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

Risk Review or Strips Hybrids and Modules

• G. Sciolla

Oct 31, 2019

Overview

• 3 sites will make hybrids and modules in the US

§ LBL, UCSC, BNL

• Hybrids

§ Receive hybrid panels from the UK § Receive tested ASICS from UK / US institutions § Assemble and test hybrids

• Modules

§ Receive tested silicon wafers from UCSC (à Japan) § Receive PBs from LBL § Hybrids produced in house § Assemble and test Modules § Ship Modules to BNL

US ATLAS HL-LHC – Strips Risk Scrubbing, 10/31/2019 2

Proposal

• Starting in PP3 (FY20) Hybrids and Modules merged
• Proposal for RR:

§ End risks associated with Hybrids at the end of PP2 § Introduce corresponding risks in Modules starting from PP3 § Add one additional risk associated to delays in Site Qualification

• In the following, only risks for Modules in PP3+ will be

discussed

US ATLAS HL-LHC – Strips Risk Scrubbing, 10/31/2019 3

Risk Overview

4

• G. Sciolla, Stave Assembly

ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

Risk ID Title Risk Rank Phase In RR?

RD-06-02-04-001

Lower than expected throughput in module wirebonding 70

Production Yes RD-06-02-04-002 Electrical performance of modules

140

Production Yes RD-06-02-04-003 Modules are damaged during shipping

140

Pre-Prod. III to Prod. Yes RD-06-02-04-004 Delay in sensor shipments

140

Production Yes RD-06-02-05-005 Loss of key personnel

60

Now to Prod. Yes RD-06-02-04-006 Delay in site qualification Prod. No RD-06-02-04-007 Hybrids are delayed from non-US vendor

140

Now to Production Yes RD-06-02-04-008

Problems in Wirebonding of hybrids 140

Now to Prod. yes RD-06-02-04-009 Problem with UV cure adhesives used in hybrid assembly when

applied as a high throughput process 60

Production Yes

• Risks in current registry in Black, Changes/New Risks in Red

1) Lower than expected throughput in module wirebonding

5

WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-001 Status Active Expires 1-Dec-21 Title Lower than expected throughput in module wirebonding Summary Module production assumes that we will be able to reliably wirebond 2.3 (3.4) Short-Strip (Long-Strip) modules per day per site. We may not be able to achieve this throughput. Owner

• C. Haber

Probability Pre 10% Post 5% Cost Lo $180k Hi $770k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 6.0 Tech Impact 1 (L) Post Mitg Prob 1 (VL) Impact Score Cost 3 (H) Sched 2 (M) Rank=70 Mitigation Inspect and test bond samples from batches of sensors, ASICS and hybrids, early reject of sub-par material. If necessary adjust bonding parameters Response Commission more wire bonding machines to guarantee total throughput at a lower but more reliable wire bonding speed. Comments Assumptions for the High Cost estimate: if the wire bonding is half of what we expect at the start of flattop production, then the throughput (verified with assembly flow chart) will be 60% slower. Since the three assembly sites are identical, all 3 sites will have to go through a 6 months process to bring 3 new wire bonding machines

• nline at a loaded cost of $180k per machine. In those 6 months we have 50 days of lost module building capability

that will delay the schedule with a labor cost impact of about $230k. Assumptions for Low Cost estimate: assume throughput to be 90% of what is needed; this that can be corrected by 10% extra shifts of 3 technicians for the remaining production years. The cost will be about $20k per technician per year which adds up to $180k total cost impact and a month of schedule impact. This risk is expected to expire 3 months into flat top production. Phase Affected Production

• G. Sciolla, Modules

ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

2) Electrical Performance of Modules

6

WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-002 Status Active Expires 1-Dec-24 Title Electrical performance of modules Summary Electrical performance of modules is worse in production than in prototyping and/or pre-production phases Owner

• C. Haber

Probability Pre 20% Post 10% Cost Lo $100k Hi $500k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 6.0 Tech Impact 2(M) Post Mitg Prob 3 (L) Impact Score Cost 3 (H) Sched 2 (M) Rank=140 Mitigation Inspect and test all components just before module assembly. Follow a stringent Q&A for the assembled modules. Response Immediately stop module production at all sites when module Q&A shows consistent aberrations from performance parameter for a significant fraction of production. Only restart production after problem is fixed and/or performance parameters are adjusted. Comments Since all components are tested before assembly into modules, the probability of an electrical integration issue still appearing in production is small. If it happens, then a solution will not be trivial and it is assumed that it will take between 1 and 6 months to resolve the issue. One year of flat top production delay is about $1.0M, so this gives between $100k and $500k cost increase. This risk expires at the end of production. Phase Affected Production

• G. Sciolla, Modules

ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

3) Modules are damaged during shipping

7

WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-003 Status Active Expires 1-Dec-21 Title Modules are damaged during shipping Summary Modules have to be shipped from assembly sites to BNL. A module shipping container was designed and tested to allow for safe shipment by mail. It could happen that in production quantities we start to notice shipping damage Owner

• C. Haber

Probability Pre 20% Post 10% Cost Lo $100k Hi $732k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 6.0 Tech Impact 2 (M) Post Mitg Prob 3 (L) Impact Score Cost 3 (H) Sched 2 (M) Rank=140 Mitigation Implement stringent Q&A of the modules before and after shipping to catch problems early. Use electronic tilt and acceleration loggers during transport. Response Redesign individual module shipping containers. Redesign bulk shipping containers. Change shipping method or negotiate proper shipping based on lessons learned from the shipping loggers. Comments Low impact assumes a month to change shipping company at the cost of $100k for the delay. If specialized combined monthly shipments are necessary from LBNL and UCSC to BNL this will add about $12k (based on LSST shipping) per month for the 3 years of remaining duration of the production. Setting up this specialized shipping will incur a 3 months delay with a cost of $300k. This risk expires 3 months into flat top production. Phase Affected Production

• G. Sciolla, Modules

ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

4) Delay in sensor production/shipment

8

WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-004 Status Active Expires 1-Dec-21 Title Delay in sensor production/shipment Summary Modules consist of sensors and hybrids. We expect to receive regular deliveries of sensors from UK/Japan which

• riginate at a commercial vendor. The vendor (Hamamatsu) has an excellent track record.

Owner

• C. Haber

Probability Pre 10% Post 10% Cost Lo $100k Hi $500k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 6.0 Tech Impact 1 (L) Post Mitg Prob 13(L) Impact Score Cost 3 (H) Sched 2 (M) Rank=140 Mitigation There is no mitigation Response Wait Comments Having a single vendor (and a single foundry) creates a risk that the vendor will have production issues leading to delays between 1 to 6 months with an associated delay cost from $100k to $500k. Total delivery incapacitation of the vendor because of foundry loss or political issues, which can only be resolved by finding a new vendor, are considered 'Acts of God' and are not taken into account. This risk will expire at the end of production. Phase Affected Production

• G. Sciolla, Modules

ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

5) Loss of key personnel

9

WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-005 Status Active Expires 1-Dec-24 Title Loss of key personnel Summary We may suddenly lose one of the skilled technicians that mount and bond hybrids and modules at the three sites. Owner

• C. Haber

Probability Pre 30% Post 10% Cost Lo $84k Hi $250k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 4.0 Tech Impact 1 (L) Post Mitg Prob 3(L) Impact Score Cost 2(M) Sched 2 (M) Rank=60 Mitigation Have more people trained for a particular task than the actual FTE required for it, and have technical employees rotate between tasks in hybrids and module production. Response A position would be posted and a new hire made. In the interim, the existing staff would assume additional responsibility Comments

Key personnel are long term employees of the institutions with a strong commitment to and key responsibilities on the

• project. If a key person leaves suddenly, we will spread his/her workload over the remaining personnel until a suitable

replacement is found. However, until the new person is hired and fully trained, this will result in a cost increase due to the

• vertime of the existing personnel. We expect that it will take 2 months to hire a replacement and 2 additional months to

train him/her. Therefore, we expect about 4 months of overtime for every key person lost, which corresponds to a cost increase of about 84k$. We are assuming that we will loose between 1 and 3 key people working on hybdrids and modules

• ver the production phase. This risk only retires when production is completed.

Phase Affected Production

• G. Sciolla, Modules

ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

6) Delay in site qualification

10

WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-006 Status Active Expires 1-Dec-21 Title Delay in site qualification Summary One or more sites may have to delay the Site Qualification inspection which is required to pass PRR and start production Owner

• C. Haber

Probability Pre 40% Post 20% Cost Lo $140k Hi $420k Schedule Lo 2.0 Hi 3.0 Tech Impact Post Mitg Prob Impact Score Cost Sched Rank=? Mitigation Work closely with other US and international sites to stay on top of the latest requirements and adhere to the Project's standards beginning with prototyping in the production of hybrids and modules Response Immediately redirect experienced technical personnel to remediate the issues that caused the delays in the Site Qualification inspection. Comments Prior to start of production, all module production sites will have to pass the Site Qualification inspection, i.e.: an inspection that makes sure all protocols foreseen for the ITk module production are followed and the standards of quality are at the level set by the Collaboration. Technical problems (related to i.e.: production yield, placement precision, ...) may delay readiness for site qualification. Low cost is estimated as 2 mo delay for one site @ 70k$/month; High cost is estimated as 3 mo delay for all 3 sites @ 70k$/month/site Phase Affected Production

• G. Sciolla, Modules

ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

7) Hybrids are delayed from non-US vendor

11

WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-007 Status Active Expires 1-Dec-21 Title

Hybrids are delayed from non-US vendor

Summary

The hybrids are manufactured in the UK and are promised to be delivered to us in sufficient batches to enable smooth hybrid/module/stave production

Owner

• C. Haber

Probability Pre 20% Post 10% Cost Lo $188 Hi $1,130k Schedule Lo 2.0 Hi 12.0 Tech Impact 1 (L) Post Mitg Prob 3 (L) Impact Score Cost 3 (H) Sched 3(H) Rank=140 Mitigation

We will identify a back-up vendor in the US and prime them on the design and requirements

Response

We would have hybrids made in the US until the UK resumes production. While waiting for parts, the technical staff will be redirected to other Projects, or to advance other tasks on this Project. To minimize the overall delay, some personnel assigned to other tasks will be temporarily re-directed towards hybrid production once hybrid panels become available again.

Comments

Hybrid labor in production is about $1M/year (~90K/mo) and modules are $2M/year. A delay of 3- 6 months in hybrid and module production would cost about $300-600 K in labor (total extra cost for labor 600K-1.2M including extended labor for modules).

Phase Affected Production

• G. Sciolla, Modules

ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

8) Issues with wirebonding of hybrids

12

WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-008 Status Active Expires 1-Dec-21 Title Wirebonding of hybrids or parts; attachment issues on metallization Summary We receive hybrids from the UK but discover surface issues with either wirebonding or other parts attachment. Owner

• C. Haber

Probability Pre 40% Post 10% Cost Lo $94k Hi $565k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 6.0 Tech Impact 1 (L) Post Mitg Prob 3 (L) Impact Score Cost 3 (H) Sched 2 (M) Rank=140 Mitigation Similar problems have occurred in other projects and were addressed by additional steps, e.g.: plasma cleaning of each part right before assembly. We will ensure that these capabilities are still available to the hybrid production

• sites. If this were to not solve the problem, we would also have parts made by the alternative US vendor.

Response We would start to have parts made in the US but we expect that the UK source would eventually solve the problem and continue to deliver good parts Comments Based on past experience, the expected delay will be at most 2-3 months. For a 3-months delay, we estimate an additional $300K in labor cost (600K including extended labor for modules). Phase Affected Production

• G. Sciolla, Modules

ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019

9) Problem with UV cure adhesives used in hybrids

13

WBS 6.2.4 Type Threat Risk ID RD-06-02-04-009 Status Active Expires 1-Dec-21 Title Problem with UV cure adhesives used in hybrid assembly when applied as a high throughput process Summary A new UV cure adhesive has been prototyped and selected for FE ASIC attachment. This streamlines production. If that adhesive shows problems in production we would need to switch back to previously used products Owner

• C. Haber

Probability Pre 20% Post 10% Cost Lo $94 Hi $377k Schedule Lo 1.0 Hi 4.0 Tech Impact 1 (L) Post Mitg Prob 3(L) Impact Score Cost 2 (M) Sched 2 (M) Rank=60 Mitigation We have identified an alternative, though slower adhesive used already in prototyping. We will ensure that a supply is available to the hybrid sites Response Switch to backup adhesive and encourage local effort to address the UV issue to see if it can be solved Comments The impact numbers reflect the time and labor to retool and move the other material into use. We don't expect this problem to take more than a month to be solved. Therefore we estimate that the total extra labor and material will be of the order of 100K (200K including extended labor for modules) Phase Affected Production

• G. Sciolla, Modules

ITk Strip Risk Scrubbing Meeting, October 31, 2019