US Module Production

US Module Production

Prof. J. Incandela

US CMS Tracker Project Leader

For the US CMS Tracker Group

Tracker Meetings - CERN

Feb. 13, 2004

US Production – CERN - Feb. 13, 2004 - J. Incandela 2

US Responsibility

5.4 m

2.4

m

Outer Barrel (TOB)

End Caps (TEC)

Up to 2000 TEC Modules for rings at large radii

and hybrid processing for all Rings


Current Status

• Module production lines at >90% preparedness• Final equipment & personnel now falling into place as per our plan

to upgrade capacity to 15 modules per day per site.• Both sites have recently obtained or achieved the following

• 4 hybrid test stands• Fully automated wirebonding• Automated surveys of modules on gantry plates with OGP• Roughly adequate module test and burn-in equipment• Skilled manpower

• Rod assembly, testing and LT test• Also here final pieces are coming together

• Both sites have recently obtained • Assembly tools and fixtures (From CERN and UCSB)• Single-rod test boxes• Rochester boxes (8 rod LT)

• Adequate power supplies/cables to make one stand fully functional (some to be shipped to us this week).


US Group

• Fermilab (FNAL)• M. Demarteau, M. Hrycyk, A. Ronzhin, K. Sogut, L. Spiegel, S. Tkaczyk

+ 5 tech.• Kansas State University (KSU) Pixels (but W. Kahl will still pitch in)• University of California, Riverside (UCR)

• Gail Hanson, Gabriella Pasztor, Patrick Gartung• University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB)

• A. Affolder, S. Burke, C.Campagnari, D. Hale, (C. Hill), J.Incandela, S. Kyre, J. Lamb, S. Stromberg, (D. Stuart), R. Taylor, D. White + 7 tech.

• University of Illinois, Chicago (UIC)• E. Chabalina, C. Gerber, T. Timour

• University of Kansas (KU)• P. Baringer, A. Bean, L. Christofek, X. Zhao

• University of Rochester (UR)• R.Demina, R. Eusebi, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hocker, S.Korjenevski,

P. Tipton• Mexico:3 institutes led by Cinvestav Cuidad de Mexico• 1-2 more groups are in the process of joining us


Hybrid Wire Bonding/Thermal Cycling

•UCSB stand fully commissioned 28/d without difficulty

• 80 hybrids bonded and thermal cycled

• 4 PLL failures -20C• 2 APV failures• Several with opens

•FNAL stand complete and shipped from UCSB

• Received yesterday• Operational by end of Feb.

•Mexico City box under construction

• Ready ~ April

SetSet--up in Clean Roomup in Clean Room

SetSet--up in Clean Roomup in Clean Room

ChillerChiller

Cold BoxCold Box

PC for MonitoringPC for Monitoring+ Controlling+ Controlling

ElectronicsElectronics

Gas/Water Flow ControlGas/Water Flow Control

Nominal capacity = 84 hybrids per day, but hope to distribute loadto Mexico City in order to free up resources at module production centers


Vienna Boxes

•Fully operational @ both sites• 10 modules for 10(14) hours

with 1(2) thermal cycles

• PedRun, CalRun, IVRun.

• 2 grad. students and 2 technicians trained in operation of box


Demonstrating High Rates

• Plan• Sustain our targeted steady-state rate for 2 weeks at each site

• Firmly demonstrate new peak capacity of 15 modules/day.• Determine if module fabrication and testing capabilities are truly

adequate or need more tuning• Build many modules starting w/the best STM sensors

• Plan agreed upon at December CMS week• See if there exist subgroup of acceptable sensors

• Schedule for 2 week production runs of 150 modules• UCSB: January 26 to February 9 – completed• FNAL: February 23 to March 8 – in preparation

• UCSB Results• Met production and testing targets without difficulty• Very low rate of introduced failures seen• But no change in the rate of occurrence of modules with CMN

• Did not depend on production period or sensor grading• No sub-classifications of STM sensors appear to be immune


TOB Module Production

5 TOB rassembly plates, each with 3 new modules curing under vacuum.

UCSB Gantry Team at work

Full plate survey on OGP


UCSB 150 Modules Run: Mechanical Precision (1)

Delta Sili1X3 Sili2X1

Sili1 Sili2 AngleArrows current specifications

150 module production run: 10d period @ 15 modules/day



Sili1 to Frame Angle

Sili2 to Frame Angle



Hybrid Y2-Y2nom

Delta Sili1X1 HybridX1


UCSB 150 Module Run: Gantry

• 8 modules flagged out of 150.• Only 3 are at all serious; all 3 correspond to the same plate and position

Module # Problem Location

5061 Hybrid Y2-Y2nom = 245um Plate 4, position 1

5072 Sili1/Sili2 angle = 11 mdeg Plate 4, position 2



5092 Sili1/Sili2 Angle = 20 mdeg

Sili2 frame angle = 12 mdeg

Plate 2, position 2

5153 Sili2 frame angle = 11 mdeg

Sili2 X3-X3nom = 32 um

Plate 1, position 1


5165 Hybrid Y2-Y2nom = 221um Plate 4, position 1


Gantry Lessons

• Fine-tuning• 10 modules/position/plate under stable operating conditions

• May adjust plates (e.g. plate 2, position 2)

• Can adopt additional corrections

• U-rotation corrections

• Updated X and Y corrections

• Hybrid positioning

• Add 0.5 mm thick silicon rubber to feet of hybrid tools to eliminate slipping in placement (demonstrated for one tool in this exercise)

• Timing experience• After-cure surveying of 15 modules and production of 15 new modules

(5 plates) usually accomplished in 6 hours if no problems encountered.

• Provides 2 hours contingency per day for problems, cleanup, preparation, adjustments, etc.

• A sustainable rate for 2 technicians per 8 hour day


Preparations for Main Production

• 10 assembly plates are in design or construction*• 2 TOB R-phi plates + 2 TOB stereo plates + 2 TEC R6 plates

• Parts being machined will be delivered by end of February.

• Will result in totals of 7 + 3 + 3 respectively

(We’ve built 7 R6 modules – generally good quality, 1 has CMN)

• 2 TEC R5N plates

• Designs nearing completion.

• Plan to make 1st modules in March

• 2 TEC R5S (stereo)

• Designs underway

*Based on TPO meeting discussion, may alter quantities


UCSB 150 Module Run:Wirebonding

• One technician, working alone, kept pace with module assembly

• 150 TOB modules fully bonded in 10 days

• More than 50 Hybrids bonded in the same period

• A streak of more than 100,000 wires without a single failure

• Lessons• Use up a 100 m spool of wire

every 2 days

• purchasing 750 m spools

• New bonding tool every week

•Plans• K&S 8060 backup bonder

arrives this month

FNAL 8090’s (3)

UCSB 8090


UCSB 150 Module Run: Testing

•Must keep up with fabrication• Sensor selection

• Vienna grading (A+,A,B)

• Both sensors same grade

•Complete set of tests:• ARCS quick test

• Vienna Box

• 1 thermal cycle (~7 hours)

• LED tests

•Lessons:• We can comfortably maintain a

test rate of 15 module/day

• Wien box preventive maintenance may be required

112 modules understorage


UCSB Module Quality:Preliminary Results

•150 modules tested

•Failure rates/sources (excluding CMN modules)

• 0.53% Bad channels on average

• 0.29% Known bad channels

• 0.20% Unmarked bad channels

• 0.032% open hybrid-APV

• 0.002% module bonding

• 0.035% bad channels introduced during assembly/bonding

• Vast majority of introduced failures were on pitch adaptors

•101+ modules so far have undergone 8-12 hours in Vienna box with a single thermal cycle

• Module Grades• 126 Grade A• 10 Grade B• 10 Grade F

• 11 CMN modules• 1 AFTER THERMAL CYCLE

• 1 doesn’t operate at -20 C• Tested in 3 different

Vienna box slots• 2 missing Al strip metal (over

etched, not a scratch)• 12 mid-sensor opens in Al• 19 mid-sensor opens in Al


CMN modules and sensor grading

•Sensors graded using Vienna grading rules• All sensors were re-probed prior to assembly

•Sensors sub-divided into three time periods• Prior to Week 39, 2002 (Pre-production)• Week 39, 2002-Week 12, 2003 (Production improvements being implemented)• After Week 13, 2003 (Final Production)

•11 Common mode modules found• 1 after thermal cycling

•No significant difference between A+ and A sensors or year of fabrication• CMN rate in grade B modules may be higher than grade A+/A

Sensor 2001-2 2002-3 2003 Total

Grade # CMN % # CMN % # CMN % # CMN %

GRADE A+ 32 1 3.1% 4 1 25.0% 12 0 0.0% 48 2 4.2%

GRADE A 42 2 4.8% 11 1 9.1% 16 1 6.3% 69 4 5.8%

GRADE B 22 3 13.6% 10 2 20.0% 1 0 0.0% 33 5 15%

Total 96 6 6.2% 25 4 16% 29 1 3.4% 150 11 7.3%


5018 (built 29-1-04)

•Sensors• 31215017

• 31215005

•Channels• 420 at 150 V

30200020005018

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Voltage

Bia

s C

urr

en

t (n

A)

Current(DB)

Current(probing)

Current(Bonded)


5019 (built 2-2-04)

•Sensors• 23863925

• 14845906


30200020005019

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Voltage

Bia

s C

urre

nt (n

A)

Current(DB)

Current(probing)

Current(Bonded)


5021

•Sensors• 24104901

• 20825302


30200020005021

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Voltage

Bia

s C

urr

en

t (n

A)

Current(DB)

Current(probing)

Current(Bonded)


5081

•Sensors• 23974205

• 23974314


30200020005081

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 100 200 300 400 500

Voltage

Bia

s C

urr

en

t (n

A)

Current(DB)

Current(probing)

Current(Bonded)

Intermittent and can decay away


5103

•Sensors• 15061804

• 23860212

•Channels• 270-331 at 40 V

30200020005103

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Voltage

Bia

s C

urr

en

t (n

A)

Current(DB)

Current(probing)

Current(Bonded)

Not the usualsymptoms …


•Sensors

• 20275916

• 14739511

•Channels

• 43 at 320 V

• 405 at 250V

30200020005155

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Voltage

Bia

s C

urr

en

t (n

A)

Current(DB)

Current(probing)

Current(Bonded)

5155


Re-probing Results

I > 5 AI > 1.5 A

Can we rule out time evolution ? Consider a simple evolutionary model*: Exponential decay with a fraction F of all sensors changing such that the population with I > 5 A grows as F(1 – exp(-t/))…

*Exercise proposed in a discussion with Guido, Tony, Regina and Joe - Dec. ‘03


Fits

• Considered various susceptible sub-population fractions F from 0 to 100% and fit for best time constant

• Low values of F yield poor fit

• High values of F yield a decent fit. Best fit occurs for F = 100% as seen at right with an essentially flat growth over time

This proves nothing about this model

This kind of exercise could only be used to rule out models, not confirm them…this model is not ruled out but we sincerely hope that this is not the real situation.

dofÿ2

< 1

Extrapolating over 10 years 32% sensors causing CMN 54% of modules


Module Time Degradation- Module 689

•After 3 months on shelf, FNAL module retested

• A second chip now has a high noise channel causing CMN

• Channel previously only had a slightly higher noise


•After assembly module was tested (09/08) on ARCS at 400 V and graded “B” (6 faulty channels). No problems observed.

Module Time Degradation-705

•After LT, one chip shows CMN

•Similar case among 150 UCSB modules recently completed. (not shown among previous plots - data after Wien box not web accessible – will include in note under preparation)


After sitting on shelf for more than 3 months, module re-tested to find a new pinhole

Module Time Degradation-705 II


Rods

• Recent Efforts• Completed the single rod test

stands for UCSB and FNAL

• CERN completed rotisserie and rod handling fixtures

• UCSB completed module installation tools for US and CERN

• LT definition of tests and test methods still must be refined

• Production• So far have built 3 SS rods

• All 3 built in under 2 hours

• Will build and test 688 rods (+spares)


Rochester LT Stands

The hardware and software are essentially completed for the box.

Multi-rod Software still needs to be developed

The commissioning of the burn-in stands is proceeding well, in advance or production ramp-up

We await full complement of cables and power supplies


Summary & Conclusions

• US rapidly approaching full production capability• Almost all equipment in place

• New higher rate demonstrated w/good quality at UCSB:

• Will review residual problems and try to improve procedures, accuracy, quality and efficiency…

• FNAL to do similar high rate exercise starting in 2 weeks

• Results for modules with STM sensors • New CMN modules

• Data do not discount possible deterioration over time

• Retested modules @FNAL show further degradation

• As stated in September 2003 when I first reported this problem - a good understanding is needed.


5048

•Sensors• 24102009

• 24102007


30200020005048

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Voltage

Bia

s C

urr

en

t (n

A)

Current(DB)

Current(probing)

Current(Bonded)


5063

•Sensors• 31215004

• 31215007


30200020005063

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 100 200 300 400 500

Voltage

Bia

s C

urr

en

t (n

A)

Current(DB)

Current(probing)

Current(Bonded)


5119

•Sensors• 24104723

• 23974320


30200020005119

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Voltage

Bia

s C

urr

en

t (n

A)

Current(DB)

Current(probing)

Current(Bonded)


•Sensors

• 23974311

• 15061419

•Channels

• 48 at 310 V

30200020005140

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Voltage

Bia

s C

urr

en

t (n

A)

Current(DB)

Current(probing)

Current(Bonded)

5140


Fits (low F)

• Considered various susceptible sub-population fractions F from 0 to 100% and fit for best time constant

• Low values of F yield poorest fits as seen for F = 5% at right

dofÿ2

> 2

Extrapolating over 10 years:

US Module Production

Documents

Transcript of US Module Production