!!!!!!! Indico agenda page:! ATLAS Open Executive Board! CERN, 19 July, 2011!! G. Darbo - INFN / Genova!!

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "!!!!!!! Indico agenda page:! ATLAS Open Executive Board! CERN, 19 July, 2011!! G. Darbo - INFN / Genova!!"

Nicholas Parker
6 years ago
Views:

1 Sensor Review o Indico agenda page: ATLAS Open Executive Board CERN, 19 July, 2011 G. Darbo - INFN / Genova Open EB, 19 July 2011

2 The Sensor Decision Process End of 2010 / beginning 2011 IBL speed-up schedule (install in 2013/14 shutdown) Sensor strategy: Shortened down to two technologies: Planar n-in-n (Pixel mature technology, raise operation requirements) and 3D double side (simplified process, but no active edge) Start pre-production with CiS (Planar), CNM and FBK (3D) Complete prototype program with the sensor from the 3 producer: test-beam and irradiation. Set up the ATLAS sensor review and decide. 4-5 July 2011: Review committee has be asked to evaluate: The fulfilling of the requirements (from IBL TDR) Look at performance, system issues, production readiness and schedule from foundries, yield and production quantities, risks and risk mitigation. Give a weighted recommendation based on the information available at the review date. 6 July 2011: Decision by the Extended Pixel (IBL) Institute Board based on the reviewers recommendations. Open EB, 19 July

collection after irradiation dominated by region directly beneath the pixel implant only moderate deterioration expected Several FE-I4 assemblies made

3 Planar Sensor Slim Edge " IBL selected design the Planar n-in-n technology has 200 μm slim edge " Guard rings on p-side are shifted beneath the outermost pixels least possible inactive edge 200µm from pixel to dicing strip ~ µm inactive edge " Less homogeneous electric field, but charge collection after irradiation dominated by region directly beneath the pixel implant only moderate deterioration expected Several FE-I4 assemblies made with different thicknesses (150 & 200µm) and conservative edge (450µm). No IBL design. ~450µm inactive edge 500µm long pixels 250 µm pixels Open EB, 19 July

3D Double Side Sensors " FBK and CMN have similar process FBK full

p-spray for pixel isolation CNM stop etching before reaching

pstop for pixel isolation Expected similar performance in IBL,

" n+ etched and filled from top Same layout and column geometry in

4 3D Double Side Sensors " FBK and CMN have similar process FBK full thru columns stopped by membrane. p-spray for pixel isolation CNM stop etching before reaching opposite end. pstop for pixel isolation Expected similar performance in IBL, although variations in the two processes. " n+ etched and filled from top Same layout and column geometry in both designs ~10µm column diameter FBK full through, CNM column tip 15±7µm from opposite wafer surface. Production schedule requires aggregate production 700nm DRIE stopping membrane G. Darbo INFN / Genova FBK DRIE: Full thru columns Sensor Review p+ etched and filled from bottom CNM DRIE: Almost full thru columns Open EB, 19 July

Modules for Sensor Qualification " Rather large number of sensor tiles produced and assembled for sensor qualification and review: A total of 77 modules bump-bonded and assembled (40 3D & 37 Planar

5 Modules for Sensor Qualification " Rather large number of sensor tiles produced and assembled for sensor qualification and review: A total of 77 modules bump-bonded and assembled (40 3D & 37 Planar n-in-n) Correspond to ~20% of IBL (448/224 single/double chip modules) 19 modules irradiated (most at IBL fluences): 24 MeV protons at Karlsruhe or reactor neutrons at Ljubljana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pen EB, 19 July

6 Sensors & Test beam " Three test beam periods FE-I4 assemblies and UEdet telescope (2 3 µm resolution) February and April at DESY June at CERN " Most of devices ready/prepared for CERN test beam High momentum pions (180 GeV) allows sensor studying with high spatial resolution Original 24 days (20/5-13/6) 11+2 (6/6 17/6, 21-23/6) rescheduled due to fixed target extraction. Very short beam time finally delivered ~100 hours (2.5 days) 56789%:##"(;1/"#%<"'#=*">%'$%"#$%&"'(# "#$%&"'( &"'(%")"*+,-.'*$/01" 2")#3*%"04)313+, <"'#=*">%>"?/0"# E :)+1"%@>"+*""A CD &7B/"1> FG '1073,6: ;3<6=36"6>?%@$A "#$#% &'()*+ &'(,-. '107389% )12*345$6 ;3<6=36"6>?%@$A BCD3<6=39/@$A "#$#% &'()*+ &'(,-. "#$#%()/0 &'()*+ &'(,-. "#"$% "#$%&&'(%')*(+,$%&&'(%')*(+-*./+,$%&&'(%')*(+/*./+ #$%&&'(%')*(+/*./+ Only a small fraction of the planned programs. But considered sufficient by the review panel to evaluate the behavior of the competing technologies. Open EB, 19 July

7 Filter Europe/Zurich English Logged in as Darbo, N. Logout More Speaker: Material: Fares Djama (Centre de Physique de Particules de Marseille (CPPM)-Faculte de) Slides Material IBL Sensor Review chaired by K Tokushuku from Monday 04 July 2011 at 09:00 to Tuesday 05 July 2011 at 17:00 (Europe/Zurich) at CERN ( Room George Charpak (Room F) ) Minutes more information Support martine.desnyder-ivesdal@cern.ch Monday 04 July :00-09:30 09:30-12:30 14:00-16:30 17:00-19:00 Tuesday 05 July :30-10:00 Closed session Material: KT's ATLAS wk presentations slides Presentations from the IBL group 09:30 IBL production/installation schedule 20' 09:50 10:30 10:50 11:50 Speaker: Heinz Pernegger (CERN) Material: Slides Beam Test results 40' Slides schedule Manage Go to day Reports on results from the beam tests at DESY and CERN. It is preferable to have a single talk which reports on the both sensor types. Speaker: Philippe Jean-Paul Grenier (SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory) Material: Coffee break 20' Reports on the QC/performance test in labs (planar sensor) 30' Results from the lab test on QC procedures, yield etc. Speaker: Daniel Muenstermann (Universitaet Dortmund) Material: Slides Discussions 40' Presentations from IBL group II 14:00 Reports on the QC/performance test in labs (3D sensor) 30' 15:30 16:00 Results from the lab test on QC procedures, yield etc. Speaker: Dr. Cinzia Da Via (School of Physics and Astronomy Schuster Laboratory-University) Material: Slides Failure analysis after QC tests 30' How many sensors/modules have had problems after successful QC sensor test? Why were they lost? This information will give some idea on how many spare sensors should be produced. Speaker: Fabian Huegging Material: Slides coffee break 30' Closed session Discussions among the reviewers and the IBL PLs. List up extra information we need Presentations from IBL group 3 Presentations of extra materials (if any) requested in the previous day. 08:30 09:00 Review of module/stave design 30' This is to remind the reviewers how IBL is designed to fulfill the requirement of HV, cooling etc. Speakers: Material: Simulation 30' Ole Rohne (EPF group-department of Physics-University of Oslo), Eric Vigeolas- Choury (Faculte des Sciences de Luminy-Universite d'aix - Marseille II) Slides Status of the simulation. Any performance difference between the two sensor options? (efficiency, acceptance... etc) External " Additional information on planar sensors 15' Speaker: Daniel Muenstermann (Universitaet Dortmund) Review Material: Slides Panel 09:45 Additional information on 3D sensors 15' Speaker: Dr. Cinzia Da Via (School of Physics and Astronomy Schuster Laboratory-University) Material: Slides Last modified: 05 July :17 Powered by Indico Open EB, 19 July :00-12:00 12:00-13:00 14:00-17:00 09:30 Closed sessions preparations of the final recommendation Close-out with IBL team Reserved if we need further discussions Indico agenda: Members Gino Bolla Purdue, CMS Petra Riedler CERN, ALICE Internal" Craig Buttar Glasgow WladekDabrowski Cracow Marko Mikuz Ljubljana Sally Seidel New Mexico Katsuo Tokushuku KEK / Chair Ex-officio" Phil Allport Upgrade Coordinator MarzioNessi ATLAS TC Beniamino Di Girolamo Pixel PL + IBL contacts: "" Giovanni Darbo, Heinz Pernegger

8 D-Day G. Darbo INFN / Genova Sensor Review Open EB, 19 July

9 Review Report July 5 th Review report available as minutes in the review agenda page: Excerpt from the report: " The panel congratulates both the 3D and planar communities for their hard work over a short time and in difficult circumstances leading to the results presented to the Review. The 3D community is to be congratulated on showing the first results of large scale production of 3D sensors. The planar community is to be congratulated on demonstrating the operation of planar Si pixels at 1000V after irradiation to fluences at the level of 5x10 15 ncm -2. " The Panel feels that the following has been established for both technologies: Operation with FE-I4 over a range of thresholds after p&n-irradiation over a range of fluences up to 6x10 15 ncm -2, Both technologies are likely to achieve a hit efficiency consistent with the IBL specification " The issues that arose during the review that concerned the panel were: The HV operation and cooling of the planar pixels, The production yield and schedule of the 3D technologies at wafer level, The observed failure of the UBM of the 3D FBK sensor, The low efficiency in the readout column (n+) region of the FBK sensor SCC87. The HV requirement of 1000V has clearly been considered in the system design from the start. The Panel believes that the issues have been addressed and a planar system could operate at 1000V over the lifetime of the IBL. Open EB, 19 July

10 Review Report Recommendation " The Panel believes the lowest risk option to meet the IBL schedule is the 100% planar option. " The Panel notes that there is an opportunity to use the 3D technology to populate the forward region where the tracking could take advantage of the electrode orientation to give a better z-resolution after heavy irradiation. " The Panel recommends that the IBL investigate a mixed scenario proposed by the IBL project management. The IBL should proceed to full production of the planar sensors required to build 100% of the IBL, and the current production of 3D should be completed (3 batches from each of CNM and FBK). If the yield is sufficient, then up to 50% of the modules (in the forward regions) can be made using 3D sensors. Open EB, 19 July

11 3D/Planar Behaviour at high Doses " 3D sensor has charge collecting electrode orientation orthogonal to the planar " After heavy irradiation, the planar sensors show quite a complicated field dependence on the applied voltage (see M.Milovanović, 18th RD50 Workshop, Liverpool, UK, May 2011 ) view=cdsagenda&confid= " Edge TCT studies probe signal collection as a function of depth with varying voltages Substantial electric field is present in whole detector at high fluences already for moderate voltages " Effect combined with trapping would need to be understood for highly inclined tracks to derive sensitive volume (useful to study in test-beam) Unirradiated Irradiated Open EB, 19 July

Difference between 3D and Planar Modules " HV: modules are supplied in groups of 4 chips (LV and HV, see next

tolerance ~ +/- 10um - appears manageable for loading Gap between modules need to keep flex wing distance,

maintained Stave: 32 x FEI4 3D Flex Hybrid 3D Scenario (50/50): 50% Planar 50 % 3D Planar 3D Planar Scenario

12 Difference between 3D and Planar Modules " HV: modules are supplied in groups of 4 chips (LV and HV, see next slide) only one sensor type in a group " Module thickness and gap: 30µm difference in thickness close to tolerance ~ +/- 10um - appears manageable for loading Gap between modules need to keep flex wing distance, need to discuss planar to 3D module gap " Single chip module flex and constant standard wing distance maintained Stave: 32 x FEI4 3D Flex Hybrid 3D Scenario (50/50): 50% Planar 50 % 3D Planar 3D Planar Scenario (25/75): 75% Planar Module: 25% 3D Sensor + 1x or 2x FEI4 G. Darbo INFN / Genova Sensor Review 3D Open EB, 19 July

13 Extended Pixel IB Decision July 6 th The Extended Pixel Institute Board on 6 July 2011 conclusions were: a) The IB agrees with the review panel, that the lowest risk option to meet the IBL schedule is the 100% planar option. b) The IB agrees as recommended by the panel to investigate a mixed scenario." b) The IB decides, that the production of planar sensors for 100% coverage (further 3 batches) shall be ordered as soon as possible, the already started productions of 3d sensors (CNM and FBK, in total 3 batches from each of them) shall be completed." c) In the coming weeks the IBL management shall investigate the consequences of a mixed scenario. The implications on technical aspects and on the resources of the IBL (money, personpower, schedule) shall be reported quickly after the visit of the IBL-management to IZM on 19.8." d) In case of a mixed scenario we target for 25% 3d and 75% planar sensors, with all staves being identical concerning the position of 3d and planar sensors." e) The characterization of both planar and 3d sensors shall continue, especially for shallow track incidences at large eta." f) For the evaluation of the outcome of (d) and a decision on the mixed scenario the IB needs to be called again. In case of the mixed scenario, the final fractions of 3d/planar (0:100, 25:75 or 50:50) shall be decided short before the start of stave assembly." Open EB, 19 July

14 How to Continue " Following the former recommendations and decisions, the production of sensors will continue as decided. " The bump-bonding order will be negotiated such to keep open the possibility of a mixed scenario. " The final MoU will be prepared after the the planning for the module production (bump-bonding) is finalized and a better view on the resources necessary for such a plan will be presented; indicatively end of summer. " The decision on the fraction of modules to load on stave (0:100, 25:75 or 50:50) will be taken before start of loading; indicatively February next year. Open EB, 19 July

investigate a Mixed Scenario picked up by the Institute Board No show stopper seen from technical point of view.

15 Conclusions " Large and successful effort to provide samples, to irradiate to target dose and to measure at test-beam (with some difficulties at CERN H8 beam line) " Both technologies shown to fulfill IBL requirements " Recommendation from Review Panel to investigate a Mixed Scenario picked up by the Institute Board No show stopper seen from technical point of view. Working on understanding the extra resources needed: manpower, money and schedule impact. With a better view on the necessary resources go to definite IBL MoU Open EB, 19 July

Prototype Performance and Design of the ATLAS Pixel Sensor

Prototype Performance and Design of the ATLAS Pixel Sensor F. Hügging, for the ATLAS Pixel Collaboration Contents: - Introduction - Sensor Concept - Performance fi before and after irradiation - Conclusion