1. ALICE input to TE-MPE-EM workshop 29.11. 2012 GEM foils for the TPC upgrade ‘Low mass’ Aluminum/Kapton bus cables and cooling elements for the Silicon Tracker (ITS) upgrade Access to PCB production and assembly

2. ALICE upgrade ALICE will install a major upgrade in 2018 (LS2). The upgrade project was endorsed by the LHCC and we are preparing Technical Design Reports to be submitted in 2013. The major detector elements of the upgrade are:  A new, ultra low mass Inner Tracking System (ITS).  Upgrade of the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) with with GEM detectors.

3. My feeling is that no “electronic design activities” should go out of CERN without approval of TE/MPE/EM… at least for prototyping and small series – Activity code in DAI with mandatory approval from TE/MPE/EM – Electronic design review by “TE Electronic Coordinator” TE/MPE/EM should act as “link office” between CERN and External Firms (PCB routing, prototype assembly…) – Selection of external firms that can be used by clients developers according to a predefined “cahier des charges” Uniform numbering Uniform set of files to be included in the manufacturing dossier – Full quality control over the complete design and production chain Future Plans

4. 2 sides with 18 sectors each with 2 chambers (IROC and OROC) OROCs will use two sectors 3 sets of triple-GEMs per sector 3x36x3 = 324 single-mask foils Production: 2014-2015 ~1.5 years With the present lack of industrial production possibilities our baseline assumption is the production at CERN IROC OROC TPC upgrade

5. ALICE is developing the signal/power buses for the ALICE Inner Tracking System upgrade together with the TE- MPE-EM service. This ultra low mass Kapton/Aluminum bus is a significant element of this project and relies on know how and technology developed by TE-MPE-EM. In addition the TE-MPE-EM service is involved in development of cooling elements for the silicon sensors. ITS upgrade

6. We make heavy use of the design, fabrication and assembly services for standard multi-layer PCBs. These are mostly boards that will be developed for the characterization of IC prototypes and for the characterization in terms of radiation hardness of commercial off-the-shelf components. We will have the need of developing a large number of small and relatively simple boards. The turn-around for the delivery of the final item (PCB loaded with the components) will have a large impact on the overall project schedule ! PCB Production/Assembly

7. Specific Feedback on PCB Production 1. PCB design In general this service provided a professional and satisfactory service. However, it is lacking a clear TECHNICAL supervision of the team. Sometimes we have the impression that people get stuck with some design simply because they encountered a technical problem that is new to them. More in general, we find that the members of the design team (to my knowledge all FSUs) should be better integrated within the CERN electronics design community. In particular they should be given the possibility to follow training courses. The billing scheme could also also be made more transparent to the users. 2. PCB manufacturing Very competent team. Outstanding contributions on R&D projects. What should be improved is a better management of the production of standard PCBs. In particular efforts should be made to guarantee the production and delivery schedule. (We had one case this year of a PCB that started beginning of February, was expected mid March and was delivered mid July: this is not ACCEPTABLE). 3. PCB assembly Quite satisfactory.

8. TE-MPE-EM Workshop 29.11.2012 - Chavannes-de-Bogis Input from CMS for possible requests To Surface Treatment Workshop Archana Sharma for CMS GEM Collaboration

9. Production & Assembly – for discussion GE1/1 - LS1 Four detectors for (LS1), (2013-2014). GE1/1 - LS2 At CERN in TE/MPE workshop Present rate : 10 to12 GEM / month/technician With new equipment  20 GEM/month/technician [Two technicians – One year for GE1/1 production] One Year to produce all GEMs for GE1/1 DETECTOR MODULE ASSEMBLY (To be discussed) Expected rate : 1 detector per two days (given all procurements and pre- production complete) Preparing a new laboratory for CMS GEM assembly and defining quality control (ready mid 2013) Excellent work from the workshop last 2 years Thanks for getting this project on solid ground

10. Future requirements: CMS GE1/1 upgrade GEM proposed as technology to withstand the high rate requirement for eta>1.6 GE1/1 Station – with 144 detectors Proposed for Installation during LS2 (2018) Awaiting Approval (hopefully in Dec) If approved – Will need 144x3 = 432 GEM foils plus spares ~ 500 foils Station Nbr of Triple GEMs Sensitive area per foil Total Nbr of SC modules Total GEM foil area GE1/1 (Triple GEMs) Manufacturing plan requested GE1/136x2x2=144~0.43m 2 (440x990) 72+8 spares0.43x144x3 =185.76m 2 2014 - 2015 About 200 m2 of GEM foils in total 144 triple GEM detectors

11. SPARE

12. The CMS GEM Endcap system (GE) GEM Detectors GE1/1 GE2/1

13. The interaction of the Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati– INFN with TE-MPE-EM Workshop G. Bencivenni LNF-INFN Frascati - Italy

14.  GEM for the LHCb experiment (past)  GEM for the Cylindrical-GEM (C-GEM) of KLOE-2 experiment (present)  GEM for the possible upgrade of the muon apparatus of LHCb (future)  GEM for the possible upgrade of the Inner Tracker of BESIII (future)

15. GEM for the first Muon Wall of LHCB In collaboration with INFN-Cagliari we built 24 (+6 spares) triple-GEM detectors with pad readout ( 2005-2006 ). While the R&D and then the interaction with Rui started in 2000). The size of the GEM was 20x24 cm 2 (active area). The TE-MPE-EM Workshop built the 90 (+20spares) GEM foils with the double- mask technique. The readout boards were realized by ELTOS (Italy).

16. The Cylindrical-GEM of KLOE-2 (2011-2012)  4 CGEM layers with radii from 13 to 21 cm from IP and before KLOE Drift Chamber inner wall  700 mm active length  XV strips-pads readout (25 o ÷30 o stereo angle)  1.5% X 0 total radiation length in the active region 3 mm 2 mm Cathode GEM 1 GEM 2 GEM 3 Anode Read-out Cylindrical Triple GEM

17. The TE-MPE-EM workshop produced, on the basis of our design, with single-mask technology the GEM foils (up to about 400x700 mm 2 active area) and also the readout foils (on kapton substrate): - GEM  n. 48 large foils - Readout boards  n. 16 large foils - Cathode/Drift  n. 12 large foils The first 3 layers of CGEM The gluing of the 3 GEM foils 700 mm up to 1200 mm Detail of readourt board

18. LHCb muon upgrade with GEM (2014-2017) For the upgrade of most irradiated parts of the muon system, regions R1-R2 of station M2, GEM is proposed as a possible rad-hard technology (particle fluxes up to 1 MHz/cm 2 at the upgraded luminosity of 2x10 33 s -1 cm -2 ). # chambers / size (w/out spares) Total GEM foil area M2R1 M2R2 n. 48  ~ 30x25 cm 2 n. 96  ~ 60x27 cm 2 ~54 m 2 R1-R2 of M2

19. Cylindrical GEM for BES III - Beijing-China (2013-2015) Dimensions of the Inner Tracker : Rmin = 63 mm; Lmin=780mm Rmax=162 mm; Lmax=870mm Number of CGEM layers = 4 w/stereo XV readout configuration Drift chamber Existing Inner Tracker (wire-chamber) to be replaced with 4 layers of Cylindrical GEM

20. Request for the TE-MPE-EM Workshop by BESIII: GEM  n. 16 GEM foils of ~ 800-900 mm active length, 300-400 mm wide Cathode  n. 8 foils ~ 800-900 mm active length, 300-400 mm wide Readout boards  n. 8 XV readout pattern (à la KLOE or Compass) ~ 800-900 mm active length, 300-400 mm wide

21. Conclusions After about 12 years of interaction/collaboration with the TE-MPE-EM Workshop, for sure we can says that it was a very positive and fruitful experience. But with the increase of requests from users and the busy schedules both in production and in the R&D of new structures, sometimes the biggest problem was the (not negligible) delay in the delivery of the requested materials. In addition, I personally think that Rui should be helped by a person, who should keep contacts (interface) with the various manufacturers of detectors.

22. Last 12 Months Activity with PH-ESE  128 jobs initiated in PH-ESE for a total cost of 258 kCHF  Cost breakdown for jobs up to 500 CHF  65 kCHF for layout (28%)  118 kCHF for PCB (52%)  46 kCHF for assembly (20%)  In addition a few productions managed by TE-MPE-EM  e.g. TTCex, ALICE Router PH-ESETE-MPE-EM workshop – 29 Nov. 2012 22

23. What’s Going Well  Direct contact with the people doing the work is very important, fruitful and should be maintained  Layout workshop  PCB for special devices (e.g. fancy flex)  Special devices and detectors are the “raison d’être” of this service in our view  Assembly workshop for advices and/or analysis  In general no major problems  At least not reported  A few exceptions (e.g. ALICE Router spares production)  A lot of efforts made for solving the problems  New procedures discussed for avoiding problems  e.g. use of spare boards for checking PCB behaviour in the owen PH-ESETE-MPE-EM workshop – 29 Nov. 2012 23

24. Usual complaints (as received)  Costing for layout  Not always understood  Normally a “devis” is to be given before the work starts but it might not be always the case  Schedule  For small productions, the choice of outsourcing versus in house production is made by TE-MPE-EM with an impact on schedule not always properly advertised  Well anticipated production requests not treated early enough  Some decisions taken without informing the customer  e.g. selection of components for the assembly  What could be done  Improving the approval process at each stage  Improving procedures for solving recurrent problems PH-ESETE-MPE-EM workshop – 29 Nov. 2012 24

25. Future Use and Wishes  No major changes in the coming year  We have several time in the past and very recently used a single entry company for production  PCB & assembly manufacturing files, BOM provided by us  The company takes care of everything  PCB production, components procurement and assembly  Very efficient  Could we have a contract with one or two companies of that kind to ease the ordering process? PH-ESETE-MPE-EM workshop – 29 Nov. 2012 25

26. TE-EPC Feedback Design Office review D. Nisbet 29 th Nov 2012

27. 27 Introduction Most of the following feedback came from information provided by 14 technicians and engineers from within the EPC group The group is a large user of the design office, with approximately 100 jobs per year Predominantly concerned with circuit board design, production and assembly, with some mechanical design. I have summarized the information into a few points

28. 28 Positive feedback EDA Documentation Specialists in use of design tools Component creation Availability of designers to respond to questions General email for jobs (team available) Proto assembly is good

29. 29 Negative feedback Job progress (late? early?) Component creation errors how to reduce the quantity/impact? Board production cost?

30. 30 Suggestions Introduce easy method to feedback and improve Web based job tracking Transparent pricing to estimate job cost in advance Improve flexibility to modify data in EDA Allow job owner to modify certain data fields? Management of components Most components are bought in small quantities Manage a larger component inventory for prototyping

31. 31 Conclusion The overall opinion of the service from the design office is very positive

39. Etienne CARLIER TE-MPE-EM Support Feedback from TE/ABT

40. What is Functioning Well In general, good and very useful service Thanks from TE/ABT to all the persons concerned for their continuous support to our different projects

41. Schematics – Missing “macro components” that can be reused in different project (i.e. FPGA/CPLD powering circuit). – Components library is OK. Some issues with identification of powering pins in multi parts digital circuits. – Creation of new symbol works fine… but not error free (discovered only once the prototype is produced). Need for quality check done on each component created Routing – Establishment of a clear “cahier des charges” between designer and developer missing at the beginning of the routing process (PCB design constraints). – Project tracking during routing is perhaps not optimum. Creation of a wiki page for each project can perhaps help. – Manual cross-check of result provided by auto-router Mechanics (front-panel) – Support of CATIA drawing still missing What Would Need Improvement

42. Numbering – Not unique (EDA, AED, old PS numbering convention… ) – EDA numbering reserved only to design fully handled by TE/MPE/EM – AED numbering (same structure as EDA) not supported by TE/MPE/EM – Some improvement welcome in order to obtain a unique numbering scheme (and production folder) for all electronics design Production (prototype and small series) – Done at via TE/MPE/EM or directly with external firms – Acceptance of production done via TE/MPE/EM can be an issue (quality control). Where is the responsibility. Mainly true when production include a high degree of manual actions (cabling) Possibility to produce special multi-layers PCB – With different copper layers thickness (power electronic) – With different dielectric layers thickness (high-voltage) – Expertise sometime missing in TE/MPE/EM What Would Need Improvement (cont.)

43. My feeling is that no “electronic design activities” should go out of CERN without approval of TE/MPE/EM… at least for prototyping and small series – Activity code in DAI with mandatory approval from TE/MPE/EM – Electronic design review by “TE Electronic Coordinator” TE/MPE/EM should act as “link office” between CERN and External Firms (PCB routing, prototype assembly…) – Selection of external firms that can be used by clients developers according to a predefined “cahier des charges” Uniform numbering Uniform set of files to be included in the manufacturing dossier – Full quality control over the complete design and production chain Future Plans