Post on 05-Jan-2016
transcript
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 1
Results from module testingResults from module testingResults from module testingResults from module testing
E.ChabalinaUniversity of Illinois (Chicago)
On behalf of the US testing group
Outline• Status of test equipment and manpower• Testing capacity• Recent test results
common mode noise other failures
• Conclusions and outlook
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 2
Module Testing CycleModule Testing CycleModule Testing CycleModule Testing Cycle
Wire bond (15) Module quick test (15)
Storage/Mount on RodsThermal cycle modules (15):2 loads, 8 hours eachPinhole tests (15)
Gantry makes modules (15)
Rod testing will be covered in P.Tipton’s
talk
Expected peak production rate – 15 modules per day
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 3
Test equipment and capacityTest equipment and capacityTest equipment and capacityTest equipment and capacity
Fermilab• Clean Room lab D
Adjacent to production area
Hybrid characterization and thermal cycling
Single module quick test • 2 ARC test stations
• Clean Room lab C Single module quick test
• 2 ARC test stations Module burn-in station
UCSB• Clean Room
Adjacent to production area
Hybrid characterization and thermal cycling
Single module quick test • 3 ARC test stations
Module burn-in station
Total testing capacity per site: • Hybrid 28/day (4hybrids per load 7 hours)• Module Test ~24/day (1h/module 8h 3stands)• LT Test ~20/day (10 modules per load ½ day thermal cycles)
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 4
ManpowerManpowerManpowerManpower
Fermilab• professors – 2• postdocs - 2• graduate students – 1• exchange visitor - 1• engineer - 1• technicians – 3• Trained to run ARC:
2 technicians 1 engineer
• Trained to run LT: 1 grad student 1 exchange visitor 2 technicians
UCSB• professors – 2• postdocs - 3• graduate students - 2• electrical engineers - 1• mechanical engineers – 2• undergraduate students – 3• Trained to run ARC:
? ?
• Trained to run LT: ? 2
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 5
ARCS Based Test StandsARCS Based Test StandsARCS Based Test StandsARCS Based Test Stands
• Hybrid testing Thermal cycle/pulsing
• Module testing LED systems
• Pinhole/Open Tests
DEPP HV supply• Automated IV curves
3 Module test stands at UCSB
• 2 TOB
• 1 TEC
4 Module test stands at Fermilab
DEPP
LED Controller
ARC Controllers
ARCS - APV Readout Controller Software
Purpose - Fast testing of hybrids and modules
LED System
ARC FE And adaptor card
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 6
Module Testing with ARCS Module Testing with ARCS Module Testing with ARCS Module Testing with ARCS
• Module testing has matured greatly A standard set of tests was
defined Fault finding algorithms are
now tuned to maximize fault finding and fault type identification, while minimizing false bad channel flagging
• Testing procedures are now almost automated Wo to automate testing
fault finding module grading database entry underway
• Noise performance and shielding standardization has allowed for the same fault finding algorithms to work on the TIB, TEC & TOB modules
Minimize the effects of external noise sources
All test stands are cross calibrated to identify the same faults
• Faults identified: sensor-sensor opens; sensor-PA opens; mid-sensor opens; pinholes; noisy channels.
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 7
Fault Finding Using ARCS Fault Finding Using ARCS Fault Finding Using ARCS Fault Finding Using ARCS
Noisy
1 sensor open
2 sensor open
Pinholes
Bad Channel Flags
Noise Measurement Pulse Height Measurement (with Calibration Pulse)
Bad Channel Flags
Shorts
Pinhole
Opens
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 8
DAQ Based Test StandsDAQ Based Test StandsDAQ Based Test StandsDAQ Based Test StandsDAQ system – a PC based prototype of the real CMS tracker readout chain
Purpose – fast and burn-in testing of modules and rods
Module Burn-in (Wien box)
• Same structure of root output as on ARCS
• Similar analysis macro is applied to LT data for fault finding
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 9
Recent Module ProductionRecent Module ProductionRecent Module ProductionRecent Module Production• Goals
To establish new peak production capacity (15 modules/day)• Determine if testing capabilities sufficient
Build as many modules as possible using new ST sensors as agreed upon in December
• Use sensor grading scheme to find out if subclass of perfect sensors exists (A, A+, A++)
• Complete set of module tests made ARCS quick test Module thermal cycle (Vienna Box)
• 1 thermal cycle for each module (~710 hours) LED test
• Results: USCB – 150, Fermilab – 102 Easily met testing capacity needs Extremely low rate of introduced failures seen CMN modules occurred at same rates as previous builds using re-
probed sensors• Did not appear to depend on production period or sensor grading
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 10
UCSB Module Quality/GradingUCSB Module Quality/GradingUCSB Module Quality/GradingUCSB Module Quality/Grading
•117 modules tested so far
•Failure rates/sources (excluding CMN modules)
0.39% Bad channels on average• 0.26% Known bad sensor
channels
• 0.13% Unmarked bad sensor channels
• 0.004% open hybrid-APV bonds
• 0.001% module bonding
• 0.002% testing errors
Less than 0.01% bad channels introduced during assembly/bonding/testing
•Module Grading 5 Grade B
• All due to sensor faults
7 Grade A/F• 6 CMN modules
• 1 after thermal cycle
• 1 module fails to operate at -20 C• Tested in 3 different Vienna box
slots
2 Grade C/F• 12 mid-sensor opens in aluminum
strips (lithographic error)
• 1 CMN module
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 11
FNAL Module Quality/GradingFNAL Module Quality/GradingFNAL Module Quality/GradingFNAL Module Quality/Grading
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 12
Thermal Cycling ResultsThermal Cycling Results Thermal Cycling ResultsThermal Cycling Results
UCSB: 101 modules thermal cycled
One module does not function at -20 C
• Tested in 3 different cold box slots
• Hybrid bonded and thermal-cycled at UCSB without seeing this effect
One module developed CMN• Prior to thermal cycling, the
channel had 10 ADC noise
• Now consistently has CMN
One module have a single APV channel burn-out
Multiple noisy channels (2-5 ADC) appeared and disappeared after cycling
Fermilab:
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 13
CMN modules and sensor gradingCMN modules and sensor gradingCMN modules and sensor gradingCMN modules and sensor grading
•Sensors graded using Vienna rules All sensors were re-probed prior to assembly Worst sensor grading out of two measurements used
•Sensors sub-divided into three time periods Prior to Week 39, 2002 (Pre-production) Week 39, 2002-Week 12, 2003 (Production improvements being implemented) Week 13, 2003-now (Final Production)
•7 Common mode modules found (6% of production) Same rate as seen previously with re-probed sensors 1 after thermal cycling
•No statistically significant difference rate in CMN modules for the different sensor grading
Sensor 2001-2 2002-3 2003
Grade NUMBER CMN % NUMBER CMN % NUMBER CMN %
GRADE A+ 29 1 3.4% 4 1 25.0% 12 0 0.0%
GRADE A 38 2 5.3% 11 1 9.1% 16 1 6.3%
GRADE B 0 0 0.0% 6 1 16.6% 1 0 0.0%
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 14
New CMN Module IV CurvesNew CMN Module IV CurvesNew CMN Module IV CurvesNew CMN Module IV Curves
30200020005048
100
1000
10000
100000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage
Bia
s C
urr
en
t (n
A)
Current(DB)
Current(probing)
Current(Bonded)
30200020005063
100
1000
10000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage
Bia
s C
urr
en
t (n
A)
Current(DB)
Current(probing)
Current(Bonded)
30200020005156
100
1000
10000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage
Bia
s C
urr
en
t (n
A)
Current(DB)
Current(probing)
Current(Bonded)
After Thermal Cycle
30200020005081
100
600
1100
1600
2100
2600
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage
Bia
s C
urr
en
t (n
A)
Current(DB)
Current(probing)
Current(Bonded)
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 15
CMN Module Bias CurrentCMN Module Bias CurrentCMN Module Bias CurrentCMN Module Bias Current
I(Measured-QTC) at 450V of CMN modules
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 10000+
A large fraction (7/23) of CMN noise modules show a less than 5 A current increase relative to the sensor QTC expectations!
4 of the modules built with re-probed bad sensors with >10 mA increase in bias current
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 16
Module Time Degradation- Module 689Module Time Degradation- Module 689Module Time Degradation- Module 689Module Time Degradation- Module 689
•After 3 months on shelf, module retested
•Second chip now has a high noise channel which causes common mode noise
Channel previously only had a slightly higher noise (0.3 ADC)
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 17
•After assembly module was tested (09/08) on ARCS at 400 V and graded “B” (6 faulty channels). No problems observe.
•After sitting on shelf for more than 3 months, module re-tested. A new pinhole is found
Module Time Degradation-705Module Time Degradation-705Module Time Degradation-705Module Time Degradation-705
•After LT, one chip shows CMN
Fermilab PMG - Results from module testing - April 9, 2004 – E.Chabalina (UIC) 18
ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions
• Testing infrastructure is ready for the large scale module production
• Testing facilities have trained personal and with sufficient experience
• 252 TOB modules were produced and fully tested in US in 2004
• Ability to test at peak production rate of 15/day demonstrated for ~2 week period Modules have excellent quality BUT CMN modules are still
being produced at the ~5% rate!!!!