Upload
neville-kane
View
20
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Finding ST Sensors that cause CMN: A Follow up to TSC Meeting N. 215. Prof. J. Incandela UC Santa Barbara US CMS Tracker Project Leader Tracker Steering Committee Meeting Number 216 March 4, 2004 These slides were prepared with the help of Tony Affolder and are based upon - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Finding ST Sensors that cause CMN: A Follow up to TSC Meeting N. 215
Prof. J. Incandela
UC Santa Barbara
US CMS Tracker Project Leader
Tracker Steering Committee Meeting Number 216
March 4, 2004
These slides were prepared with the help of Tony Affolder and are based upon
work done this past week by the dedicated efforts of the UCSB production group
TSC No.216 March 4, 2004 - J. Incandela 2
Is Increased Bias Current and CMN Correlated?
• As of TSC #215 held on Feb. 27 2004, UCSB had in stock 22 sensors which upon reprobing showed a current change of
I > 1.5 A
• These sensors were probed both at UCSB and U Rochester with uniform results (like many of those reported on this last tracker week)• We ordered these sensors by increasing I• We built 8 modules with 9 of these sensors
• We picked every other sensor in the ordered list starting with the one with the lowest I
• The sensor with large I was always placed in position furthest from hybrid in module construction
• 1 module was built with 2 “bad” sensors
•6 of 8 modules have common mode noise
•Of the two modules without common mode noise:
• The “bad” sensor had < 2 A of increased current
• Increased noise is seen around a known, and hence unbonded, pinhole
• The other module now has current consistent with QTC measurement after construction
•We expect ~11 of the 13 sensors remaining from the original 22 will cause CMN in modules
TSC No.216 March 4, 2004 - J. Incandela 3
5104
•Sensors• 20275912
• 21738507
•Channels• 442 at 80V
• Increased bias current seen at 60V in sensor reprobing
30200020005104
100
1000
10000
100000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage
Bia
s C
urr
en
t (n
A)
Current(DB)
Current(probing)
Current(Bonded)
TSC No.216 March 4, 2004 - J. Incandela 4
5110
•Sensors• 31215014
• 14308304
•Channels• 203 at 70V
• Increased bias current seen at 30V in sensor reprobing
• 251 at 130V
• Increased bias current seen at 130V in sensor reprobing
30200020005110
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage
Bia
s C
urr
en
t (n
A)
Current(DB)
Current(probing)
Current(Bonded)
TSC No.216 March 4, 2004 - J. Incandela 5
5124
•Sensors• 24104717
• 31830607
•Channels• 160-162 at 150V
• Increased bias current seen at 250V in sensor reprobing
30200020005124
100
1000
10000
100000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage
Bia
s C
urr
en
t (n
A)
Current(DB)
Current(probing)
Current(Bonded)
TSC No.216 March 4, 2004 - J. Incandela 6
5160
•Sensors• 15061422
• 21174105
•Channels• 86-90 at 200V
• Increased bias current seen at 220V in sensor reprobing
30200020005160
100
1000
10000
100000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage
Bia
s C
urr
en
t (n
A)
Current(DB)
Current(probing)
Current(Bonded)
TSC No.216 March 4, 2004 - J. Incandela 7
5232
•Sensors• 14842724
• 14842701
•Channels• 505,506 at 350V
• Increased bias current seen at 400V in sensor reprobing
30200020005232
01000200030004000500060007000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage
Bia
s C
urr
en
t (n
A)
Current(DB)
Current(probing)
Current(Bonded)
TSC No.216 March 4, 2004 - J. Incandela 8
5294
•Sensors• 20825319
• 20833807
•Channels• 280, 281 at 250V
• Increased bias current seen at 250V in sensor reprobing
30200020005294
100
1000
10000
100000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Voltage
Bia
s C
urr
en
t (n
A)
Current(DB)
Current(probing)
Current(Bonded)
TSC No.216 March 4, 2004 - J. Incandela 9
Updated Correlation Plot
% of reprobed sensors leading to modules with CMN
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
-7000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0 1000
3000
4000
6000
7000
8000
>10000
I(Reprobed-QTC)(nA)
•All CMN modules built at UCSB to date:• 12 of 13 sensors with I >3 A caused common mode noise
• 2 of 9 modules with I between 2-3 A caused common mode noise
TSC No.216 March 4, 2004 - J. Incandela 10
Conclusions
• The correlation is strong and it is at the same level first seen last summer. It is no fluke.
• It is therefore not at all difficult to identify affected sensors.