Electrical Testing at UCSB Hybrids Modules Rods Anthony

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

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

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

Testing Responsibilities • Hybrid Thermal Cycling (TOB/TEC) Test after pitch adaptor wire bonding Build/commission test stands for FNAL/Mexico 28/day at peak rate • Sensor IV Re-probing R&D project Will not continue during production • Module Quick Test (TOB/TEC R 5 & R 6) Test after sensor wire bonding 15/day at peak • Module Burn-in (TOB/TEC R 5 & R 6) ½ -1 day “burn-in” 15/day at peak • Final pinhole test prior to storage/rod assembly 15/day at peak • Rod Assembly Test Build test stand for FNAL 2/day at peak • Rod “Burn-in” 3 day “burn-in” of rods 10/week at peak New responsibilities since February, 2003 DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 4

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

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 DOE review, January 20, 2004 Rod Burn-in Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 6

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

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

Hybrid, Module and Rod Testing Capacity • Hybrid Capacity 28/day • Module Test ~24/day • LT Test ~20/day ½ day thermal cycles • Rods Single rod assembly test stand being commissioned – More experience with more rods needed – Currently developing grading criteria 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 DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 9

Major Accomplishments/Milestones • Assembled and tested 79 high quality • Led in development/commissioning of modules module burn-in hardware/software (P. Gartung, UC-Riverside) Very low rate of introduced faulty channels All module types built – First stereo module built/tested at CMS – Built/tested TEC R 6 modules • Defined grounding/shielding standards for the entire collaboration • Wrote fault finding/categorization algorithm used by the entire collaboration Uniformity/accuracy of testing results improved greatly DOE review, January 20, 2004 First fully functional and calibrated system • Found/solved many unexpected issues with the modules Hybrid cable breakage Module mechanical fragility Sensor quality control/variability • Built/commissioned hybrid thermal cycler/pulser Building 2 additional stands for FNAL/Mexico • Assembled/tested first US rod Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 10

Faulty Channel Sources • Fault Sources (excluding cable breaks and CMN) Hybrid-0. 012% Sensor (in DB)-0. 33% Sensor (not in DB)-0. 19% – Either high noise and/or visible sensor damage Bonding-0. 034% – Mostly due to early pitch-adaptors (RMT). – No problems seen with production pitch-adaptors (PLANAR). Testing-0. 049% Grade A Grade B Grade C – Mostly due to an early problem which has been alleviated • Total faults – 0. 63% We introduce only 0. 095% bad channels per modules on average DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 11

Module Testing Protocol • Module testing has matured greatly with the production of >50 modules A minimum set of tests was defined – Using ARCS software/hardware 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 Minimize the effects of external noise sources 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 Work to automate testing fault finding module grading database entry underway – Great collaboration with Aachen (ARCS software/hardware developer) DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Extremely high noise on 1 -4 channels on each module suggests all the excess current localized to these channels No obvious damage seen on these channels (visual inspection) No indication of problems seen in sensor QTC measurements • At UCSB, problem always appeared at first test after bonding 1 module at FNAL developed problem during Wien box module burn-in after a full ARCS module characterization DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 19

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 DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 20

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

IV Correlation with CMN problems • Significant differences from QTC sensor probing have been found ~7% of sensors have current increases >5 m. A from QTC prior to module assembly – Roughly consistent with the rate of occurrence of the CMN problem (microdischarge) observed at various production sites – The increased current occurs during ramp up during IV probing • Production Results with IV Pre-Screening 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 m. A extra bias current Of the 5 modules with sensors whose IV curves in the QTC database with 5 extra m. 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 DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 22

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

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 Study rate of problem, correlations with sensor probing, and long term behavior of modules • Began negotiation/production at an alternate sensor vendor Initial delivery of proto-types due by March DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 24

Near-Term Activity • Late January Assemble/bond/test 150 SS 4 TOB modules in a 2 week period Begin bonding/testing ~60 hybrids/week Assemble/test 2 SS 4 Rods Assemble and begin commissioning of a 3 Rod burn-in test stand Deliver/commission hybrid thermal cycler at FNAL • Early February Assembly/bond/test 50 TEC R 6 modules – Confirmation of design/commissioning of testing protocols • Late February Assembly/bond/test 150 SS 6 TOB modules in a 2 week period • Early March Assembly/bond/test first US TEC R 5 R-phi modules Assemble/test 11 Rods (9 SS 4, 1 SS 6, 1 DS) – Commission/design DS rod assembly tools Finish commissioning of full Rod burn-in test stand – Assuming power supplies are available DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 25

Conclusions and Future Goals • Very eventful year with a great deal accomplished!!! Standardization/automation of hybrid/module testing – Will apply same techniques to rod testing/burn-in Through careful testing, discovered and solved hybrid and module fragility problems – Will use the same program of testing in TEC R 5 and R 6 modules 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 Full-scale module production will begin – Including significant increases in hybrid bonding Building/commissioning of rod assembly/burn-in systems DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 26

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

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

Common Mode Subtracted Noise 6. 5 ADC Module #: 869 Off scale 25 ADC 881 1010 1011 1013 1014 1015 1016 1030 1031 1038 1042 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 DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 29

IV Test Results (UCSB) Probed Current @ UCSB (400 V) – QTC Measurement (400 V) Sensors >2 m. A >5 m. A >10 m. A >20 m. A >100 m. A < -2 m. A <-5 m. A <-10 m. A OB 2 (’ 00 -01) 15% 9% 8% 5% 1% 8% 3% 1% OB 1 (’ 00 -01) 6% 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% OB 2 (’ 02) 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% OB 2 (’ 03) 0% 0% • Environmental conditions tightly controlled Temperature 23. 1 -23. 8 C RH < 30% at all times • Increase as low as 0. 5 m. A has been seen to cause CMN Better results with newer OB 2 sensors (2002) 20 newer (2003) OB 2 sensor show no increase in bias current DOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony Affolder Slide 30