1

W-band Module Production and Other Fermilab Contributions

Proposed Significant Partnershipin QUIET-II to the Fermilab PAC in November 2009

Modest Fermilab involvementin QUIET-I

Hardware Calibration Tools

3 trips to CIT/JPL to study modules

Shifts in Chile

Hosted a QUIET Collaboration Meeting at Fermilab in June 09

Access to QUIET-I Data Pier Oddone, Fermilab Director

DOE Field Work Proposal In Preparation

2

3

Module bias optimization using Grid

Before

Wire grid

LN2

receiver

AfterKICP Labin Chicago

4

Commissioning Detector using Rotating Sparse Wire Grid Polarizer

5

The Science Team

Tooling Fabrication: J. Korienek, C. Lindenmeyer,

Mechanical Assembly and Cryogenics: D. Butler, B. Gonzales, T. Hawke, W. Newby, J. Wilson

System Controls: S. Hansen, J. Montes, J. Zimmerman

Electrical Engineering and Testing: D. Kubik

CMB Theory: S. Dodelson, A. Stebbins

RF Technology: D. McGinnis

Detector Fabrication: F. DeJongh, H. Nguyen

The Technical and Engineering Team

Significant Experience

Silicon Tracking Detectors for HEP

Fermi-Glast Satellite Veto Shield

Dark Energy Survey Camera

6

Our Proposed Involvement in QUIET Phase II

Assembly of ~1500 W-band Polarization Analyzer Modules

~ 2 year production run

Collaborativeeffort withCaltech and JPL

Precision Placementof 106 components

Components as smallas 200 m x 200 m

Very delicate HEMT components

Precision control of silver epoxy die bonding

Over 200 wirebondsper module

Harsh Cryogenic and Vacuum Environment

Technical Challenges

7

Upgrade Machines with powerful Labview and Vision System Software

Meeting the Production Goals

Utilize 4 Coordinate Measurement Machines to Perform Automated Assembly

Strong interests from ATLAS and CMS in using automated assembly tools at Fermilab for the LHC silicon detector upgrades

A natural synergy between QUIET and Fermilab/HEP

Work to be performed at the Fermilab Sidet Facility

8

Differences between Phase I and Phase II Assembly and Testing

Phase I Phase II

Module Housing Machining at JPL Module Housing Machining by Vendor using new technique

Die Bonding by NxGen New Die Bonding Technique developed at Fermilab

Manual Conductor Bonding at JPL Automatic Conductor Bonding at Fermilab

- Quality Assurance of Conductor Bonding Mechanical Strength

- Quality Assurance of Epoxy Bonding Mechanical Strength

Comprehensive Testing of ModulePower Draw and RF response -at 20K and Room T Comprehensive Testing of Power Draw at Room T

Comprehensive Testing of RF Response at Room T Comprehensive Thermal Cycling of Modules to 20K Sample Testing of Power Draw at 20K

Sample Testing of RF Response at 20K

Goal: Guarantee quality components and robust procedures in order to reduce need for comprehensive testing.

9

Micro Assembly Tools

New Tools for Die Bonding

Automated Wirebonding Machines at Sidet Facility

Will perform R&D of bonding mechanical strength in vacuum and cryogenic environment:

R&D to Guarantee High Assembly Yield

Reduces Need for Extensive Cryogenic Production Testing.

10

Quality Assurance is Critical

Epoxy Lap Shear Strength Measurements and Thermal Cycling down to 28 Kelvin

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

BG2-5

41.180679

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

Extension (inches)

Load (lbs)

“Instron” Measurement of Die Bonding Adhesionof Epotek H20F Silver Epoxy

Expected breaking point

Manufacturer’s data on cold-temp degradationdoes not exist.

Epotek is interested in our thermal-cycling result !

11

Quality Assurance is Critical

Al-Au Wirebond Strength Measurements and Thermal Cycling to 28 Kelvin

12

13

Module Assembly and Receiver Integration Schedule

Q1

Tooling Development

Module Housingand Non-InP

Parts Fabrication

Assembly and Testing

of 1st 500 Modules Assembly and Testing of 2nd 500 Modules

Assembly and Testing of

3rd 500 Modules

Fabrication and Delivery of InP Parts from CIT/JPL

Integration of 1st Receiver and deployment

Fermilab

CIT/JPL

Chicago-Fermilab

Integration of 2nd Receiver

and deployment

Integration of 3rd Receiver

and deployment

KEK/Princeton

Q2 Q3 Q4 2010

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2011

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2012

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2013

Responsibility

14

Major Subsystem CostsW-Band Module Production and Testing: Caltech, JPL, Fermilab

Component Delivery Date NSF Cost DOE Cost DOE Contingency. Module Housing/Parts 12-2010 466K - -

Tooling Materials 12-2010 - 138K 28K

Tooling Fabricationand Controls Programming 12-2010 - 104K 31K

Production Labor 12-2010 to 3-2013 - 238K 59K Testing Labor “ - 594K 148K

Total 466K 1074K 266K

W-band Receiver Integration: Chicago, Fermilab

Component Delivery Date NSF Cost DOE Cost DOE Contingency Materials 12-2010 to 4-2012 - 51K 10KTechnician Labor “ - 80K 20K Engineering Labor “ - 94K 24K

Total - 225K 54K

15

Summary

Project Construction Tasks

Delivery of 1500 W-band modules in ~2 year production runIntegration and commissioning of 1 Receiver at Fermilab Calibration tools and window engineering analysis

Request to Fermilab/DOE:

Project Cost = $ 1.75M (includes contingency)Operations Cost = $ 224K

Technical and Engineering Labor (no Scientist Labor)Production tooling material costsContribution to Chile site operations costFunds for Travel to Chile for Shifts and Installation

All overheads have been included

16

Hogan’s Backup Slides

17

18