1. M. Gilchriese LBNL Design Studies M. Garcia-Sciveres and M. Gilchriese LBNL W. Miller and W. Miller, Jr iTi

2. M. Gilchriese 2 Introduction Layout studies along with thermal and mechanical modeling (FEA) were started some months ago. Primarily aimed at defining R&D direction(s) for new materials for module support/cooling structures. Only in the last few weeks have we tried to study cases directly applicable to –Case A/1(inside current B-layer) –Case B/2(remove and replace B-layer) Will only show single-layer studies today, although some work has been done on double-layer designs. Please keep in mind that assumptions about module sizes and other dimensions have evolved during these studies.

3. M. Gilchriese 3 Overview – Design Studies Integrated monolithic structure –Many modules mounted on half-shell units ie. two pieces make a B-layer Staves supported on shells. Similar concept to current detector but different implementation. All options studied in some detail assume for module supports/cooling –Round tube embedded in low-density conducting foam(requires some development – see end of talk) + very thin “skins” of carbon-fiber laminates(eg. K13D2U) –Why round tube? Would allow full-pressure testing with gas(not possible in current detector). –Why foam? Versatile. Low-mass. Compatible with both monolithic and stave- based designs. Usually we have assumed a heat flux from module(not including cables) of 0.6 W/cm 2. Current estimates of electronics+sensor are lower than this.

4. M. Gilchriese 4 Integrated Monolithic Option Support split into two halves 35 mm radius inner stay clear Low density foam structure with thin(125 micron) skins on inside and outside(makes shell). Heat load assumption for 800mm length=120W Two pass for each cooling tube: 5mm ID to limit pressure drop to <200mbar 88mm 37.5mm 24.4mm

5. M. Gilchriese 5 FEA Studies See backup for most details and figures Gravity sag over 800 mm length: about 3 microns Distortion from cooldown(  T=50C): <10 microns Thermal performance –Tube wall -22C –CGL7018 coupling tube to foam –Detector temperature -18 to -15 –Note red is IC “overhang” Proof-of-concept -17.8ºC -15.6ºC Center detector more representative

6. M. Gilchriese 6 Staves With Support Shell Confined space, need additional room for support shell –Provide stave with 5 point support –Minimize amount of construction material Combination of high conductivity foam as before in the integrated design. And two layer laminate, uni-tape or single layer of woven cloth What happens to interfacial stresses(tube to foam) –Calculated, but best resolved through testing –Have not looked at shell in any significant detail yet Module concept and dimensions evolved over time as we studied this direction – see next slides for assumptions and also more in backup slides.

7. M. Gilchriese 7 Bare Module Dimensions 16.200mm Active area 17.500mm 16.210mm Footprint 19.000mm stack 200um chip 20um bumps 250um sensor Module power load: 1.25W => 0.4 W/cm 2 but we use 0.6 W/cm 2

8. M. Gilchriese 8 Stave Arrangement Modules abut one against the next. Flat stave surface! 48 modules per stave for 778mm total length. Readout/power from both ends.

9. M. Gilchriese 9 Option 1: Module with Flex Cable 14mm 500mm Flex cable 0.075mm 0.97mm Cable power load: 0.4W (uniform over full 50cm)  Each module has a pre-attached, full length cable  All cables are identical and are cut to length during module attachment

10. M. Gilchriese 10 Option 2: Cable(s) pre-laminated on back of stave  Flex would be laminated to back side of stave and tested before modules are added  A flap at each module location is bent around and to the top of the module and wire bonded after the module is loaded.  A single 2-sided copper cable could be used to route all the signals. Multiple aluminum on kapton planes could be laid up on top of that to build up power bussing, bonding each one down to the copper flex to get the power to each flap.  Recall all this is built and tested before modules are added, so repeated gluing and wire bonding are not an issue.  Assume same cable power load as for option 1.  A stave control card would be loaded at the stave end as for option 1 Signal cable with 24 flaps before lamination. Could also be multiple cables. End of stave card could be built-in

11. M. Gilchriese 11 Initial Layout-Stave 1 Concept –Retained features of integrated design, same cooling tube size –Less foam, but added cylinder –Outer diameter ~93mm –Inner diameter 70mm

12. M. Gilchriese 12 Stave Concept 1 for B-Layer Replacement Half-length shown

13. M. Gilchriese 13 Stave 1: Basic FEA Configuration Effects simulated –Mass of coolant, average density 145kg/m 3 –Laminate, 2 layers 2.5mil, 0/90, K13D2U Radiation Length estimate=0.532% –Foam=0.11% –Tube=0.3% –Composite=0.11% – Coolant=0.012% 5mil laminate 5.6mm OD tube 12mil wall 0.5mm of silicon to simulate chips and detector Also 0.9 mm of Kapton cable for additional mass

14. M. Gilchriese 14 Second Configuration-Stave 2 Goals –Reduce tube size and amount of foam material –Analytically evaluate impact on thermal and mechanical design OD=88 mm ID=~69.75mm

15. M. Gilchriese 15 Stave 2 Concept for B-Layer Replacement

16. M. Gilchriese 16 Stave 2: With Offset Mounts Space on back-side next to mounts appears adequate to place cable, for wrap-around mounting Cable position (for thermal analysis) Potential cable location

17. M. Gilchriese 17 Stave 2: With Offset Mounts Cable Illustration –Back side, thin bonding wraps around –Cable on back-side becomes thicker as the stave end is approached Cable constant thickness in this region

18. M. Gilchriese 18 Stave Concepts - FEA Summary Stave 1Stave 2Comments Gravity SagNegligible <0.1µNegligible <0.5µDoes not include shell sag! 5-pt support Cooldown distortion <6 µ out of planeAbout 50 µ50C change Stress in foam- tube interface 300 psi145 psi50C change. Does not include glue compliance  T(C)-no cable About 5 Tube at -22C  T(C)-with cable on front About 6 Worst case?

19. M. Gilchriese 19 “Powerpoint” Designs Castellated monolithic –Not analyzed yet Rectangular tube – gain about 1mm on outside radius(OR) –Stave 2 change OR 44->43 Rectangular tube with monolithic maybe gains 1 more mm on OR to 42mm Minimal monolithic design(imagine from figure below) might get to R=42 mm. R=41.9 to back

20. M. Gilchriese 20 Comparison with Cases A/B Inner Radius(mm)Outer Radius(mm) Case A now3541 Case A future2741 Case B now3571.5 Case B future2771.5 1 st monolithic3544 Stave 13546.5 Stave 23544 2 nd monolithic,rect. tube…. 3542? TBD

21. M. Gilchriese 21 Development Direction Carbon foams with good thermal conductivity, but significant density, are available from multiple producers POCO foamPOCO foam: eg.  = 0.55 g/cc and K(out) 135 and K(in) 45 K-foamK-foam: eg.  = 0.34 g/cc and K(out) 55 and K(in) ? We have, in fact, made staves with POCO foam/round tube as part of upgrade R&D for outer silicon tracker. We are working with company to make samples with  about 0.15 g/cc and K of about 45(isotropic). In production now. Would make short prototype pixel staves and look at thermal performance. In addition, are hoping to also investigate carbon nanotube(CNT) loaded materials with same company and perhaps CNT “cloth” under development for heat spreaders for ICs. CNT have very high K along tube direction >1000.

22. M. Gilchriese 22 Conclusion Integrated monolithic concept appears to be structurally and thermally feasible Multiple stave concepts developed and also feasible(no surprise) All based on edge-to-edge modules (no shingling). Need to confirm this should be design choice. Looks challenging to meet Case A(current constraints) envelopes. Need iteration of envelopes, design, maybe beam pipe, as-built dimensions….before investing in detailed design of any option. Low-density, thermally conductive foam with very thin carbon- fiber facings appears to be feasible approach mechanically and thermally. Prototypes to be made to validate approach.

23. M. Gilchriese BACKUP

24. M. Gilchriese 24 Integrated Monolithic Structure

25. M. Gilchriese 25 Integrated Structure Assumptions Split Structure –Sandwich structure, with cooling tubes embedded between 2-layer composite facing Composite laminate produced using K13D2U fibers and Cyanate Ester resin –5mils for two layers (0/90) 5 mm ID Aluminum tubing, 12 mil wall (~5.6 mm OD) FEA Structural Model –Tubes and foam core treated as solid elements Mass of coolant, average density 145kg/m 3 –Outer surface laminate: used laminate element, with single material –Inner surface (saw-tooth) contain laminate elements with material designations for: Composite layers (0/90) Silicon module assembly, 0.5mm silicon Cable, 0.9mm uniform along length

26. M. Gilchriese 26 Gravity Sag Model based on 1G loading vertical –Sag measured in local coordinates –T1: translation is vertical along shell split plane –Maximum sag ~2.8microns –Model length 800mm 2.8 μm

27. M. Gilchriese 27 Thermal: 50C Temperature Change Y Thermal strain due to cool-down –Local coordinates, T2 is transverse to vertical plane of symmetry peak shape change is 5.5microns –Model length 800mm Unfortunately the out- plane distortion is a combination of T1 an T2

28. M. Gilchriese 28 Thermal: 50C Temperature Change X-Direction Thermal strain due to cool-down –X: direction 8.2 to 6.6 microns X is split plane, using symmetry boundary conditions –Model length 800mm

29. M. Gilchriese 29 Pixel Thermal Solution-Integrated Structure Description –Isotropic carbon foam: 45W/mK Specialized low density (0.21g/cc) foam: enhanced to high conductivity –Includes 5mil laminate thickness –Detector 250microns –Chips 200 microns –Bump bonds 25microns –Interface resistance from bonding chip to foam equal to 0.8W/mK; 4mil thickness (CGL7018) –Pixel chip heating: 0.51W/cm 2 –Simulated tube wall -22ºC Results –Peak chip edge: -13.8 ºC –Detector ranges from-15.6 to - 17.8 ºC -17.8ºC -15.6ºC Center detector more representative

30. M. Gilchriese Module design for B-layer replacement V.3

31. M. Gilchriese 31 Option 1 module loading For even number modules the cable is cut short, to reach only its odd neighbor to the left (see sketch below) For odd modules the cable is cut long enough to reach the end of the stave All cables are wire-bonded to a card at the end of the stave. Each cable reaching the end of the stave serves 2 modules For proper cable stacking, loading starts from the outside and moves to the center 462351 End of stave card Section through modules and cables

32. M. Gilchriese 32 Option 1 cable power Power load of 0.4W/module estimated assuming 0.5V R/T drop in cable at 800mA total current. If all cables are identical, this means 8mW/cm of cable per module. Cable load at central module is 8mW/cm x 1.62cm = 13mW Cable load at end module is 13mW x 24 modules = 312mW. Cable load at Nth module counting from stave center is 13N mW. Reduction of material at stave ends could be achieved by ganging more modules together on 1 cable. Doubling modules/cable doubles cable load/cm/module. If this is done for last 12 modules, cable power at end module increases to 12x13 + 12x2x13 = 468mW.

33. M. Gilchriese 33 Stave control card & external cables Assume each 1-chip module receives 40MHz clock and command, and outputs 160MHz data. The end of stave card reduces the number of lines to the outside world by serializing the data from multiple modules. Some or all DC-DC converters could be placed on end-of stave card (=> end of stave card needs good cooling potentially up to ~10W). 24 40MHz clock 40MHz clock bar 40MHz command 40MHz command bar 160MHz data 160MHz data bar Clock fanout End of stave card Traces on flex~15m miniature coax to PP2 40MHz clock 1GHz command 2GHz data LV power command De-serializer 2 Data serializers Power at “HV” 12-24 DC-DC 4-12 HV bias groups 4-12 HV bias groups 3 Muxed NTCs Twisted pairs NTC mux

34. M. Gilchriese 34 3-wire hardware interlock compatible NTC mux scheme A interlock V DCS next Mux Sense IC NTC1 NTC2 NTC3 NTCn     

35. M. Gilchriese 35 Stave Approach

36. M. Gilchriese 36 Stave 1: Gravity Sag Upper Stave position near vertical centerline –Modeled ½ length, from mid plane of symmetry of a 778 mm long stave –Model provides effect of a 5 point support stave length Resulting gravity sag 0.085microns Does not include support shell sag

37. M. Gilchriese 37 Stave 1: Thermal Distortion Cool-down effect: 50°C Delta –Most of distortion is contraction along stave length –Distortion T2 is out-of-plane –T2 peak distortion is 5.6microns

38. M. Gilchriese 38 Stave 1: Thermal Strain Stress in Foam/Tube Interface –Evaluated without compliance of bonding adhesive (CGL7018 type) –Contraction of Al tube produces local stress of 300psi at interface Effect best evaluated through testing –Plan is to use special Reticulated Vitreous Carbon Foam with enhanced thermal and mechanical properties Solid Von Mises Stress

39. M. Gilchriese 39 Stave 2: Gravity Sag Upper Stave position near vertical centerline –Modeled ½ length, from mid plane of symmetry of a 778 mm long stave –Model provides effect of a 5 point support stave length Resulting gravity sag 0.41microns Does not include support shell sag

40. M. Gilchriese 40 Stave 2: Gravity Sag-Off Set Mount Effect on rotation of stave –Maximum rotation 1.9 μradians due to sag

41. M. Gilchriese 41 Stave 2: Thermal Distortion Stave with out-of-plane bending due to cool-down 50°C –Modeled ½ length, from mid plane of symmetry of a 778 mm long stave –Model provides effect of a 5 point support stave length Resulting bending 51.5 microns

42. M. Gilchriese 42 Stave 2: Thermal Strain Stress induced by contraction –Less than in Stave 1 geometry –145psi, more localized at ends –Be mindful that compliance of adhesive not present

43. M. Gilchriese 43 Stave 2: Thermal Solution Model Parameters –Carbon Foam, 45W/mK –Composite Facing, K13D2U-55% vol fraction 0/90, K t =0.55W/mk, 220W/mK planar (no axial thermal gradient so this parameter is not an issue) –Chip 0.2mm –Bump bond thickness,.05mm –Detector, 0.25mm Adhesives –Tube to foam, 4mils, 0.8W/mK –Foam to composite facing, 2mils, 0.8W/mK –Chip to composite facing, 4mil, 1.29W/mK –Cable to detector module, 2mils, 1.55 W/mK

44. M. Gilchriese 44 Stave 2: Thermal Solution-No Cable Coolant Tube “BC” –-22 º C Chip Heat Flux, 0.6W/cm 2 Detector Temperatures –Left edge, -16.66 º C –Middle, -17.01 º C –Right, -16.78 º C

45. M. Gilchriese 45 Stave 2: Thermal Solution-With Cable Cable heat load –Adds a heat flux of 0.1W/cm 2 to the 0.6W/cm 2 chip heat load –Gradient before was 4.99 º C, detector middle to tube inner surface –Would expect gradient of 5.82 º C now –Gradient now from detector middle to tube surface is 6.0 º C Cable surface –Peak -14.1 º C, or a ΔT=7.9 º C –Peak affected by K assumed for the copper/Kapton cable Used 0.35W/mK, whereas Kapton alone is 0.12

46. M. Gilchriese 46 Stave 2: Thermal Solution-With Cable Thermal plot with cable removed –Illustrates comparative uniformity in detector temperature -15.57 -15.94

47. M. Gilchriese 47 Detector Temperature Summary Thermal Solutions for two designs, but unfortunately different detector layouts –Integrated, different by chip over-hang –Stave-like, provides complete coverage Two different foam/sandwich structures, one with less material analyzed first With time will bring configurations into consistency However, the predicted detector surface temperature for each is: –Low-mass stave without cable heat load, -17 º C –Low-mass stave with cable heat load, -16 º C –Integrated Foam/Tube Support without cable load, -17.5 º C Caution, as analysis proceeded slightly more conservative properties were used for the composite facing and the foam: –Facing 0.55W/mK versus 1.44W/mK –Foam 45W/mK versus 50W/mK

48. M. Gilchriese 48 Suggestions for Future Work Benefits of Continued Analysis –Improve definition of concept Preliminary results encouraging, but issues will emerge with increased knowledge base Add support shell deflection, support boundary conditions, end plates etc. –Cooling analysis Conservatively used 0.6W/cm 2 for chip thermal load, revise as electronics design progresses, also expand on cable thermal load (location) Tube sizing analysis needs more careful consideration –Preliminary pressure drop with smaller tube appears OK with C 3 F 8 »An area that needs more study, pressure drop prediction indicates low margin on return pressure –Consider tube shape change to reduce outer diameter (<88mm?) Prototyping –Thermal and structural prototypes

49. M. Gilchriese 49 Suggestions for Future Work (Cont.) Basic Stave Concept uses Lightweight Sandwich –Continued Material development Important to Success Carbon foam development –Have produced 45W/mK foam »By very nature of HEP goals, heavier than desired Incentive: Advance through development with carbon nano-tubes additives –Stronger, lighter, more conductive?