1. P02 – U.S. CMS Contributions to the CMS HL-LHC Upgrades (402) Vivian O’Dell, HL-LHC USCMS Project Manager September 17, 2015 1 Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015

2.  Overview of the CMS upgrade for HL-LHC  Costs of the CMS upgrade  CERN CORE costing  Scoping document  USCMS plans  Motivation  Cost and Schedule o Preliminary Funding Agency profiles o Proposed scope cost and schedule  ES&H  Summary 2 Outline V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

3.  Fermilab scientist since 1993  Previous experiments: UA1, ZEUS, KTeV, D0  Main technical area of expertise: Trigger / DAQ / Calorimetry / Computing  Main (collider) analysis areas: QCD, Jet Physics, Photon physics o QCD convener at D0 and CMS  Project Management experience  Project manager for KTeV Data Acquisition  Project manager for D0 Run IIb upgrades  USCMS Level 2 Project Manager for Data Acquisition from 2002 – completion of construction project. Continued as the leader of the USCMS DAQ effort in the Operations Program.  USCMS Deputy Detector Operations Manager (2011-2013) and Detector Operations Manager (2014)  USCMS HL-LHC Upgrade Project Manager since January 1, 2015 3 USCMS Phase 2 (HL-LHC) Upgrade Manager V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

4. The CMS Detector and Proposed Upgrades for the HL-LHC Running 4 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

5. 5 CMS Upgrades: From now through 2026 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015 LS1 Run II LS2 Run III LS3 Run IV LS1 Projects Complete muon coverage (ME4) Improve muon operation (ME1), DT electronics Replace HCAL photo-detectors in Forward (new PMTs) and Outer (HPD  SiPM) Tracker operation at -15 o C DAQ1  DAQ2 LS1 Projects Complete muon coverage (ME4) Improve muon operation (ME1), DT electronics Replace HCAL photo-detectors in Forward (new PMTs) and Outer (HPD  SiPM) Tracker operation at -15 o C DAQ1  DAQ2 Phase 1 Upgrades New L1-trigger systems (Calorimeter – Muons – Gobal) (ready for 2016) New pixel detector (ready for installation in 2016/2017 Year End Technical Stop) HCAL upgrade: photodetectors and electronics (HF 2015/2016 YETS, HB/HE during LS2) Preparatory work during LS1 - New beam pipe - Install test slices (Pixel, HCAL, L1-trigger) Phase 1 Upgrades New L1-trigger systems (Calorimeter – Muons – Gobal) (ready for 2016) New pixel detector (ready for installation in 2016/2017 Year End Technical Stop) HCAL upgrade: photodetectors and electronics (HF 2015/2016 YETS, HB/HE during LS2) Preparatory work during LS1 - New beam pipe - Install test slices (Pixel, HCAL, L1-trigger) Phase 2 Upgrades: Technical Proposal this fall Tracker Replacement, Track Trigger Endcap Calorimeter replacement Barrel ECAL Electronics upgrade Trigger/DAQ upgrade Tracker & possible endcap Calorimeter, Muon extension From |  |=3 to |  |~4 Phase 2 Upgrades: Technical Proposal this fall Tracker Replacement, Track Trigger Endcap Calorimeter replacement Barrel ECAL Electronics upgrade Trigger/DAQ upgrade Tracker & possible endcap Calorimeter, Muon extension From |  |=3 to |  |~4 Current LHC schedule LS1: January 2013 – December 2014 (24 mos) Extended Year End Technical Stop (EYETS): December 2016-April 2017 (19 weeks) LS2: January 2019 – December 2020 (24 mos) LS3: January 2024 – June 2026 (30 mos) Current LHC schedule LS1: January 2013 – December 2014 (24 mos) Extended Year End Technical Stop (EYETS): December 2016-April 2017 (19 weeks) LS2: January 2019 – December 2020 (24 mos) LS3: January 2024 – June 2026 (30 mos) Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

6.  Replace tracker  Increase  coverage, less material  Include tracker in the Level 1 Trigger decision  Replace Endcap Calorimeters  Higher granularity (pileup), radiation hard  Barrel Calorimeter upgrades  New electronics for the ECAL Barrel o Necessary to support longer trigger latency / higher data rates  Replace HCAL Barrel scintillators for the inner layers  Improve muon system  Upgrade electronics for US built CSC muon chambers o Needed for higher occupancy, data rates  Improve and increase muon coverage, muon trigger resolution o Muon tagging to  ~ 3 region  Trigger / DAQ  Increased trigger rates, incorporating L1 track finding 6 Major areas of upgrades V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

7.  CERN costs everything in what they call “CORE” costs  It is in CHF, so we are exposed to exchange rate vagaries  CORE cost include M&S for the construction project only  CORE cost does not include labor, R&D, contingency, overheads, or project management costs  CORE cost does include overall technical coordination and system integration engineering via the “Upgrade Common Fund”  Countries participating in CMS pledge in CORE cost currency  Typically countries try to pledge a fraction of CORE costs roughly according to their fraction of CMS authors  US funding agencies care about total costs  Including R&D, labor, project management, system integration, contingency, overheads, etc.  In order to translate project $$ to CORE CHF, we have to have some preliminary plans of how we are engaging with the overall upgrade plan  This is typically a rather iterative process as international CMS and USCMS define their projects and priorities  What we are presenting today is the culmination of several iterations, but likely not the final iteration 7 A note about costing methodologies V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

8. 8 Full CMS upgrade costs and scope V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015 Note that CORE is only M&S and only for construction (i.e. no labor, R&D, preproduction, contingency, escalation, etc) In general, countries try to contribute to CORE costs commensurate with their number of CMS authors US-HEP(DOE+NSF) is ~27% of CMS as of 2015 27% of the baseline HL-LHC CMS upgrade corresponds to ~71 MCHF. “CORE” costs of the full HL-LHC CMS upgrade Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

9.  In addition to the full scope of the CMS HL-LHC upgrade project, CMS has studied two scoping scenarios  This was requested by the international Funding Agencies in order to understand the loss in physics as one goes to a lower cost upgrade option  The scoping scenarios CMS has studied are:  The full scope (265 MCHF) as described in the Technical Proposal  Scenario 1 (242 MCHF)  Scenario 2 (208 MCHF)  The studies relating to Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are documented in a “Scoping Document”  This document details losses of sensitivity due to the descoping options  It is not yet public (it will be in a week or so), but the following few slides present some of what is in it 9 Scoping Scenarios V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

10. 10 Scoping Scenarios V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015 Scoping Scenario 1: Total CORE cost 241.6 MCHF  This scenario reduces outer tracker size using a “tilted barrel” design o Some impact to level 1 track trigger resolution  Limits readout bandwidth to ~ 300 kHz o By not upgrading muon electronics, reducing size of the Data Acquisition System and the Higher Level Trigger (online data filter) farm  Reduces number of layers in the endcap calorimeter Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

11. 11 Scoping Scenarios V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015 Scoping Scenario 2: Total CORE cost 208.3 MCHF  Includes all of scenario 1 plus removing: tracker and muon  extensions, full layer of barrel (outer) tracker, additional endcap calorimeter layers  Large impact in Higgs measurements, missing E T, discovery potential Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

12.  A recommendation on the international CMS scope will likely be made this year  In the context of the CERN RRB, an international meeting with representatives of all the Funding Agencies  Regardless of the international decision, the US is proceeding with a plan according to the budgets of US-HEP and recommendations of P5  The project plans would change very little between the baseline detector and the Scenario 1 (middle scope) options 12 Scoping Scenarios V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

13. US and International CMS Schedules 13 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

14. 14 CMS HL-LHC Upgrade schedule V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015 FY2 5 FY2 4 FY2 3 FY2 2 FY2 1 FY2 0 FY1 9 FY1 8 FY1 7 FY1 6 FY1 5 CD4 CD1 CD2 CD3 CD0 LS 2 LS 3 Physics LHC Schedule CDR PDR CD3A FDR Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

15.  For the DOE, the following (approximate) dates for funding  CD0: December, 2015  CD1: end of CY2016  CD3a: mid-CY2018 (allows buying long lead-time items)  CD2 / CD3: late CY2018  For the NSF, we (along with US ATLAS) will be pursuing a new (for HEP) form of funding  The “MREFC” which has a $140M floor – hence CMS and ATLAS will share one MREFC grant  The total we propose is ~ $160M, split evenly between USCMS / USATLAS  This has to go through the NSF MREFC panel and the National Science Board  The earliest we can expect project construction funding is in FY2020 15 The US CMS schedule V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

16. US CMS funding 16 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

17.  From the DOE, we have received a preliminary profile guidance  The object of this review is to assess whether USCMS has a credible plan, within the rough guidance of the funding agencies, for its contributions to the CMS HL-LHC upgrades  We will be presenting our plan to the Joint Oversight Group (JOG) made up of our DOE and NSF Funding Agency representatives  For the NSF, we are asked to propose our needed NSF funding profile  with the understanding that construction money will come in 2020  Therefore one of the considerations for the NSF scope is to choose those areas that are needed later  Our total construction cost cannot exceed $80M from the NSF  We expect ~ $7M for preconstruction costs from NSF 17 Funding notes V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

18. 18 DOE funding V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015 HL-LHC Project (in $k) FY17FY18FY19FY20FY21FY22FY23FY24TOTAL CMS HL-LHC Upgrade (OPC) 1,25014,000 —————— 15,250 CMS HL-LHC Upgrade (TEC) —— 31,50042,30026,10020,1008,0001,750 129,750 TOTALS (TPC)1,25014,00031,50042,30026,10020,1008,0001,750145,000  DOE’s proposed (preliminary) funding profile  Total is $145M, with ~ $130M in construction costs Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

19. US CMS Scope 19 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

20.  The USCMS collaboration has had responsibility in:  Tracking o Outer tracker construction, integration, Forward Pixels (both original construction and Phase 1 upgrades)  Calorimetry o Hadron Calorimetry –Barrel (HCAL Barrel), Endcap (HCAL endcap), Forward (HCAL Forward) o Electromagnetic Calorimetry –Construction of endcaps, data links, laser calibration system  Trigger / Data Acquisition o Calorimeter trigger (both original construction and Phase 1 upgrade), endcap muon track finder, Data Acquisition event building and data storage / transfer system (both for original system and Phase 1 upgrade), Higher Level Trigger  Muons o Endcap Cathode Strip Chambers and electronics for original construction project and additional chambers installed in Long Shutdown 1, endcap muon trigger 20 Past and current US work on CMS V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

21.  USCMS is building on its unique expertise to contribute to the CMS upgrades in:  Tracking o Outer tracker construction, integration, forward pixels (as an NSF flagship project), new Level 1 Track Finder  Calorimetry o Replacing inner barrel scintillator layers with radiation hard scintillator o Upgrading backend electronics on both hadron and electromagnetic barrel calorimeters o Leadership roles in novel silicon endcap calorimeter  Trigger / Data Acquisition o Upgrades to calorimeter trigger, muon trigger and new “track-correlator” which correlates tracks from the Level 1 Track Finder, calorimeter, muon information o Continue partnership in Data Acquisition, with lead roles in event building and event storage / transfer, HLT  Muons o Upgrade of off-detector muon chamber electronics o Additional electronics (for forward muon trigger) for the new GEM chambers which extend muon  coverage and redundancy, improve L1 muon trigger p T resolution 21 Future contributions V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

22. US CMS Proposed Contributions 22 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

23.  The US CMS proposed contributions grew out of several US CMS workshops and US CMS Principal Investigator meetings  This is an iterative process – we have to fit within the US CMS community as well as the international CMS community  While what we propose today is likely not the final project scope, it does represent the culmination of several iterations between the project and US institutions and the project with international CMS  Many of the US L2 project managers have served as international CMS project managers in their area of expertise 23 Proposed Contributions V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

24. Project Organization 24 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

25. 25 402 Organization Chart V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015 P2 Upgrade Project 402.01 Project Office Project Manager:V. O’Dell Deputy(s) PM:A. Ryd CMS liaison:J. Spalding R&D coordinator:M. Chertok Associate PM:L. Taylor ESH&Q Coordinator:NN Project Controls:M. Kaducak (interim) Project Finance:J. Teng Risk Manager:Lucas Taylor Project EENN Project MENN 402.07 DAQ 402.05 Muons 402.05.03 CSC 402.05.04 GEM 402.06 Trigger 402.06.03 Cal Trigger 402.06.04 Muon Trigger 402.06.05 Track Correlator 402.06.06 HLT 402.02 Tracker 402.02.03 FPIX 402.02.04 OT 402.02.05 TT 402.03 Barrel Calo 402.03.03 ECAL 402.03.04 HCAL 402.04.03 Sensors & Modules 402.04.04 Cassettes 402.04.05 BH Active 402.04.06 Electronics and Services J. Mans, Minn C. Jessop, ND K. Eckland. Rice C. Hill, OSU A. Safonov, TAMU J. Berryhill, FNAL TBN Phase 2 Advisory Board John Cumalat Jay Hauser Jim Hirschauer Joe Incandela Markus Klute Steve Nahn Maria Spiropulu Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

26.  You will be hearing from all of the L2 managers in this plenary session  Additional members of the project office  Jeff Spalding (international CMS liason): past co-coordinator of the international CMS upgrades (including Phase 1 and Phase 2). Recently selected to replace Jeremy Mans as deputy CMS upgrade coordinator.  Max Chertok (R&D Coordinator): has served as USCMS upgrade R&D coordinator since 2013 and serves as a bridge between upgrade R&D and the project office  Lucas Taylor (Risk Manager): international expert in risk management. Is currently a deputy project manager for the Phase 1 upgrade project  Mark Kaducak (interim Project Controls): is advising us on project management. We will get a formal project controls person once we transition to P6 (~ 1 year from now)  In addition, the CMS HL-LHC upgrade project has established an advisory board with the following members  John Cumulat (U Colorado): tracker experience from initial construction, phase 1.  Jay Hauser (UCLA): Experienced in muon chamber / electronics. Currently the international CMS muon project manager.  Jim Hirshauer (FNAL): past HCAL operations coordinator, currently Phase 1 L3 for HCAL electronics  Joe Incandela (UCSB): led US tracker construction, past head of SiDet, past CMS spokesperson  Markus Klute (MIT): leading international CMS physics studies for the phase 2 upgrade  Steve Nahn (FNAL): original tracker construction, operations, Phase 1 upgrade project manager  Maria Spiropulu (CalTech): CDF, past CMS SUSY/BSM convener, past HCAL Detector Performance Group convener 26 Management and Project Team V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

27. Cost 27 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

28.  All of the L2’s are using the same project management software (Merlin) and the same resource table (i.e. standardized labor rates, overheads, etc)  This is used as an interim tool to more easily define the project before moving to the standard EVMS certified system (Primavera 6)  We assume an average of 2% escalation (~3% on labor, 1% on M&S)  We have not (yet) assessed contingency at the lowest levels, but are taking an average 50% contingency on everything but project management  This will be too high for some areas, perhaps not high enough in others. Likely the overall contingency will come down after detailed assessment, however we thought it best to take a conservative approach. 28 Methodology V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

29. 29 Overall costs for the construction project V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015 Core fraction with respect to middle scenario (Scenario 1) is 26.7% For the full scope scenario, this would represent 24.4%, for the lowest scenario 31%. The proposed work would change very little between the full scope scenario and Scenario 1, however for the lowest scope (Scenario 2) we would have to rework the project significantly.. Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

30. 30 R&D / OPC totals V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015 Total OPC/R&D = $43.2M R&D comes from a variety of places: Operations program Has funded about $6.5M of R&D over the last two years Will fund between $10-13M total in 2016/2017 KA25 Generic R&D used to fund efforts in calorimetry and tracking ~ $2M over the last 2 years expect ~ $1M/year in 2016, 2017 DOE OPC starting (in earnest) in 2018 ($15M) NSF PDR / FDR preparation should be a total of ~ $7M starting in late 2016 up to FDR We hope to get Project Office support for 2016/2017 from Fermilab This adds up to roughly $39M in R&D/OPC, $43M needed. Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

31.  For the construction project, the total (with 50% contingency on everything except Project Management) is $209.8M  This breaks out as $79.6M NSF, $129.8M DOE  (recall our guidance is ~$80M NSF, $130M DOE)  For R&D / OPC, the total (with no contingency) is $43.2M, counting from 2016 onwards  Our guidance is $7M from NSF, $15M from DOE  Additionally we believe we can get ~ $10-13M from the Operations program, $2M from KA25, support from Fermilab for the Project Office  This brings us to a total of ~$36-39M – i.e. ~ 10 – 20% low  We are working hard to fit within our R&D guidance and will continue to scrub 31 Adding up all the numbers… V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

32. Project Profiles 32 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

33. 33 Base Cost Profile (Total) V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

34. 34 Base Cost Profile (DOE) V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

35. 35 Base Cost Profile (NSF) V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

36. ES&H 36 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

37.  CERN has significant safety infrastructure  Including safety trainings for specific and general tasks  Everyone who works on the project follows all of the general safety regulations and guidelines  Both at CERN and at their home institutions  However, some subprojects have specific safety implications  These will be spelled out in the subproject talks  CERN management is aware of these regulations, and our CMS CERN safety officer works with CMS Technical Coordination and CERN management to ensure our work is always done safely 37 Safety is paramount! V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

38. Summary 38 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

39.  USCMS has a first iteration of project scope for the HL-LHC upgrades  We will be iterating again with international CMS and US CMS but this serves as our “jumping off” point  We believe we can (almost) fit within the budgetary guidelines given by DOE / NSF  For the construction part of the project, we are fitting well  However we have to continue scrubbing the R&D / OPC budgets by ~10% or so in order to fit within the money available in the next 2-3 years  We believe the planning is sufficient to move forward to CD0 and begin preparations for CD1 39 Conclusions V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

40. Backup 40 V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)

41. 41 Major areas of upgrades V. O'Dell, 9 September 2015 – Radiation six times higher than nominal LHC design – 5(7)E34 Hz/cm 2  ~ 140 (200) collisions/bunch crossing HCAL Endcap HCAL Barrel ECAL Endcap ECAL Barrel > 10 Mrad η = 3 Longevity studies and simulation for 300 fb -1 /y  3000 fb -1 total Phase 2 Upgrades Strategy: Maintain performance at extreme pile up Sustain rates and radiation doses Director's Progress Review - U.S. CMS Contribtuions (402)