Joint Atlas CMS SLHC Optoelectronics Working Group Francois Vasey on behalf of WG

1. Joint Atlas CMS SLHC Optoelectronics Working GroupFrancois Vasey on behalf of WG Working Group History and Status Results Two (not so common) development projects Conclusions francois.vasey@cern.ch

2. Joint WG started in 200523 June 2006: Proposal for a different operating mode • Move from reporting to collaborating mode • Identify the areas of expertise of collaborators • Collaborate in smaller subgroups, organize topical meetings • Prepare common R&D proposals • Report at bi-yearly plenary meetings francois.vasey@cern.ch

3. 27 Sep 2006, LECC06 Valencia: Working Group Identity Revealed francois.vasey@cern.ch

4. 27 Sep 2006 , LECC06 Valencia: Interpretation of Survey Results • 13 institutes, 23 FTE • 3 institutes above 3 FTE: SMU, CERN, IRES • 2 development projects announced: • Link on chip SOS (SMU, ongoing) • Versatile bidirectional link (CERN, proposal) • 10 institutes below 3 FTE (0.8 average) • Mostly involved in testing • Core activity: ex-ATLAS and CERN • Optoelectronics developments and testing • Periphery: ex-CMS • Hybrids, Backends, system modeling • No system level work francois.vasey@cern.ch

5. 27 Sep 2006 , LECC06 Valencia: Discussion • concentrate on a few common projects only • Work in small subgroups • Work in collaborative mode with convergence dates • Identify sub-projects of general interest before end 2006 • Did not agree on common link development francois.vasey@cern.ch

6. Dec 06: 3 Themes for joint projects • Group a- Lessons learned and to be learned from LHC. • K.K. Gan (Ohio) • F. Vasey (CERN) • T. Weidberg (Oxford) • Group b- Radiation hardness and reliability of optoelectronic components for SLHC. • J.M. Brom (Strasbourg) • K. Gill (CERN) • C. Issever (Oxford) plus ATLAS institutes participating to SLHC radiation test programme francois.vasey@cern.ch

7. Group c- Common optical link reference test bench. • J-M Brom (In2P3 Strasbourg) • B. Checcucci (INFN Perugia) • J. Coughlan (RAL) • K.K Gan (UofOhio) • C. Hill (Bristol) • T. Romanteau (In2P3 Polytechnique) • R. Russack (UofMinnesota), D. Baden (UofMaryland) • J. Ye (SouthernMethodistUniversity) francois.vasey@cern.ch

8. K.K Gan F. Vasey T. Weinberg Cost Material Personnel Quality Today Long term monitoring Technology Components Architectures Joint Atlas CMS SLHC Optoelectronics Working GroupWorking Group A: Lessons Learned francois.vasey@cern.ch

9. Cost in CHF, material francois.vasey@cern.ch

10. Cost: lessons learned • All optical links ended up being expensive • ~ 300 CHF/link, production cost • 25%-30% for cables and connectors (more for Atlas Pixels) • 70%-75% for actives + hybrid/flex • Plus 10% - 30% development cost • Overproduction (included in cost) • Covers assembly yield, test systems and prototypes, QA testing, installation yield, unforeseen problems • Up to 130% - 140% * needed quantity • Spares down to % level • Maximize bandwidth usage, limit number of variants, foresee overproduction • Do not allow cost estimates to drive technology choices. francois.vasey@cern.ch

11. Cost in MY, personnel (large uncertainty) francois.vasey@cern.ch

12. Cost: lessons learned (2) • Over 180 MY of effort • R&D:Prod:Install 45%:45%:10% • 11 years • Not included in ATLAS SCT and CMS TK project cost • Effort per link seems to stabilize above 10k pcs • Very few points, large uncertainty • Share resources for systems < 10k links • 10k links ~ 30 MY • Institute in charge should have more than 3 FTEs during 10 years francois.vasey@cern.ch

13. Quality (19 March 2007) francois.vasey@cern.ch

14. Lessons learned: Quality • System • Avoid use of single fibres and pigtails on detector • Do not allow excessive fibre-slack without corresponding management scheme. • Use ruggedized ribbon/fiber only. • Avoid simplified and/or compact connectors which are fragile and difficult to dismount and clean. • Always use balanced codes • Separate front-end and opto-modules (i.e. with TP) francois.vasey@cern.ch

15. Lessons learned: Quality • QA • Develop and distribute fibre-test tools which allow on-line channel quality testing, providing immediate feedback during construction. • Ensure QA is for identical conditions to final system • Test system with all final production components before launching production • Do more longer term testing • Improve traceability of production lots • Respect ESD precautions • Excellent overall quality • Built in redundancy helps mitigate failures • Do not relax QA • Do not compromise ruggedness francois.vasey@cern.ch

16. WGa: Lessons learned and to be learned conclusions • Excellent progress • Technical • Social • Quality to be regularly reviewed • System performance to be monitored • Technology lessons still to be written • Full document ready for TWEPP07 Prague? • Joint ATLAS CMS note • Results are immediately useful • ATLAS and CMS not vastly different, with complementary experience. francois.vasey@cern.ch

17. J.M. Brom (Strasbourg) K. Gill (CERN) C. Issever (Oxford) plus ATLAS institutes participating to SLHC radiation test programme Define irradiation test Evaluate devices thoroughly How many? Selection criteria? Test parameters? Annealing?  Pass/Fail criteria ? Survey radiation sources Which set of beam types and energies ? Ageing tests? Working Group B: Radiation Hardness francois.vasey@cern.ch

18. Radiation hardness • How do we manage all this work with so few people? • Define a minimal-sufficient set of tests required • Define and agree on common protocoles and procedures • select one or a limited number of baseline system options and then concentrate on testing these components • Attempt to share the load and the results • Next subgroup meeting to be called by C. Issever • In the meantime, 5 independent irradiation tests planned francois.vasey@cern.ch

19. J-M Brom (In2P3 Strasbourg) B. Checcucci (INFN Perugia) J. Coughlan (RAL) K.K. Gan (UofOhio) C. Hill (Bristol) T. Romanteau (In2P3 Polytechnique) R. Russack (UofMinnesota), D. Baden (UofMaryland) J. Ye (SouthernMethodistUniversity) Define Required performance Evaluation criteria Test procedures Test setup Support requirements Working Group C: Common Reference bench francois.vasey@cern.ch

20. serializer De-serializer TP1 data data control TP2 TP3 control clk clk • Next subgroup meeting to be called by J. Ye • How many independent setups built in the meantime? DES SER francois.vasey@cern.ch

21. Two development projects francois.vasey@cern.ch

22. Silicon-On-Sapphire (SOS) 0.25 m Technology EvaluationJ. Ye et al., SMU • Peregrine 0.25 m SOS has been evaluated and is found to be suitable for rad-hard ASIC development for LHC upgrade. No special layout technique (ELT, guard ring) is needed. • Technology Advantages: • Low power, low cross talk, good for mixed signal ASIC designs. • Economical for small to medium scale ASIC development. A multi-project run of 3×3 mm2 for 100+ chips cost ~$35k. • TID on transistors with gamma (Co-60): • With a floating substrate and up to 4 Mrad, leakage current increase is observed but saturates after ~ 100 krad. This increase anneals back at room temperature in a few weeks. • With a grounded substrate during irradiation, there is no measurable leakage current and threshold voltage change in both NMOS and PMOS. • The mechanism of the grounded substrate is under study. • SEE using shift registers with 230 MeV proton: • No SEE was observed with flux < 1×109 proton/cm2/sec. • All shift registers function error free after a total fluence of 1.9×1013 proton/cm2 and ionizing dose of 106 Mrad (Si).

23. Link-On-Chip (LOC) 1st PrototypeJ. Ye et al., SMU • Status: • A 2.5 Gbps LOC1 prototype chip has been designed and submitted for fabrication. Chips will be back to SMU for tests and evaluations in mid May. • If the tests (in-lab and irradiation) for LOC1 are successful, LOC2, which is aimed at a complete serializer chip of 2.5 to 3.125 Gbps data rate, will be designed and submitted in Spring to Summer of 2008. • Fiber attachment schemes will be studied after the functional tests of LOC1. LOC1

24. GOL Test up to 100 MradJ. Ye et al., SMU • Test with 230 MeV proton beam • TID: survived 106 Mrad (Si) without current increase. Chip fully functioning during and after irradiation. • SEE: no error when flux < 1×109 proton/cm2/sec. When flux = 5×1011 proton/cm2/sec, error cross section is measured to be 1.1×10-13 error·cm2/proton (loss of link) and 1.1×10-14 error·cm2/proton (bit error). • Jitter: Complies with the modified (1.6Gbps vs 1.25 Gbps) IEEE Gigabit Ethernet standards.

25. Versatile link project: P2P architectures F. Vasey et al. CERN Downstream Module 1 Front-End Back-End Upstream Module 2 TTC EC TTC EC DAQ Module 3 protocol eTRx oRx oTx eTRx protocol oTx oRx Module 4 Module n

26. Versatile link project: PON architectures F. Vasey et al. CERN Module 1 Module 2 eTRx oRx oTx Module 3 protocol eTRx oRx oTx splitter splitter oTx eTRx protocol protocol eTRx oRx oRx oTx protocol eTRx oRx oTx

27. Versatile link project: the best of both worlds? F. Vasey et al. CERN protocol eTRx oRx oRx TTC FPGA oTx splitter oTx protocol eTRx oRx oTx DAQ FPGA oRx protocol eTRx oRx oRx oRx oTx oRx protocol eTRx oRx In detector oTx

28. Building blocks eTRx Private protocol FPGA implementation ld GBT tia oRx oRx splitter Versatile Link oRx oTx oRx oRx oRx oTx

29. Conclusion • Joint ATLAS CMS SLHC Optoelectronics WG exists and is well alive • 3 subgroups defined • WGa is already producing useful results • WGb and WGc are on the right track, but still need to get organized to reach cruising speed. • More results at TWEPP07 • Independent projects and tests are running in parallel to common effort. • Keep diversity in common test framework francois.vasey@cern.ch