Quality Assurance Program Plan—completed Safeguards and Security Requirements—included in PPEP

Project Complexities

• DOE/NSF/CERN Coordination

• CERN Schedule

• DOE Funding Profile

14

Conclusion

15

• ESH&Q being integrated into design• Project management team is in place• 37% contingency in DOE TPC point estimate• Current cost estimate from resource-loaded schedule is within

cost range• DOE TPC CD-1 cost range is $29.2M to $35.9M (CD-0 cost range

was $22M to $34M)• CD-1 prerequisites met• Roadmap to CD-2 developed and progress will be reported at

IPT and other project meetings

Recommend CD-1 Approval