1 / 15

Strip Tracker Costing Analysis Status

Strip Tracker Costing Analysis Status. Carl Haber July 25, 2011. Overview. Can mainly derive a costing framework here Only consider CORE Will depend upon eventual layout, and CHF/item Seek a framework which can be easily adapted to layout variations and new assumptions

shasta
Télécharger la présentation

Strip Tracker Costing Analysis Status

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Strip Tracker Costing AnalysisStatus Carl Haber July 25, 2011

  2. Overview • Can mainly derive a costing framework here • Only consider CORE • Will depend upon eventual layout, and CHF/item • Seek a framework which can be easily adapted to layout variations and new assumptions • Key inputs include costs and yield estimates • Yields based upon SCT/Pixel experience • Yields based upon present R&D experience • Yields based upon cost = specifications • Other options • Industrialization • Number of sites/task: efficiency vs. activity

  3. Costing History • See USG 6/2011 presentation from Phil • A.Clark: attempt at bottom-up for Utopia • M. Tyndel: parametric based upon SCT • S.McMahon: rationalized MT analysis • But all were influenced by SCT experience • Itemized comparison not possible in general due to differing methodology • Similar conclusions for total cost based upon very different internal assumptions

  4. Are there important differences as compared to SCT? • ASICs will have (at least) 256 channels and are smaller • Much less internal cabling, buses for TTC and power • No TPG heat spreaders • Hybrids will be panelized for mass production, assembly, and test • Barrel support structures will be simpler since we do not need to mount modules nor dress cooling and cables • There will be no discs upon which modules are mounted, only support rings/struts for petals • Overall cost may dictate that work is broken down by item rather than site – economy of scale advantages (?)

  5. Previous Costings (Core) • SCT: 45 MCH • M. Tyndel SCT scaled: 150 MCHF • S. McMahon: rationalized: 80 MCHF • A. Clark analysis: 70 MCHF • Most detailed, but a bit hard to follow • Expresses total module cost rather than breaking out items as they will be procured • ASICs types and counts need to be updated • Mechanical support, stave core not handled

  6. Comparisons from Prior Work

  7. Components • Stave Core • Facings: bulk material, cut to shape • Foam: critical patterning and gluing operation • Pipe assembly: forming and pressure certification • Edges: machining? • Bus tapes: commercial order, critical QA aspect to maintain yield of stave • Module • Sensor: pre-spec’d from vendor, loss due to handling damage • Hybrid • Substrate: commercial mfg, loss in parts mount, test • ABCn130 • HCC/DCS • PPC • Discretes • End-of-Stave: critical reliability aspect • Substrate: commercial mfg, loss in parts mount, test • ASICS • Discretes • Connectors/cables: potential high cost, critical reliability aspect

  8. Complete staves Cores ready to load modules ready for staves EOS facings discrt sensors foam chips hybrids pipes discrt edges Bus tapes chips

  9. Inputs • Sensor costs (N.Unno): • Strip: 70 KCHF per wafer type and 1100 CHF per piece/wafer • Strip ASIC {note: chip numbers in USG 6/11 not correct) • (ABCn130) costs (P. Farthouat):163K good die: 440 wafers = 1.55MUSD , NRE = 0.5 MUSD = 1.64 MCHF = 10 CHF/good ABCn130 (Prototype cost : 2 times NRE = 1 MUSD) • HCC, PPC, GBT • Hybrids • Stave cores and tapes

  10. Stave/Petal Core Mechanical/Tapes • CF facing material • K13D2U, 65 grams/m2., 52 KCHF/22 Kg = 2.36 KCHF/Kg • 1 stave requires 6 x 0.120 m x 1.3 m x 1.5 (excess) = 1.4m2 x 65 = .091 Kg • 2.36 x 0.091 = 215 CHF/stave • Foam • 960 CHF ($1200) per 1’x1’x1” block = 2400 cm3 • X2 loss factor • 1 stave = 714 cm3: x 2 = 1430; (1430/2400)*960= 572 CHF • Pipe: 3 m/stave • Stainless steel negligable • Titanium: 61 CHF/m: 184 CHF/stave • Edge tube/C-channels: negligable • Bus tapes: 2@320 CHF each = 640 CHF/stave • Total: 215 + 572 + 184 + 640 = 1611 CHF/stave • 521 staves * 1611 = 840 KCH • Petal system area is about 40% of barrel: ~350 KCH

  11. Utopia Barrel

  12. Example Estimate • Barrel stave • Core only • No setup costs, tooling, NRE • No engineering, prototyping, pre-production • No assembly, inspection, QA, or test equipment

  13. Barrel Staves only, CORE, yield based, preliminary

  14. Global Supports Comments • Not included in estimate presented here, but, • Barrels for staves, frames for petals • Barrel is conceptually similar to SCT so OK to cost by scaling and inflation, but much simpler since no dressing • BNL analysis: 1.8 MCHF • A.Clark analysis: 3 MCHF • Forward disc substrate is now gone and replaced by • Petal cores, now costed as part of cores • Support rings/frames, in principle (?) a more complicated fabrication than a thin barrel (?) not clear how to cost this • A. Clark analysis: 4.6 MCHF, seems too high… • Parametric (S.M./M.T.) analysis based on SCT concluded that these supports would total 21 MCH! Clearly too large.

  15. Comments • Any new numbers presented here are preliminary and need to be checked further • Fairly transparent structure for costing in an itemized and yield based manner • Will extend to the disc system • Need to look critically at the off stave cable and interconnect costs, off detector electronics • Mechanical engineering aspects, outside the stave, are clearly a key area for study

More Related