1 / 18

Results from module testing

Results from module testing. E.Chabalina University of Illinois (Chicago) On behalf of the US testing group. Outline Status of test equipment and manpower Testing capacity Recent test results common mode noise other failures Conclusions and outlook. Module Testing Cycle.

gudrun
Download Presentation

Results from module testing

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. Results from module testing E.Chabalina University of Illinois (Chicago) On behalf of the US testing group • Outline • Status of test equipment and manpower • Testing capacity • Recent test results • common mode noise • other failures • Conclusions and outlook

  2. Module Testing Cycle Expected peak production rate – 15 modules per day Gantry makes modules (15) Wire bond (15) Module quick test (15) Thermal cycle modules (15): 2 loads, 8 hours each Storage/Mount on Rods Pinhole tests (15) Rod testing will be covered in P.Tipton’s talk

  3. Fermilab Clean Room lab D Adjacent to production area Hybrid characterization and thermal cycling Single module quick test 2 ARC test stations Clean Room lab C Single module quick test 2 ARC test stations Module burn-in station UCSB Clean Room Adjacent to production area Hybrid characterization and thermal cycling Single module quick test 3 ARC test stations Module burn-in station Test equipment and capacity • Total testing capacity per site: • Hybrid 28/day (4hybrids per load 7 hours) • Module Test ~24/day (1h/module 8h  3stands) • LT Test ~20/day (10 modules per load ½ day thermal cycles)

  4. Fermilab professors – 2 postdocs - 2 graduate students – 1 exchange visitor - 1 engineer - 1 technicians – 3 Trained to run ARC: 2 technicians 1 engineer Trained to run LT: 1 grad student 1 exchange visitor 2 technicians UCSB professors – 2 postdocs - 3 graduate students - 2 electrical engineers - 1 mechanical engineers – 2 undergraduate students – 3 Trained to run ARC: ? ? Trained to run LT: ? 2 Manpower

  5. Hybrid testing Thermal cycle/pulsing Module testing LED systems Pinhole/Open Tests DEPP HV supply Automated IV curves 3 Module test stands at UCSB 2 TOB 1 TEC 4 Module test stands at Fermilab ARCS Based Test Stands ARCS - APV Readout Controller Software Purpose - Fast testing of hybrids and modules ARC FE And adaptor card DEPP LED System ARC Controllers LED Controller

  6. Module testing has matured greatly A standard set of tests was defined Fault finding algorithms are now tuned to maximize fault finding and fault type identification, while minimizing false bad channel flagging Testing procedures are now almost automated Wo to automate testing fault finding  module grading  database entry underway 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 All test stands are cross calibrated to identify the same faults Faults identified: sensor-sensor opens; sensor-PA opens; mid-sensor opens; pinholes; noisy channels. Module Testing with ARCS

  7. Fault Finding Using ARCS Noise Measurement Pulse Height Measurement (with Calibration Pulse) Opens Noisy Shorts 1 sensor open Pinhole 2 sensor open Pinholes Bad Channel Flags Bad Channel Flags

  8. 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) • Same structure of root output as on ARCS • Similar analysis macro is applied to LT data for fault finding

  9. Recent Module Production • Goals • To establish new peak production capacity (15 modules/day) • Determine if testing capabilities sufficient • Build as many modules as possible using new ST sensors as agreed upon in December • Use sensor grading scheme to find out if subclass of perfect sensors exists (A, A+, A++) • Complete set of module tests made • ARCS quick test • Module thermal cycle (Vienna Box) • 1 thermal cycle for each module (~710 hours) • LED test • Results: USCB – 150, Fermilab – 102 • Easily met testing capacity needs • Extremely low rate of introduced failures seen • CMN modules occurred at same rates as previous builds using re-probed sensors • Did not appear to depend on production period or sensor grading

  10. 117 modules tested so far Failure rates/sources (excluding CMN modules) 0.39% Bad channels on average 0.26% Known bad sensor channels 0.13% Unmarked bad sensor channels 0.004% open hybrid-APV bonds 0.001% module bonding 0.002% testing errors Less than 0.01% bad channels introduced during assembly/bonding/testing Module Grading 5 Grade B All due to sensor faults 7 Grade A/F 6 CMN modules 1 after thermal cycle 1 module fails to operate at -20 C Tested in 3 different Vienna box slots 2 Grade C/F 12 mid-sensor opens in aluminum strips (lithographic error) 1 CMN module UCSB Module Quality/Grading

  11. FNAL Module Quality/Grading

  12. UCSB: 101 modules thermal cycled One module does not function at -20 C Tested in 3 different cold box slots Hybrid bonded and thermal-cycled at UCSB without seeing this effect One module developed CMN Prior to thermal cycling, the channel had 10 ADC noise Now consistently has CMN One module have a single APV channel burn-out Multiple noisy channels (2-5 ADC) appeared and disappeared after cycling Fermilab: Thermal Cycling Results

  13. CMN modules and sensor grading • Sensors graded using Vienna rules • All sensors were re-probed prior to assembly • Worst sensor grading out of two measurements used • Sensors sub-divided into three time periods • Prior to Week 39, 2002 (Pre-production) • Week 39, 2002-Week 12, 2003 (Production improvements being implemented) • Week 13, 2003-now (Final Production) • 7 Common mode modules found (6% of production) • Same rate as seen previously with re-probed sensors • 1 after thermal cycling • No statistically significant difference rate in CMN modules for the different sensor grading

  14. New CMN Module IV Curves After Thermal Cycle

  15. CMN Module Bias Current A large fraction (7/23) of CMN noise modules show a less than 5 mA current increase relative to the sensor QTC expectations! 4 of the modules built with re-probed bad sensors with >10 mA increase in bias current

  16. Module Time Degradation- Module 689 • After 3 months on shelf, module retested • Second chip now has a high noise channel which causes common mode noise • Channel previously only had a slightly higher noise (0.3 ADC)

  17. Module Time Degradation-705 • After assembly module was tested (09/08) on ARCS at 400 V and graded “B” (6 faulty channels). No problems observe. • After sitting on shelf for more than 3 months, module re-tested. A new pinhole is found • After LT, one chip shows CMN

  18. Conclusions • Testing infrastructure is ready for the large scale module production • Testing facilities have trained personal and with sufficient experience • 252 TOB modules were produced and fully tested in US in 2004 • Ability to test at peak production rate of 15/day demonstrated for ~2 week period • Modules have excellent quality BUT CMN modules are still being produced at the ~5% rate!!!!

More Related