Very Forward Muon Trigger and Data Acquisition Electronics for

CMS: Design and Radiation Testing

21 Sept 2012

Jason GilmoreVadim Khotilovich

Alexei SafonovJoe Haley

TWEPP 2012 2

CMS Endcap Muon System

h = 2.4

h = 0.8

Focus on the innermost Cathode Strip Chambers: ME1/1 CSCs

J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 3

Overview of the CSC System

J. Gilmore

VME

ME1/1, High-Eta

ME1/1

TWEPP 2012 4

Overview of the CSC System

J. Gilmore

VME

ME1/1, High-Eta

ME1/1

New: Increase to 7 CFEBs, all with fiber links

TWEPP 2012

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 5J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 6

Snap 12 FiberReceiver

- fibers from 7 DCFEBs

Snap 12 FiberTransmitter

socket(used only on test boards)

Signal-level translators 3.3 V to 2.5 V

Virtex 6 FPGA + XF128 PROM QPLL

Dimensions: 7.5” wide by 5.9” high11.1 mm clearance from TMB main board

CSC TMB Mezzanine 2012

J. Gilmore

Finisar Transceiver, only on test boards

TWEPP 2012

TMB Mezzanine Location

7J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 8

Radiation Studies for New CSC Boards• Will the new components survive the expected exposure in the CMS

Endcap at HL-LHC?– Not just CSC trigger boards, but also for the front-end boards

DCFEBs and ODMB, as well as new TMB mezzanine Expected 1 MeV neutron fluence: 3 *1012 n/cm2 over 10-years

9 krad dose, do tests up to ~30 krad level for 3-times safety factor

• Will the Single Event Upset rates be unacceptably high?– FPGAs, fiber links, etc. used in front-end boards

Expected 20 MeV neutron fluence: 2.7 *1011 n/cm2 over 10-years Measure SEU cross sections for individual design elements

• Initial radiation testing was done in 2011– Digital components were tested with 55 MeV protons

Performed at the Texas A&M University Cyclotron facility

– Other components tested with ~1 MeV neutrons At Texas A&M University Nuclear Science Center reactor

A series of 5 exposures to test 40 different components

– Results to be published soon, paper accepted by NIMA • Additional 2012 tests completed recently at UC DavisJ. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012

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 HL-LHC year dose (10 krad)– Second exposure adds ~20 HL-LHC years, total of 30 year dose (30 krad)– Regulator performance tested before and after each exposure

Regulators were unpowered during exposure

• Some 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

• More parts were tested later, all are summarized in following slides…

9J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 10

Summary of All Reactor Tests (1)Part/Chip Name Chip Type

10 krad Exposure Pass/Fail

30 krad Exposure

ResultComments

Maxim 8557ETE Voltage Regulator Pass Fail5 out of 6 dieat 30 krads

MIC69502WR Voltage Regulator Pass Pass  MIC49500WU Voltage Regulator Pass Pass  National Semi LP38501ATJ-ADJCT-ND Voltage Regulator Pass Pass  National Semi LP38853S-ADJ-ND Voltage Regulator Pass Pass  Sharp PQ05VY053ZZH Voltage Regulator Pass Fail Fails to regulateSharp PQ035ZN1HZPH Voltage Regulator 50% Pass Fail Fails to regulateSharp PQ070XZ02ZPH Voltage Regulator Fail Fail Fails to regulateTI TPS740901KTWR Voltage Regulator Pass Pass  TI TPS75601KTT Voltage Regulator Fail Fail Fails to regulateTI TPS75901 Voltage Regulator Fail Fail Fails to regulateST Micro 1N5819 diode Pass Pass  ON Semi 1N5819 diode Pass Pass  2N7000 FET transistor N/A Pass  

AD8028ARHigh Speed, Rail-to-Rail Input/Output Amplifiers N/A Pass  

ADM812 Voltage Monitor N/A Pass  

LM41211M5-1.2Precision Micropower Low Dropout Voltage Reference N/A Pass  

LM4121AIM5-ADJPrecision Micropower Low Dropout Voltage Reference N/A Pass  

J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 11

Summary of All Reactor Tests (2)Part/Chip Name Chip Type

10 krad Exposure Pass/Fail

30 krad Exposure

ResultComments

LM1C1Z N/A Pass  

MAX680CSA +5V to ±10V Voltage Converter N/A Pass  

MAX664CSADual Mode 5V/Programmable Micropower Voltage Regulator N/A Fail Dead

MAX4372 High-Side Current-Sense Amplifier N/A Pass  

MIC35302 High-Side Current-Sense Amplifier N/A Fail Dead

MIC37302 High-Side Current-Sense Amplifier N/A Fail Dead

MM3Z4V7C Zener Diode N/A Pass  

MM3Z5V1B Zener Diode N/A Pass  

PQ7DV10 Variable Output 10A Voltage Regulator N/A Pass  

TPS7A7001 Very Low Dropout, 2A Regulator N/A Fail Fails to regulate

J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 12

Summary of All Reactor Tests (3)Part/Chip Name Chip Type

10 krad Exposure Pass/Fail

30 krad Exposure

ResultComments

SN74LVC2T45Two-bit Dual-supply

Tri-statable Bus Transceiver N/A Pass

ADM660AR CMOS Switched-Capacitor Voltage Converter N/A Pass  

ADM8828 Switched-Capacitor Voltage Inverter N/A Pass  

ICL7660S-BAZ Switched-Capacitor Voltage Converter N/A Fail Dead

LTC1044CS8 100mA CMOS Voltage Converter N/A Pass  

MAX1044CSA Switched-Capacitor Voltage Converter N/A Fail Dead

MAX860-UIA "uMAX" Switched-Capacitor Voltage Converter N/A Pass  

MAX861-ISA Switched-Capacitor Voltage Converter N/A Pass  

TC1044SCOA Charge Pump DC-TO-DC Voltage Converter N/A Pass  

TC962COEHigh Current Charge

Pump DC-to-DC Converter N/A Pass  

J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012

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 in these tests

• Two samples tested for each COTS component– Reflex Photonics 3.5 Gbps Snap12 Receiver: model r12-c01001

Random PRBG data patterns @3.2 Gbps on each of six links FPGA drives data to Transmitter, fiber connects to Receiver and carries data back to FPGA

SEU cross section: s = (8.2 ± 0.3) *10-9 cm2

Also tested to ~30 krad TID at TAMU reactor: no problems– Reflex Photonics Snap12 Transmitter: t12-c01001

3.5 Gbps, tested for use in ODMB upgrade PRBG data patterns @3.2 Gbps on six links s = (7.3 ± 2.4) *10-11 cm2

– Finisar Optical Transceiver: ftlf8524e2gnl 4.25 Gbps, tested for use in DCFEB upgrade Transmit randomized GbE data packets to PC s = (1.0 ± 0.3) *10-10 cm2 13J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012

SEU Testing of COTS Components (2)• Xilinx Virtex-6 FPGA: xc6vlx195t-2ffg1156ces

– No SEU mitigation in firmware for this study Goal is to measure cross section of individual FPGA elements Determine where mitigation is necessary

– GTX Transceiver (55% used) PRBG data transfers @3.2 Gbps s = (7.6 ± 0.8) *10-10 cm2

– Block RAM (74% used) 4 kB BRAM “ROMs” readout to PC s = (5.7 ± 0.6) *10-8 cm2

– CLB (38% used): 4 kB CLB “ROMs” readout to PC s = (3.7 ± 0.5) *10-8 cm2

• TI Bus-Exchange Level-Shifter: sn74cb3t16212– Randomized data patterns sent through all 24 signal paths– No SEU observed, s90% < 1.7 *10-11 cm2

14J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 15

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/linkTypically just affects a single data wordLow 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 cellNeed to investigate mitigation for FPGA BRAMs

– FPGA CLBs: ~6 SEU/day/chipNeed to investigate mitigation for FPGA CLBsJ. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 16

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 boardsSnap12 parts are the only exceptions

New Emcore transmitters were tested in 2012All 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 systemCLBs 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

J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 17

SEU Test Results 2012 (1)• Reflex Photonics 3.5 Gbps Snap12 Receiver: r12-c01001

– 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

– Combined 2011+2012: s = 9.5 *10-10 cm2 per link Similar to 2011 result, about 40% smaller

• 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 combined result, about 30% larger

• 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 concernJ. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 18

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 = 8.2 *10-9 cm2 per link We expect to see ~1 SEU per link per day during HL-LHC running

• 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

J. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012 19

FPGA SEU Results 2012• GTX Transceiver (55% used in FPGA)

– 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 = (10 ± 0.8) *10-10 cm2

Similar to 2011 result, ~50% larger, consistent with additional active links

• Block RAM (74% used in FPGA)– Built-in ECC feature was used to protect data integrity– Software controlled write and read for BRAM memory tests– No errors were detected in the BRAM contents: mitigation at work– 2012 SEU cross section: s90% < 8.2 *10-10 cm2

• CLB (43% used in FPGA)– Most of the logic is a shift register system with voting– Some of it was unvoted logic for control and monitoring

This masks the “mitigation” effect of voting somewhat– 2012 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 dayJ. Gilmore

TWEPP 2012

Conclusion• TMB Mezzanine development coming to a close– We have a design and production plan for new CSC

electronicsThis will maintain a high level of efficiency for the foreseeable future

– Prototypes have been built & testedGood results from radiation tests

– We have found satisfactory COTS parts to meet all our design requirements

– Development work still needed in SEU mitigation firmware

• Final CSC ME1/1 Electronics production begins soon– Need over 500 DCFEBs, plus spares: starts next month– Need 72 each for new TMB and ODMB, plus some spares

Start producing these early in 2013

– Installation in CMS from June-August 201320J. Gilmore