1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Hybrid Characterization
TOB Module 83
Multi-point gain measurements have many advantages
More stable
More uniformity between chips
Tighter Cuts
Gain Scan ( 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. CDF Module Burn-in Experience
Significant number of pinholes created during burn-in (even after 5 hours running)
L % of strips
L % of strips
L % of strips
ISL % 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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