CDF Detector Operations Budget

and Resource Planning

Rob Roser

IFC Meeting

October 17, 2005

1

FY05 Year in Review

● Accelerator performed well and met their metric (goals)

● CDF saw luminosities as high as 150e30!● Began slow process of constructing a trigger table for

luminosities of 200-300 e30 – requires setting physics priorities

● Completed installation and commissioning of most upgrades

– level 2 trigger decision crate– Hardware Event builder– New firmware for TDC’s – modified hardware– New secondary vertex track trigger made substantial progress – Central preradiator – a new detector system installed in 2004

shutdown part of stable operations since the beginning of 05● No significant problem of note in FY05 – We collected

data with an average efficiency of 85%

Integrated Luminosity

3

1328 pb-1 Delivered1063 pb-1 Recorded

Data Taking Efficiency

4

Budget Process

● CDF requested $1.4 million for Detector Operations● Expect to get most of what we ask for – a remarkable

demonstration by the lab given its budget situation and financial pressures from future initiatives

● Reminder that much of detector operations deals with fixed costs (flammable gas, cryogens, computer maintenance…) ~$900k can be written now to cover next year

● Visitor budget held constant, no where near sufficient to honor all requests

● Working with the lab to get additional technical staff to reduce burden on scientists where appropriate

M&S Budget

Category Explanation FY05 Actual FY06 Req.Computing On-line DAQ, Level 3,

licensing, slow controls

$500k $350k

Consumables Argon, Ethane, LN2, He, Alcohol

$600k $450k

Time and Materiallabor (T&M)

Electrical, rigging, HVAC Maintenance

$50k $25k

Infrastructure Maintenance

HVAC, Compressors, Engines, pumps

$200k $225k

General Operating phones, pagers, vehicles, office supplies misc catchall

$200k $200k

Mechanical Support Pipes, fittings, bolts, tools, safety

$100k $75k

Upgrades Installation Costs (e.g. Scaffolding..)

$150k $25k

Total $1,800k $1,350k

Last Years Budget Review

● From the spreadsheet I gave you…– FY05 Actual Cost was $2.0M (for non offline)

● Costs based on previous agreed upon combination of salary and M&S

● Actual Spending was within a few $k of FY05 budget projection

– Major expenditures last year included:● Trailer recertification● COT Gas filtering system● New HVAC Water Chiller

– Costs associated with upgrade installations complete

Data Taking Operations

● Difficult to keep enthusiasm for taking data over an 8-10 year data run

● Working on ways to either make it easier to participate or reduce the scientific effort required– Testing a remote control room.

● Reduces travel● Covers difficult midnight shift here

– Working with the lab to replace some positions currently staffed by scientists with trained Fermilab technical staff on shift

Evaluating Personnel Resource Availability

http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/program_planning/P5/P5_Sept2005/HEPAP_Subpanel_P5_Meeting.html

Summary Plot of Needs

“The Shot Heard Round the World”

Summary of Needsin FTE’s

2007 2009

Operations 55 55

Offline 26 20

Management 10 10

Algorithms 35 26

Total Service 126 111

FTE fraction of total working week. NOT: fraction of research time; NOT fraction of

40 hour week!

Summary of Subgroups…(needs)in FTE’s

2007 2009

Core Physics 81 64

Total Service 126 111

Core+Service 207 175

“Person-power” survey

● Spreadsheet developed as first stage in DØ 2005-2007 MOU(that we stole)

● Request FTE(2.) effort dedicated to CDF vs Year– Faculty, scientist, postdoc, student

● Request details of institutional commitments ● Notes:

1. 2008-2009 less certain…

2. FTE fraction of total working week.

NOT: fraction of research time; NOT fraction of 40 hour week!

● Responses from 53/57 institutes

Results of Survey by Countryin FTE’s

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

U.S. 242.8 221.2 176.6 110.2 82.8

Spain 11.8 13.2 8.7 7.7 7.7

Italy 63.4 59.7 52.2 42.2 41.6

Canada 15.7 15.8 9.3 5.1 2.1

Switz. 6.6 4.1 3.1 2 2

Germany 15 10.6 7.9 4.8 2.6

Russia 0.6 2 2 0 0

Korea 12.9 9.9 9.5 9.5 9.5

U.K. 26.5 25.5 18.3 10.6 5.2

Japan 21.7 18.2 17 13.3 8.8

Results of survey: 2005-2007

- Fall off for both US and non-US roughly consistent with HEPAP survey

CDF

Year 2005 2006 2007

non-US 100% 91% 74%

US 100% 91% 73%

all.expt 100% 91% 73%

HEPAP 100% 88% 69%

FTEs 434 381 304

Comparison of FTE availability and needs: 2007

Sufficient effort to operate experiments and support a broad physics program

Assumes people spend 50% of time on “service” and 50% doing “physics”

“Service” 126

“Core” physics 86

Total needs 1: (service*2) 252

Total needs 2: (service+“core”) 207

Available FTE 304

Available-needs 1: 52

Available-needs 2: 97

Results for 2009

Calculated from 2007 MOU FTEs using HEPAP ratio for 2009/2007

Expt. CDF

Available FTEs

non-US 75

US 116

all.expt 191

Needed FTEs1: service*2 222

2: service+core 175

Available -needed FTEs

1: -31

2: 16

If we used the survey, Total available is 162 FTE

Conclusions

● CDF is operating well. FY05 was a very good year for us!

● Spending has been in line with our budget requests.

● Staffing at the moment looks ok – but requires constant attention and management to insure we are able to cover our needs

BACKUP

Detector Operations Detail

Management 5 250

Alarms and Controls 1 100

Online and Data Acquisition 8 350

Data Quality Monitoring 8 110

Silicon Detectors 17 725

Outer Tracker 5 230

Calorimeters 14 260

Muons 13 300

Subgroup

#

Peop

le

Tota

l %

FTE/s

ub

gro

up

Time of Flight 2 50

Luminosity Detector 2 100

Trigger 5 250

Level 1 Trigger 7 225

Level 2 Trigger 8 130

Event Builder/Level 3 Trigger 7 225

Total Scientific Effort 123 3300

Infrastructure Support 21 2040

Shift 312 2241

Diving Down in Operations

• Calorimeter Subsystem is comprised of the following categories…

• Each one has an estimate associated with it.

• For CDF, the numbers are shown to the right…

People FTE

Central EM 1 0.3

Central hadronic

1 0.3

Electronics 4 0.3

Forward 2 0.4

Far Forward 1 0.3

Timing 2 0.2

Leadership 2 0.5

HV 1 0.3

TOTAL 14 2.6

Core Physics Analysis

● Picked 10 physics analyses that are scientifically compelling measurements and demonstrate the potential of the collider program – a combination of precision measurements

and searches/discovery potential– Searches

● SM and MSSM Higgs, SUSY searches, Z’, LED, Bs

– Precision● Top mass, Vtb, W mass, Vtb, Bs mixing, Bs

lifetime

Algorithm Development

CDF

ALGORITHMS FY05 FY07 FY09

Muon Reconstruction 0.5 0.5 0.5

Tracking 8.9 5.1 3.4

Calorimetry 2.7 2.2 2.2

Taus 1.8 1.7 0.9

Jet Energy Scale 10.0 4.8 2.8

b-tagging 3.5 2.5 1.3

Trigger 6.5 7.8 4.1

Simulation 5.5 3.0 2.7

Luminosity 0.3 0.3 0.2

High Level Data Handling 7.5 7.5 7.5

Infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL ALGORITHMS 47.2 35.4 25.6

Core Physics Analysis

CDF

PHYSICS FY05 FY07 FY09 FY05

Bs (Mixing, Rare Decay, Lifetime) 18.5 16.0 13.0 22.0

EW(W mass) 5.0 5.0 5.0 13.0

Higgs(SM and SUSY) 17.0 17.0 15.5 19.5

New Phenomena(Trilepton,Squarks & 14.5 11.5 7.0 13.0

Gluinos, Stop&Sbottom, LED, Z')      

Top (Mass and Single) 19.5 17.5 11.5 22.5

Core physics management 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0

Tevatron Combination 0.3 3.0 3.0 0.3

Godparents/Ed.Boards 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

TOTAL PHYSICS 88.5 81.0 64.0101.

3