Module Failures on RODs

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Designing for LED electrical safety Presentation at the Lighting Fixture Design Conference 6 th June 2013 By Ken Dale, Principal Engineer, Harvard Engineering.
Advertisements

Slide 1 Anthony Affolder US Module LT meeting June 17, 2004 UCSB Module LT Testing.
Slide 1X-Calibration Common Testing Issues-Anthony AffolderModule Testing Meeting, June 3, 2003 X-Calibration Common Testing Issues: Grounding, Environmental.
Recent TOB Developments First LT failure and Stereo Module Status J. Incandela With slides provided by E. Chabalina, A. Affolder, Dean White.
Status of the Tracker Outer Barrel J. Incandela University of California Santa Barbara for the TOB Group Tracker General Meeting December 7, 2005 Slides.
Slide 1US silicon group meeting 5/6/2003 Hybrid Testing Status 10 new hybrids brought by Lenny all tested à 9 tested with no flaws à 1 had 1 chip + 1 wirebond.
1 Hybrid & Module Testing Status Week of 6/6-6/10.
US Module and Rod Production Overview and Plan For the US CMS Tracker Group.
US Tracker Group Status Sep. 1, 2005 J. Incandela For the US CMS Tracker Group.
1 US Testing Status-Anthony AffolderModule Testing Meeting, Dec. 11, 2003 Update of US Testing Status Anthony Affolder On behalf of the US testing group.
UCSB Encapsulation Studies UC Santa Barbara Based upon a 6 week study by F. Garberson in collaboration with A. Affolder, J. Incandela, S. Kyre and many.
1 US Testing Update-Anthony AffolderTracker Meeting, Feb 10, 2004 US Module Testing Update Anthony Affolder (On behalf of the US testing group) Update.
Tracker Week, CERN, Oct Oct 2003Tracker Week - Module ProductionSalvatore Costa - Catania Executive summary from Bonding WG Meeting 21 Oct.
Investigation on tray MID 063 Back
Preproduction Status & Results
A Long Term Study of Charge Multiplication
APV Lectures APV FE Basic Building Blocks How Our Testing Works
On behalf of the US TOB testing group
UCSB Testing Status Anthony Affolder
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Update of US Testing Status
UCSB Testing Status Anthony Affolder
APV Lectures APV FE Basic Building Blocks How Our Testing Works
Executive summary from Bonding WG Meeting 21 Oct 2003
Review of CMN Problem/Studies
Electrical Safety in the Home
UCSB Short-term Testing Plan
UCSB Testing 3 Stereo Modules Tested 1 SS6 Module Tested
Results from module testing
Unexpected Failures of Modules on Rods
UCSB Testing Status Anthony Affolder
Recent TOB Developments
Module Failures on RODs
FNAL Module Testing Status
On behalf of the US TOB testing group
Discoloration of Passitivation
US Testing Update Anthony Affolder (On behalf of the US testing group)
UCSB Short-term Testing Plan
What we learned today Made test bonds on Al plate using bonding parameters of channel and bias bonds Inspected 10 bonds of each type None of them showed.
Damage under UCSB bias bonds
Noise in TOB modules and sensor quality
Hybrid Testing Status 10 new hybrids brought by Lenny all tested
FNAL Module Testing Status
Sensor probing (Summary)
First UCSB TEC Module (Pictures)
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Passitivation Location
Encapsulation Studies
Anthony Affolder UC Santa Barbara
Metal overhang: an important ingredient against “micro-discharge”
Noise in TOB modules and sensor quality
Production Status 39 modules produced
Status of 44 ARCS tested TOB modules, June 24, 2004
Is Increased Bias Current and CMN Correlated?
TOB Module Production Overview and Plan
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Recent TOB Developments
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Recent TOB Developments
Module Failures on Rods
Module Testing Status Week of 3/14-3/18.
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
Hybrid & Module Testing Status
FNAL Hybrid Testing Status
Presentation transcript:

Module Failures on RODs Asish Satpathy For the US CMS tracker group

Failure Modes UCSB: 6 failures FNAL: 5 failures 1 module had a saturated channel on ROD during production exercise Normal pinhole 1 ROD had three modules with saturated channels and one module with high current 1 ROD had a module with a saturated channel FNAL: 5 failures 1 module w/saturated channels on a non-production ROD 1 ROD had three modules w/ saturated channels on a non-production ROD 1 ROD had a module w/ saturated channels on a non-production ROD

Investigation of UCSB Modules (by Tony Affolder et. al) In all, visible damage seen under bias return wire bond on 2nd sensor at the edge of metal outside of guard ring (this is point of closest approach between ground and outside metal) Sensor damage always occurs next to blown APV ch. UCSB Module Damage location

Damage to sensor bias wire bond Module # 5850 Module # 6264 UCSB Module No visible damage to APV APV ch# 1 dead Bias current not changed No visible damage to APV APV ch# 768 dead Bias current not changed

Damage to Saturated Ch. APV UCSB Module

Module with high Current Burn mark found on the corner of the second sensor on the metal where one see the numbering Directly under the bias return wire bond Guard Ring Outside Edge Metal UCSB Module

Investigation of FNAL Modules (by Anatoly Ronzhin et.al) Most failed modules have (multiple grouping of) visible blown APV channels (seen around the APV wire bonds of channel) Increase in bias current at 400 V In some cases visible damage on the first or second sensor No visible evidence for damage under bias return wire bond inputs to APV inputs to APV Sensor edge

Height of wire bonds UCSB: 60-90 um height of bias bond above surface metal on n+ implant & ~200 um for channel bond FNAL: 100-200 um height of bias bonds above surface metal on n+ implant and 100-150 um for channel bonds (this values vary a lot over time)

What is happening ? Not seen in ARCS or LT tests. Why in RODs ??? Large transients causing discharge from surface of the sensors over n+ implant to most susceptible wire bond Breakdown of the sensor oxide due to large charge build up We don’t know for sure what is causing that discharge

Height of wire bonding UCSB: 60-90 um height of bias bond above surface metal on n+ implant & ~200 um for channel bond FNAL: 100-200 um height of bias bonds above surface metal on n+ implant and 100-150 um for channel bonds (this values vary a lot over time)

Action Plan for Module Production The US Tracker group agreed to follow these steps in the module production: Continue production of new modules with modified bond parameters to achieve maximum clearance above n+ region UCSB would pull all sensor-to-sensor bias bonds and remake them longer and much higher over n+ region (This yielded a surprise as seen in the next transparencies) FNAL would inspect sensor-to-sensor bias bonds and pull the low bond if less than 200 mm above the n+ region

Action Plan for ROD production All rod test stand HV lines would be equipped with crowbars and current limits would be reduced. Rod production would restart with modules treated as given in the action plan We will monitor for “transients” as witnessed by blown crowbars or damage to modules. If latter occurs, we halt and analyze the issue further. In parallel with rod production, we have studied the rod test stands, and HV supplies in particular for transients (used scope and DVM on bare rod) and saw nothing – although the HV supply did occasionally register spurious very high (e.g. 8kV readings.)

Under close watch Dots (Affolder Dots) under bias wires on otherwise non-problematic (“good”) modules

Further Studies Integrate substantial testing time with new production module from UCSB and FNAL and then pull the bias bonds to look for “Affolder dots”. This could tell us if the discharge is cured or simply moves to whatever bond has lowest clearance We could also study modules with encapsulation on the sensor-to-sensor bonds. If we took modules with old, low clearance bias bonds and encapsulated them, we could determine how much higher the breakdown voltage goes. We may conclude that maximum bond clearance is not enough. In that case, we would need to consider encapsulant or other protective coatings etc. which in any case represents an additional operation.