Slide 1Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing...
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Slide 1Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004 Electrical Testing...
Slide 1Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Electrical Testing at UCSB:Hybrids, Modules, & Rods
Anthony Affolder
On behalf of the UCSB testing group
Slide 2Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Testing personnel at UCSB• Professors
Joe Incandela Claudio Campagnari
• Post-docs Anthony Affolder Patrick Gartung (UC-Riverside) Russell Taylor
• Graduate Students Steve Levy
( now post-doc @ University of Chicago)
Jim Lamb Brad Patterson
(returning this summer)
• Electrical Engineering Support
Sam Burke
• Mechanical Engineering Support
David Hale Dean White
• Undergraduates Derek Barge (B.S. Physics) Chris McGuinness Lance Simms (B.S. Physics)
Joined group since February, 2003
Slide 3Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Testing Facilities
• High Bay (Ground floor) 97 m2
– Approximately ½ for testing Single rod assembly testing Rod burn-in station
– 8 rods at one time
• Clean Room (5th floor Physics) 32 m2
Adjacent to production area Hybrid characterization/thermal
cycling Single module quick test
– 3 test stations Module burn-in station
– 10 modules at one time
Slide 4Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Testing Responsibilities• Hybrid Thermal Cycling
(TOB/TEC) Test after pitch adaptor wire
bonding Build/commission test stands
for FNAL/Mexico 28/day at peak rate
• Sensor IV Re-probing R&D project Will not continue during
production
• Module Quick Test (TOB/TEC R5 & R6)
Test after sensor wire bonding 15/day at peak
• Module Burn-in (TOB/TEC R5 & R6)
½ -1 day “burn-in” 15/day at peak
• Final pinhole test prior to storage/rod assembly
15/day at peak
• Rod Assembly Test Build test stand for FNAL 2/day at peak
• Rod “Burn-in” 3 day “burn-in” of rods 10/week at peak
New responsibilities since February, 2003
Slide 5Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
ARCS Based Test Stands
• Hybrid testing Thermal
cycle/pulsing
• Module testing LED systems
– Pinhole/Open Tests DEPP HV supply
– Automated IV curves
3 Module test stands– 2 TOB
– 1 TEC
DEPP
LED Controller
ARC Controllers
ARCS - APV Readout Controller Software
Purpose - Fast testing of hybrids and modules
LED System
ARC FE And adaptor card
Slide 6Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
DAQ Based Test StandsDAQ 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)
Rod Assembly Rod Burn-in
Slide 7Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Hybrid Testing Cycle
Ship to TEC/FNAL(13)
28 hybrids per day expected rate at peak
Wire bond PA (28)
Assemble into Modules (15) Thermal Cycle Hybrid (28)
Mount/Inspect Hybrids (28)
See L. Simms talk for details on hybrid thermal cycler
Slide 8Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Module Testing Cycle
Wire bond (15) Module quick test (15)
Storage/Mount on Rods Thermal cycle modules (15)Pinhole tests (15)
Gantry makes modules (15)
See J. Lamb’s talk for details of rod testing
Slide 9Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Hybrid, Module and Rod Testing Capacity
• Hybrid Capacity 28/day• Module Test ~24/day• LT Test ~20/day
½ day thermal cycles
• Rods Single rod assembly test stand being commissioned
– More experience with more rods needed– Currently developing grading criteria
With current equipment, we can assemble burn-in stand with a 2 rod capacity
– Limited by custom LV PS– Expect 2 more in the next month
Should meet near-term needs
– Working in collaboration with software developers/University of Rochester to develop/commission hardware and software needed
Slide 10Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Major Accomplishments/Milestones
• Assembled and tested 79 high quality modules
Very low rate of introduced faulty channels
All module types built– First stereo module built/tested at
CMS
– Built/tested TEC R6 modules
• Defined grounding/shielding standards for the entire collaboration
• Wrote fault finding/categorization algorithm used by the entire collaboration
Uniformity/accuracy of testing results improved greatly
• Led in development/commissioning of module burn-in hardware/software (P. Gartung, UC-Riverside)
First fully functional and calibrated system
• Found/solved many unexpected issues with the modules
Hybrid cable breakage Module mechanical fragility Sensor quality control/variability
• Built/commissioned hybrid thermal cycler/pulser
Building 2 additional stands for FNAL/Mexico
• Assembled/tested first US rod
Slide 11Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Faulty Channel Sources• Fault Sources (excluding cable
breaks and CMN) Hybrid-0.012% Sensor (in DB)-0.33% Sensor (not in DB)-0.19%
– Either high noise and/or visible sensor damage
Bonding-0.034%– Mostly due to early pitch-adaptors
(RMT). – No problems seen with production
pitch-adaptors (PLANAR). Testing-0.049%
– Mostly due to an early problem which has been alleviated
• Total faults – 0.63% We introduce only 0.095% bad
channels per modules on average
Fault Sources
01020304050607080
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Number of Faults
Nu
mb
er o
f M
od
ule
s
Sensor Expected
Sensor Unexpected
Bonding
Testing
UCSB Production
0
5
10
15
20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Total number of faults (excluding CMN)
Nu
mb
er
of
Mo
du
les
Grade A Grade B Grade C
Slide 12Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Module Testing Protocol• Module testing has matured greatly with the production of >50
modules A minimum set of tests was defined
– Using ARCS software/hardware Fault finding algorithms are now tuned to maximize fault finding and fault
type identification, while minimizing false bad channel flagging
• 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 Results can be combined for the same module type measured at different
sites in order to further refine testing
• Testing procedures are now almost automated Work to automate testing fault finding module grading database
entry underway– Great collaboration with Aachen (ARCS software/hardware developer)
Slide 13Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Fault Finding Using ARCS (1)
Noisy
1 sensor open
2 sensor open
Pinholes
Bad Channel Flags
Noise Measurement Pulse Height Measurement (Using Calibration Pulse)
Bad Channel Flags
Shorts
Pinhole
Opens
Slide 14Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Fault Finding Using ARCS (2) Pinhole Test (Using LED System)
LED Intensity
Cal
ibra
tion
In
ject
ion
Res
pon
sePinhole
Average Subtracted Peak Time (Calibration Pulse)
1 sensor open
2 sensor open
Pinholes
Channel
Ave
rage
Sub
trac
ted
Pea
k T
ime
(ns)
Bad Channel Flags
Slide 15Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Fault Finding Using ARCS (3) • Test failures are correlated in order to
diagnose fault type Open (1 or 2 sensor) Short Pinhole/Saturated Channel Noisy Channels Mid-sensor opens
• Faults are found >99% with correct fault type identified ~90% of the time
Misidentification is almost always between 1 or 2 sensor opens
Less than .1% of good channel flagged as faulty
As more modules are built, fault finding criteria will be re-tuned to improve performance
Integrated into ARCS software by Aachen
• Database output of module testing is being finalized
Similar tuning of fault finding underway for DAQ-based systems
– Led by Patrick Gartung (UC-Riverside)
Slide 16Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Test Stand Cross-calibration• All ARCS systems have had first
iteration of cross-calibrations• Modules are circulated between
testing centers Multiple examples of common
problems are added to each module
– Shorts (neighbors & next-to-neighbors)
– Opens (sensor-sensor & PA-sensor)
– Pinholes
• With new qualification standards, results nearly identical
Final iteration of cross-calibrations are currently underway
DAQ cross-calibration is forth-coming
Slide 17Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Wien cold box• Wien cold box cycles modules from –20 C to
20 C while reading 10 modules DAQ Based System Modules cycled 1/2-1 day with ~4 cycles per
day.– Current (LV/HV), temperature, and relative
humidity continuously monitored Effort led by P. Gartung (UC-Riverside)
Torino Interlock Box
Inside Wien Cold Box
LV Distribution
Electrometers
Peltier PS
HV Power Supply
VUTRI
PAACB
Multiplexer
Backplane of Wien Cold Box
Slide 18Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Hybrid Problem• Cable brittle at connector solder pads
Differential data output lines break
• Reported by UCSB on Sept. 4 Production was halted that week. Protective stiffener designed and studied by US
and vendor Production re-started Oct. 20
• Current schedule looks good 100 TIB hybrids delivered early Nov. 500 hybrids per week as of mid Dec.
• 4000 hybrids were in production when problem was discovered
1000 throwaways and 3000 retrofits Good collaboration/quick reaction of UCSB
and CERN groups greatly minimized number of damaged parts
Slide 19Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
CMN Problem-Sensors• 16 of 79 modules produced at UCSB exhibit large
common mode noise (one chip only)• All of the 16 modules have a larger bias current than
expected from sensor QTC probing Extremely high noise on 1-4 channels on each module suggests
all the excess current localized to these channels No obvious damage seen on these channels (visual inspection) No indication of problems seen in sensor QTC measurements
• At UCSB, problem always appeared at first test after bonding 1 module at FNAL developed problem during Wien box
module burn-in after a full ARCS module characterization
Slide 20Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
CMN problem vs. voltage
•Once, IV diverges from QTC expectations, noise on channel increases rapidly causing CMN at 20-60 V above the divergence point
•In all cases, there is no indication of noise below the divergence point or unusual leakage currents in the QTC probing
Module 1011
100
1000
10000
100000
0 100 200 300 400
Voltage
Cu
rren
t(n
A)
Sensor 1
Sensor 2
Sensor 1 +2
Module Unbonded
Slide 21Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Are the faults caused by assembly?
Extensive program of sensor re-probing and additional module IV measurement undertaken Sensors probed prior to assembly in modules
– Sensors with >5 A extra current relative to sensor QTC measurement separated from others
Module then assembled and bias bonded to first sensor– IV measured
Bias is bonded to second sensor– IV re-measured
Module is then fully bonded and tested
• During all measurements, environment controlled Temperature between 23-24 C RH <30%
Slide 22Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
IV Correlation with CMN problems• Significant differences from QTC sensor probing have been found
~7% of sensors have current increases >5 A from QTC prior to module assembly
– Roughly consistent with the rate of occurrence of the CMN problem (micro-discharge) observed at various production sites
– The increased current occurs during ramp up during IV probing
• Production Results with IV Pre-Screening Of the 39 modules produced with sensors whose IV curves in the QTC
database matched those obtained in UCSB re-probing, only 2 showed CMN problem (5%)
– 1 module showed increased currents in some tests and regular currents in others so the problem appears to be intermittent
– Another showed CMN problem with only 0.5 A extra bias current Of the 5 modules with sensors whose IV curves in the QTC database with 5
extra A of current from those obtained in UCSB re-probing, 4 had serious CMN problems (80%)
– Rules out hypothesis that problems due to mishandling in US– Indicates any change in IV curve relative to original QTC measured a good
predictor for sensors that will cause this problem
Slide 23Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Increased IV In Re-Probing30210420383228
100
1000
10000
100000
0 100 200 300 400
Voltage (V)
Curre
nt (n
A) Current(DB)Current(probing)
30210414845823
100
1000
10000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage (V)
Curre
nt (nA
) Current(DB)Current(probing)
30210314845402
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
0 100 200 300 400
Current (DB)Current (Probing)
30210415061806
100
1000
10000
100000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage (V)
Curre
nt (n
A) Current(DB)Current(probing)
Slide 24Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Further Activities To Solve CMN Problem
• A world-wide program of sensor re-probing underway to understand the scope of the problem
• A production run of 150 modules each at UCSB and FNAL will start shortly using the most recently produced sensors Study rate of problem, correlations with sensor probing,
and long term behavior of modules
• Began negotiation/production at an alternate sensor vendor Initial delivery of proto-types due by March
Slide 25Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Near-Term Activity• Late January
Assemble/bond/test 150 SS4 TOB modules in a 2 week period Begin bonding/testing ~60 hybrids/week Assemble/test 2 SS4 Rods Assemble and begin commissioning of a 3 Rod burn-in test stand Deliver/commission hybrid thermal cycler at FNAL
• Early February Assembly/bond/test 50 TEC R6 modules
– Confirmation of design/commissioning of testing protocols
• Late February Assembly/bond/test 150 SS6 TOB modules in a 2 week period
• Early March Assembly/bond/test first US TEC R5 R-phi modules Assemble/test 11 Rods (9 SS4, 1 SS6, 1DS)
– Commission/design DS rod assembly tools Finish commissioning of full Rod burn-in test stand
– Assuming power supplies are available
Slide 26Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Conclusions and Future Goals
• Very eventful year with a great deal accomplished!!! Standardization/automation of hybrid/module testing
– Will apply same techniques to rod testing/burn-in Through careful testing, discovered and solved hybrid and
module fragility problems– Will use the same program of testing in TEC R5 and R6 modules
Discovered potentially serious problem with ST sensors– Many studies underway to understand extent/severity of problem– Talks with alternative sensor vendor started
• Next year will be even more exciting Full-scale module production will begin
– Including significant increases in hybrid bonding Building/commissioning of rod assembly/burn-in systems
Slide 27Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ARE BACK-UP
Slide 28Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Man-Hours/ARCS Stand Time
Man-hours Needed ARCS Stand Time Needed
Mount/inspect hybrids ~2 ½ hours N/A
Thermal Cycle Hybrids ~3 hours N/A
Mount Module Cables ~ ½ hours N/A
Bonded Module Test ~2 ½ hours ~5-6 hours
Wien Box Test ~4 hours N/A
Pinhole Test ~2 ½ hours ~2 ½ hours
TOTAL ~14 - 15 hours (2 1/2 techs) ~7 ½ -8 ½ hours (2 stands)
Slide 29Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
Common Mode Subtracted Noise25 ADC
Module #: 869 881 1010 1011 1013 1014 1015 1016 1030 1031 1038 1042
6.5 ADC
Chips with CMN (micro-discharge problem)Common mode subtracted noise in blue
For majority of modules with problems, the CM subtraction is imperfect.7 of 12 have >2.0 ADC noise
3 of 12 have more than twice the usual noise
Off
sc
ale
Off
sc
ale
Slide 30Electrical Testing at UCSB -Anthony AffolderDOE review, January 20, 2004
IV Test Results (UCSB)
• Environmental conditions tightly controlled Temperature 23.1-23.8 C RH < 30% at all times
• Increase as low as 0.5 A has been seen to cause CMN Better results with newer OB2 sensors (2002) 20 newer (2003) OB2 sensor show no increase in bias current
Sensors > 2 A
> 5 A
>10 A
>20 A
>100 A
< -2 A
<-5 A
<-10 A
OB2 (’00-01) 15% 9% 8% 5% 1% 8% 3% 1%
OB1 (’00-01) 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 0%
OB2 (’02) 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0%
OB2 (’03) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Probed Current @ UCSB (400 V) – QTC Measurement (400 V)