m. tyndel, spider proposal 1aug 7 th, phone schedule and resources spider has been streamlined to...

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 1 Aug 7th , phone

Schedule and resources

SPIDER has been streamlined to cover:1) 1 submission ‘small pixel’ ISIS (vertexing/tracking - LCFI) test chip2) 1 optimised CMOS pixel detector optimised for vertexing/tracking3) 1 submission large TPAC (CALICE) test chip

Note – This will be investigated for use by FAIR (Nuclear Structure)

4) Calorimeter stack

Costs have been reviewed and reduced by (sequentially)1)Minimising submissions2)Reducing the infrastructure requirements3) Detailed bottom-up evaluation of requirements4)…and ???

Schedule optimisation consists of adjusting timing to take account of:1) An early start needed by TPAC to be able to complete the full stack test2) Smooth out the design and test-load


Proposed schedule


Resource usage

Things to note: Top chart shows design effort

Work starts early (thanks to Renato)

Project needs 1-3 designers over most of the project

Bottom chart shows test tasks (continuation of LCFI & CALICE)


Corrections v01 V2

Add in corrections1. Update Bristol effort (+1.45fte) & contribution to ISIS

2. Update & reprofile RAL effort (+0.6fte)

3. Reschedule ISIS effort earlier

4. Update TPAC to include PC boards, assembly +£20K

5. Review DCAL program Move Some effort earlier Move £50K from TPAC Add £40K for Tungsten, cooling, cables

6. Move resources from Year-2 to Year-1 or Year-3 where possible ISIS submission & PC boards (£105K) to Year-1 TPAC Effort & PC boards to Year-1 Some WP3 consumables to Year-1 Contingency - £60K into Year-3


What next?

The following tables show the resources broken down by year, WP, group and device For each device the material costs and effort are shown separately

In final column share the overheads (management, working allowance, contingency) evenly between devices

The current cost estimate is £3.45M £1.33M (38%) Yr-1, £1.25M (36%) Yr-2, £0.87M (25%) Yr-3

We need to reduce the cost by £450K especially in the first 2 years

The breakdown between people and material costs People ~£2.4M and Material ~£1.0M

We need to reduce people by 20% or material by 50%

The distribution of effort between groups is: Birmingham has 5 names on proposal (4.8fte) – DCAL+TPAC Bristol has 6 names on proposal (5.5fte) – ISIS + CHERWELL IC has 3 names on proposal (4.4fte) – DCAL + TPAC + CHERWELL Oxford has 5 names on proposal (4.8fte) – ISIS + CHERWELL RAL has 7 names on proposal (9.9fte) – ISIS + TPAC + CHERWELL +

DPAC Further cuts in any group would be painful – could maybe gain ~ £100K?


What next?

Question – What if we drop one of the research strands? Assume we keep all of the people

ISIS save £270K i.e. still missing £180K

TPAC save £245K i.e. still missing £205K CHER save £157K i.e. still missing £293K DCAL save £378K i.e. still missing £ 72 K


Resource breakdown – Table-i

SPIDER costsYr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3

By Year 1327 1253 871 345138% 36% 25%

WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5By WP 1057 163 1045 878 308 3451

34% 5% 33% 28%

B'ham Bristol IC Oxford RAL TDBy Group 251 331 273 297 812 440 1964

13% 17% 14% 15% 41%

RG New RA TD OrdersCategory 1482 482 440 1047 3451

43% 14% 13% 30%


Resource breakdown – Table-ii

SPIDER costs WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WA/C TotalM+E M+E

WA/cont./travel 128 222 350management 271 160 431

ISIS-M 125 9 47 181 269ISIS-E 59 143 423 625 733ISIS 184 152 470 806 1001

23% 19% 58% 30% 29%

TPAC-M 140 17 157 245TPAC-E 170 157 327 435TPAC 310 174 484 679

64% 36% 18% 20%

CHERWELL-M 53 16 69 157CHERWELL-E 170 318 488 596CHERWELL 223 334 557 752

40% 60% 21% 22%

DCAL-M 290 290 378DCAL-E 531 531 639DCAL 821 821 1016

100% 31% 29%

Total-M 318 9 80 290 222 919 697 1047Total-E 670 143 898 531 160 2402 1971 2402Total 988 152 978 821 160 222 3321 2668 3449


How to reduce cost of Spider by ~£0.5M

1. No RAS? Reduces cost by £482K but Can institutes deliver on work-packages?

Which institutes would remain?

2. Descope/delay TPAC+DCAL Reduces cost by ~£450K (see next slide) Requires a reduction of 1 RA or technical support Could Spider program be reduced to 2 years and followed by a 2 year DCAL

program?

3. Delay Cherwell Reduces cost by ~£430K (see next slide) Requires reduction of an engineer and 2RAs or technical support

Which institutes would remain?


Resource breakdown – Table-ii

Descope/delay DCAL

Remove all DCAL material expenditure -290 -290 Reduce WA/Contingency 42% -92 -382 Remove technical & assembly support or RA -100 -482 Reduce travel 29% -36 -519 Add a 5x5mm TPAC2.0 20 -499 Budget for TPAC2.1 to be stitchable 30 -469 Budget for extra TPAC testing 20 -449

Descope/delay Cherwell

Remove all Cherwell material expenditure -69 -69 Reduce WA/Contingency 10% -22 -91 Reduce design effort by 1 SY -100 -191 Remove 0.5RA -120 -310 Reduce technical support or 2nd RA -100 -410 Reduce travel 16% -21 -431


Scenario – To reduce cost of Spider by ~£0.5M

After a detailed look at our cost model, I can see only one option to fit within the £1M pa cash limit. This is to redefine the TPAC and DCAL program so that it extends over a longer period. In the current 3 year period we would concentrate on proving that a sensor for digital calorimetry can be produced with the required performance. We should anticipate a 2nd 2 year research program to produce and evaluate a full stack. This could and probably should be done in the framework of a larger collaboration.

Modified scheme:1. Evaluate TPAC 1.1 and measure its response to both min-I particles and low

energy photons. Compare measurements to simulation to get expected energy resolution.

2. Radiation test TPAC 1.13. Evaluate high resistivity version of TPAC1.14. Design TPAC2.0 to be the foundation of a scalable system. Issues to be addressed:

Develop a stitchable design to eliminate the need for complex PC boards (currently the cost of the PC boards and assembly exceeds the cost of sensors)

Develop a defect tolerant design to ensure high yields (this might require a test structure) Revisit architecture to minimise the dead area Minimise the number of IO pads to allow ‘simple’ assembly’

5. Production of a large area demonstrator6. Evaluation of large area demonstrator in a min-I and EM shower beam

m. tyndel, spider proposal 1aug 7 th, phone schedule and resources spider has been streamlined to...

Documents