ALICE EMCal Preliminary Project
Execution Plan
at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, CA
For the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
Office of Nuclear Physics (SC-26)
MIE-HILHC
Document # EMCal.4.1.v0
December 2006
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
CONCURRENCES:
Thomas M. Cormier
ALICE EMCal Contractor Project Manager
Date
James Symons
Director, Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Date
Barry Savnik
ALICE EMCal Federal Project Director
DOE Berkeley Site Office
Date
Aundra Richards
Manager
DOE Berkeley Site Office
Date
Jehanne Simon-Gillo
Director
Facilities and Project Management Division,
Office of Nuclear Physics
Date
_________________________________________
Daniel R. Lehman
Director
Office of Project Assessment,
Office of Science
Date
APPROVED:
Dennis G. Kovar
Associate Director of the Office of Science
for Nuclear Physics
Date
2
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
Introduction
Mission Need
Functional Requirements
Project Overview
Technical Scope and Deliverables
Alternative Analysis
Management Organization
Schedule and Cost Scope
Change Control
Analyses, Assessments, and Plans
4
4
5
6
8
9
10
20
27
28
Appendix A – ALICE EMCal WBS Dictionary
3
33
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
I. Introduction
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics
(CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland will open a new high-energy frontier in the physics of
ultra high-density hadronic matter and the Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP). The ALICEUSA Collaboration1 through Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has
proposed a Major Item of Equipment (MIE) for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office
of Nuclear Physics to fabricate a large electromagnetic calorimeter (ALICE EMCal) as an
upgrade to the ALICE experiment at the LHC.
Over the past several years, the collaboration has carried out pre-conceptual research and
development (R&D) and has identified the technology needed to build a large
electromagnetic calorimeter capable of addressing the physics requirements within the
structure of the ALICE experimental infrastructure. The Mission Need (Critical Decision
– 0) for a U.S. involvement in the LHC heavy ion program was approved by the DOE
Office of Science on November 16, 2005. The total project cost (TPC) range of the
ALICE EMCal has been refined from $5 – 16 million approved at CD-0, to $13 – 16
million proposed at CD-1. The TPC is currently estimated at $13.295 million. R&D is
supported in fiscal year (FY) 2006 and completed in FY 2007. Project fabrication will
start in FY 2007 and complete in FY 2011.
This preliminary Project Execution Plan (PPEP) describes the coordination of efforts of
the project team, including the processes and procedures used by the ALICE EMCal
contractor project manager (CPM) and Federal Project Director (FPD) to ensure that the
project is completed on time and within budget. The PPEP defines the preliminary
project scope consistent with the assumed funding profile and organizational framework,
identifies roles and responsibilities of contributors, and presents the work breakdown
structure (WBS) and schedule under the assumed funding profile. The PPEP also
describes the formal change control process by which project cost, schedule, or scope
may be revised with appropriate review and approval by the FPD and the DOE Office of
Science, Office of Nuclear Physics.
II. Mission Need
The mission of the Nuclear Physics (NP) program is to understand the evolution and
structure of nuclear matter from the smallest building blocks, quarks and gluons, to the
elements in the universe created by stars. A main objective of this nuclear science field is
searching for the QGP and other new phenomena that might occur in extremely hot,
dense plasma of quarks and gluons believed to have filled the universe about a millionth
of a second after the “Big Bang.” The program provides world-class peer-reviewed
research results in the scientific disciplines encompassed by the Nuclear Physics mission
areas under the mandate provided in Public Law 95-91 that established the Department.
The ALICE EMCal project directly supports the NP mission and will allow U.S.
researchers to explore fundamental questions into the nature of the QGP which cannot be
1
ALICE-USA is a group of 13 U.S. institutions, National Laboratories and Universities that are
participating in the fabrication and utilization of the proposed EM Calorimeter as members of the ALICE
experiment at the LHC.
4
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
examined with any other experimental facility worldwide. In particular, the ALICE
experiment in conjunction with the U.S. built calorimeter will complement and extend the
ongoing investigations at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), currently the
DOE’s flagship facility in this field.
The most recent Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) Long Range Plan
recommended that the U.S. heavy ion community participate in the LHC heavy ion
program with a focused effort which complements the RHIC program. Specifically, the
plan recommended that the program focus on the measurement of probes produced in
hard processes. Hard processes will play a dominant role in collisions at the much
greater collision energy (s) of the LHC, and the ALICE EMCal would be the primary
instrument within the ALICE experiment for the exploration of these hard processes.
The scientific concept that requires the addition of an electromagnetic calorimeter to the
ALICE experiment has been thoroughly vetted in a long series of lower energy
measurements in experiments at RHIC. In these experiments, electromagnetic
calorimetry combined with precision tracking of charged hadrons has become the
primary method to trigger on and study hard probes in relativistic heavy ion collisions at
RHIC. In its recent sub-committee study “U.S. Program in Heavy Ion Nuclear Physics:
Scientific Opportunities and Research Requirements”, the NSAC concluded that: “The
developing LHC facility at CERN offers outstanding opportunities for new discoveries in
relativistic heavy ion physics, driven by the large increase in center of mass energy,
which generates different initial conditions and a larger kinematic reach for hard
probes.”
III. Functional Requirements
The ALICE EMCal project must deliver an electromagnetic calorimeter with acceptance
sufficient2 for jet reconstruction in central PbPb collisions and an energy resolution and
an electromagnetic shower shape determination sufficient for  discrimination to PT ~
30 GeV/c in central PbPb collisions. These are the most crucial considerations that the
detector design must meet for the ALICE-USA physics program. The primary detector
design goal is to preserve these latter parameters at the lowest possible cost. The
corresponding technical scope and performance specifications required at Critical
Decision-4 (CD-4) are described in Table V.2 and V.3 respectively. Summarizing from
the ALICE EMCal Requirements Document, the system parameters desired from the
ALICE EMCal are as follows:
1. Large effective acceptance for jets with analysis cones up to radii R=0.5. This is
satisfied by a detector spanning 110 degrees in azimuth and 1.4 units of pseudo
rapidity.
2. A photon or electron energy resolution better than or equal to = 15%/ E
 2% averaged over the full detector acceptance at energies above 2 GeV and less
than 100 GeV. At this resolution, the ALICE EMCal energy measurement for
electrons is comparable to or better than the ALICE tracking system momentum

measurement.
2
i.e. An acceptance sufficient to provide adequate statistics to permit fragmentation function reconstruction
for single inclusive jets with PT through ~ 150 GeV/c
5
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
3. A detector granularity and analog noise sufficient for good  discrimination in
central PbPb collisions out to transverse momenta of ~30 GeV/c
IV. Project Overview
The EMCal is a joint U.S./French/Italian project. The detector can accommodate up to
eleven detector modules or “super modules”, of which eight are included in the scope of
this DOE project. The U.S. is responsible for managing the ALICE EMCal project. The
DOE deliverables are discussed in detail below in section V. Briefly, the DOE MIE will
provide approximately 73% of the full detector acceptance (80 degrees in azimuth or 8 of
the 11 supermodules) and produce a completely functional detector suitable to address
the ALICE-USA physics goals. The technical activities within the MIE project may be
divided into two main areas: (1) R&D and (2) Detector fabrication, integration,
calibration and test.
IV.1 R&D
A substantial program of pre-conceptual R&D was completed prior to CD-0 and R&D
has continued through the interval between CD-0 and CD-1. The objective of the R&D
was to explore detector technology options and study detector performance for these
technology alternatives. Prior to CD-0, an approximately 0.5m x 0.5m prototype was
operated in a test beam at Fermilab to explore operational features of the preferred
mechanical/optical technology. The results of the test strongly supported the basic
conceptual design and only minor revisions in the mechanical and optical design were
necessary. During the first full year of the MIE, R&D efforts are continued with the
completion of another small prototype built from modules of the final design followed by
a second test beam experiment. The goal of this second test beam will be to establish the
operational characteristics of these modules, so that further progress can be made on
software and simulation effort, and to demonstrate integration with ALICE online and
data acquisition (DAQ) in a full systems test under realistic conditions with beam.
IV.2 Construction
In the following sections, the major systems and activities in the construction phase of the
project are summarized.
IV.2.1 Detector Modules and Super Modules Design and Fabrication
The full acceptance electromagnetic calorimeter consists of a barrel section providing
coverage for a 110o arc in azimuth and 1.4 units of pseudo rapidity along the beam
direction (Figure I.1). The full coverage is built up from effectively 11 separate “super
modules” spanning this acceptance. Each super module, which is the detector building
block handled at installation time, thus corresponds to approximately 1/11 or 9% of the
total detector area. As discussed in detail in section V., the U.S. DOE scope comprises 8
of these 11 super modules.
Each super module is finely segmented into individual energy measuring channels called
“towers”. There are a total of 12,672 separate towers in the full detector. Each of these
6
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
towers is a basic detection sensor of the detector capable of high resolution measurements
of electromagnetic energy.
Figure I.1 The conceptual
layout of the full ALICEEMCal on its support
structure
IV.2.2 Electronics
Electromagnetic energy deposition in the towers produces scintillation light which is
transported over optical fibers within the tower to a 5mm x5mm Avalanche PhotoDiode
(APD) which converts scintillation light into the electrical signal from the tower. A
charge sensitive preamplifier is integrated directly to each APD. These electrical signals
are sampled 4 - 5 times in a flash Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) on the front end
electronics boards (FEE) and passed through a readout control unit (RCU) to data
acquisition (DAQ). In parallel, the detector reads out to a trigger processor (TRU) which
forms sliding 2x2 tower sums for electromagnetic triggers and to a patch trigger
processor for jet triggers. The electronics associated with each detector super module
resides in a water cooled crate mechanically attached to the super module and electrically
cabled to each tower of the super module. Each of the super modules will include the
associated electronics described here.
Information from the ALICE EMCal readout electronics is transmitted directly in digital
format to ALICE DAQ over optical fibers originating on the RCUs. DAQ software and
hardware for the ALICE EMCal are the responsibility of the ALICE project. The ALICE
DAQ is responsible for processing and storage of ALICE EMCal generated data. The
ALICE EMCal project is required only to satisfy the interface specifications of the DAQ
receiver boards and high level trigger (HLT) hardware.
7
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
V. Technical Scope and Deliverables
The DOE technical scope and deliverables associated with the ALICE EMCal project are
described in this section. The ALICE EMCal MIE project will be complete when all
DOE deliverables have been received, tested and assembled at the ALICE detector site at
CERN. The scope includes the installation of one super module into the ALICE detector,
and its operation as described in the preliminary CD-4 performance specifications given
below. Limiting the scope to the installation of only the first super module, largely
decouples the project schedule from the CERN/LHC run schedule which is beyond the
control of the project. The scope as described below produces a fully functional
electromagnetic calorimeter capable of addressing the essential features of the ALICEUSA physics program with an acceptance equal to 8/11th of the full acceptance discussed
in section IV.2.
The scope associated with a single super module is:
o
o
o
o
o
288 single modules with calibration light source, each with:
1,152 Towers with one S8664-55 APD
1 Water cooled FEE crate with LV power and control
1,152 HV Channels with control
1,152 FEE digitization and readout channels through 1 readout control unit (included
in project scope)
o 288 EM trigger channels through 3 trigger region units (TRU) (included in project
scope)
o 1 readout channel to jet patch trigger board (included in project scope)
o 1 connection to the detector control system (DCS)
The U.S. project scope is:
o Eight functional Super Modules subjected to integrated systems testing and precalibrated with cosmic rays, delivered to ALICE at the LHC Point-2 site and ready
for installation.
o All mechanical systems required to handle and install super modules into the ALICE
experiment and the associated system integration activities including mechanical
support, cooling, power distribution, cable trays and all conventional systems
required for EMCal operation in ALICE.
o Installation and operation in an LHC run of the first super module.
The French and Italian project responsibilities and contributions to this MIE are currently
under negotiation and will be finalized prior to CD-2. At this point, it is envisioned that
the French will contribute substantially to mechanical design, hardware associated with
installation and the jet trigger while the Italians will contribute to mechanical design and
to hardware associated with super module structure. In addition, the French and Italians
will independently fabricate an additional three EMCal super modules outside the scope
of this project.
The preliminary performance specifications required at CD-4 are described below. These
will be updated as necessary at CD-2.
8
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
All absolute gain curves for all APD’s in all 8 functional super modules will be
determined to a precision of < 5% (RMS) for gains resulting in applied HV in the range
of 0 to 400V. This requirement guarantees that gains can be efficiently adjusted during
calibrations and initial trigger settings can be made at the first run start-up.
o All towers and readout channels of all eight functional super modules will
have an absolute energy pre-calibration to the precision of <10% using
cosmic rays. This cosmic ray calibration will be transferred to the LED
system to allow rapid absolute gain setting and monitoring at startup. This
requirement guarantees that initial run data will be sufficiently calibrated to
permit initial reconstruction of electrons and s required to begin the
calibration bootstrap process.
o One super module will be installed and fully integrated into the ALICE
detector and have participated in LHC running. Analysis of actual run data
will demonstrate a global energy calibration precise to <2% and a Gaussian
energy resolution better than = 15%/ E  2%.
The CD-4 criteria given above are sufficient to meet the goals of the ALICE-USA
physics program and satisfy the specifications of the ALICE EMCal requirements
 that the ultimate performance of the detector will
document. It is anticipated, however,
exceed its CD-4 acceptance criteria. The ultimate performance is expected to be reached
after the complete analysis of one full ALICE-year of running with the full complement
of 8 super modules installed and is described below. It is anticipated that this
performance could be achieved approximately 2 years after project complete.
o All absolute gain curves for all APD’s in all 8 functional super modules will be
determined to a precision of  2% (RMS). This precision allows adjustment of
individual tower gains to a level better than required for trigger thresholds and
where they have negligible effect on the global detector resolution.
 channels of all eight functional super modules will have an
o All towers and readout
absolute energy calibration to the precision of <2% using tracked conversion
electrons, , J/  e+e- and other calibration standards. It is estimated that the
ultimate precision of the energy calibration of the detector will approach ~1% after
a few years of running but <2% will be achieved in the first year.
o The full complement of 8 super modules will have been fully integrated into the
ALICE detector and have participated in LHC running. Analysis of actual run
data will demonstrate a global energy calibration precise to <2% and a Gaussian
energy resolution better than = 12%/ E  1.7%.
VI. Alternative Analysis

One of the considered alternatives is to not proceed with the fabrication of the EMCal.
This alternative has a number of significant negative impacts, however. The EMCal is
essential to the execution of a successful jet physics program at the LHC and the
maintenance of U.S. leadership of this important extension of RHIC physics into the new
9
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
energy domain that opens at the LHC. The U.S pioneered the use of hard probes
including jets in the Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (STAR) and the Pioneering High
Energy Nuclear Interaction eXperiment (PHENIX) at RHIC as a tool to diagnose the
properties of the QGP. These studies have been the centerpiece of the discoveries that
have come from RHIC and without the EMCal in ALICE the U.S will have minimal
presence in this important new discovery opportunity at the LHC.
Substantial R&D and pre conceptual design studies over the past several years were
carried out and the detector technology needed to satisfy the ALICE-USA physics
requirements was identified. A prototype detector was assembled and tested in beam to
allow a critical evaluation of performance parameters. During this process a number of
alternatives in detector design were considered including both scintillation and Cerenkov
crystal and scintillator/Pb tile-fiber sampling calorimeters. Based on performance,
integration considerations, and cost, the current design, as described above, has been
chosen. Manufacturing studies were also undertaken to establish “proof of principle”
mass production techniques in the key areas of detector manufacturing and electronics.
The concept of the present moderate resolution, large acceptance, “shashlik” sampling
electromagnetic calorimeter has emerged from this R&D. The ALICE-USA
Collaboration at large has reviewed the conceptual design and the associated
requirements document http://rnc.lbl.gov/nsd/alice_review06/alice_rev_docs2006.htm
(Appendix A) and endorses the current concept.
Lastly, alternative total detector acceptances were considered. The acceptance of the
calorimeter, effectively its net surface area, has a stronger than linear bearing on the
scope of the proposed physics program. This results because the objects of primary
interest, hadronic jets, are finite size objects with a cone-like topology that requires a well
defined minimum detector surface area before the detection efficiency rises above zero.
For example, simulations show that the detection efficiency for jets of dimensionless
radius R=0.5 rises by approximately a factor of nine between 6 super modules and 8
super modules. Jets of smaller radii exhibit less dramatic dependence on the detector
acceptance but the qualitative result remains – even a relatively minor reduction in the
active surface area of the detector significantly reduces the effective jet efficiency and
therefore the impact of the U.S. program in ALICE. Therefore, there is significant
benefit to increasing the technical scope to 8 super modules to be integrated into ALICE.
VII. Management Organization
This section discusses the project management structure and practices governing detector
design, fabrication.
VII.1 Project Management Responsibilities
This draft document provides the proposed management organization and delineates
responsibilities within the ALICE EMCal construction project. Figure VII.1 shows the
management organizational chart.
VII.1.1 Department of Energy
10
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Within DOE’s Office of Science (SC), the Office of Nuclear Physics (NP) has overall
responsibility for the ALICE Electromagnetic Calorimeter (EMCal). The Acquisition
Executive (AE) is Dennis Kovar, Associate Director of the Office of Science for Nuclear
Physics (SC-26). As such, he has full responsibility for project planning and execution,
and for establishing broad policies and requirements for achieving project goals. Specific
responsibilities for the ALICE EMCal project include:
Responsibilities:
The ALICE EMCal Acquisition Executive responsibilities include:





Chairs the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) Equivalent Board.
Approves Critical Decisions and Level 1 baseline changes.
Approves the Project Execution Plan.
Conducts Quarterly Project Reviews.
Ensures independent project reviews are conducted.
The ALICE EMCal Program Manager is Jehanne Simon-Gillo, Director of the
Facilities and Project Management Division in the Office of Nuclear Physics. The
Division (SC-26.2) is responsible for planning and constructing instrumentation to
provide special scientific and research capabilities to serve the needs of U.S. universities,
industry, and private and Federal laboratories. Within NP, the Facilities and Project
Management Division has direct responsibility for providing funding, and programmatic
guidance to the ALICE EMCal project.
Responsibilities:
The ALICE EMCal Program Manager responsibilities include:










Provides programmatic direction for ALICE EMCal via the Federal Project Director.
Functions as DOE headquarters point-of-contact for MIE matters.
Oversees MIE progress and organizes reviews as necessary.
Prepares, defends, and provides project budget with support from the field
organizations.
Reviews and provides recommendations to the AE on Level 1 baseline changes.
Controls other changes to MIE baselines in accordance with the PEP.
Monitors Critical Decision, Level 1 and 2 technical, cost, and schedule milestones.
Participates in Quarterly Reviews, ESAAB Equivalent Board meetings, and project
reviews.
Ensures ES&H requirements are implemented by the project.
Coordinates with other SC Staff offices, HQ program offices and the DOE Office of
Engineering and Construction Management (OECM).
11
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Barry Savnik has been assigned as the Federal Project Director at the Berkeley Site
Office (BSO).
Responsibilities:
The Federal Project Director responsibilities include:








Overall responsibility for planning, implementing, and completing ALICE EMCal.
Provides overall MIE management oversight.
Issues work authorization.
Provides necessary funds via approved financial plans.
Manages and allocates the contingency funds according to the procedure defined in
the Baseline Change Control.
Chairs the BSO Baseline Change Control Board (BCCB), and approves Level 2
Baseline Changes.
Submits project documents and critical decisions to DOE and reports project
progress.
Ensures that the MIE complies with applicable environment, safety and health
(ES&H) requirements (e.g. National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]
requirements)
12
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
VII.1.2 Host Laboratory and Director of the Nuclear Science Division
Office of Nuclear Physics
D. Kovar (Acquisition Executive)
J. Simon-Gillo
(ALICE EMCal Program Manager)
DOE Contracting Officer
M. Robles
Integrated Project Team
LBNL Site Office
A. Richards (Manager)
B. Savnik (Federal Project Director)
Host Laboratory
T.J. Symons, LBNL
(Director Nuclear Science Division)
EH&S
ALICE EMCal EH&S Liaison
L. Wahl (LBNL)
ALICE-USA
Collaboration Coordinator
J. Harris, Yale
ALICE Installation
L. Leistam, CERN
Conventional
Systems
Integration
KumpumaekCERN
Installation
Infrastructure
KumpumaekCERN
Mechanical Integration
and Design
M. Dialinas, Nantes
Support Structure
Bercowitz, LBNL
InstallationTooling
Stutzmann,Subatech
Module
Riso, WSU
Strip Module
Carduner, Subatech
Super Module
Palmeri, Catania
ALICE EMCal Project Management
T.M. Cormier, LBNL/WSU
(Contractor Project Manager)
J. Rasson, LBNL
(Deputy, Contractor Project Manager)
P. Jacobs, LBNL
(Deputy, Contractor Project Manager)
Production
J. Riso, WSU
ALICE Management Board
J. Schukraft, CERN
ALICE EMCal Quality Assurance
J. Rasson, LBNL (Acting)
ALICE EMCal Project Controls
D. Peterson, LBNL
Electronics
T. Awes, ORNL
Mod. / Strip Mod.
Mechanical/
Optical Assy./Test
Petrov, WSU
Fiber Systems
Westfall, MSU
APD Test/Integrate
Margetis, KSU
Super Module
Assy./Calibrate
Witt (Yale)
Design
Muller, CERN
Trigger
P. Jacobs, LBNL
L1 Trigger
Muller, CERN
Bourrion, Grenoble
Calibrate/Test
Sorensen, Tenn.
Conventional Systems
ORNL, Catania
Slow Controls
Cherney, Creighton
High Level Trigger
Pavlinov, WSU
Trigger Commission,
TBD, LBNL
On Line
Silvermyr, ORNL
Commission
TBD, ORNL
Figure VII.1 ALICE-EMCal Project management Organizational Chart
13
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Host Laboratory:
The Host Laboratory is defined as the lead laboratory that is fully responsible for the
construction of ALICE EMCal and assumes fiscal responsibility for the MIE. LBNL will
be the Host Laboratory during the R&D, construction and testing of ALICE EMCal and
will be responsible for ensuring that the manpower and necessary infrastructure are
provided.
Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL:
Funding for this project will be directed through the LBNL Nuclear Science Division.
Thus, ultimate fiscal and management Contractor responsibility for the fabrication of
ALICE EMCal will reside with the Director of the Nuclear Science Division, James
Symons.
Responsibilities:
The Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL shall be administratively and
fiscally responsible for the entire R&D effort and the MIE. In particular he/she must
provide the following:








Provides overall management oversight for all aspects of the MIE.
Appoints the Contractor Project Manager.
Approves key personnel appointments made by the Contractor Project Manager.
Approves major subcontracts recommended by the Contractor Project Manager.
Ensures that adequate staff and resources are available to complete ALICE EMCal in
a timely and cost effective manner (within constraints of the funding provided by
DOE).
Ensures that ALICE EMCal has demonstrated that it meets the functional
requirements.
Provides documentation and access to information necessary for operation of ALICE
EMCal at CERN.
Ensures the work is performed safely and in compliance with the Integrated Safety
Management (ISM) rules
VII.1.3 Contractor Project Manager (CPM)
The Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL has appointed T.M.Cormier
LBNL /Wayne State University (WSU) as the ALICE EMCal Contractor Project
Manager.
Responsibilities:
The CPM shall report directly to the Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL
and will be in charge of the overall management of ALICE EMCal project. The CPM
shall appoint the key staff needed for the MIE with the approval of the Director of the
Nuclear Science Division at LBNL. The Contractor Project Manager also will have the
following responsibilities:
14
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan

















Responsible and accountable for the successful execution of contractor’s MIE scope
of ALICE EMCal.
Supports Federal Project Director in implementing DOE project management process.
Provides input on project documentation.
Implements contractor performance measurement system.
Delivers project deliverables as defined in this project execution plan.
Identifies and ensures timely resolution of critical issues within contractor’s control.
Responsible for ALICE EMCal functionality requirements
Allocates the contingency funds according to the procedure defined in the Baseline
Change Control Procedures.
Acts as the spokesperson for the project to the DOE, the Host Laboratory, other
ALICE-USA participating institutions, the ALICE Collaboration and the scientific
community at large. Keeps the ALICE-USA Collaboration and the ALICE
Collaboration informed on the status of the ALICE EMCal project by regular updates
at collaboration meetings.
Appoints the Deputy Contractor Project Managers with the concurrence of the
Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL
Collaborates with the Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL and Deputy
Contractor Project Managers to assemble the staff and resources needed to complete
the project.
Advises the Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL on the selection of
non-host-site construction teams and sub-contractors and in defining the areas of
collaboration and the relationship between LBNL and other institutions participating
in ALICE EMCal through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU).
Recommends major subcontracts to the Director of the Nuclear Science Division at
LBNL for approval.
Ensures the work is performed safely and in compliance with the ISM rules.
Appoints the Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) in consultation with the Deputy
Contractor Project Managers.
Produces necessary ES&H documentation (e.g., Hazards Analysis Documents).
Recommends baseline changes up to Level 2.
VII.1.4 Deputy Contractor Project Managers
The ALICE EMCal CPM, with the approval of the Director of the Nuclear Science
Division at LBNL, has appointed two Deputy Contractor Project Managers: J. Rasson
(LBNL) and Peter Jacobs (LBNL). The Deputy Contractor Project Managers will report
to the CPM.
The Deputy Contractor Project Managers support the function of the CPM by way of
both shared and specific responsibilities. The following are responsibilities that the
Deputy Contractor Project Managers share:
15
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Shared Responsibilities:





Under the direction of and by delegation from, the Contractor Project Manager,
executes contractor’s MIE scope of ALICE EMCal, and supplies the deliverables on
time and within budget.
Collaborates with the Contractor Project Manager to assemble the staff and resources
needed to complete ALICE EMCal.
Collaborates with the Contractor Project Manager in the technical direction of ALICE
EMCal project.
Contributes to the preparation of regular reports and project reviews as required by
DOE and LBNL.
Collaborates with the Contractor Project manager to ensure that work is performed
safely and in compliance with the ISM rules.
Specific Responsibilities delegated individually to the Deputy Contractor Managers
include but are not limited to:
J. Rasson Responsibilities:













Develops and maintains the ALICE EMCal documentation.
Communicates the functional requirements to the subsystem managers
Responsible for the development of the ALICE EMCal system design requirements,
including interfaces between subsystems, and methods and practices for achieving
these requirements.
Controls changes in the ALICE EMCal system design requirements, including
interfaces between subsystems.
Responsible for overall engineering safety of project design
Carries out monthly project review and reports results to the Contractor Project
Manager.
Participates in the preparation of project quarterly reports to the DOE.
Supervises the LBNL staff of the ALICE EMCal project.
Oversees the effort from other institutions participating in ALICE EMCal.
Identifies and ensures timely resolution of critical issues within Deputy Contractor
Project Manager’s control.
Identifies and collaborates with the Contractor Project Manager in mitigating project
risks.
Maintains project files.
Additional responsibilities as delegated by the Contractor Project Manager.
P. Jacobs Responsibilities:


Represents the project in discussions with the collaborations (see section VII.1.6)
concerning physics requirements and functionality requirements as may arise in the
change control process.
Responsible for simulations that establish and support functionality requirements and
CD-4 acceptance criteria.
16
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan






Communicates the functional requirements and their relation to physics requirements
to the ALICE-USA Collaboration
Provides supervisory oversight in the preparation of the ALICE EMCal CDR, TDR
and other major ALICE EMCal reports.
Participates in the preparation of project quarterly reports to the DOE.
Identifies and ensures timely resolution of critical issues within Deputy Contractor
Project Manager’s control.
Identifies and collaborates with the Contractor Project Manager in mitigating project
risks.
Additional responsibilities as delegated by the Contractor Project Manager
VII.1.5 Subsystem Managers
Separate ALICE EMCal Subsystem Managers are responsible for each of the five ALICE
EMCal subsystems: ALICE Installation, Mechanical Design and Integration, Detector
Fabrication, Electronics, Trigger and Computing Resources as shown in table VII.1.
Table VII.1 ALICE EMCal subsystems and subsystem managers
ALICE EMCal Subsystem
Installation
Mechanical Integration and Design
Detector Production
Electronics
Trigger
Subsystem Manager
Lars Leistam (CERN)
Manoel Dialinas (Nantes)
Jose Riso (Wayne State)
Terry Awes (ORNL)
Peter Jacobs (LBNL)
Subsystem Managers report directly to the CPM and will be responsible for the design,
construction, installation, and testing of their respective subsystem, in consultation with
the CPM and in accordance with the performance requirements, schedule, and budget. In
particular, all subsystem managers have the following general responsibilities:
Responsibilities
 Collaborates with the CPM and his Deputies to assemble the staff and resources
needed to complete the subsystem.
 Communicates the system design requirements to the sub-system staff.
 Ensures that subsystems meet the ALICE EMCal system design requirements,
including interfaces.
 Responsible for carrying out the design, construction and assembly of the
subsystem in accordance with the scope, schedule and budget, assuming funding
and resources as described in the PEP.
 Provides regular reports on the status of the subsystem to the Contractor Project
Manager.
 Ensures the work is performed safely and in compliance with the ISM rules.
In addition to these general responsibilities, the subsystem managers have the following
specific responsibilities:
17
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Installation
The ALICE EMCal CPM has appointed Lars Leistam (CERN) as Subsystem Manager for
ALICE EMCal Installation. Leistam is the ALICE Project Engineer and has oversight
responsibility for all installation activities in ALICE and the and as such he is responsible
for all ALICE EMCal installation and the associated installation tooling and
infrastructure. As ALICE EMCal installation subsystem manager he oversees (1)
implementation of ALICE EMCal conventional systems and services and their
installation consistent with the overall ALICE integration plan and (2) all infrastructure
associated with installation including Calframe, all supermodule handling and installation
tooling and the physical installation of the first super module. Principal institutional
participation in the installation subsystem is limited to CERN.
Mechanical Design and Integration
The ALICE EMCal CPM has appointed M. Dialinas (Nantes) subsystem manager for
Mechanical Design and Integration. Dialinas has overall design and integration
responsibility for the ALICE EMCal support structure (CalFrame), Super Module
installation tooling, ALICE EMCal Module, Strip Module and Super Module. Principal
institutional participation in Mechanical Design and Integration includes Nantes, LBNL,
Subatech, Wayne State, and INFN Catania.
Detector Fabrication
The ALICE EMCal CPM has appointed J. Riso (WSU) subsystem manager for Detector
Fabrication. Riso has overall responsibility for detector component procurement,
construction and assembly including Module, Strip Modules and Super Modules as well
as optical and photo sensor elements. Principal institutional participation in Detector
Fabrication includes Wayne State, Michigan State, UCLA, Yale, University of Texas and
University of Houston.
Electronics
The ALICE EMCal CPM has appointed T. Awes (ORNL) subsystem manager for
Electronics. Awes has overall design, procurement, testing, installation and
commissioning responsibility for ALICE EMCal beginning with the output connector of
the APD charge-sensitive PreAmp through the full FEE system through optical cables to
ALICE DAQ. Also included is responsibility for electronic conventional systems (LV,
HV DC power, etc) and slow controls. Principal participating institutions include ORNL,
CERN, University of Tennessee, INFN Catania, Creighton, UCLA and the University of
Texas.
Trigger
The ALICE EMCal CPM has appointed P. Jacobs (LBNL) subsystem manager for the
Trigger. Within the trigger subsystem, Jacobs has overall responsibility for design,
procurement, testing and commissioning of the ALICE EMCalL1 trigger including the
isolated electromagnetic cluster trigger and the jet patch trigger. Also included is
18
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
responsibility for the High Level (software) trigger. Principal participating institutions
include LBNL, CERN, Grenoble, and Wayne State.
VII.1.6 Quality Assurance Manager (QAM)
J. Rasson (LBNL) will assume the duties of the interim QAM for the ALICE EMCal
project until a permanent QAM can be appointed.
Responsibilities:



Collaborates with the CPM to ensure the quality of ALICE EMCal.
Ensures that the quality control system is established, implemented, and maintained
in accordance with the ALICE EMCal Quality Assurance Plan.
Provides oversight and support to the partner labs and institutions to ensure a
consistent quality program.
VII.1.7 Integrated Project Team
The composition of the ALICE EMCal Integrated Project Team (IPT) is given in Table
VII.2. Its responsibilities are described in DOE Order 413.3A. The team plans to meet
quarterly or as needed. The DOE FPD will chair the IPT.
Table VII.2. ALICE EMCal Integrated Project Team
DOE Federal Project Director
LBNL/WSU Contractor Project Manager
LBNL Deputy Contractor Project Manager
LBNL Deputy Contractor Project Manager
DOE Contracting Officer
LBNL Contracting Officer
LBNL ES&H Lead Lead/ALICE EMCal EH&S Liaison
DOE EH&S
Barry Savnik (chair)
T.M Cormier
J. Rasson
P. Jacobs
M. Robles
E. Nasto
L. Wahl
J. Craven
VII.1.8 Collaboration Liaisons
Liaisons to the ALICE and ALICE-USA collaborations advise the CPM regarding the
interests of these collaborations as the detector design, fabrication, and commissioning go
forward. The Collaboration Liaisons work with their respective collaborations to monitor
and assess project issues that have the potential to impact the ALICE EMCal physics
performance. In particular, they are charged with the responsibility to monitor the impact
on the physics performance or requirements, of any and all changes in functionality or
schedule that might be introduced through the change control process. In addition, they
will lead the collaboration review and approval of the initial Physics Requirements
Document and any revisions, and they participate in the development of the
corresponding functional requirements. The ALICE-USA Collaboration Liaison is John
Harris (Yale), National Coordinator of ALICE-USA, and the ALICE Collaboration
Liaison is Jurgen Schukraft (CERN), ALICE Spokesperson and Chair of the ALICE
Management Board.
19
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
In addition, the ALICE-USA National Coordinator in consultation with the ALICE-USA
Council will appoint an ALICE-USA Computing Coordinator. The ALICE-USA
Computing Coordinator advises the CPM on progress of the ALICE-USA computing
plan and its conformance with the ALICE computing model and the status of offline
software development.
X.6 PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS
LBNL will be responsible for the fabrication of this MIE instrument. In additional to
LBNL personnel, members of the ALICE-USA Collaboration from U.S. Universities and
National Laboratories will share major responsibilities for the fabrication of the ALICE
EMCal subsystems. These institutions have expertise and past experience in designing
and fabricating similar subsystems. An MOU will define the relationship between the
institution and LBNL. In addition, scientists will provide leadership for ALICE EMCal.
20
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
ALICE-USA Institutions participating in the
ALICE EMCal MIE Project:
Creighton University
University of Houston
Kent State University
Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory
Michigan State University
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Purdue University
University of Tennessee
University of Texas Austin
Wayne State University
Yale University
In addition to the ALICE-USA participating institutions, a number of European
institutions are collaborating and contributing resources toward the MIE scope of this
project:
European Institutions participating in the
ALICE-EMCal MIE Project:
Nantes, France
Catania, Italy
Grenoble, France
CERN, France/Switzerland
INFN Frascati, Italy
21
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
VIII. SCHEDULE AND COST RANGE
The ALICE EMCal has been organized into a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for
purposes of planning, managing and reporting project activities. Work elements are
defined to be consistent with discrete increments of project work. Project Management
efforts are distributed throughout the project, including conceptual design and R&D. The
ALICE EMCal has 5 WBS Level 2 components:
WBS
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Title
Conceptual Design and R&D
Design and Engineering
Detector Production
Electronics production
System Integration
Project Management
VIII.1 Schedule
The Gantt chart view of the project schedule is shown in Figure VIII.1. The project
critical path is illustrated in red. The schedule is fully integrated to include non-DOE
contributions to the DOE technical scope. A CD-4 is planned for Project Completion in
1Q FY 2012. This allows approximately eight months of schedule float. The critical
path is determined by the rate of module production which in turn is set entirely by the
project funding profile.
22
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Figure VIII.1. The schedule of the high level WBS elements of the ALICE EMCal MIE showing the critical path.
23
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
VIII.2 Milestones
The following list is a preliminary schedule of milestones dates for the ALICE EMCal
MIE. Additional level 2 milestones will be established prior to CD-2. Critical Decision-2
establishing the Performance Baseline is planned for 4Q FY 2007. It is planned to
request Critical decision 3 simultaneously. The existing conceptual design is advanced
for a project at CD-1 and is based on the operational electromagnetic calorimeter at the
STAR experiment at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. As the detector design is
primarily based on existing technology and the technical risk in the project is low, the
final design can be completed by 4Q FY 2007.
Milestones are assigned to different levels depending on their importance and criticality
to other milestones and the overall Project schedule. In this document we summarize
only Level-1 (Critical Decision) and Level-2 (Project Control) milestones. These are
listed in Table VIII.1.
Table VIII.1 Critical decision dates and level - 2 Milestones
Level 1
Date
CD 1
Q1 FY07
CD 2-3
Q4 FY07
CD 4
Q1 FY12
Level 2
Final Design and Safety Review complete
Q3 FY07
Components Proc. Complete for SM 1
Q2 FY08
Super Module 1 Ready to Ship
Q2 FY09
Super Module 3 Ready to Ship
Q4 FY09
Super Module 5 Ready to Ship
Q3 FY10
Super Module 8 Ready to Ship
Q2 FY11
Super Module No. 1 Ready for Operation
Q2 FY11
VIII.3 Cost Range
The estimated TPC range at CD-1 for the project is $13 – $16 million. After peer review,
it was determined that eight detector modules was the minimum scope to achieve the
physics goals described in the Mission Need. The increase in the lower cost figure of the
range (from $5 million to $13 million), reflects the inclusion of 8 super modules in the
technical scope, rather than a minimum of 3 super modules considered at CD-0. The
preliminary TPC for the project is $13.295 million, in Actual Year Dollars. The
following escalation factors were used: Labor 3% at Universities, 4% at Laboratories and
materials 2.6% per year.
24
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
The estimated budget of $13.295 million includes all DOE base costs developed
“bottoms-up” from the lowest appropriate WBS level. The costs shown by fiscal year in
Table VIII.2 are base costs (no contingency). The total contingency by WBS ID is
shown in a separate column and totals $2.775 million or 26% of the base cost.
Table VIII.2 CD-1 TPC estimate
k$
WBS
Title
1.1
Conceptual Design and R&D
1.2
Design and Engineering
1.3
Detector Production
1.4
Electronics Production
1.5
System Integration
1.6
Project Management
Subtotal
Contingency - 26%
ALICE - EMCal Est. TPC
Total
Budget
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
-
-
-
-
-
295
295
-
480
-
480
-
-
-
-
-
6,545
-
-
985
2,555
2,385
620
-
1,550
-
-
325
520
700
5
-
485
-
75
120
120
125
45
-
1,165
-
260
225
230
240
180
30
295
815
1,655
3,425
3,450
850
30
10,520
2,775
13,295
The elements of the EMCal could have a useful life of up to fifteen years. The
components of a total life-cycle cost include: (a) Fabrication, as described in this
document; (b) Operation; and (c) Decommissioning costs. The estimated yearly cost of
operation is less than $20,000 and does not include management and operations (M&O)
support for the U.S. research program under the conditions set by the LHC ALICE
management and the required M&O and annual replacement costs for ALICE-USA
computing resources. The decommissioning of ALICE EMCal covers the disposal of
standard electronic, computer, and experimental lab equipment, which must follow
accepted standard procedures for disposal of these items. The decommissioning activities
are not anticipated to be complex or cost prohibitive, and would likely be carried out by
U.S. researchers, as is commonly done for pieces of scientific instrumentation. Although
a detailed analysis has not been carried out, it is estimated that the decommissioning is
likely less than $100,000. The estimated life-cycle cost is less than $17 million.
VIII.4 Funding
The ALICE EMCal MIE project will be entirely funded by DOE-NP. Collaborating
French and Italian institutions supported by L'Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et
de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN),
respectively, anticipate providing technical expertise and resources, as well as hardware
to the MIE. Outside of the project scope, the French and Italians are expected to provide
an additional three detector super modules.
With refinements during the post CD-0 project phase, the estimate for the DOE TPC at
CD-1 as shown in Table VIII.2 is $13.295 million. The DOE funding profile guidance at
CD-1 is shown in Table VIII.3
25
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Table VIII.3 ALICE EMCal Project Funding Profile
Fiscal
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Totals
Authority Profile
(M$)
0.3
1
2
4
4
2
13.3
The DOE TPC is allocated by cost category as shown in Table VIII.4:
Table VIII.4 Allocation of the TPC
Category
CDR
R&D
EDIA
Construction
Pre-Ops
DOE TEC
DOE TPC
Cost (M$)
0.2
0.1
0.9
12.1
13.0
13.3
VIII.5 Contingency
Contingency funds will be managed in conformance with the policies contained in DOE
Manual 413.3-1 and as defined in the Baseline Change Control section of this document.
VIII.5.1 Contingency evaluation for CD-1 cost estimate
At the present CD-1 phase (Approved Alternative Selection and Cost Range), the project
contingency percentages are derived by a point system which was developed and applied
successfully in the past to several DOE-funded projects3. Project contingency funds to
bracket the cost range were determined by evaluating every task for cost, technical,
schedule and design risks at the lowest appropriate WBS level and then applying a
weighting factor to account for single or multiple risks in a single WBS entry.
These first estimate contingency rates are determined by considering the current
development status of each WBS item, and the uncertainties plus risks in completing the
design, construction and testing. The guidelines used to establish the contingency
3
For example, STAR at RHIC.
26
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
percentages are listed in Table VIII.5 and VIII.6 for weight factors Wi and risk factors Ri
respectively. The scalar product of the Risk and Weight vectors, WiRi, defines the
WBS category contingency in percent as applied to the corresponding base cost.
Total project scope presented in the project WBS and schedule includes contributed
resources that are now or will be defined (no later than CD-2) by MOU’s between the
ALICE EMCal collaborating institutions. These contributed resources have already
played a significant role during the conceptual design phase and there is low to moderate
risk that these resources will not continue to be available during the remaining phases of
the project. However, the ALICE EMCal project management team believes that it is
prudent to carry an additional level of cost contingency to cover scope that may not be
performed as planned under the contributed resources scope. For CD-1, the average
contingency on contributed resources is calculated by evaluating the risk associated with
the likelihood that a given MOU may not be fully implemented. The composite
contingency on all contributed resources estimated in this manner is $1.118 million.
Based on previous experience with similar projects, this level of contingency is
considered conservative but acceptable at this phase. This amount is added to the
contingency deduced using the point method to produce the total contingency of
$2.775 million shown in Table VIII.2.
Table VIII.5 Contingency weighting factors
TECHNICAL, COST, SCHEDULE and DESIGN WEIGHTING FACTORS
Condition
Technical
Cost
Schedule
Design
Weighting Factor
Design OR Manufacturing
Design AND Manufacturing
Material Cost OR Labor Rate
Material Cost AND Labor Rate
Same for all
2
4
1
2
1
Same for all
1
27
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Table VIII.6 Contingency risk factors
TECHNICAL, COST, SCHEDULE and DESIGN RISK FACTORS
Risk
Factor
Technical
Cost
Schedule
Design
0
Not used
Not used
Not used
Detail design > 50%
done
1
Existing design and off
the shelf H/W
Off the shelf or catalog
item
Not used
Not used
2
Minor modifications to
an existing design.
Vendor quote from
established drawings.
No schedule
impact on any
other item
Not used
3
Extensive modifications
to an existing design
Vendor quote with
some design sketches
Not used
Not used
4
New design; nothing
exotic
In-house estimate based Delays completion Preliminary design
on previous similar
of non-critical
>50% done; some
experience
subsystem item
analysis done
6
New design; different
In-house estimate for
from established designs item with minimal
or existing technology
experience but related
to existing capabilities
8
New design; requires
some R&D but does not
advance the state-of-theart
In-house estimate for
Delays completion
item with minimal
of critical path
experience and minimal subsystem item
in-house capability
Conceptual design
phase; some
drawings; many
sketches
10
New design of new
technology; advances
state-of-the-art
Top-down estimate
from analogous
programs
Not used
Not used
15
New design; well
beyond current state-ofthe-art
Engineering judgment
Not used
Concept only
28
Not used
Not used
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
The contingency assignment per WBS element resulting from the contingency analysis is
shown in Table VIII.7 below. These contingency amounts were utilized to develop the
overall project contingency.
WBS
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Title
Conceptual Design and R&D
Design and Engineering
Detector Production
Electronics Production
System Integration
Project Management
Subtotal
Contingency - 26%
ALICE - EMCal Est. TPC
Budget
295
480
6,545
1,550
485
1,165
10,520
2,775
13,295
Cont
%
170
1,900
310
200
195
2,775
35%
29%
20%
42%
17%
26%
Table VIII.7 Contingency assignment per WBS element
IX Change Control
Changes to the technical, cost and schedule baselines will be controlled using the
thresholds described in Table IX.1
All changes that include or exceed Level 3 approval thresholds (as defined in Table IX.1)
will be submitted to the CPM using a Project Change Request form (PCR). All PCRs
become part of the permanent project documentation maintained by the CPM. For
changes exceeding Level 3, the CPM will endorse the request (i.e., recommend approval)
to higher authority or reject the request. If endorsed, the CPM will then transmit the PCR
to the FPD with recommendations. If the request exceeds Level 2, the BSO Baseline
Change Control Board (BCCB – see below) will submit the PCR to the ALICE EMCal
Program Manager in DOE Headquarters for approval. All Level 2 PCRs will be
reviewed and approved by the BSO BCCB and all Level 3 PCRs will be reviewed and
approved by the CPM.
The BSO BCCB will consist of the ALICE EMCal FPD (chair), the BSO Director, the
Director of the NSD at LBNL (or designee), the CPM, and others as directed by the FPD.
Technical advisors will be included as needed in the BSO BCCB. The chair has the final
responsibility to endorse the PCR. For Level 3 changes and requests for higher-level
changes the CPM will consult with the Deputy CPMs.
If the change is approved, the copy of the approved PCR, together with any qualifications
or further analysis or documentation generated in considering the request is returned to
the requestor, and copies are sent to the official at the next higher control level and to
ALICE EMCal CPM for filing. If approval is denied, a copy of the PCR, together with
the reasons for denial, is returned to the requestor, and a copy is filed. The official at the
next higher control level may review the granted change to ensure proper application of
the procedure and consistency of the change with the goals and boundary conditions of
the project.
29
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Table IX.1. Summary of Baseline Change Control Thresholds
Change
Level
Cost
Schedule
Technical Scope
DOE-SAE
(Level 0)
> 25% cumulative
increase to TPC
6 or more months
increase (cumulative)
to project completion
date
DOE-SC-26
Program
(Level 1)
Any increase in the
TPC or cumulative
allocation of more
than $500k
contingency
A cumulative
increase of more than
$250k in WBS Level
2 or cumulative
allocation of more
than $250k
contingency
Any increase of
>$50k in the WBS
Level 2
3-month or more delay
of a Level 1 milestone
Any change affecting
conformance to
mission need
requirement
(Section II)
Any change in CD-4
deliverable that affects
mission need
requirement
(Table V.3)
Any deviation from
technical deliverables
that does not affect
expected performance
specifications
(Table V.2)
DOE-BSO
Federal
Project
Director
(Level 2)
ALICE
EMCal
Contractor
Project
Manager
(Level 3)
1-month delay of
Level 1 milestone or
>3 month delay of
Level 2 milestone
> 1-month delay of a
Level 2 milestone date
Any significant change
in the System
Requirements
Document.
(Appendix A)
X Analyses, Assessments, and Plans
X.1 ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
The basic detector design concept is very similar to other calorimeters successfully
constructed by the present EMCal design team for the STAR detector at RHIC, AGS
experiment E864, and the Aleph detector at CERN. Therefore, the safety and
environmental hazards associated with this project are expected to present almost
identical concerns as those encountered in past detectors. Given this general appreciation
for the risks and hazards associated with calorimeter construction and commissioning, a
detailed safety plan has been generated (Documents EMCal.2.1.v1 and EMCal.2.2.v1).
For the purposes of this Project Execution Plan, the underlying philosophy of the ALICE
EMCal safety plan is presented.
30
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
X.1.1 Integrated Safety Management policy
This ALICE EMCal safety plan identifies the steps that will be taken to manage and
control risks to an acceptable level in accordance with LBNL’s Integrated Environment,
Health and Safety Management Policy, PUB-3140. Environment, safety and health
(ES&H) concerns will be integrated into all phases of planning and implementation
through to the final design and production processes of ALICE EMCal by applying the
Integrated Safety Management (ISM) policy.
This plan requires that safety management functions and principles apply to all activities
through all phases of the project. The ALICE EMCal management team is committed to
conducting all work so that the mission can be accomplished with adequate controls in
place to protect the public, the workers, and the environment.
X.1.2 ES&H Line Management
As discussed in section X.1.1, the Integrated Safety Management policy employed in the
ALICE EMCal project requires the full commitment of the project management team.
The line management of each organization involved in ALICE EMCal retains
supervisory authority of their personnel and responsibility for the safety of work at their
home Laboratory or University. Line management in each Laboratory and University
will inform the CPM about their Laboratory’s management and EH&S organization
structures. Any safety related concerns of ALICE EMCal personnel are to be
communicated to the ALICE EMCal CPM, the line management where the concern
occurs and the employee’s home Laboratory or University. The ALICE EMCal project
line management is responsible for the preparation of all safety reports for the ALICE
EMCAL project. The ALICE EMCal line management is described in section IV of this
document. In particular, we emphasize here the line management authority for ES&H
vests executive authority with the Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL
through the CPM and his Deputies.
X.1.3 Fabrication and Assembly Work at Wayne State University (WSU):
Since the bulk of the fabrication and assembly will take place at WSU and Yale under
subcontract from LBNL, the ALICE EMCal management team is planning to implement
specific steps to insure that all work is carried out in a manner consistent with PUB-3000,
LBNL’s Health and Safety Manual to protect project personnel, equipment and the
environment.
Both WSU and Yale have very extensive EH&S program in place. WSU has an excellent
track record as was demonstrated during the design and construction of the EMCal for the
STAR detector. Detailed information about the WSU’s EH&S program can be found at
the following URL: (http://www.oehs.wayne.edu/)
31
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
X.1.4 Installation and Commissioning work at CERN
On site at CERN, installation of general infrastructure plus the single super module
installed under the project scope and operational EH&S concerns will be managed
directly by CERN’s Safety Commission. CERN has extensive experience in similar
operations. Because of CERN’s international status and because some of its activities are
unique in Europe, CERN has its own specific safety regulations based on those of the
Member States, with a bias in favor of those safety regulations that are the most rigorous.
In all cases, CERN is required to comply with the rules in force on the territory of the
Host States and to ensure that a level of safety is maintained that is at least equivalent to
that provided for by the latter’s own regulations.
X.1.5 NEPA and CEQA
A NEPA review has been completed and a determination made that ALICE EMCal is
included under a Categorical Exclusion covering a range of research and related
activities. Work at LBNL would be covered for California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) purposes under existing CEQA documentation.
X.2 Quality Assurance
ALICE EMCal defines Quality as the “fitness of an item or design for its intended use”
and Quality Assurance (QA) as “the set of actions taken to avoid known hazards to
quality and to detect and correct poor results.” Prior to CD-2, the ALICE EMCal project
team will define an ALICE EMCal QA plan. The plan will classify in grade levels how
poor quality can impact the project, and then, associated with these grade levels, a set of
actions to control and maintain quality. The plan also defines responsibilities of the
QAM.
X.3 Risk Management
ALICE EMCal views risk management as an ongoing task that is accomplished using a
formalized plan to identify, analyze, mitigate and monitor the risks that arise during the
course of completing the project. Risk is a measure of the potential of failing to achieve
overall project objectives within the defined scope, cost, schedule and technical
constraints. ALICE EMCal has established its own formal Preliminary ALICE EMCal
Risk Management Plan (Document EMCal.4.3.v1) using the guidelines set forth in
Chapter 14 of DOE Publication M 413.3-1, Project Management for the Acquisition of
Capital Assets. The purpose of this analysis is not solely to avoid risks, but to understand
the risks associated with a project and devise methodologies and strategies for managing
them.
The final responsibility for risk management will rest with the CPM, in consultation with
the Deputy Contractor Project Managers. However, effective risk management is a
multi-step process that requires continued involvement of all project members, and the
ALICE EMCal management will encourage such involvement. ALICE EMCal will use
key procedures proven to be an effective strategy in the management of risk on scientific
projects: planning, assessment, handling and monitoring. A preliminary risk analysis has
been begun as the project approached CD-1 and the initial entries have been made in a
32
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
Risk Registry. This will be completed and fully integrated into project management prior
to CD-2.
Cost and Schedule Range: ALICE EMCal is judged to be low risk in terms of
completing the MIE on cost and schedule. The cost estimates are based in part on
existing quotes for the detector parts and components, actual cost of production of similar
items, in part on budgetary quotes, and in part on engineering experience. Based on the
preliminary funding profile listed in Section 2 above, procurement of long lead-time
items will begin in FY 2008 and Start of Operations is scheduled for FY 2012.
To the extent feasible, procurements will be accomplished by fixed-price contracts
awarded on the basis of competitive bids. Incremental awards to multiple subcontractors
to assure total quantity or delivery will be performed to reduce schedule risk. The cost
estimates are based in part on existing contracts for the prototype, actual cost of
production of similar items, in part on budgetary quotes, and in part on engineering
experience.
It is probable that the EMCal project will include foreign procurements. Due to the cost
risk associated with an unfavorable dollar vs. Euro or dollar vs. Yen exchange rate
change additional contingency has been applied to several key items. In addition, risk
will be reduced by placing early procurements of some of these key items.
Adequate cost and schedule contingencies will be included in this MIE’s performance
baselines. The current estimated cost contingencies for the remaining design and
fabrication (Estimate to Completion) totals $2.775 million or 26%. This includes
$1.118 million of contingency to cover the risks associated with planned contributed
resources based on evaluating the risk associated with the likelihood that a given MOU
may not be fully implemented.
Delays in project funding due to Congressional Continuing Resolution could delay the
placement of procurements during the early part of the fiscal year. To mitigate this risk,
there will be an attempt to avoid scheduling critical procurements for the first quarter of a
fiscal year and it is expected that some funds will be carried over from a previous fiscal
year into the next.
Funding Range and Budget Management: ALICE EMCal is budgeted as an MIE in the
DOE-NP Program starting in FY 2007. The estimated funding to complete the project is
currently planned in the NP five year budget. Funding will be provided by NP to LBNL
per the terms of its management and operating (M&O) contract with DOE. These funds
are under the management of the ALICE EMCal FPD at the DOE Berkeley Site Office.
LBNL will be responsible for distributing the funds to collaborating institutions.
Technology and Engineering: The technical risks of the ALICE EMCal project are low.
R&D efforts have decreased risk related to a design being able to reach desired
performance specifications critical to the ALICE-USA program. This work culminated
in a full systems test in beam at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) of a 16module prototype detector. Moderate risk is associated with the limited number of
vendors available for the intricate ALICE EMCal scintillator tiles. Currently, only two
known, qualified vendors, both located in Europe, exists for the manufacture of these
33
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
tiles. The capabilities of the vendors were fully explored as part of the prototype effort as
a key risk management step. At the moment, as a result of this R&D work, both of these
vendors are both judged as qualified. An additional round of detector prototyping in
FY07 will further explore their capabilities.
X.4 Value Engineering
A Value Engineering (VE) study will be performed before ALICE EMCal seeks approval
for CD-2/CD-3. The study will follow the traditional approach to VE, according to
applicable procedures. A review team formed by members of the IPT and representatives
of the ALICE EMCal management and technical teams will evaluate alternative design
approaches and evaluate the flexibility of the design for present and future research. The
VE approach will determine the impacts on cost (both ALICE EMCal and life-cycle) of
any suggested changes to the design. Additionally, the project team will perform
informal VE evaluations throughout the duration of this MIE.
X.5 Project Controls and Reporting System
The ALICE EMCal MIE project has been entered into the Project Assessment and
Reporting System (PARS) and will be updated on a monthly basis by the FPD.
The Deputy Contractor Project Manager (J. Rasson) will lead monthly cost and schedule
performance reviews based on schedule, cost, and technical data and report the result to
the CPM and FPD. The CPM will lead quarterly overall cost, schedule and technical
performance reviews and report the results to the BSO-DOE office. The FPD will report
progress to the DOE Program Manager on a quarterly basis. The Office of Nuclear
Physics will conduct annual progress reviews with a committee of experts.
The standard LBNL accounting system will be the basis for collecting cost data. A direct
one-to-one relationship will be established between each WBS element of Level 3 or
lower and a separate account code under the LBNL accounting system.
Technical performance will be monitored throughout the project to insure conformance to
approved functional requirements. Design reviews and performance testing of the
completed systems will be used to ensure that the equipment meets the functional
requirements.
34
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS Dictionary
for the
ALICE-EMCal
MIE-HILHC
A collaboration of:
Wayne State University
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
35
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS Dictionary
for the
ALICE - EMCal
CONCURRENCES:
_________________________________________
Tom Cormier
ALICE - EMCal Project Manager
Date:
_______________
_________________________________________
Joseph Rasson
ALICE – EMCal Deputy Project Manager
Date:
_______________
_________________________________________
Denis Peterson
ALICE – EMCal Project Controls Manager
Date:
_______________
This document details the ALICE – EMCal Work Breakdown Structure at the Control
Account level. The Responsibility Assignment Matrix, showing Control Accounts and
Control Account Managers is shown as Attachment 1.
36
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS
Title
1
ALICE - EMCal - MIE
1.1
Conceptual Design and R&D
1.1.1
Modules Conceptual Design
1.1.2
Strip Module Conceptual Design
1.1.3
Super Module Conceptual Design
1.1.4
Electronics Conceptual Design
1.2
Design and Engineering
1.2.1
Mechanical Components Design
1.2.2
Elec. System Design
1.2.2.1
Electronics Design
1.2.2.2
Jet Trigger Design (CERN/Grenoble)
1.2.3
Mechanical Components Fab Process: Development & Qualification
1.2.3.2
Assembly Tooling Development and Qualification
1.2.4
Production of a Prototype for Test Beam (16 Module)
1.2.4.1
Assembly of 16 Module Prototype
1.2.4.2
Test Beam (FNAL)
1.2.5
Final Design and Refinement of Mass Production Processes
1.2.5.1
Final Design of Mechanical Components
1.2.5.2
Final Design of Assembly and Handling Tooling
1.2.5.8
Final Design - Jet Trigger
1.2.5.4
Detector System Final Design and Safety Review
1.3
Detector Production
1.3.1
Mechanical Component Procurements and Fab.
1.3.2
Fabrication of Additional Production Tooling & Fixtures
1.3.3
Super Module Production
1.3.3.1
Module Processing and Assembly
1.3.3.2
Strip Module Assembly
1.3.3.3
Super Module Assembly, Test and Ship
1.4
Electronics Production
1.4.1
1.5
1.6
Develop Fabrication and Assembly Process Suitable for Mass Production
1.2.3.1
Electronics Components Fabrication, Assembly and Test
Site and System Integration
1.5.1
ALICE-EMCal Site Integration and Planning
1.5.2
Integration and Installation
Project Management
37
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.1
Sub-element: 1.1.1
Funds Type:
Title: Conceptual Design and R&D
Subtitle: Modules Conceptual Design
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Costs of Wayne State engineering and technical staff needed to develop conceptual
design and processes for individual modules.
Technical Content:
Conceptual design of necessary components, assembly tooling and review of safety
issues surrounding the procurement and assembly of individual modules. Prototyping of
inividual components to develop effective manufacturing designs and methodology.
Work Scope:
 Components Conceptual Design
 Assembly Tooling Conceptual Design
 Process Development of assembly methods for prototype and test
 Review of Safety issues
 Component prototyping and needed Design Improvement
38
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.1
Sub-element:1.1.2
Funds Type:
Title: Conceptual Design and R&D
Subtitle: Strip Module Conceptual Design
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Effort by Wayne State and Nantes personnel
Technical Content:
Conceptual Design of the strong back support for the 16 unit strip module, processes for
strip module integration and review of safety issues. Prototyping of necessary
components and development of commercial manufacturing processes.
Work Statement:
 Conceptual Design of the strong back support for the 16 unit strip module
 Conceptual Design for the strip module Itegration
 Document safety issues and mitigation
 Prototype components and revise designs for effetive mass manufacturing
39
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.1
Sub-element: 1.1.3
Funds Type:
Title: Conceptual Design and R&D
Subtitle: Super Module Conceptual Design
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Effort by Wayne State personnel
Technical Content:
Conceptual design of super module layout, crate design and component prototyping.
Work Statement:
 Layout of Super Module conceptual design
 Conceptual Design of Crates
 Safety Analysis
 Prototyping components and design improvement for commercial manufacture.
40
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.1
Sub-element: 1.1.4
Funds Type:
Title: Conceptual Design and R&D
Subtitle: Electronics Conceptual Design
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
All costs are labor from ORNL and CERN.
Technical Content:
Develop Conceptual Design for the ALICE EMCal electronics based on the PHOS
model.
Work Statement:
 Electronics coceptual design based on those used in PHOS
 Develop preliminary parts lists of eletronic components
 Develop cost estimate for electronics procurements
41
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.2
Sub-element: 1.2.1
Title: Design and Engineering
Subtitle: Mechanical Components Preliminary Des.
Funds Type:
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Effort from Wayne State engineering and technical
Technical Content:
Preliminary design efforts for the various Detector mechanical parts and safety analysis.
Work Statement:
 Module preliminary design
 Strip module preliminary design
 Super Module preliminary design
 Preliminary Design and Safety review.
42
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.2
Sub-element: 1.2.2
Title: Design and Engineering
Subtitle: Elec. System Preliminary Design
Funds Type:
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Effort labor from ORNL and CERN.
Technical Content:
Preliminary design efforts for the various electronics controls and components.
Work Statement:
Elec. Design  Redesign Transition Card
 Redesign of PHOS GTL buses
 Design EMCal FEE Crate
 Design LED driver
High Level Trigger Design
 Jet Trigger Design
43
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.2
Sub-element: 1.2.3
Funds Type:
Title: Design and Engineering
Subtitle: Develop Fab. & Assem. Process for Mass
Production
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Effort from Wayne State engineering and technical staff.
Technical Content:
Development of fabrication processes and tooling fixtures for use in mass production of
parts and component assembly
Work Statement:
 Develop fabrication processes for each module component (lead tiles, scintilators,
etc. and qualify vendors for production.
 Develop Tooling and Assembly fixtures needed for production of modules, strip
modules and super modules.
44
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.2
Sub-element: 1.2.4
Title: Design and Engineering
Subtitle: Production of Prototype for Test Beam
Funds Type:
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Effort from Wayne State engineering and technical staff.
Technical Content:
Assembly of a 16 module prototype and testing with beam.
Work Statement:
 Assembly of a 16 module prototype detector with all components and electronics.
Align and bench check. Calibrate short system.
 Ship prototype unit to FNAL for test in beam
 Gather and analyze preliminary data
 Ship back to Wayne State
45
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.2
Sub-element: 1.2.5
Funds Type:
Title: Design and Engineering
Subtitle: Final Design and Refinement of Mass Production
Processes
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Effort from Wayne State engineering and technical staff. Contributed effort from Nantes
on Strip Module Assembly Tooling.
Technical Content:
Final design of all components, assembly tooling and integration.
Work Statement:
 Final design of Mechanical Components
o Lead/Scintillators
o Machined parts
o Side Straps
o Lead Tiles
o Injection Molded parts
o Belleville Washers and Fastners
o Fiber Bundles
 Final Design – Strip Module Strong Back
 Final Design – Super Module Crate
 Final Design – Integration
o Configuration Control
o Procure and Install service from EMCal to racks
o Fabrication and test of Super Module installation fixture
o Develop installation scenarios and safety procedures
 Review of Final Design and Safety Documentation
46
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.3
Sub-element: 1.3.1
Title: Detector Production
Subtitle: Mechanical Components Procurement and Fab
Funds Type:
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Procurement of mechanical components for detector production at Wayne State. Cost for
procurement admin support at Wayne State. Costs based on T. Cormier worksheet.
Technical Content:
Procurement and fabrication of mechanical parts for detector.
Work Statement:
 Procure through Wayne State all mechanical components for assembly of
modules, strip modules and supper modules. Timing of procurements matched to
established DoE funding profile.
47
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.3
Sub-element: 1.3.2
Title: Detector Production
Subtitle: Fabrication of Production Tooling & Fixtures
Funds Type:
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Effort and material at Wayne State to procure and fabricate necessary tooling and
fixturing to allow increased module assembly as required by schedule demands.
Technical Content:
Procurement and fabrication of tooling and assembly fixturing for detector assembly.
Work Statement:
 Procure through Wayne State additional tooling and fixturing needed to increase
detector module assembly stations at Wayne State or other assembly sites.
48
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.3
Sub-element: 1.3.3
Title: Detector Production
Subtitle: Super Module Production
Funds Type:
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Labor and misc. material to assemble individual modules, strip modules and super
modules. Assembly of modules and strip modules with Wayne State staff. Super Module
assembly is being conducted at Yale.
Technical Content:
Detector assembly and electronic integration.
Work Statement:
 Assembly at Wayne State of 288 modules (12 per Strip Module) for each Super
Module
 Prepare Super Module assembly facilities at Yale
 Assembly strip modules at Wayne State (24 per Super Module)
 Assemble Super Module 1, check alignment, connect and route cables, assemble
carriages and rollers, integrate electronics, perform cosmic ray test, pack and ship
to CERN
 Assemble Super Module 2 – 8, integrate electronics, perform Cosmic ray test,
pack and ship to CERN.
49
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.4
Sub-element: 1.4.1
Funds Type:
Title: Electronics Production
Subtitle: Electronics Components, Fabrication, Assembly
and Test
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Material and labor at ORNL and CERN to procure and oversee assembly of all
electronics components for the ALICE - EMCal detector. Wayne State to provide
technician support for the assembly.
Technical Content:
Electronics system procurement and assembly at ORNL.
Work Statement:
 Procure electronics components as specified by parts list.
 Utilize Wayne State labor to assemble electronics components for each Super
Module.
 Test all electronic components and assemblies
50
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.5
Sub-element: 1.5.1
Title: System Integration
Subtitle: ALICE-EMCal Site Integration and Planning
Funds Type:
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Labor contributed by Nantes
Technical Content:
Maintenance and revision of the ALICE – LHC interface documents.
Work Statement:

Maintain in current form all necessary documents describing the necessary
interfaces with the LHC experiment and equipment.
51
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.5
Sub-element: 1.5.2
Title: System Integration
Subtitle: Integration and Installation
Funds Type:
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Labor contributed by Nantes. Oversite effort also provided by LBNL. Travel costs for
LBNL staff.
Technical Content:
Complete design and installation of all outstanding conventional facilities and services to
the ALICE – EMCal. Oversight and interface with LHC for the smooth installation of
ALICE – EMCal with the LHC.
Work Statement:
 Complete any design efforts necessary for the set-up and installation of ALICE –
EMCal into the LHC equipment.
 Arrange for installation of all outstanding conventional facilities and services
necessary for the operation of the ALICE – EMCal experiment.
 Provide expertise, guidance and resources during the installation of Super
Modules into the LHC.
52
ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan
WBS: 1.6
Sub-element: 1.6.nn
Title: Project Management
Subtitle: Project Mangement
Funds Type:
TEC
OPC EQ
OPC OP
Description:
Cost Content:
Level of effort tasks to provide for Project Management costs at LBNL and Wayne State.
Also includes budget for misc. project expenses and travel.
Technical Content:
Provide Project Management and controls needed to deliver project objectives within the
agreed upon constraints of scope, time and cost.
Work Statement:
 Provide overall project management
 Provide timely reporting of project status, issues and accomplishments.
 Develop any necessary plans to mitigate risk
53