TEC Production in the US N. Bacchetta, J. Incandela,…and October 14, 2003

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela2 Outline Overview of US CMS Silicon –Hybrid processing –Robotic (gantry) module assembly –Wirebonding –Electronic Testing Cycle: Hybrids  Modules  Rods –Recent production rates Current capacities of US Production lines Requirements and Recommendations for assisting TEC module production The possibility to assist FNAL while providing a great opportunity for Run 2b physicists to join and contribute to the CMS experiment

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela3 US Module Production Plan Hybrids –New UCSB Task: Wirebond &Test: Quick Test then Wirebond pa’s Thermal cycle with continuous ARC test and pitch adapter pulsing Adds 3.3 Million bond wires –Ship hybrids to FNAL –Until recently all hybrids were processed at CERN Frames and sensors –Received by FNAL –Sample sensor checks at Rochester –Ship frames and sensors to UCSB TOB Module production: (FNAL & UCSB) –Gantry fabrication of 12+ modules per day per site (average=9 at peak) Overnight cure Cross-check on OGP –Wirebond 12+ modules/day/site Recent significant improvements –Fast test with ARC/LED Simple repairs –Overnight temperature-cycling with readout in “Vienna box” –Full characterization with ARC/LED Diagnostics and Repairs if Necessary –Store for installation in rods

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela4 Hybrid Bonding/Testing Hybrid Task –Wirebond PA to APV with pull-testing and other QA to assure specs are met –Thermal cycle (20C to –20C) and pulse test (using capacitively-coupled antenna) for opens/shorts This is the first serious stress test of the hybrid UCSB 4-hybrid test stand: –Based upon CERN design. –Fairly complicated, took a decent effort to design and build –UCSB to wirebond and test ALL TOB hybrids TEC 4-hybrid stand –UCSB has already begun work to build a second stand for use at FNAL

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela5 Gantry Module Production Pick and Place Robot –Initially developed at CERN similar system at FNAL has been used to build 50+ modules within specs and without serious difficulties –UCSB made significant revisions for robustness and ease of maintenance 50+ modules so far Commissioned 3 r-phi plates this summer: –ALL worked “right out of the box”: –modules to original tight specs –First stereo module plate at UCSB shown at left

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela6 Adding a new module type: Example of UCSB Stereo TOB module development UCSB Stereo Timeline –End of July: Began designing –August: Continue design work with interruptions to produce >30 r-phi modules and to commission of 3 new r-phi plates –September: Complete all machining and assemble plates. Perform dry (glue-less) assembly runs. Build first stereo module. –October 1 st thru 3 rd : Build 2 more stereo modules and 3 r- phi modules.

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela7 First stereo TOB modules –Plot above is for the first 3 stereo and an additional 3 r-phi modules built at end of September and in 1 st week of October: Strip to strip alignment well within CMS specifications (specifications are in fact the full scale of plot shown above). –Result for strip-to-strip alignment has an rms of 3.2  m in this plot !! UCSB engineers are confident that the system works well –It is easily adapted to new modules (TEC R6) quickly and at almost no cost (discussed more below)

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela8 More results Results for previous 52 modules at UCSB –5 different plates, as they were being commissioned –Prior to an array of refinements, nevertheless, results are great RMS 7  m

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela9 Wire bonding 3 rd K&S 8090 at FNAL –Operational and has been used for subsequent FNAL modules. UCSB –Recently learned to fully automate bonding of entire TOB module using K&S pattern recognition: Can bond a full TOB module in under 5 minutes!

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela10 The TOB Electronic Testing Cycle Quick test hybrids on ARCGantry makes modules. Modules test on ARC Assemble rods from modules Rod burn-in Rods shipped to CERN 24 hour Thermal cycling Wire bond Final pinhole test on ARC Wire bond Thermal cycle and pulse-test hybrids

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela11 US Module Production Rate 103 TOB modules produced since April –14 April –8 May –17 June –24 July –40 August

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela12 US Production in August What was done: –FNAL: 17 modules produced in several consecutive days using 1 or 2 plates per day (with 2 modules per plate). –UCSB: 19 modules in 6 days followed by 3 plates in one day with 3 modules each plate –(This is our expected average peak rate at each site.) –Completed the 3rd plate by ~2:30 pm –All modules wirebonded & tested the next day Conclusion: No difficulty doing 4 plates in one normal day. Could easily do more with slightly overlapping technician shifts.

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela13 Current US Capacity FNAL: ~12 modules per day (with MUX received this week) –A fix for the memory problem in gantry controller causing 3 rd position unused has been found by R. Taylor of UCSB (see below) UCSB: ~15 modules per day (5 plates) –Capacity was limited to 12 per day for r-phi modules and a Memory problem in gantry controller affecting stereo only had limited stereo production to 8 per day. In the past week we completed a fully-automated plate survey program on the OGP that takes considerably less time than on the gantry. By doing all but sample surveys on gantry and other such efficiency improvements, we now estimate that 5 plates per normal workday is reasonable.

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela14 TEC Production in US Basic Assumptions –We need to minimize: cost, technical risk, schedule risk US CMS contingency must be used sparingly Every effort should be made to help CMS meet its schedule –We need to maximize: quality, cohesion, coordination of effort What is vital to success along these lines: 1.No reduction of quality assurance All levels of electronic testing as they stand in the TOB project will be applied for TEC modules as well –Silicon, Hybrids, and all other components are produced over long periods and in batches. Every batch is different! 2.The effort will be well integrated into the existing US project

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela15 Some background data TEC R6 modules –These are very similar to our TOB modules. We have been asked to start with these. We have reviewed them and see no serious challenges to getting up to production quickly. (see next slides) Commissioning new plates vs. new gantries –We can commission new TEC plates quickly, as was done for TOB stereo modules. Commissioning a new gantry takes a bit longer. (see next slides) –We have found that switching between one module type and another similar type in production on the gantry is no more difficult than switching plates for the same module type. Thus one gantry can easily handle production of multiple module types

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela16 TOB Module

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela17 TEC R9

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela18 Overlay of TEC/TOB The footprint is very similar –Most tooling can be common! Differences ? –Solution to reinforcement problem for bond breakage during shipment is different than for TOB Driven by the fact that the modules were to be wirebonded in a different location This is not true for US centers –We propose to adopt the UCSB reinforcement method and eliminate the ceramic pieces

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela19 Balanced and step-wise approach 1.Optimize existing production sites and add TEC module production –UCSB & FNAL will work together to assure that the gantries & wirebonders at both sites are optimally configured, robust & maintainable. Series of meetings at UCSB and FNAL among relevant experts –May decide to convert FNAL gantry to the UCSB setup, simply modify the existing FNAL setup, or just leave it alone. We’ll agree on the best path to develop TEC assembly plates for both gantries and push for production of the first TEC R6 modules –Advantages: Leverages our experience and expertise Stays within CMS project guidelines Negligible cost, and can be done extremely quickly –Goal of this step 15 modules/day/site with no initial increase of assembly manpower Testing can keep pace if we reduce the cold-cycle time –We will need a handful of dedicated physicists at FNAL.

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela20 Initial production experience 2. Produce TOB and TEC modules –It is likely that parts will still be limited for some time. US capital equipment capacity of 30 modules per day will not be needed for some time We will ramp production of both TOB and TEC modules and see how both production lines perform in order to better understand what we need and to see if there is adequate scientific interest to maintain high throughput with high quality at both sites NB: Two gantries producing 15 modules per day have an annual production capacity (assuming 15% downtime) of 6375 modules.

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela21 Adding contingency Additional gantry for contingency –Initial production experience will give us a better understanding of our throughput, and the robustness of the gantries –15 modules/day/gantry may be unsustainable or expandable. We need to find out. If necessary we will setup another gantry. No decision on a 3 rd gantry is required until we get significant production experience: Time for a 3 rd gantry to become operational - purchase to module production – estimated at 3 months, including contingency. –Once we are in steady state production at both sites, engineers will be free to concentrate on setup of a 3 rd gantry –We will have a much better idea at that point of what we want to buy, how and where we will configure and operate it. »The first choice would be FNAL, provided there is adequate scientific support and a good track record of cost effectiveness and quality. –The Padova gantry will stay in Europe The US groups will offer to help their CMS colleagues configure, program, and train operators for this gantry if desired.

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela22 Time to Gantry production of TEC A non-disruptive schedule An aggressive schedule

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela23 Wirebonding Needs and Costs Wirebonding –UCSB will need a backup bonder: 3 rd 8090 from FNAL = the most sensible and cost-effective –Transportation cost and setup $10k –FNAL fully develops pattern recognition capability: It’s possible that the machines already have the capability. Some mention of 30k$ per machine to upgrade? –Cost this at 30k$ + 30k$ contingency –Carrier plates, wirebond fixtures, etc ~ 20k$ TOTAL COST: 60k$ + 30k$ contingency

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela24 Gantry Needs and Costs Existing Gantries : Tooling for full capacity UCSB: only machining costs, est. conservatively at $15k –Suggest UCSB make all pickup tools where necessary FNAL: –Need to agree on a cost cap with FNAL. Suggest 35k$ with UCSB engineering to assist to keep down costs. –New gantry and all additional associated equipment US has already 3 rd sets of most auxiliary equipment –25k$ adequate to cover the rest (Lenny?) US purchase a 3 rd gantry –Cost 75k$: Could go in as a contingency item »UCSB Engineers recommend 75 cm machine with new controller. (Controller in use now is discontinued) »Decision to purchase to be made in first have of Total Gantry costs: 150k$ + 25k$ contingency

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela25 Labor and Other costs –Approximate labor cost would be modest if we can limit the additional manpower needs by first increasing throughput on 1 gantry per site. During ramp (first 6 months of FY04) – we will likely not need ANY additional technicians but may want to bring on and train 1 per site in the 2 nd quarter: Additional cost: $30k At peak we will perhaps need to add 1 more per site. We should assume a peak period of 12 months. Total additional cost $220k Total Technical Labor: $260k + 50% contingency Transportation of modules to CERN: 40k$ +20k$ contingency

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela26 Total Costs Total Cost: 510k$ + 205k$ contingency –While we are arguing for TEC production capacity, these costs would also achieve a considerable of the existing TOB production capabilities. –Nevertheless, the project should scale up manpower and equipment beyond step 1 (described above) based on experience gained, and demonstrated need. ItemCost (k$)Contingency (k$) Wirebonding 6030 Gantry15025 Labor Transportation4020 Totals510205

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela27 Clear Positives Advantages of this scenario –Immediate, scalable, and flexible We have already started on the TEC gantry plate design at UCSB, and we estimate a very short time to start of TEC module production If TOB parts are limited and TEC are plentiful at some time for whatever reason, both sites can stay in production with TEC (or vice versa). Could be easily extended to other module types if necessary Does not require commissioning of a whole new production line to get to very substantial TEC production capacity! –Leverages existing high level of experience in the USA –Keeps cost at a reasonable level –If one production site goes down temporarily, the flow of TEC modules and TOB rods to CERN can continue Even at high rates by going to overtime or Saturday operation until the other site is up again for instance.. –Add 3 rd gantry when there is clear and demonstrated need.

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela28 Gantry setup times A non-disruptive schedule An aggressive schedule

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela29 Cost-controls & backup plan UCSB can handle the additional TEC modules –UCSB has low costs and extremely good technical labor –UCSB probably has the gantry technology, and the most depth and experience in testing and test setups Adding a dedicated TEC production line at UCSB and production of 2000 TEC modules there would cost CMS ~$250k This is not a preference, only a backup. –UCSB would prefer to maintain a 50/50 split with FNAL –The UCSB low cost production would only be used if FNAL is unable to maintain production costs within required limits, or there are not enough scientists available to maintain proper testing and general QA. –The decision on the backup plan would be made at the same time as the decision on the 3 rd gantry – after initial production experience over the first 1-2 quarters of FY04.

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela30 Summary of Proposal Prepare TEC capacity at both sites The important criteria –Maintain the current US emphasis on testing and quality assurance! No relaxation of standards can be allowed –Maintain a single L2 US silicon strip project –Maintain lowest possible costs to CMS

TEC Production Meeting – Incandela31 Summary and Conclusions US CMS can provide immediate support to the TEC community and CERN at low cost –Wirebonding and testing of TEC hybrids at FNAL – test stand already being built at UCSB –Production of TEC R6 modules at UCSB expected by January. FNAL could be making TEC modules by Feb/March or sooner.- work is already underway at UCSB A substantial level of TEC production can be done very quickly and with existing Infrastructure at both sites –This allows us to develop added capacity (an additional gantry) off of the critical path once we have a much better understanding of what we are doing. Total cost estimate (which will be viewed as a cap): $510k + $205k contingency