1. Integration Aspects of DC-DC Converters TUPO, June 10 th, 2009 Katja Klein 1. Physikalisches Institut B RWTH Aachen University

2. Outline Katja Klein2 Conversion ratio & output current Dimensions and weight of buck converters Material budget Cooling requirements Shielding requirements Should the DC-DC converter be part of the module? Possibility of integration for various module proposals Provision of two operation voltages for CBC Discussion of four options Conclusion & recommendation Assumption: GBT powered from outside of sensitive volume

3. Comparison of Layouts 3 LayoutFE- Power Link-PowerTotal Power# of Modules FE-Power per module Long barrel double stack (Marcello) 100kW25kW $125kW20 0004 - 9W Hybrid layout § (Duccio) tracking12.5kW2.9kW &43kW10 0400.94 - 1.9W trigger12kW15.6kW &1 568 *1.3 – 9W # Cluster width Fabrizio; barrel only 20.9kW2.3 – 14.1kW °23.2 – 35.0kW14 0371.25W Duccio; full outer tr. 56.5kW ~ 20kW ~ 75kW13 0081.1 – 9.4W All power numbers include a DC-DC efficiency of 80% § Variant with 2 long barrel p T layers and tracking-only endcaps $ assuming 10Gb/s GBT-like link, 2W per link & with 2W/GBT ° depends on optical module (GBT vs. MZM), larger number for GBT (3W per GBT) * for A = 85cm 2 # depends strongly on module proposal Katja Klein

4. Total Power Consumption 4 Total power consumption limited by heating up of water-cooled cable channels Today the total current in cable channels is 15kA Upper limit would have to be determined by measurements on mock-ups of hot spots in cable channel (Hans Postema) 10-20% more might be possible, but probably not more? (Hans Postema) Can calculate maximum power consumption for certain convertion ratio r = I in / I out : E.g. for r = 1/10 and 80% efficiency: P max = 150kA x 1.2V x 0.8 = 144kW Can estimate the necessary conversion ratio for a given power consumption: r = 15kA / I out P = U out x I out (includes already converter efficiency of 80%) r = 15kA x U out /P LayoutTotal PowerOperating voltageConversion Ratio Long barrel double stack 125kW0.9V1/10 Hybrid strawman 43kW1.2V0.4 Katja Klein

5. Conversion Ratio from Cable Specs 5 Assume only 1 000 LICs can be used to power the modules (reason: links) Spec of LICs: U max = 30V, I max = 20A (return) Calculate mean number of modules per LIC Calculate mean current per LIC Estimate necessary conversion ratio In reality, could try to level out (but then granularity becomes an issue) Katja Klein Layout# of Modules Power per module # Modules per LIC Current per LIC (worst case) Conv. ratio Long barrel double stack 20 0004 - 9W20200A1/10 Hybrid strawman tracking10 0400.9 - 1.9W1219A1 trigger1 568up to 9W12120A1/6

6. First Conclusion 6 Buck converters are needed at least for trigger layers Charge pumps are no option for some approaches (max. current ~ 1A)  Currents to be provided too big for a single charge pump per module  Charge pump per chip not feasible (90nm, no space for capacitors,...) Discuss in the following the integration of buck converters Come back to charge pumps later Katja Klein

7. Dimensions and Weight of Buck PCBs Katja Klein7 Aachen PCB with lowest noise (V3): Area: 2.3cm 2 Height: 10mm Weight: 1.0g Smallest Aachen PCB (V1): Area: 3.2cm 2 Height: 10mm Weight: 1.1g 27mm 12mm 19mm Numbers are without connectors

8. Dimensions and Weight of Buck PCBs Katja Klein8 SMD INDUCTOR ASIC 1.5-2 cm CERN PCB (proposal):  Area (currently) needed per buck converter PCB: 2-4cm 2 Some further minimization probably possible (e.g. remove connectors) But filter capacitors are necessary Coil must have a certain inductance (  noise) and low DC resistance (  efficiency)

9. Material Budget Katja Klein9 TEC, conversion ratio 1/8, eff. = 80%, current power consumption, 1.2V only (Aachen) One buck converter per module, located close to module TEC electronics & cables: - 29% Original TEC TEC with buck converters r = 1/8 Total MB of: TEC modules TEC Converters  With above assumptions, buck converter close to module saves material (caveat: savings are half due to DC-DC conversion, half due to methodology)

10. Material Budget Katja Klein10 TEC electronics & cables: - 18%  Buck converter close to module gives largest saving for TEC  Desirable to repeat study for barrel geometry and two operation voltages TEC electronics & cables: - 24% Buck converters with r = 1/8, located at petal rim: Buck converters with r = ¼ at petal rim, one charge pump with r = ½ per chip

11. Cooling Requirements Katja Klein11 Converter efficiency ~ 80% Heat to be dissipated ranges from 150mW (outer tracker module with 1 hybrid) to ~ 2W (3D-integrated stacked module, inner layers) A contact to the cooling system should be foreseen

12. Shielding Requirements Katja Klein12 Measurements show that shielding the whole converter helps against EMI from coil  Shielding only the coil was not so efficient (reason not completely understood) New Aachen boards need not be shielded anymore in our system test set-up Requirements depend strongly on distance to FE-electronics (plus technical details of converter and coil...) Recommendation at this point: a DC-DC converter on the module should be shielded  30  m of Aluminium worked fine (no improvement with thicker shields)  Details would have to be worked out and tested Measurements with solenoid coil (worst case)

13. Integration of Buck Converter (I) 13 Arguments for buck converter on separate PCB, close to module: Very limited space on most proposed hybrids  size less critical Larger distance preferred for EMI anyway (also damping of ripple?) Converter development completely decoupled from hybrid and module development  No common deadlines, can optimize converter design as needed (even late) Different hybrids for different module proposals  avoid involvement of many groups PCB could be developed, manifactured and tested standalone Easier for cooling? (module cooling is difficult enough without converters) Arguments for buck converter on the module/hybrid: Less mass (avoid connectors & connection between converter and module) Power regulation closer to FE-ASICs (only relevant if no LDO) Could have pluggable PCB on hybrid, but then connectors are needed (mass) Noise effects can be tested more easily (don‘t need additional PCB) Katja Klein

14. Outer Tracker Module Proposal CBC-power ~ 0.75W per hybrid; i.e. 0.75W or 1.5W per module Plus DCU, PLL, DC-DC inefficiency, GBT-port, MUX, LCDS-driver No motherboards Upper part of hybrid ~ 2.5cm x 1cm, no space for buck on this hybrid Some space between hybrids; but routing of input & output? Integration of buck on rod level looks more practical and elegant DC-DC out 2.5V Sensor HV DCU Sensor with 4x2.5cm strips 2x 1024 @95um pitch integrated pitch adaptor 2 x 4-MUX + LCDS driver each output 160Mbit/s PLL TCS I/O shielded micro-twisted pairs I/O DC-DC 2.5cm Katja Klein14 8x CBC 2x 128ch wire bonded 40Mbit/s out each

15. Outer Tracker Module Proposal Indeed the buck converter must be able to provide several Amps (as anyway needed by pT-modules) Could save material by combining two one-hybrid modules into one unit Could even consider to power two two-hybrid modules (3W) with one converter Loose two modules if converter fails No other drawbacks from power point of view Katja Klein15

16. Vertically Integrated Hybrid Module 130 or 90nm Communication through vias in ROC and interposer (3D-integration) No motherboards FE-power 4-9W per stacked module Up to 10A per stacked module Need at least two buck converters per stack (better more)  module needs to be “partitioned“ No space on module; no hybrid Modules integrated onto “beams“ Buck converters must be integrated into beam structure Shielded space already foreseen Discussions between Fermilab & Aachen started 16Katja Klein

17. Trigger Module (Sandro) 1 Modul: 90nm Sensor size = 4.8cm x 4.8cm Hybrid ~ 1cm x 4.8cm Power per p T -module = 2.6W I per modul ~ 3A No space for buck converter (unless hybrid is considerably increased) Practical issues (fabrication?) Again, integration into support structure seems more feasible How would support structure look like? 1 Chip 17Katja Klein

18. Trigger Module (Geoff et al.) 80mm data out control in 26mm Sensor size ~ 2.6cm x 8.0cm Hybrid ~ 1cm x 4cm 130nm Power per p T -module ~ 1.3W (similar to outer tracker module) No space for buck converters, unless hybrid is considerably increased 18Katja Klein

19. Integration of Buck Converter (II) 19 There is a tendency to avoid motherboards at all  Outer tracker module, vertically integrated double-stack proposal, others? This goes hand in hand with rather minimalistic hybrids of a few cm 2 All existing or planned buck converter PCBs need an area of 2 - 4cm 2 Suggestion: a separate buck converter PCB close to the module, e.g. inside the beam (for double-stack approach) or on the rod/stave  converter needs cooling contact – probably not too dificult then  need short power cable between converter PCB and module  Could/should be designed such that it fits with all proposals/applications:  Version with 1.2V and 0.9V for CBC  Version with two (or three) buck converters for very high-power trigger modules  Version with 1.2V and 2.5V for GBT, for PP1 or bulkhead Katja Klein

20. Provision of two Operating Voltages for CBC 20 V ana = 1.2V, possibility to have V dig < V ana (~ 0.9V) P = 64mW per Chip with 1.2V (26mW analog power, digital power would be halved with U = 0.9V) Both analog and digital currents ~ 20-30mA per chip How to provide the two voltages? Options: 1. Use the two LV conductors in LICs and two separate buck converters  Same conversion ratio for both bucks  Power supplies must provide two voltages 2. Provide one common input voltage, use two separate buck converters  Different conversion ratios for bucks  Lower power losses than option 1. 3. Derive V dig from V ana with linear regulator  Method with lowest efficiency 4. Derive V dig from V ana with charge pump (ratio 4:3)  Option with lowest mass and space requirements  Brings us to more general question: do we want to use charge pumps, and how? Katja Klein

21. Option 1: Only Buck Converters 21 Conversion in one step Assume buck converter close to the modules with r = 1/6 or smaller (as needed) If the necessary conversion ratio can be realized in one step for all proposals must be studied with new ASIC prototypes! (issue of switching losses) Do not use charge pumps  no additional chips on the FE-hybrid or inside CBC Must find space for 1 or 2 buck converters (as many as operating voltages) either on your module/hybrid or (preferred!) on your support structure If decided to put buck on support structure, module design can proceed completely independently Could fit with all proposals Maximal current per buck converter to be understood, of the order of 4A  Looks tight for double-stack proposal, must find reasonable partitioning Katja Klein

22. Option 2: Buck + Charge Pump per Module 22 Could be necessary if conversion ratio cannot be provided in one step  Buck converter with r  ¼ close to module; charge pump with r = ½ per module Is however NOT compatible with any pT-module (due to current requirements) (Only) Possible useful application: provision of U dig for CBC for one FE-hybrid  conversion ratio 4:3, current ~ 300mA  less material than two buck converters (but not half!)  on cost of higher complexity Space for buck converter: see option 1 In addition need space for 1 chip plus capacitors (details to be worked out)  on FE-hybrid  or even on buck PCB? Such a chip is currently not being developed Katja Klein

23. Option 3: Buck + Charge Pump On-Chip 23Katja Klein Assume charge pump is integrated into read-out ASIC Concerns raised by Mark: substrate noise, constraints on layout, space for passives Could be necessary if conversion ratio cannot be provided in one step  Buck converter with r  ¼ close to module; charge pump with r = ½ per module Seems NOT compatible with some pT-modules (technology, space for passives) Possible useful application: provision of U dig for CBC  conversion ratio 4:3, current ~ 20mA  less material than two buck converters (but not half!) Alternative: derive both voltages with charge pumps  conversion ratio 1:2  one capacitor per voltage (100nF, 0201?)  need LDO for analogue power  can switch on/off single read-out ASICs  how to power auxiliary ASICs (PLL, MUX, LCDS driver,...)? Space for buck converter: see option 1 In addition need space for capacitor(s) close to CBC on FE-hybrid Design block for 60mA in 130nm being developed by CERN/Atlas

24. Option 4: Buck + Sep. Charge Pump per Chip 24Katja Klein Assume now separate charge pump chip per readout-ASIC No substrate noise, no constraints on CBC layout Space for passives still needed, plus space for charge pump chips Very small chips to be integrated onto hybrid – possible but cumbersome? Looks NOT compatible with some pT-modules (technology, space) Possible useful application: provision of U dig for CBC  conversion ratio 4:3, current ~ 20mA  less material than two buck converters, but more than option 3 Alternative: derive both voltages with charge pumps  conversion ratio 1:2  one capacitor per voltage (100nF, 0201?)  need LDO for analogue power  can switch on/off single read-out ASICs Space for buck converter: see option 1 In addition need space for 1 or 2 chips plus capacitor(s) close to CBC

25. Conclusion & Recommendation (my opinion) 25Katja Klein Buck converters cannot be avoided (but charge pumps can) No motherboards and no or very small hybrids  integrate buck converter onto separate small PCB Cannot decide today if charge pumps are needed, keep option open Abandon option 4 (separate charge pump chip per read-out ASIC) Prepare for option 1 with buck on support structure Explore and do not exclude options 2 & 3  Allow some space for charge pump chip plus caps on hybrid  Allow some space for caps close to CBC  Integrate charge pump block offered by CERN group into CBC  in a way that it can be bypassed  would learn a lot about option 3  this is an opportunity to make real progress!