Upload
ezekiel-hewitt
View
138
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Module Integration Issues. Phil Allport Module Integration Working Group. Changing Occupancy Requirements Current Module Proposals Module Design Issues Conclusions. Relevant parameters for us in the two scenarios. Bunch spacing: 25 ns50 ns Rms bunch length: 7.55 cm14.4 cm - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Module Integration Issues
• Changing Occupancy Requirements
• Current Module Proposals
• Module Design Issues
• Conclusions
Phil Allport
Module Integration Working Group
Relevant parameters for us in the two Relevant parameters for us in the two scenariosscenarios
Bunch spacing: 25 ns 50 ns Rms bunch length: 7.55 cm 14.4 cm Long. Profile: Gauss Flat Luminous region: 2.5 cm 3.5 cm Peak lumi: 15.5 1034 8.9 1034
Events crossing: 296 403 Lumi. Life time: 2.1 h 5.3 h Effective lumi : 2.4 1034 2.3 1034
(10 h turn around)
Effective lumi: 3.6 1034 3.1 1034
(5 h turn around)
25 ns small ß 50 ns long bunch
Pixels (50 m 400 m): 3 barrels, 2×3 disks 4.7cm < r < 20cm• Pattern recognition in high occupancy region• Impact parameter resolution (in 3d)Radiation hard technology: n+-in-n Silicon technology, operated at -6°CStrips (80 m 12 cm) (small stereo angle): “SCT” 4 barrels, 2×9 disks • pattern recognition 30cm < r < 51cm• momentum resolutionp-strips in n-type silicon, operated at -7°CTRT 4mm diameter straw drift tubes: barrel + wheels 55cm < r < 105cm• Additional pattern recognition by having many hits (~36)• Standalone electron id. from transition radiation
Current Inner Tracker Layout
r=30cm
0.61%
Mean Occupancy in Innermost Layer of Current SCT
Pixels: 2 m2, ~80M channels
SCT: 60 m2, ~6.3M channels
TRT straws: ~400k channels
ID TDR
4+3+2 (Pixel, SS, LS) – “Liverpool” Strawman
Pixels:24cm Layer:Short (3cm) -strips (stereo layers):Long (12 cm) -strips (stereo layers):
r=5cm, 12cm, 18cm, r=24cmr=32cm, 46cm, 60cmr=75cm, 95cm
z=±40cmz=±40cm/100cmz=±100cmz=±190cm
Strawman 4+3+2 (cf 3+4+2 before)
Layout Implications
Including disks this leads to:
Pixels: 1.7 m2, ~120,000,000 channels
24cm layer: 1.2/3m2, 90/200,000,000 channels
Short (3cm) strips: 60 m2, ~25,000,000 channels
Long strips: 100 m2, ~14,000,000 channels
Occupancy vs radius (230 pile-up)
Problem: 3+4+2 with occupancy > 1%(27cm had 1.7%)
• With safety factor of two, design short microstrip layers to withstand 1015neq/cm2 (50% neutrons)
• Outer layers up to 4×1014neq/cm2 (and mostly neutrons)
Quarter slice through ATLAS inner tracker Region, with 5cm moderator lining calorimeters. Fluences obtained using FLUKA2006, assuming an integrated luminosity of 3000fb-1.
Radiation Levels
→ Issues of thermal management and shot noise. Silicon looks to need to be at ~ -25oC (depending on details of module design).
→ High levels of activation will require careful consideration for access and maintenance.
Issues of coolant temperature, module design, sensor geometry, radiation length, etc etc all heavily interdependent.
SLHC Module - A Proposal
Y. Unno Presentation 7/12/06http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=a063014
• Presented at the Oct. workshop at CERN• One module with 124x64mm2 sensor
– Segmented into 1, 2, and 4 striplets– Wrap-around hybrids with 1, 2, and 4 rows of ASIC’s
SLHC module
• Edge “stay-clear” region (10 mm) should not have openings for strips/bias rings• High/Low position of the modules in the right figure• Tilt angle of 16 deg. is comfortable for roofing• Note: available TPG size, 100mm x <150mm
SLHC - Full Area Baseboard• Model
– LHC SCT barrel module– Full area baseboard=2D
• Silicon– w=64mm, t=300µm, 2-sides
• Baseboard: – TPG1400, t=400µm– k=1400 W/m/K
• Hybrid: – CC bridge, t=300µm– k=650 W/m/K
• Electronics heat– 4 rows of ASIC’s– 28W/12cm
• Cooling– Single-side cooling– Sensor to Coolant:∆T=10 ºC
(@28W)
SLHC - 2D Model• Fluence 3000fb-1 x SF2
– Cooling pipe wall temp. -30 ºC
• Hybrid=28W– Hottest sensor temp. -19 ºC (due to
mainly ASIC’s heat (28W))– x6 safety for thermal runaway– To get -27 ºC at sensor, cooling wall
to be -38 ºC
• Hybrid=42W– Hottest temp. -14 ºC– >x3 safety for thermal runaway– To get -27 ºC at sensor, cooling wall
to be -43 ºC• Comments on double-side cooling
– Equivalent to single-side cooling of 1/2 width
– Cooling contact ∆T x1/2=5 ºC
– Heat per cooling x1/2, thermal resistance x1/2, total x1/4, I.e.,sensor could be 13 ºC higher
– More material
– Leakage current x4
– HV power x8 larger!!
Nominal heat flux–Assuming Vbias=800V
–1030 µW/mm^2 at 0 ºC
(*) Shorter cooling contact by x3/4 in reality is compensated in 2xQnominal/Qmax ~ 0.7
Sensor sizes in 150 mm wafer
n.b. 124.68 mm implies 3cm strips; 103.39 implies 2.4cm strips
(assuming 4 rows on each sensor)
Strip sensor parameters
• DRAFT• Gap between strip
ends might be sensitive as it is as same as between strips
Short strips Long strips Wafer size 150 mm 150 mm Thickness 320 m 320 m Orientation <100> <100> Type P P Ingot MCZ FZ Resistivity ~1 kÉŽcm ~6 kÉŽcm Strip segments 4, 2 2 Strip implants N N Strip pitch 80 m (or 75.6 m?) 80 m (or 75.6 m?) Strip implant Width 16 m 16 m Strip bias resistors Polysilicon Polysilicon Strip bias resistnace (Rb) 1.5+/-0.5 MÉŽ 1.5 +/- 0.5 MÉŽ Strip re adout coupling AC AC Strip readout metal Pure Aluminium Pure Aluminium Strip readout metal width 20 m 20 m Strip AC coupling capacitance >20 pF/cm >20 pF/cm Strip isolation >2xRb at 1/2xVop >2xRb at 1/2xVop Gap between strip segments <160m (rail)/<70 m
(no rail) <160m (rail)/<70 m
(no rail) Design operation voltage 800V 800V Microdischarge onset voltage >600V >600V Maximum operation voltage (*) 600V 600V Outer dimension See drawings See drawings Radiation tolerance 9x1014 1-MeV neq/cm2 4.5x1014 1-MeV neq/cm2
(*) The voltage rating of the extenal high voltage cable i s 500V and tested 1
KV
Occupancy and sensor size
• Pavel Nevski
Implications of sensor size• (Straight) Track incident angles
• r=30cm 12x6cm210x10 cm2
• Angle to sensor 6˚ 9.4˚
• Angle to drift (tilt=16˚) 22˚ 25.4˚
– Need to evaluate the drop of efficiency(?)
Implications of sensor size• These are calculations done by Y. Unno
• Not shown in the PO meeting
• Materials for discussion
• 50ns - 400 pileup events
Implications of sensor size• 12cmx6cm-6chips
• 10cmx10cm-10chips
SLHC module - Wide sensor
• A worst case(?) study
SLHC module - Worst case?• Original model
– Wide sensor (104 mm x 94 mm)
– Outer region– 9 ASIC’s/row/side x 2
rows x 2 sides– 36 ASIC’s– 42W/104mm
• Comments on wide model– Remember the
electrical instability of ABCD3T ASICs
– 2x6 chips/row was marginal
SLHC module - Optimization
• Modified module– Extending hybrid substrate (CC) closer to cooling area– Thermally insulating the far side of the hybrid feet
SLHC module - Optimization
• Even with TPG=0.3 mm (nominal 0.4mm)– ~x3 safety, sensor temp. -20 °C– Penalty: hottest chip temp. ~5 °C up
Pileup Events/Readout - 230
LBL Stave Proposal; Carl Haber
Schematic 2 Edge Cooling Contact 6 Chip Wide Stave
Current Barrel Module
Concept to avoid gluing to silicon strip surfaceSensors 4 rows of 3cm mini-strips
(Liverpool Stave Proposal)
Schematic 2 Edge Cooling Contact 9 Chip Wide Stave
Current Barrel Module
Concept to avoid gluing to silicon strip surfaceSensors 4 rows of 2.5cm mini-strips
(Liverpool Stave Proposal)
Issues for Module Layout Design
External Constraints on Module Design
Final required granularity→ pitch → ASIC power density
Required spatial resolution (both r-φ and z)
Stereo angle / ambiguities / pattern recognition
Track trigger requirements
Lowest feasible coolant temperature→ allowed ΔT
Mechanical and thermal stability of external supports
Minimum required natural frequency
Allowed total radiation length
Required hermeticity of each tracking layer
Total cost, power and cable budgets
Issues for Module Layout DesignInternal Constraints on Module Design
Automation of construction, ease of rework and likely yield
Number of separate units per radial layer
Mechanical tolerances, metrology precision and required rigidity
Risk: similarity to existing solutions (not just in ATLAS)
Can components be safely glued onto sensor segmented surface
ASIC layout, maximum # ASICs per hybrid, can we dispense with fan-ins?
Total cost of components, construction and testing
Stereo (rotate sensor or different mask design)
Wrap-around or r-φ / stereo treated independently
Compatibility of possible forward designs
Maximise common components at all radii and on disks
Comments on Module OptionsI expect both main options can be made to work
Single sensor size units read-out individually and mounted to structures providing mechanical support, defining sensor position, providing cooling and carrying some electrical/optical services. Similar approach to current ATLAS SCT
Staves of ~1m lengthwith integrated cooling + electrical connections, providing inherent mechanical stability and (depending on external support structure) required rigiditySimilar approach in somerespects to CMS rods
Some Urgent QuestionsExternal Issues
Changes in likely occupancy at start of SLHC runs, make a decision urgent on required sense element dimensions. If < 80μm×3cm for strips, either reduce pitch (problem <70μm with ABCD-like layout and connections needed to ASIC sides) or strip length (what is the minimum feasible hybrid width)30cm inner radius, given width ±3cm (±4.5cm) will give track angle range up to ±6o ( ±8.5o)) (nb Lorentz angle for electrons is 16o)
Coolant temperature and allowed ΔT to silicon
Total allowed power budget: is there a limit?
Hermeticity: how important is 100% and is this achievable (must there anyway be gaps between rows of strips in the sensor).
Stability, natural frequency, sag …Cylinder looks to have natural advantages, what concerns does the stave solution still need to address, is a hybrid solution possible?
Some Urgent QuestionsInternal Issues
Note best sensor options look to be 12×6cm or 10×9cm. 10×9cm fits better with 2.5cm length strips. If 72μm pitch could reduce sense area by ~25%, giving 10 chip wide module. 12×6cm allows to stick with 6 chip wide solution as at present but uses 20% less of 6” silicon wafer area.
Adhesion of components on sensitive surface of silicon:What tests (thermal cycling, radiation etc) would convince sceptics?
For a given channel density, what ΔT is implied by each module option. How much additional material does each require to achieve the same ΔT.
Required mechanical tolerances likely to determine possible degree of automation in assembly and is related to rework risks with larger units (staves). (Very tight tolerances were a significant yield issue for the current modules, although overall yields were still good).
ConclusionsThe new occupancy requirements lead to worries about the robustness of the previous baseline. A combination of starting at 32cm rather than 27cm and reducing the sense area by 25% is proposed (98.99mm x 98.99 mm square, strip segment of 2.4cm x 75.6µm, to be specific) but it does not quite deliver <1% occupancy in the inner layer of the new 4+3+2 “strawman” layout.
If we accept the sensors need to be cooled to -25oC, what are the coolant options? If the pixels must be cooler, is it anyway assumed that the whole SCT uses the same cooling solution?
The schedule requires us urgently to fix the sensor and ASIC geometrical specifications and get to the next stage of prototyping for both major module concepts.
Mechanical/stability/sag and assembly (glue) concerns for stave concepts need to be properly articulated and thoroughly studied.
Is a combined solution, taking the best of both concepts, conceivable?
• Steering Group
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=11546
• Project Officehttp://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=11648
• Module Integrationhttp://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=11902
• ABC-nexthttp://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=11907
• Proposals and Expressions of Interest https://edms.cern.ch/cedar/plsql/navigation.tree?
cookie=6024064&p_top_id=1349898803&p_top_type=P&p_open_id=1084168533&p_open_type=P