CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015 Status and plans of pixel electronics simulation framework Elia Conti – PH-ESE.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
by Adiel Khan Staff CAE Synopsys
Advertisements

MS-SoC Best Practices – Advanced Modeling & Verification Techniques for first-pass success By Neyaz Khan Greg Glennon Dan Romaine.
Simulation Studies of a (DEPFET) Vertex Detector for SuperBelle Ariane Frey, Max-Planck-Institut für Physik München Contents: Software framework Simulation.
Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) Benefits Mustafa Khairallah Boost Valley Boost Valley Consulting 1.
Chip Developments of the Bonn Group Hans Krüger, Bonn University -1-
LHCf: a LHC Detector for Astroparticle Physics LHCf: a LHC Detector for Astroparticle Physics Lorenzo Bonechi on behalf of the LHCf Collaboration * University.
Design For Verification Synopsys Inc, April 2003.
Striplet option of Super Belle Silicon Vertex Detector Talk at Joint Super B factory workshop, Honolulu 20 April 2005 T.Tsuboyama.
09 September 2010 Erik Huemer (HEPHY Vienna) Upgrade of the CMS Tracker for High Luminosity Operation OEPG Jahrestagung 2010.
Design Tools, Flows and Library Aspects during the FE-I4 Implementation on Silicon Vladimir Zivkovic National Institute for Subatomic Physics Amsterdam,
Vth INFIERI workshop April 2015 – CERN, Geneva First look at data compression Konstantin Androsov – INFN Pisa & University of Siena Massimo Minuti – INFN.
CERN - IT Department CH-1211 Genève 23 Switzerland t Monitoring the ATLAS Distributed Data Management System Ricardo Rocha (CERN) on behalf.
Nadpis 1 Nadpis 2 Nadpis 3 Jméno Příjmení Vysoké učení technické v Brně, Fakulta informačních technologií v Brně Božetěchova 2, Brno
Alec Stanculescu, Fintronic USA Alex Zamfirescu, ASC MAPLD 2004 September 8-10, Design Verification Method for.
Trigger design engineering tools. Data flow analysis Data flow analysis through the entire Trigger Processor allow us to refine the optimal architecture.
Test Of Distributed Data Quality Monitoring Of CMS Tracker Dataset H->ZZ->2e2mu with PileUp - 10,000 events ( ~ 50,000 hits for events) The monitoring.
ON LINE TEST GENERATION AND ANALYSIS R. Šeinauskas Kaunas University of Technology LITHUANIA.
ATLAS – CMS RD collaboration: Pixel readout integrated circuits for extreme rate and radiation The “pixel 65” collaboration 1.
Mathematical Modeling and Formal Specification Languages CIS 376 Bruce R. Maxim UM-Dearborn.
The ATLAS Pixel Detector - Running Experience – Markus Keil – University of Geneva on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration Vertex 2009 Putten, Netherlands,
ASIC/FPGA design flow. FPGA Design Flow Detailed (RTL) Design Detailed (RTL) Design Ideas (Specifications) Design Ideas (Specifications) Device Programming.
L1 Pixel Trigger: Is 20 us Latency Achievable? David Christian Fermilab April 29, 2015.
CHIPIX65/RD53 collaboration
Irakli Chakaberia Final Examination April 28, 2014.
Implementing a dual readout calorimeter in SLIC and testing Geant4 Physics Hans Wenzel Fermilab Friday, 2 nd October 2009 ALCPG 2009.
07 October 2004 Hayet KEBBATI -1- Data Flow Reduction and Signal Sparsification in MAPS Hayet KEBBATI (GSI/IReS)
1 Towards Optimal Custom Instruction Processors Wayne Luk Kubilay Atasu, Rob Dimond and Oskar Mencer Department of Computing Imperial College London HOT.
Robust Low Power VLSI ECE 7502 S2015 Evaluation of Coverage-Driven Random Verification ECE 7502 – Project Presentation Qing Qin 04/23/2015.
C ONSEQUENCES OF 1MH Z, 20 US TRIGGER ON PIXEL DETECTOR Jorgen Christiansen CERN/PH-ESE 1.
Impact parameter resolution study for ILC detector Tomoaki Fujikawa (Tohoku university) ACFA Workshop in Taipei Nov
Recent developments on Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors (MAPS) for charged particle tracking. Outline The MAPS sensor (reminder) MIMOSA-22, a fast MAPS-sensor.
Overview on Low-Power design Sara Marconi. OUTLINE 2 State of the art in HEP –existing pixel chips Low power design techniques (in the industry) –from.
1 Extending FPGA Verification Through The PLI Charles Howard Senior Research Engineer Southwest Research Institute San Antonio, Texas (210)
PHASE-1B ACTIVITIES L. Demaria – INFN Torino. Introduction  The inner layer of the Phase 1 Pixel detector is exposed to very high level of irradiation.
Jorgen Christiansen, CERN PH-ESE 1.  Spokes persons and Institute chair elected ◦ SP’s: ATLAS: Maurice Garcia-Sciveres, LBNL CMS: Jorgen Christiansen,
Technology Overview or Challenges of Future High Energy Particle Detection Tomasz Hemperek
Guido Haefeli CHIPP Workshop on Detector R&D Geneva, June 2008 R&D at LPHE/EPFL: SiPM and DAQ electronics.
RD53 Status Report – July 2014 L. Demaria - Report on RD53 - CMSTK week
CBM ECAL simulation status Prokudin Mikhail ITEP.
Sensor testing and validation plans for Phase-1 and Ultimate IPHC_HFT 06/15/ LG1.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A NEW PIXEL CHIP L. Demaria - Torino INFN Lino Demaria - New Pixel Chip - Torino 01/06/2011.
Greg Alkire/Brian Smith 197 MAPLD An Ultra Low Power Reconfigurable Task Processor for Space Brian Smith, Greg Alkire – PicoDyne Inc. Wes Powell.
First measurements in Pb—Pb collisions at  s NN =2.76 TeV with ALICE at the LHC M. Nicassio (University and INFN Bari) for the ALICE Collaboration Rencontres.
Leo Greiner IPHC1 STAR Vertex Detector Environment with Implications for Design and Testing.
Eleuterio SpiritiILC Vertex Workshop, April On pixel sparsification architecture in 130nm STM technology ILC Vertex Workshop April 2008 Villa.
Upgrade PO M. Tyndel, MIWG Review plans p1 Nov 1 st, CERN Module integration Review – Decision process  Information will be gathered for each concept.
Architecture optimization and design verification of the Timepix3 and the Velopix pixel ASICs Tuomas Poikela (TUCS/CERN) SV/UVM Mini workshop.
Tracking at the Fermilab Test Beam Facility Matthew Jones, Lorenzo Uplegger April 29 th Infieri Workshop.
Progress on Pixel Region Optimization and SystemVerilog Simulation Phase 2 Pixel Electronics Meeting – Progress on Pixel Region Optimization and SystemVerilog.
Jorgen Christiansen, CERN PH-ESE 1.  EPIX ITN proposal did not get requested EU funding ◦ CERN based proposals did very bad this time. ◦ I better not.
Simulation Plan Discussion What are the priorities? – Higgs Factory? – 3-6 TeV energy frontier machine? What detector variants? – Basic detector would.
RD53 1.  Full/large demonstrator chip submission ◦ When: 2016 A.Early 2016: If chip must have been fully demonstrated in test beams for TDRs to be made.
The BTeV Pixel Detector and Trigger System Simon Kwan Fermilab P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA BEACH2002, June 29, 2002 Vancouver, Canada.
Elia Conti on behalf of the RD53 Collaboration RD53: status and main activities for 2016 ACES 2016 – Fifth Common ATLAS CMS Workshop for LHC Upgrades –
Verification Environment for a Simple Pixel Chip Model Pixel Phase 2 Electronics Meeting during TK Week – E. Conti *, P. Placidi *, S. Marconi.
FSSR2 block diagram The FSSR2 chip architecture is virtually identical to that of FPIX2. Each strip is treated as one pixel cell (Pseudo-Pixel architecture)[*]
Charge sensitive amplifier
AIDA/RD53 activities in Perugia (AIDA nd Annual Meeting)
Digital readout architecture for Velopix
GLAST LAT tracker signal simulation and trigger timing study
SVT Issues for the TDR What decisions must be taken before the TDR can be written? What is the mechanism for reaching those decisions How can missing information.
Valerio Re (INFN-Pavia) on behalf of the RD53 collaboratios
Yasuhiro Sugimoto KEK 17 R&D status of FPCCD VTX Yasuhiro Sugimoto KEK 17
A High Performance SoC: PkunityTM
SVT detector electronics
R&D of CMOS pixel Shandong University
The LHCb Front-end Electronics System Status and Future Development
Presentation transcript:

CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015 Status and plans of pixel electronics simulation framework Elia Conti – PH-ESE

2/8 CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015 OUTLINE Goal VEPIX53 environment – current version Example: study of trigger latency buffering architectures Current plans

Goal RD53 simulation working group: flexible simulation and verification framework as essential high level development tool –system level –building blocks (IP) level [Christiansen, Garcia-Sciveres, CERN-LHCC ] Requirements –flexible generation of input stimulus –constrained-random + directed tests (extreme cases) –imported from sensor/MC simulations –combination of the two –simulation at different levels of description –automated verification –statistics on performance –generation and classification of warnings/errors –same environment for different design flow steps CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015 3/8

VEPIX53: Verification Environment for RD53 PIXel chips Implemented in SystemVerilog + UVM library (advanced verification features) –hit generation and injection –monitoring of pixel chip input and output –conformity checks and statistics collection VEPIX53 environment – current version (I) [Marconi et al., J. Instrum., 2014] CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015 4/8

VEPIX53: Verification Environment for RD53 PIXel chips Implemented in SystemVerilog + UVM library (advanced verification features) –hit generation and injection –monitoring of pixel chip input and output –conformity checks and statistics collection VEPIX53 environment – current version (II) CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015 5/8 [Marconi et al., J. Instrum., 2014] Interaction point Sensor α Single particles JetsLoopers Machine background Different classes of parameterized hits

Example – study of trigger latency buffering architectures PUC PR SHARED BUFFER... PR OUTPUT PIXEL REGION (PR) PIXEL UNIT CELL (PUC) TRIGGER [Conti et al., TWEPP, 2013] –Trigger latency buffer: critical section of pixel chip system –Efficient processing of hits by grouping pixels in pixel regions (PR) where buffering is shared –DUT: pixel region (behavioral level description) –2 buffering architectures under study: –fully shared buffer –shared hit time buffer + independent hit charge buffers (like ATLAS FE-I4) CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015 6/8 Example of buffer occupancy of a 4x4 pixel region: comparison between VEPIX53 and first estimate statistical/analytical assumptions

Current plans CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015 7/8 Importing external hit data from sensor / Monte Carlo simulations (ROOT or txt files) provided by both ATLAS and CMS Integration and simulation of complete pixel chip (starting from ATLAS FE-I4) In-depth architecture study –different pixel region sizes and organizations –beyond behavioral description level (synthesis on 65nm) –data formatting and compression –low power optimization Introduction of non-idealities (e.g. timewalk) Simulation of radiation effects (SEUs, fault tolerance) Implementation of automated integrated performance analysis People involved in RD53 simulation working group Elia Conti (CERN), Sara Marconi (INFN Perugia – CERN), Niloufar Alipour Tehrani (CERN), Rebecca Carney (LBNL), Tomasz Hemperek (Bonn, RD53 working group convener)

BACKUP

13/22 Increasing complexity of Systems on Chip (SoC) and time-to-market pressures Need to design at system level –avoid gate-level semantics –manage complexity –speed up simulation –support HW/SW co-design Increased effort for verification –constrained-random stimulus –functional coverage –layered testbench –reusability and reconfigurability High level development tools and criticalities of application (I) [Srouji] CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015

14/22 High level development tools and criticalities of application (II) High level description languages –Simulink, C++ (very high level models) –SystemC (Transaction Level Modeling (TLM)) [IEEE ] –SystemVerilog [IEEE ] Design –conciseness of expression –C/C++ data types –support of multiple description levels –gate-level –Register-Transfer Level (RTL) –behavioral –TLM Verification –assertions –object-oriented programming techniques –Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) library –set of documented base classes –highly customizable reporting features [Sutherland et al., 2010; Spear, Tumbush, 2012] –adopted in industry [Yun et al., ISOCC, 2011; Yang et al., VLSI-DAT, 2014; Zhong et al., ASICON, 2013] –started being adopted in HEP as well [Poikela et al., J. Instrum., 2012; Zivkovic et al., J. Instrum., 2012] CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015

15/22 Next generation pixel readout chips for High Energy Physics experiments at the Large Hardon Collider (LHC, CERN) Goal: 5× cm -2 s -1 luminosity ParameterRequired value Technology node65 nm Pixel size25×100 µm 2 ; 50×50 µm 2 Trigger latencyup to 20 µs Radiation tolerance10 MGy (10 years) Power consumption0.3 W/cm 2 Hit rate1–2 GHz/cm 2 Output bandwidth3.6 Gbit/s RD53 Collaboration (international) (Development of pixel readout integrated circuits for extreme rate and radiation) CHIPIX65 Project (italian) [Christiansen, Garcia-Sciveres, CERN-LHCC ] [Rossi et al., 2006] [Ballabriga et al., J. Instrum., 2013] High level development tools and criticalities of application (III) CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015

12 CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015

8/20 The VEPIX53 Verification Components – Hit generation (I) General parameters (full matrix): – Pixel chip size (z x ϕ ) –Pixel pitch –Pixel chip area –Sensor thickness Class of hits generated at each BX: 1.Single tracks –at a given angle 2.Jets –multiple clusters in a given area (seen as multiple tracks) 3.Loopers –low energy particles (seen as single track crossing at 90°) 4.Monsters –very “long” tracks 5.Noise hits –not correlated with tracks Information contained in high level hit transaction object: –time (BX - with possibly random delay to be added) – hit array (row + column of fired pixels, charge or ToT) NB: hits are generated for full matrix and are driven into a subset (DUT) interaction point sensor CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015

9/20 The VEPIX53 Verification Components – Hit generation (II) Each class of hit is parameterized: 1.Single tracks –track rate –track angle (i.e. cluster length) –level of charge sharing Interaction point Sensor Examples of generated tracks (track angle 30°, sensor thickness 100um, level 1 charge sharing and different percentage of hit pixels in charge sharing envelope) CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015

RD53 Collaboration Meeting – 11/04/2013 – Elia Conti (University of Perugia/INFN Perugia) 10/20 The VEPIX53 Verification Components – Hit generation (III) Each class of hit is parameterized: 2.Jets –jet rate –tracks per jet –jet area –track parameters for each track JET

11/20 The VEPIX53 Verification Components – Hit generation (IV) Each class of hit is parameterized: 3.Loopers –looper rate –level of charge sharing 4.Monsters –monster rate – monster direction (z or ϕ ) Zoom on square loopers (1x1) Monster on z direction Monster on ϕ direction CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015

The VEPIX53 Verification Components – Hit monitoring 12/20 The hit subscriber is responsible of dumping/analyzing generated hits (hits are therein accumulated) It is possible to choose between different levels of detail hit env hit master sequencer hit master seq lib hit master agent hit map file hit monitor hit master driver hit subscriber hit histo- grams stati- stics file CMS Phase 2 Pixel Electronics meeting – 27/01/2015

RD53 Collaboration Meeting – 11/04/2013 – Elia Conti (University of Perugia/INFN Perugia) The VEPIX53 Verification Components – Conformity checks and statistics collection 13/20 Reference model: pixel chip output prediction Scoreboard: conformity checks between predicted and actual output (comparator matches/mismatches reported in log file) Lost hits subscriber: classification of lost hits (PUC busy/PR busy) Buffer subscriber: histogram of PR buffer occupancy analysis env analysis master agent analysis monitor analysis reference model analysis scoreboard hit trigger readout analysis buffer subscriber buffer occupancy output file analysis lost hits subscriber lost hits output file

19 Goal of buffer occupancy study: determine most convenient PR configurations Preliminary statistical/analytical study carried out based on hypotheses on shapes of clustered hits, elaborated using only assumption on position in detector Performance of PR configurations evaluated by calculating number of memory bits in shared PR buffer Simulation results on buffer occupancy