fermilab pmg - results from module testing - april 9, 2004 – e.chabalina (uic) 1 results from...

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


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


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)


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


FNAL Module Quality/GradingFNAL Module Quality/GradingFNAL Module Quality/GradingFNAL Module Quality/Grading


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:


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%


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)


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


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)


•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


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!!!!

fermilab pmg - results from module testing - april 9, 2004 – e.chabalina (uic) 1 results from...

Documents