CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance Responsibilities & Personnel Current Status Future Plans Anthony Affolder (on behalf on the UCSB module testing group) DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder New Responsibilities Period of extreme growth (New testing responsibilities over last 4 month) Hybrid characterization Hybrid pitch adaptor bonding/thermal cycling Module cold testing (burn-in) Rod assembly/burn-in One of first sites beginning production Defining testing procedures/requirements Determining weakness/failure rate Requisite increase in testing equipment/space/infrastructure DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

Testing personnel at UCSB Professors Joe Incandela Claudio Campagnari Post-docs Anthony Affolder Patrick Gartung (UC-Riverside) Graduate Students Steve Levy Electrical Engineering Support Sam Burke Mechanical Engineering Support David Hale Dean White ESE Master Student Anuroop Gupta (Database/programming) Joined group since November, 2002 DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Testing Facilities Clean Room (5th floor Physics) 311 Square Feet Adjacent to production area Hybrid characterization and thermal cycling test Module tests Module burn-in station Visual inspection table High Bay (Ground floor) 97 m2 Rod assembly Rod burn-in station Convenient access to loading dock Temporary location of all testing equipment DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Testing Equipment ARC (Fast user friendly) Current ARC equipment 1 of 5 controllers 2 of 10 front-ends 0 of 2 LED 0 of 5 DEPP Large fraction of components sent this week Will integrate rapidly DAQ (Prototype of final system) First complete DAQ stand arrived recently Working quickly to bring into working condition Remaining DAQ components may delayed significantly Module burn-in box most significant concern DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Testing Procedure Review Review current CMS testing procedures Ensure understanding of testing prior to arrival at UCSB Reproduction of hybrid tests on arrival Make sure any systematic failures in production techniques/materials found as early as possible M800 pre-production first chance to produce large quantities (>20) of single type of modules Need to be able to track time development of faults Answer open questions before full scale production Need of burn-in of hybrid/optical systems components Finalization of testing procedure Both fault finding and module qualification DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Testing Concerns Hybrids tested only ~1-20 minutes prior to arrival Concern about infant mortality problems Hybrid characterization Calibration circuit only tested at one injection point Pipeline pedestal/noise not thoroughly measured Requirements not consistent between sites Pedestal cuts changes between test stands On-chip common mode subtraction “feature” makes noise characteristics of open/saturated channels unpredictable Rod assembly and burn-in Optical components not burnt-in We are actively working to address these issues Motivate requirements on fault finding/performance issues Bring previous production experience to CMS DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

UCSB Short-term Testing Plan Characterize hybrid (+PA) on arrival (ARC) Basic functionality, gain scan, and pipeline scan Thermal-cycle test hybrid after PA bonding (ARC) Test module on completion of construction (ARC) Quick test to find obvious flaws Cold box test large fraction of modules (DAQ) Acts as ~24 hour module burn-in Identifies mechanical/bond/electrical weaknesses prior to production of large number of modules Reduces reworking of rod/retrofitting of modules Minimizes risk of problems developing during production until rod available Retest/characterize module (ARC) Basic functionality, LED, IV curves, gain and pipeline scans (ARC) Rod assembly/characterization/burn-in (when parts and test setups available) DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

Recent Group Accomplishments First draft of hybrid testing procedures written Demonstration of need of hybrid characterization Demonstration of need to standardize common-mode noise Shown noise increase at chip edges due to in-time interference Delivered prototype extension test tails Started multiple electrical engineering projects (S. Burke) Crowbars, final extension test tails, low voltage distribution for module burn-in Delivered testing fixture (clamshell) which greatly improve noise consistency of measurements (D. Hale) Rapidly brought up/ integrated new test equipment DAQ (P. Gartung) ARC (S. Levy) Established strong ties to software development groups DAQ (multi-module and rod testing) DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

Hybrid Characterization TOB Module 83 Multi-point gain measurements have many advantages More stable More uniformity between chips Tighter Cuts Gain Scan (0.5-3.0 MIP) (2 MIP injected)/2 TOB Hybrid Shows non-linearities Shows non-uniformities within chip 2 of 24 chips tested shown to have some problems Not clear if calibration circuit or pre-amplifier effect DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Common mode noise Improving grounding until common mode noise less than ~0.5 ADC in peak mode/ inverter off allows the use of raw noise as a powerful tool for finding opens, including the location Sensor-Sensor Pitch Adaptor-Sensor APV-Pitch Adaptor (???) Seen by Charge Injection TOB Module 83 Sensor-Sensor Open Visible DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Noise At Chip Edges Increase in noise at chip edges But only in a few pipeline cells pipeline scan=latency scan In-time interference effect!! Fairly easy to reduce/avoid Aachen already determined how to remove for pipeline scan DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

Electrical Engineering Projects Crowbar Protects against excessive voltage and currents Extension Test Pig-tails 2 varieties of LV/HV to remove any twisting/folding of cable LV distribution Allows for two channels of LV to power 10 modules and 2 CCU for module burn-in Has multiple protection fuses, voltage measurements points, LED indicators DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Testing Clamshell Clamshell(UCSB) Plastic stand-offs 2 Locating Pins Kapton Extension Cables Easy connection/disconnection Solid mounting of ARC/DAQ equipment Consistency of testing results with minimal noise DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Testing Thorough-put Current Final Estimated Only 1 ARC stand with 1 FE channels at a time 16 Hybrid Characterization or Limited by gain scan and manipulation of files for local “database” and gain analysis Not clear what grading criteria is yet 0 Thermal Cycle/PA pulsing or Lack test stand and software 0 Module Fast Test or Lack LED hardware and IV scan software By hand could do about 8 modules a day (Grading criteria still not final) Module burn-in, rod assembly and rod burn-in are missing hardware and software elements All actively under development Hybrid Fast Test and Characterization 48 hybrids/day Hybrid Thermal Cycle/ PA pulsing 64 hybrids/day Module Fast Test 32 modules/day Module Burn-in (1 day) 10 modules/day Module Characterization 24 modules/day Rod Assembly ??? rods/day Rod Burn-in 16 rods/week DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Near-term Goals “Finalize” hybrid and module testing procedures Necessary tests and cut values Begin characterization of hybrids and pitch adaptor pulsing/thermal cycling Requires new hybrid testing equipment (CERN ) Use M800 pre-production to determine the rate and time constants of failures Need cold box (HEPHY Vienna) Multi-module DAQ software (W. Beaumont, et. Al.) DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Near Future Goals (2) Aid as much as possible in testing software development Addition/modification of new tests Automation of ARCS tests Multi-module testing Rod testing/burn-in Study performance of full rod in realistic conditions Commissioning of rod burn-in Ease database usability Initiation of full-scale production of modules/rods with confidence gained from thorough testing of first parts DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder The following slides are for backup DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Testing Clamshell(2) Very recently delivered clamshell to FNAL Noise performance of modules greatly improved Noise at sensor edges reduced greatly Artificially created pinholes act as expected (With clamshell) DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Gain Measurements Measured chip averaged gain of first five production hybrids Gain variation by ~33% May be APV wafer-to-wafer variation of calibration capacitor 1 chip displays non-linearity at low charge injection Now 2 of 24 display low gain at low calibration injection Not clear if effect in calibration circuit or pre-amplifier Needs more study DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

On-chip common mode subtraction Inverters share common point Current flows between channels Regular channel noise: s2sraw2-scm2 Opens/saturated channel noise: s2sraw2+scm2 Depending on scm, open channel have higher/lower noise DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

Test System Grounding Issues (1) Module Testing Final PS System Sensor Sensor Hybrid Hybrid HV HV ARC FE +HV +HV HVGND 1.25V 2.5V GROUND LOOPS!!! Interconnect Bus Patch Panel/ LV ARC Controller -5V LV GND +1.25V -5V +2.5V GROUND LOOPS!!! AOH PC Optical Cables DOH Command And Data Cable DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CDF Module Burn-in Experience Significant number of pinholes created during burn-in (even after 5 hours running) L1- 0.166% of strips L3- 0.052% of strips L4- 0.033% of strips ISL-0.0071% of strips 7 additional pinholes created during data-taken L7 burnt-in at depletion voltage All others burnt-in with over-voltage Early module burn-in in CMS will indicate pinhole creation rate and effect on rod rework rate DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Noise Measurements Lower noise requirements optimized to detect faults in production Very loose low noise requirement at hybrid level Noise only changes from ~0.6~0.4 for completely dead pre-amplifier 20% requirement will fail good channels Hybrid at UCSB tests better with shaper current set to zero Tighter low noise requirements at module/rod level Can identify open types/location Sensor-Sensor:~1.2 ADC PA-Sensor: ~0.7 ADC Chip-PA:~0.5 ADC Upper Noise requirement set by effect on signal efficiency Noise sets channel’s thresholds in clustering Effect is module type dependent Larger signal and wide pitch minimizes effect on noise on TOB Determine by source/cosmic testing DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

Pedestal Tests (Current) Wafer Probing Average Pedestal: 67.1 50 <P < 90 ADC Cut FHIT (Industrial Tester) Average Pedestal:~90 ±20% Cut:~72<P<108 ARC Average Pedestal:~110 ±20% Cut:~88<P<132 DAQ Average Pedestal:~170 ±20% Cut:~146<P<194 Pedestal Requirement vary by as much as 70% Try to develop common test based on detector performance Different requirements for different sub-detectors DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder

CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder Gain Measurements Zero point offset Low gain High gain DOE Review Feb. 20, 2003 CMS Module Testing & Quality Assurance-Anthony Affolder