Risk Review or Strips Hybrids and Modules G. Sciolla Oct 31, 2019 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Risk Review or Strips Hybrids and Modules G. Sciolla Oct 31, 2019

Overview • 3 sites will make hybrids and modules in the US § LBL, UCSC, BNL • Hybrids § Receive hybrid panels from the UK § Receive tested ASICS from UK / US institutions § Assemble and test hybrids • Modules § Receive tested silicon wafers from UCSC ( à Japan) § Receive PBs from LBL § Hybrids produced in house § Assemble and test Modules § Ship Modules to BNL US ATLAS HL-LHC – Strips Risk Scrubbing, 10/31/2019 2

Proposal • Starting in PP3 (FY20) Hybrids and Modules merged • Proposal for RR: § End risks associated with Hybrids at the end of PP2 § Introduce corresponding risks in Modules starting from PP3 § Add one additional risk associated to delays in Site Qualification • In the following, only risks for Modules in PP3+ will be discussed US ATLAS HL-LHC – Strips Risk Scrubbing, 10/31/2019 3

Risk Overview • Risks in current registry in Black, Changes/New Risks in Red Risk ID Title Risk Rank Phase In RR? Yes RD-06-02-04-001 Production Lower than expected throughput in module wirebonding 70 Yes RD-06-02-04-002 Electrical performance of modules Production 140 RD-06-02-04-003 Modules are damaged during shipping Pre-Prod. III Yes 140 to Prod. RD-06-02-04-004 Delay in sensor shipments Yes Production 140 Yes RD-06-02-05-005 Loss of key personnel Now to Prod. 60 No RD-06-02-04-006 Delay in site qualification Prod. Now to Yes RD-06-02-04-007 Hybrids are delayed from non-US vendor 140 Production Now yes RD-06-02-04-008 Problems in Wirebonding of hybrids 140 to Prod. RD-06-02-04-009 Problem with UV cure adhesives used in hybrid assembly when Production Yes 60 applied as a high throughput process G. Sciolla, Stave Assembly 4 ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

1) Lower than expected throughput in module wirebonding WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-001 Status Active 1 - Dec - 21 Expires Title Lower than expected throughput in module wirebonding Module production assumes that we will be able to reliably wirebond 2.3 (3.4) Short-Strip (Long-Strip) modules per Summary day per site. We may not be able to achieve this throughput. Owner C. Haber Probability Pre 10% Post 5% Cost Lo $180k Hi $770k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 6.0 Tech Impact 1 (L) Post Mitg Prob 1 (VL) Impact Score Cost 3 (H) Sched 2 (M) Rank=70 Inspect and test bond samples from batches of sensors, ASICS and hybrids, early reject of sub-par material. If Mitigation necessary adjust bonding parameters Commission more wire bonding machines to guarantee total throughput at a lower but more reliable wire bonding Response speed. Assumptions for the High Cost estimate: if the wire bonding is half of what we expect at the start of flattop production, then the throughput (verified with assembly flow chart) will be 60% slower. Since the three assembly sites are identical, all 3 sites will have to go through a 6 months process to bring 3 new wire bonding machines online at a loaded cost of $180k per machine. In those 6 months we have 50 days of lost module building capability Comments that will delay the schedule with a labor cost impact of about $230k. Assumptions for Low Cost estimate: assume throughput to be 90% of what is needed; this that can be corrected by 10% extra shifts of 3 technicians for the remaining production years. The cost will be about $20k per technician per year which adds up to $180k total cost impact and a month of schedule impact. This risk is expected to expire 3 months into flat top production. Phase Affected Production G. Sciolla, Modules 5 ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

2) Electrical Performance of Modules WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-002 Status Active 1 - Dec - 24 Expires Title Electrical performance of modules Summary Electrical performance of modules is worse in production than in prototyping and/or pre-production phases Owner C. Haber Probability Pre 20% Post 10% Cost Lo $100k Hi $500k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 6.0 Tech Impact 2(M) Post Mitg Prob 3 (L) Impact Score Cost 3 (H) Sched 2 (M) Rank=140 Mitigation Inspect and test all components just before module assembly. Follow a stringent Q&A for the assembled modules. Immediately stop module production at all sites when module Q&A shows consistent aberrations from Response performance parameter for a significant fraction of production. Only restart production after problem is fixed and/or performance parameters are adjusted. Since all components are tested before assembly into modules, the probability of an electrical integration issue still appearing in production is small. If it happens, then a solution will not be trivial and it is assumed that it will take Comments between 1 and 6 months to resolve the issue. One year of flat top production delay is about $1.0M, so this gives between $100k and $500k cost increase. This risk expires at the end of production. Phase Affected Production G. Sciolla, Modules 6 ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

3) Modules are damaged during shipping WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-003 Status Active 1 - Dec - 21 Expires Title Modules are damaged during shipping Modules have to be shipped from assembly sites to BNL. A module shipping container was designed and tested to Summary allow for safe shipment by mail. It could happen that in production quantities we start to notice shipping damage Owner C. Haber Probability Pre 20% Post 10% Cost Lo $100k Hi $732k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 6.0 Tech Impact 2 (M) Post Mitg Prob 3 (L) Impact Score Cost 3 (H) Sched 2 (M) Rank=140 Implement stringent Q&A of the modules before and after shipping to catch problems early. Use electronic tilt and Mitigation acceleration loggers during transport. Redesign individual module shipping containers. Redesign bulk shipping containers. Change shipping method or Response negotiate proper shipping based on lessons learned from the shipping loggers. Low impact assumes a month to change shipping company at the cost of $100k for the delay. If specialized combined monthly shipments are necessary from LBNL and UCSC to BNL this will add about $12k (based on LSST Comments shipping) per month for the 3 years of remaining duration of the production. Setting up this specialized shipping will incur a 3 months delay with a cost of $300k. This risk expires 3 months into flat top production. Phase Affected Production G. Sciolla, Modules 7 ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

4) Delay in sensor production/shipment WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-004 Status Active 1 - Dec - 21 Expires Title Delay in sensor production/shipment Modules consist of sensors and hybrids. We expect to receive regular deliveries of sensors from UK/Japan which Summary originate at a commercial vendor. The vendor (Hamamatsu) has an excellent track record. Owner C. Haber Probability Pre 10% Post 10% Cost Lo $100k Hi $500k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 6.0 Tech Impact 1 (L) Post Mitg Prob 13(L) Impact Score Cost 3 (H) Sched 2 (M) Rank=140 Mitigation There is no mitigation Response Wait Having a single vendor (and a single foundry) creates a risk that the vendor will have production issues leading to delays between 1 to 6 months with an associated delay cost from $100k to $500k. Total delivery incapacitation of Comments the vendor because of foundry loss or political issues, which can only be resolved by finding a new vendor, are considered 'Acts of God' and are not taken into account. This risk will expire at the end of production. Phase Affected Production G. Sciolla, Modules 8 ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

5) Loss of key personnel WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-005 Status Active 1 - Dec - 24 Expires Title Loss of key personnel We may suddenly lose one of the skilled technicians that mount and bond hybrids and modules at the three sites. Summary Owner C. Haber Probability Pre 30% Post 10% Cost Lo $84k Hi $250k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 4.0 Tech Impact 1 (L) Post Mitg Prob 3(L) Impact Score Cost 2(M) Sched 2 (M) Rank=60 Have more people trained for a particular task than the actual FTE required for it, and have technical employees Mitigation rotate between tasks in hybrids and module production. A position would be posted and a new hire made. In the interim, the existing staff would assume additional Response responsibility Key personnel are long term employees of the institutions with a strong commitment to and key responsibilities on the project. If a key person leaves suddenly, we will spread his/her workload over the remaining personnel until a suitable replacement is found. However, until the new person is hired and fully trained, this will result in a cost increase due to the Comments overtime of the existing personnel. We expect that it will take 2 months to hire a replacement and 2 additional months to train him/her. Therefore, we expect about 4 months of overtime for every key person lost, which corresponds to a cost increase of about 84k$. We are assuming that we will loose between 1 and 3 key people working on hybdrids and modules over the production phase. This risk only retires when production is completed. Phase Affected Production G. Sciolla, Modules 9 ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019