1. Slide 1Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB: Hybrids, Modules, & Rods Anthony Affolder On behalf of the UCSB testing group

2. Slide 2Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Testing personnel at UCSB Professors à Joe Incandela à Claudio Campagnari Post-docs à Anthony Affolder à Patrick Gartung (UC-Riverside) à Russell Taylor Graduate Students à Steve Levy ( now post-doc @ University of Chicago) à Jim Lamb à Brad Patterson (returning this summer) Electrical Engineering Support à Sam Burke Mechanical Engineering Support à David Hale à Dean White Undergraduates à Derek Barge (B.S. Physics) à Chris McGuinness à Lance Simms (B.S. Physics) Joined group since February, 2003

3. Slide 3Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Testing Facilities High Bay (Ground floor) à 97 m 2 –Approximately ½ for testing à Single rod assembly testing à Rod burn-in station –8 rods at one time Clean Room (5 th floor Physics) à 32 m 2 à Adjacent to production area à Hybrid characterization/thermal cycling à Single module quick test –3 test stations à Module burn-in station –10 modules at one time

4. Slide 4Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Testing Responsibilities Hybrid Thermal Cycling (TOB/TEC) à Test after pitch adaptor wire bonding à Build/commission test stands for FNAL/Mexico à 28/day at peak rate Sensor IV Re-probing à R&D project à Will not continue during production Module Quick Test (TOB/TEC R5 & R6) à Test after sensor wire bonding à 15/day at peak Module Burn-in (TOB/TEC R5 & R6) à ½ -1 day “burn-in” à 15/day at peak Final pinhole test prior to storage/rod assembly à 15/day at peak Rod Assembly Test à Build test stand for FNAL à 2/day at peak Rod “Burn-in” à 3 day “burn-in” of rods à 10/week at peak New responsibilities since February, 2003

5. Slide 5Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 ARCS Based Test Stands Hybrid testing à Thermal cycle/pulsing Module testing à LED systems –Pinhole/Open Tests à DEPP HV supply –Automated IV curves à 3 Module test stands –2 TOB –1 TEC DEPP LED Controller ARC Controllers ARCS - APV Readout Controller Software Purpose - Fast testing of hybrids and modules LED System ARC FE And adaptor card

6. Slide 6Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 DAQ Based Test Stands DAQ system – a PC based prototype of the real CMS tracker readout chain Purpose – fast and burn-in testing of modules and rods Module Burn-in (Wien box) Rod Assembly Rod Burn-in

7. Slide 7Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Hybrid Testing Cycle Ship to TEC/FNAL(13) 28 hybrids per day expected rate at peak Wire bond PA (28) Assemble into Modules (15)Thermal Cycle Hybrid (28) Mount/Inspect Hybrids (28) See L. Simms talk for details on hybrid thermal cycler

8. Slide 8Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Module Testing Cycle Wire bond (15)Module quick test (15) Storage/Mount on RodsThermal cycle modules (15)Pinhole tests (15) Gantry makes modules (15) See J. Lamb’s talk for details of rod testing

9. Slide 9Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Hybrid, Module and Rod Testing Capacity Hybrid Capacity  28/day Module Test ~24/day LT Test ~20/day à ½ day thermal cycles Rods à Single rod assembly test stand being commissioned –More experience with more rods needed –Currently developing grading criteria à With current equipment, we can assemble burn-in stand with a 2 rod capacity –Limited by custom LV PS –Expect 2 more in the next month Should meet near-term needs –Working in collaboration with software developers/University of Rochester to develop/commission hardware and software needed

10. Slide 10Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Major Accomplishments/Milestones Assembled and tested 79 high quality modules à Very low rate of introduced faulty channels à All module types built –First stereo module built/tested at CMS –Built/tested TEC R6 modules Defined grounding/shielding standards for the entire collaboration Wrote fault finding/categorization algorithm used by the entire collaboration à Uniformity/accuracy of testing results improved greatly Led in development/commissioning of module burn-in hardware/software (P. Gartung, UC-Riverside) à First fully functional and calibrated system Found/solved many unexpected issues with the modules à Hybrid cable breakage à Module mechanical fragility à Sensor quality control/variability Built/commissioned hybrid thermal cycler/pulser à Building 2 additional stands for FNAL/Mexico Assembled/tested first US rod

11. Slide 11Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Faulty Channel Sources Fault Sources (excluding cable breaks and CMN) à Hybrid-0.012% à Sensor (in DB)-0.33% à Sensor (not in DB)-0.19% –Either high noise and/or visible sensor damage à Bonding-0.034% –Mostly due to early pitch-adaptors (RMT). –No problems seen with production pitch-adaptors (PLANAR). à Testing-0.049% –Mostly due to an early problem which has been alleviated Total faults – 0.63% à We introduce only 0.095% bad channels per modules on average Grade A Grade B Grade C

12. Slide 12Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Module Testing Protocol Module testing has matured greatly with the production of >50 modules à A minimum set of tests was defined –Using ARCS software/hardware à Fault finding algorithms are now tuned to maximize fault finding and fault type identification, while minimizing false bad channel flagging Noise performance and shielding standardization has allowed for the same fault finding algorithms to work on the TIB, TEC & TOB modules à Minimize the effects of external noise sources à Results can be combined for the same module type measured at different sites in order to further refine testing Testing procedures are now almost automated à Work to automate testing  fault finding  module grading  database entry underway –Great collaboration with Aachen (ARCS software/hardware developer)

13. Slide 13Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Fault Finding Using ARCS (1) Noisy 1 sensor open 2 sensor open Pinholes Bad Channel Flags Noise Measurement Pulse Height Measurement (Using Calibration Pulse) Bad Channel Flags Shorts Pinhole Opens

14. Slide 14Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Fault Finding Using ARCS (2) Pinhole Test (Using LED System) LED Intensity Calibration Injection Response Pinhole Average Subtracted Peak Time (Calibration Pulse) 1 sensor open 2 sensor open Pinholes Channel Average Subtracted Peak Time (ns) Bad Channel Flags

15. Slide 15Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Fault Finding Using ARCS (3) Test failures are correlated in order to diagnose fault type à Open (1 or 2 sensor) à Short à Pinhole/Saturated Channel à Noisy Channels à Mid-sensor opens Faults are found >99% with correct fault type identified ~90% of the time à Misidentification is almost always between 1 or 2 sensor opens à Less than.1% of good channel flagged as faulty à As more modules are built, fault finding criteria will be re-tuned to improve performance à Integrated into ARCS software by Aachen Database output of module testing is being finalized à Similar tuning of fault finding underway for DAQ-based systems –Led by Patrick Gartung (UC-Riverside)

16. Slide 16Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Test Stand Cross-calibration All ARCS systems have had first iteration of cross-calibrations Modules are circulated between testing centers à Multiple examples of common problems are added to each module –Shorts (neighbors & next-to-neighbors) –Opens (sensor-sensor & PA-sensor) –Pinholes With new qualification standards, results nearly identical à Final iteration of cross- calibrations are currently underway à DAQ cross-calibration is forth- coming

17. Slide 17Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Wien cold box Wien cold box cycles modules from –20 C to 20 C while reading 10 modules à DAQ Based System à Modules cycled 1/2-1 day with ~4 cycles per day. –Current (LV/HV), temperature, and relative humidity continuously monitored à Effort led by P. Gartung (UC-Riverside) Torino Interlock Box Inside Wien Cold Box LV Distribution Electrometers Peltier PS HV Power Supply VUTRI PAACB Multiplexer Backplane of Wien Cold Box

18. Slide 18Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Hybrid Problem Cable brittle at connector solder pads à Differential data output lines break Reported by UCSB on Sept. 4 à Production was halted that week. à Protective stiffener designed and studied by US and vendor à Production re-started Oct. 20 Current schedule looks good à 100 TIB hybrids delivered early Nov. à 500 hybrids per week as of mid Dec. 4000 hybrids were in production when problem was discovered à 1000 throwaways and 3000 retrofits à Good collaboration/quick reaction of UCSB and CERN groups greatly minimized number of damaged parts

19. Slide 19Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 CMN Problem-Sensors 16 of 79 modules produced at UCSB exhibit large common mode noise (one chip only) All of the 16 modules have a larger bias current than expected from sensor QTC probing à Extremely high noise on 1-4 channels on each module suggests all the excess current localized to these channels à No obvious damage seen on these channels (visual inspection) à No indication of problems seen in sensor QTC measurements At UCSB, problem always appeared at first test after bonding à 1 module at FNAL developed problem during Wien box module burn-in after a full ARCS module characterization

20. Slide 20Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 CMN problem vs. voltage Once, IV diverges from QTC expectations, noise on channel increases rapidly causing CMN at 20-60 V above the divergence point In all cases, there is no indication of noise below the divergence point or unusual leakage currents in the QTC probing

21. Slide 21Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Are the faults caused by assembly? Extensive program of sensor re-probing and additional module IV measurement undertaken à Sensors probed prior to assembly in modules –Sensors with >5  A extra current relative to sensor QTC measurement separated from others à Module then assembled and bias bonded to first sensor –IV measured à Bias is bonded to second sensor –IV re-measured à Module is then fully bonded and tested During all measurements, environment controlled à Temperature between 23-24 C à RH <30%

22. Slide 22Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 IV Correlation with CMN problems Significant differences from QTC sensor probing have been found  ~7% of sensors have current increases >5  A from QTC prior to module assembly –Roughly consistent with the rate of occurrence of the CMN problem (micro- discharge) observed at various production sites –The increased current occurs during ramp up during IV probing Production Results with IV Pre-Screening à Of the 39 modules produced with sensors whose IV curves in the QTC database matched those obtained in UCSB re-probing, only 2 showed CMN problem (5%) –1 module showed increased currents in some tests and regular currents in others so the problem appears to be intermittent –Another showed CMN problem with only 0.5  A extra bias current  Of the 5 modules with sensors whose IV curves in the QTC database with 5 extra  A of current from those obtained in UCSB re-probing, 4 had serious CMN problems (80%) –Rules out hypothesis that problems due to mishandling in US –Indicates any change in IV curve relative to original QTC measured a good predictor for sensors that will cause this problem

23. Slide 23Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Increased IV In Re-Probing

24. Slide 24Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Further Activities To Solve CMN Problem A world-wide program of sensor re-probing underway to understand the scope of the problem A production run of 150 modules each at UCSB and FNAL will start shortly using the most recently produced sensors à Study rate of problem, correlations with sensor probing, and long term behavior of modules Began negotiation/production at an alternate sensor vendor à Initial delivery of proto-types due by March

25. Slide 25Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Near-Term Activity Late January à Assemble/bond/test 150 SS4 TOB modules in a 2 week period à Begin bonding/testing ~60 hybrids/week à Assemble/test 2 SS4 Rods à Assemble and begin commissioning of a 3 Rod burn-in test stand à Deliver/commission hybrid thermal cycler at FNAL Early February à Assembly/bond/test 50 TEC R6 modules –Confirmation of design/commissioning of testing protocols Late February à Assembly/bond/test 150 SS6 TOB modules in a 2 week period Early March à Assembly/bond/test first US TEC R5 R-phi modules à Assemble/test 11 Rods (9 SS4, 1 SS6, 1DS) –Commission/design DS rod assembly tools à Finish commissioning of full Rod burn-in test stand –Assuming power supplies are available

26. Slide 26Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Conclusions and Future Goals Very eventful year with a great deal accomplished!!! à Standardization/automation of hybrid/module testing –Will apply same techniques to rod testing/burn-in à Through careful testing, discovered and solved hybrid and module fragility problems –Will use the same program of testing in TEC R5 and R6 modules à Discovered potentially serious problem with ST sensors –Many studies underway to understand extent/severity of problem –Talks with alternative sensor vendor started Next year will be even more exciting à Full-scale module production will begin –Including significant increases in hybrid bonding à Building/commissioning of rod assembly/burn-in systems

27. Slide 27Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ARE BACK-UP

28. Slide 28Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Man-Hours/ARCS Stand Time Man-hours NeededARCS Stand Time Needed Mount/inspect hybrids~2 ½ hoursN/A Thermal Cycle Hybrids~3 hoursN/A Mount Module Cables~ ½ hoursN/A Bonded Module Test~2 ½ hours~5-6 hours Wien Box Test~4 hoursN/A Pinhole Test~2 ½ hours TOTAL~14 - 15 hours (2 1/2 techs)~7 ½ -8 ½ hours (2 stands)

29. Slide 29Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Common Mode Subtracted Noise 25 ADC Module #: 869 881 1010 1011 1013 1014 1015 1016 1030 1031 1038 1042 6.5 ADC Chips with CMN (micro-discharge problem) Common mode subtracted noise in blue For majority of modules with problems, the CM subtraction is imperfect. 7 of 12 have >2.0 ADC noise 3 of 12 have more than twice the usual noise Off scale 

30. Slide 30Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 IV Test Results (UCSB) Environmental conditions tightly controlled à Temperature 23.1-23.8 C à RH < 30% at all times Increase as low as 0.5  A has been seen to cause CMN à Better results with newer OB2 sensors (2002) à 20 newer (2003) OB2 sensor show no increase in bias current Sensors> 2  A > 5  A >10  A >20  A >100  A < -2  A <-5  A <-10  A OB2 (’00-01)15%9%8%5%1%8%3%1% OB1 (’00-01)6%3% 0% OB2 (’02)3% 0% 2% 0% OB2 (’03)0% Probed Current @ UCSB (400 V) – QTC Measurement (400 V)