1 / 30

TMB Mezzanine Upgrade

TMB Mezzanine Upgrade. Indara Suarez Jason Gilmore Vadim Khotilovich Alexei Safonov. CMS Week EMU Meeting Cern Dec 11, 2012. TMB Upgrade Efforts: Outline. Motivation for changes to the TMB Mezzanine electronics design & testing This has been largely completed

marva
Download Presentation

TMB Mezzanine Upgrade

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TMB Mezzanine Upgrade Indara Suarez Jason Gilmore Vadim Khotilovich Alexei Safonov CMS Week EMU Meeting Cern Dec 11, 2012

  2. TMB Upgrade Efforts: Outline • Motivation for changes to the TMB • Mezzanine electronics design & testing • This has been largely completed • Some small changes for final production • Performance and endurance considerations • Cooling and SEU mitigation • Firmware development • Fiber interface logic for DCFEB comparator data • Modify logic for monitoring/tuning trigger timing • Software development • Trigger timing/tuning tools to handle DMB-DCFEB control path • Production test control software development • Integration with other boards in the system • Production & Testing

  3. CSC: Frontend Trigger Problem • Out-of-time PU induces deadtime at higher luminosity  look at PU100 • Particular issue is the ME1/1 “TMB” building chamber track segments • Two aspects making ME1/1 special: • Very high occupancies • ME1/1 TMBs effectively serve two chambers (inner ME1/a, outer ME1/b) • Need better FPGA to maintain efficiency • The algorithm is ready (V. Khotilovich) • Design of prototype TMB completed • Improve muon trigger efficiency for |h|>2.1 • Rate increase compensated by requiring 3 station coincidence for |h|>2.1 • With new TMB can do w/o efficiency loss • Needs firmware modifications in CSCTF

  4. TMB Design Considerations • Virtex 6 FPGA enhances our capabilities • Space & speed for improved trigger logic • Use 7 multi-gigabit serial links for data from DCFEBs • But it is a complicated chip to use • Requires 6 voltage levels, ~6 amps total • Power supply and cooling must be considered • Virtex 6 I/O is limited to 2.5V • Current TMB uses 3.3V signals throughout • Require external signal-level translators for the FPGA • We need the new board to be backwards compatible • Keep the copper connections for old CFEBs • Make fiber inputs available for new DCFEBs

  5. Mezzanine Board Design • 2010 Mezzanine boards built & tested • Had some shortcomings, but no show stoppers • Test bed for firmware development & rad tests • Potentially vulnerable parts in this design • SNAP 12 optocouplers, Xilinx Virtex 6 FPGA & Prom, TI signal-level translator chips • All survived beyond 30 krad TID • 2012 Mezzanine very similar, with improvements • Fixed problems with XCF128 Prom & QPLL locking • Replaced rad-vulnerable regulators • These boards have extra components • Used for special tests, not needed for final design • They can be removed for final production

  6. TMB Mezzanine 2012 Prototype Virtex 6 FPGA + PROM QPLL Snap 12 Fiber Transmitter socket (not used in final design) Snap 12 Fiber Receiver - fibers from 7 DCFEBs Signal-level translators 3.3 V to 2.5 V Dimensions: 7.5” wide by 5.9” high 11.1 mm clearance from TMB main board

  7. TMB Mezzanine Situation

  8. Changes for Final Mez in 2013 Remove Parts Not needed… Might keep this -Convenient for fiber self-tests Can shrink PCB size to 7.5” wide by 5.25” high

  9. TMB Mez: Preproduction • Mez preproduction PCB sent out for fabrication • 4 boards planned for completion next week • Parts are on order • Long-lead-time parts (FPGAs & Snap12s) already in hand • Parts assembly to follow • Finished board delivery to TAMU about Dec 20 • Changes in this revision • Removed all “test” components • Connectors & switches, Finisar transceiver, old Xilinx PROMs • The JTAG and CCLK lines are now much cleaner • Removed two redundant voltage regulators • Narrowed the board by 0.6” • Improves clearance situation with TMB main board • FPGA with more logic (240T), but same package (1156) • This may be needed for future trigger logic expansion plans • Transparent change in the LHC clock driving the QPLL

  10. TMB Mez: PCB Layout Virtex-6 FPGA + PROM QPLL Snap12 Fiber Transmitter - only for testing Snap12 Fiber Receiver - fibers from 7 CFEBs PCB Dimensions: 7.5” wide by 5.25” high 11 mm clearance from TMB main board I/O Voltage-level shifters, 3.3 V to 2.5 V 10

  11. TMB Mez: PCB Edge View • Close-up on the changed side of the board

  12. Voltage Regulator Radiation Tests • Testing performed at the Texas A&M Nuclear Science Center • 1 megawatt reactor operating at 6 kW, provides 9.9 *108 n/cm2s • Multiple samples of several COTS regulators, two exposures • First exposure represents ~10 SLHC year dose • Second exposure adds ~20 SLHC years, total of 30 year dose • Regulator performance tested before and after each exposure • Regulators were unpowered during exposure • Several regulators showed no ill-effects • National Semi LP38501 and LP38853 • Micrel 49500 and 69502 • TI TPS74901 • Others did not fare so well… • Maxim 8557 • Sharp PQ035ZN1, PQ05VY053, PQ070XZ • TI TPS75601, TPS75901 • No improvement seen with additional cool-down time

  13. Summary of All Reactor Tests (1)

  14. Summary of All Reactor Tests (2)

  15. Summary of All Reactor Tests (3)

  16. SEU Studies for New CSC Boards • Tests were designed to study SEU effects in Virtex-6 and investigate mitigation methods for CMS Endcap • FPGA sensitive elements include GTX primitives, Block RAMs, CLBs • Use of these elements may vary for different boards & firmware • Measure SEU cross sections for each type to allow for rescaling • Expected 20 MeV neutron fluence in ME1/1 at HL-LHC: 2.7 *1011 n/cm2over 10-years • Initial radiation testing done in 2011 • Tests with 55 MeV protons • Performed at Texas A&M Cyclotron • Raw SEU sensitivity with *no mitigation* • Some FPGA elements are SEU sensitive • Many Block RAM errors, all single bit flips • CLB errors are common, but GTX errors are rare • Additional tests completed this summer at UC Davis • 64 MeV protons with higher flux • Tests in Block RAMs and CLBs *with mitigation* • We can effectively deal with SEUs in the FPGA

  17. Impact of the 2011 SEU Measurements • How would these cross sections affect CSC operations in HL-LHC? • Snap12 Transmitter: < 1 SEU per year per link • Snap12 Receiver: ~1 SEU per week per link • These typically just affect a single data word • Finisar Optical Transceiver: ~7 SEU/day/link • Typically just affects a single data word • Low rate, less than one error in 3 *1013 bits • FPGA GTX Transceivers: ~3 SEU/year/link • FPGA Block RAMs: ~9 SEU/day/chip • These typically affect a single bit in a single cell • Need to investigate mitigation for FPGA BRAMs • FPGA CLBs: ~5.5 SEU/day/chip • Need to investigate mitigation for FPGA CLBs

  18. Recent 2012 Radiation Studies • Testing at UC Davis Cyclotron • 64 MeV proton beam, flux up to ~1 *109 cm-2s-1 • Many of the same parts from previous SEU tests were retested using the same circuit boards • Snap12 parts are the only exceptions • New Emcore transmitters were tested in 2012 • All chips survived 30 kRad dose* • Monitored power for signs of latchup (none observed) • Some FPGA tests included mitigation this time • Enabled native ECC feature in Block RAMs • BRAM test used Read & Write under software control • Software designed to distinguish each failure mode • CLB tests based on triple-voting system • CLBs were implemented as a system of shift registers • Given common inputs and checked against each other • Error counts were recorded in registers and monitored by software

  19. SEU Test Results 2012 (1) • Reflex Photonics 3.5 Gbps Snap12 Receiver: r12-c00501 • Random PRBG data patterns @3.2 Gbps on each of eight links • These SEUs only caused transient bit errors in the data • 2012 SEU cross section result: s = (6.4 ± 0.2) *10-9 cm2 • Similar to 2011 result, about 40% smaller: < 1 SEU per week per link • Combined 2011+2012: s = 9.5 *10-10 cm2 per link • Emcore 3.3 Gbps Snap12 Receiver: EMRS1216 • Same PRBG test as above • 2012 SEU cross section result: s = (9.8 ± 0.2) *10-9 cm2 • This gives s = 12 *10-10 cm2 per link • Similar to Reflex Photonics result, about 30% larger: ~1 SEU per week per link • Emcore 3.3 Gbps Snap12 Transmitter: EMTS1216 • Same PRBG test as above; tested two of these parts • These SEUs only caused transient bit errors in the data • 2012 SEU cross section: s = (1.7 ± 0.2) *10-10 cm2 • This gives s = 2.1 *10-11 cm2 per link • Nearly double the 2011 result for Reflex Photonics transmitter • Still very low rate of SEUs, so not a concern: ~1 SEU per year per link

  20. SEU Test Results 2012 (2) • Finisar Optical Transceiver ftlf8524e2gnl: Transmit side • Gigabit Ethernet packet transmission tests to PCI card, 4 kB @ 500 Hz • Bad or missing packets received at the PC are “transmit” SEUs • These SEUs caused lost GbE packets and rare “powerdown” events • 2012 SEU cross section result: s = (4.3 ± 0.3) *10-10 cm2 • About 6 times the 2011 result; consistent with *6 increase in link duty cycle • Correcting for real CSC transmitter duty cycle: s = 6.7 *10-8 cm2 per link • We expect to see ~10 SEU per link per day during HL-LHC running • This is a low rate of single bit errors: just 1 error per 20 trillion bits on each link • Finisar Optical Transceiver ftlf8524e2gnl: Receive side • New test in 2012, load the BRAMs with data and read them back • Errors read back twice the same way are “receive” SEUs • These SEUs only caused transient bit errors • 2012 SEU cross section: s = (7.5 ± 0.1) *10-9 cm2 per link • We expect to see ~1 SEUs per link per day • *Three Finisars tested: one died at 33 krad, another at 41 krad • The third chip survived with 30 krad • TI Bus-Exchange Level-Shifter: sn74cb3t16212 • Still no SEU observed,2011+2012 result: s90% < 4.0 *10-12 cm2

  21. 2012 SEU Test Results • GTX Transceiver (55% are used in the FPGA) • Random PRBS data patterns @3.2 Gbps on each of eight links • These SEUs only caused transient bit errors in the data • 2012 GTX SEU cross section result: s = (10 ± 0.8) *10-10 cm2 • Similar to 2011 result, ~30% larger, consistent with additional active links • HL-LHC: still expect ~3 SEU/year/link • Block RAM (74% are used) • Use built-in Xilinx ECC feature to protect data integrity • Software controlled the writes and reads for BRAM memory tests • No errors were detected in the BRAM contents: mitigation at work • 2012 BRAM SEU cross section result: s90% < 8.2 *10-10 cm2 • CLB (43% are used) • Most of the logic is a shift register system with voting • Some of it was unvoted logic for control and monitoring • This reduced the “mitigation” effect of the voting • 2012 CLB SEU cross section result: s = (6.0 ± 0.5) *10-9 cm2 • Much smaller than 2011 SEU result, factor of 6 better: mitigation at work • With this we expect ~1 CLB SEU per FPGA per day at HL-LHC

  22. TAMU Production Test Stand • Standard P. Crate • TMB w/Mezz 2012 • Snap12 fiber linked to transmitter board on the bench • Custom loopback boards for DMB and ALCT/RPC tests • Special firmware • Tests controlled via VME and CCB w/customized test suite • Big software effort

  23. Mezzanine Production & Testing • Equipment and procedures for production testing • TMB Mezzanine test stand with full capability at TAMU • CFEB emulator board with support for 5 cables • Fiber link tester for Snap12 link inputs • Will use a prototype board to transmit PRBS data to production boards • Crate tests with loopback boards (CCB, DMB, ALCT and RPC path tests) • VME and MPC tests performed with standard EmuLib tools • Software and automation • Developing a custom GUI to control tests and log all results • Vadim and students are doing this work • Final Mezzanine production begins early-2013 • Need 72 boards for ME1/1 operation • Fabrication & assembly should be completed ~April • Expect to test 10 boards per week at TAMU

  24. TMB Mezz Installation in UXC • Installation in Peripheral Crates is (relatively) quick & easy • No crane, scaffolding or cherry picker required • Replace old TMB mezzanines with the new one • Plugs into socket on TMB • Must replace TMB front panels (two screws) • New panel will allow for DCFEB fiber connector • TBD, exactly where to place it on TMB front panel • Three options… I do have a favorite • Could be installed one crate at a time, easily ~3 per day • Then plug in fibers and update the TMB firmware

  25. TMB Front Panel Modification • A fiber adapter must be added to the TMB front panel, but where? • Nearly enough space here, ~2mm more

  26. TMB Front Panel Plan • We can change the 2-row right-angle LED header to a single row header, and use 3mm LEDs instead of 5mm • Seems trivial, but the manual wiring is fairly intricate… • We can keep all TMB connectors and the 8 LEDs • Just the LED labels have to move

  27. Conclusion • TMB Mezzanine development coming to a close • We have the final design and a production plan for new TMB mezzanine boards • We have found satisfactory COTS parts to meet all our design requirements • Prototypes have been built & tested Good results from radiation & performance tests • Development work still needed in SEU mitigation firmware • Preproduction run is in progress • We need 4 more boards for various worldwide test sites next year • Final CSC ME1/1 Electronics production begins soon • Need 72 each for new TMB, plus some spares • Start producing these early in 2013 • Installation in CMS starting summer 2013

  28. Extra Slides

  29. SEU Testing of COTS Components (1) • Testing performed at Texas A&M Cyclotron • 55 MeV protons with uniform flux, collimated to 1.5” diam • Maximum proton flux ~3 *107 cm-2s-1 • 45 to 90 minute runs on each target device, 5-10 kRad • Two samples tested for each COTS component • Reflex Photonics Snap12 Receiver: r12-c01001 • PRBG data transfers @3.2 gbps on each of six links • s = (8.18 ± 0.34) *10-9 cm2 • Also tested to ~30 krad TID at TAMU reactor: no problems • Reflex Photonics Snap12 Transmitter: t12-c01001 • Tested for use in DMB upgrade • PRBG data transfers @3.2 gbps on six links • s = (7.31 ± 2.44) *10-11 cm2 • Finisar Optical Transceiver: ftlf8524e2gnl • Tested for use in CFEB upgrade • randomized GbE data packets to PC • s = (1.02 ± 0.27) *10-10 cm2

  30. SEU Testing of COTS Components (2) • Xilinx Virtex-6 FPGA: xc6vlx195t-2ffg1156ces • GTX Transceiver (55% used) • PRBG data transfers @3.2 gbps • s = (7.55 ± .79) *10-10 cm2 • Block RAM (74% used) • 4 kB BRAM readout to PC • s = (5.69 ± .58) *10-8 cm2 • CLB (38% used): • 4 kB CLB-RAM readout to PC • s = (3.71 ± .47) *10-8 cm2 • TI Bus-Exchange Level-Shifter: sn74cb3t16212 • PRBG data transfers @15 MHz • No SEU observed, s90% < 1.73 *10-11 cm2 • Additional testing performed recently • UC Davis, 64 MeV proton beam • Using higher-rate beam, all chips survived 30 kRad dose

More Related