TEC Production in the US

1. TEC Production in the US J. Incandela Level 2 Manager US CMS Silicon Tracker Project October 8, 2003

2. Outline • Overview of US CMS Silicon • Hybrid processing • Robotic (gantry) module assembly • Wirebonding • Electronic Testing Cycle: • Hybrids  Modules  Rods • Recent production rates • Current capacities of US Production lines • Requirements and Recommendations for assisting TEC module production • The possibility to assist FNAL while providing a great opportunity for Run 2b physicists to join and contribute to the CMS experiment

3. Hybrids New UCSB Task: Wirebond &Test: Quick Test then Wirebond pa’s Thermal cycle with continuous ARC test and pitch adapter pulsing Adds 3.3 Million bond wires Ship hybrids to FNAL Until recently all hybrids were processed at CERN Frames and sensors Received by FNAL Sample sensor checks at Rochester Ship frames and sensors to UCSB TOB Module production: (FNAL & UCSB) Gantry fabrication of 12+ modules per day per site (average=9 at peak) Overnight cure Cross-check on OGP Wirebond 12+ modules/day/site Recent significant improvements Fast test with ARC/LED Simple repairs Overnight temperature-cycling with readout in “Vienna box” Full characterization with ARC/LED Diagnostics and Repairs if Necessary Store for installation in rods US Module Production Plan

4. Hybrid Bonding/Testing • Hybrid Task • Wirebond PA to APV • with pull-testing and other QA to assure specs are met • Thermal cycle (20C to –20C) and pulse test (using capacitively-coupled antenna) for opens/shorts • This is the first serious stress test of the hybrid • UCSB 4-hybrid test stand: • Based upon CERN design. • Fairly complicated, took a decent effort to design and build • UCSB to wirebond and test ALL TOB hybrids • TEC 4-hybrid stand • UCSB has already begun work to build a second stand for use at FNAL

5. Gantry Module Production • Pick and Place Robot • Initially developed at CERN • similar system at FNAL has been used to build 50+ modules within specs and without serious difficulties • UCSB made significant revisions for robustness and ease of maintenance • 50+ modules so far • Commissioned 3 r-phi plates this summer: • ALL worked “right out of the box”: • modules to original tight specs • First stereo module plate at UCSB shown at left

6. Adding a new module type: Example of UCSB Stereo TOB module development • UCSB Stereo Timeline • End of July: Began designing • August: Continue design work with interruptions to produce >30 r-phi modules and to commission of 3 new r-phi plates • September: Complete all machining and assemble plates. Perform dry (glue-less) assembly runs. Build first stereo module. • October 1st thru 3rd: Build 2 more stereo modules and 3 r-phi modules.

7. First stereo TOB modules • Plot above is for the first 3 stereo and an additional 3 r-phi modules built at end of September and in 1st week of October: • Strip to strip alignment well within CMS specifications (specifications are in fact the full scale of plot shown above). • Result for strip-to-strip alignment has an rms of 3.2 mm in this plot !! • UCSB engineers are confident that the system works well • It is easily adapted to new modules (TEC R6) quickly and at almost no cost (discussed more below)

8. More results • Results for previous 52 modules at UCSB • 5 different plates, as they were being commissioned • Prior to an array of refinements, nevertheless, results are great • RMS 7 mm

9. Wire bonding • 3rd K&S 8090 at FNAL • Operational and has been used for subsequent FNAL modules. • UCSB • Recently learned to fully automate bonding of entire TOB module using K&S pattern recognition: • Can bond a full TOB module in under 5 minutes!

10. The TOB Electronic Testing Cycle Wire bond Thermal cycle and pulse-test hybrids Wire bond Quick test hybrids on ARC Gantry makes modules. Final pinhole test on ARC 24 hour Thermal cycling Modules test on ARC Assemble rods from modules Rods shipped to CERN Rod burn-in

11. US Module Production Rate • 103 TOB modules produced since April • 14 April • 8 May • 17 June • 24 July • 40 August

12. US Production in August • What was done: • FNAL: • 17 modules produced in several consecutive days using 1 or 2 plates per day (with 2 modules per plate). • UCSB: • 19 modules in 6 days followed by • 3 plates in one day with 3 modules each plate • (This is our expected average peak rate at each site.) • Completed the 3rd plate by ~2:30 pm • All modules wirebonded & tested the next day Conclusion: No difficulty doing 4 plates in one normal day. Could easily do more with slightly overlapping technician shifts.

13. Current US Capacity • FNAL: ~8 modules per day (with MUX received this week) • Limitation: • memory problem in gantry controller- 3rd position unused • Once this is fixed could do 12 modules per day • UCSB: • 12 r-phi modules per day or 8 stereo • Memory problem in gantry controller affects stereo only • Addressing the 3rd position issue: • We’re confident we can solve it rapidly – Vendor is assisting • Lots of strong clues…

14. TEC Production in US • The focus (underlying assumptions) • Minimize: cost, technical risk, schedule risk • US CMS contingency is important to the CMS experiment and should be used very carefully • Every effort should be made to help CMS meet its schedule • Maximize: quality, cohesion and coordination of effort • What is vital to success along these lines: • No reduction of quality assurance • All levels of electronic testing as they stand in the TOB project are necessary for TEC as well • Silicon, Hybrids, and all other components are produced over long periods and in batches. Every batch is different. It is extremely important that all testing remain in force, and that vigilant quality control be sustained. The US has caught many problems, saving CMS a lot of bigger problems down the road!

15. TEC Production in US (2) • An effort that is well integrated into the existing US project • The new effort needs the knowledge and experience, as well as the proven leadership of the existing project. • There is simply no time now to disrupt the existing project with a new and separate project and the conflicts that this would create.

16. Some background data • TEC R6 modules • These are very similar to our TOB modules. We have been asked to start with these. We have reviewed them and see no serious challenges to getting up to production quickly. (see next slides) • Commissioning new plates vs. new gantries • We can commission new TEC plates quickly, as was done for TOB stereo modules. Commissioning a new gantry takes a bit longer. (see next slides) • We have found that switching between one module type and another similar type in production on the gantry is no more difficult than switching plates for the same module type. • Thus one gantry can easily handle production of multiple module types

17. TOB Module

18. TEC R9

19. Overlay of TEC/TOB • The footprint is very similar • Most tooling can be common! • Differences ? • Solution to reinforcement problem for bond breakage during shipment is different than for TOB • This was driven by the fact that the modules were expected to be wirebonded in a different location • This is not true for US centers • We would propose to adopt the UCSB reinforcement method and eliminate the ceramic pieces between the sensors and sensor to hybrid support

20. Adding TEC capacity: 1st thoughts • Balanced approach: minimum perturbation • UCSB develops TEC assembly plate for gantry and pushes through to first TEC R6 module produced asap • FNAL either does their own TEC assembly plate or if their setup is having trouble, UCSB engineers help FNAL to convert to the simpler and more robust UCSB setup • Leverages our experience and expertise • Stays within CMS project guidelines • Negligible cost, and can be done extremely quickly • Both projects now have the ability to build both TOB and TEC modules • With the addition of a few technicians per site, to enable a slightly expanded workday (if necessary) we could have the capacity to build 15 modules per day per site: e.g. 9 TOB + 6 TEC modules very quickly! • Both sites have adequate testing capacity but module burn-in would probably be reduced to 12 hours from 24 (not really a problem)

21. Time to Gantry production of TEC A non-disruptive schedule An aggressive schedule

22. TEC (2) • Approximate annual production capacity (assuming 15% downtime): 4000 TOB, 2700 TEC • Approximate labor cost to CMS would be modest: • Cost for 3 Technicians at UCSB: 110k$ per year • Cost for 3 Technicians at FNAL: 240k$ per year • Note that labor would not need to be increased immediately. We would ramp up as need is foreseen. • Total labor cost could be as low as 350k$ per year • TEC Gantry • Plate costs (if done at UCSB) ~20k$ • Tooling (mostly can use existing TOB) ~ 20k$ • Carrier plates, wirebond fixtures, etc ~ 20k$ • Transportation of modules to CERN: ~60k$ (?) • Total Estimated cost for 18 months, taking into account ramping of labor as needed: of order ~750k$ • Total production 5500 TOB and 4000 TEC

23. TEC(3) • Advantages of this scenario • Immediate, scalable, and flexible • We have already started on the TEC gantry plate design at UCSB, and we estimate a very short time to start of TEC module production • If TOB parts are limited and TEC are plentiful at some time for whatever reason, both sites can stay in production with TEC (or vice versa). • Could be easily extended to other module types if necessary • Does not require commissioning of a whole new production line to get to very substantial TEC production capacity! • Leverages existing high level of experience in the USA • Keeps cost at a reasonable level • If one production site goes down, the flow of TEC modules and TOB rods to CERN can continue • even at high rates by going to overtime or Saturday operation until the other site is up again for instance..

24. TEC (4) • Possible additions and other considerations • Could purchase a new Aerotech gantry which has 6-8 week lead time and price of ~65k$ to setup at one site as backup/additional capacity ! • Would do this as a joint effort of UCSB and FNAL engineers and gantry experts (coordinated by Dave Hale and Mike Hrycyk). • Configure this gantry over time while ramping both TEC and TOB module production on the original gantries • Decouples immediate startup of TEC module production from gantry setup task! • We already have most of the hardware for a third gantry setup • To fully operate an additional gantry and for additional wirebonding the costs would be on the order of ~200k$ per year at UCSB and ~400k$ at FNAL. • Would only need to run this if and when schedule required it! • Note: testing capacity at UCSB is currently 24 per day. FNAL should be similar. Hence there is no current need to replicate these systems!

25. Gantry setup times A non-disruptive schedule An aggressive schedule

26. Other possibilities • The minimum cost scenario: UCSB • UCSB has lowest costs and extremely good technical labor • UCSB has ~800 sq. ft. of unused clean space. • UCSB has 3 FTE engineers available at no cost to CMS • UCSB has substantial university funds available to hire post-docs, and has had no problem obtaining great people (more than 100 applicants for the past 3 posted positions) • All technicians hired for CMS have degrees in physics • UCSB probably has the best gantry technology, and the most depth and experience in testing and test setups • Adding a dedicated TEC production line at UCSB and production of more than 4000 TEC modules there would cost CMS ~$500k (this assumes the need to purchase a gantry and a used K&S wirebonder)

27. Other considerations (2) • Adding a TEC production line at FNAL • This has the advantage of providing Run2b physicists an opportunity to contribute to CMS and to join a great physics program. • This option provides a very reasonable amount of much needed support to SiDet while other projects like BTeV are preparing to come on board

28. Preliminary L2 recommendation • Prepare TEC capacity at both sites • Cost would not be the minimum possible but there are some additional advantages. • The important criteria • We must maintain the current US emphasis on testing and quality assurance! No relaxation of standards can be allowed • We must incorporate this effort in the existing L2 silicon project • Single leadership structure is crucial to balance effort and resources, to control costs, to maintain quality and to distribute experience, and most importantly to meet the schedule!

29. Summary and Conclusions • US CMS can provide immediate support to the TEC community and CERN • Wirebonding and testing of TEC hybrids at FNAL – test stand already being built at UCSB • Production of TEC R6 modules at UCSB expected by January. FNAL could be making TEC modules by Feb/March or sooner.- work is already underway at UCSB • A substantial level of TEC production can be done very quickly and with existing Infrastructure at both sites • This allows us to develop added capacity (an additional gantry) off of the critical path • There is a great opportunity for CMS to bring some additional work to SiDet and enable Run 2b physicists to contribute to and participate in a great experiment!