 Tue Apr 28 18:06:41 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1582, M1583, M1584, M1585
|
Modules tested om Apr 27
M1582: Grade C due to 167 pixels failed trimming on ROC1 at +10C only. Previous test on Feb 26 at +10C was graded B!
M1583: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1584: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1585: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1582 goes to C* tray. To be checked later. |
|
Tue Apr 28 18:11:45 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1586, M1587, M1588, M1589
|
M1586: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1587: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1588: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1589: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs |
|
Wed Apr 29 14:08:42 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1536, M1537, M1538
|
M1536: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC1
M1537: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1538: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs and trimming failure for 70 pixels in ROC14 at -20C |
|
Wed Apr 29 18:11:36 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1590, M1592, M1596, M1600
|
Modules tested om April 28
M1590: Grade B Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1592: Grade B Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1596: Grade B Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1600: Grade B Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs |
|
Thu Apr 30 15:16:58 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1540, M1541, M1543, M1547
|
Modules tested om April 29
M1540: Grade B due to many (>1000) pixels failed trimming but only 70 are in "C-zone" for ROC0 at -20C -> retest!!!
M1541: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1543: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC8 and 30+ damaged bumps in ROC14
M1547: Grade A
M1540 in C* tray for retest |
|
Thu Apr 30 15:25:36 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1548, M1549, M1550, M1551
|
M1548: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC11
M1549: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC2. In total 200+ pixels failed trimming in the module -> investigate???
M1550: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC5
M1551: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1549 in tray C* for investigation |
 Thu Apr 30 17:33:04 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Software, MoReWeb empty DAC plots
|
| Matej Roguljic wrote: | Some of the DAC parameters plots were empty in the total production overview page. All the empty plots had the number "35" in them (e.g. DAC distribution m20_1 vana 35). The problem was tracked down to the trimming configuration. Moreweb was expecting us to trim to Vcal 35, while we decided to trim to Vcal 50. I "grepped" where this was hardcoded and changed 35->50.
The places where I made changes:
- Analyse/AbstractClasses/TestResultEnvironment.py
'trimThr':35
- Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg.default
trimThr = 35
- Analyse/OverviewClasses/CMSPixel/ProductionOverview/ProductionOverviewPage/ProductionOverviewPage.py
TrimThresholds = ['', '35']
- Analyse/OverviewClasses/CMSPixel/ProductionOverview/ProductionOverviewPage/ProductionOverviewPage.py
self.SubPages.append({"InitialAttributes" : {"Anchor": "DACDSpread35", "Title": "DAC parameter spread per module - 35"}, "Key": "Section","Module": "Section"})
It's interesting to note that someone had already made the change in "Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg" |
I have changed
1)StandardVcal2ElectronConversionFactorfrom 50 to 44 for VCal calibration of PROC600V4 is 44el/VCal
2)TrimBitDifference from 2 to -2 for not to take into account failed trim bit test that is an artifact from trimbit test SW. |
|
Mon May 4 14:13:39 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1552, M1553, M1595, M1597
|
FT on April 30th
M1552: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC7,8
M1553: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1595: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs at -20C and the same + trimming failes for ROC0 (82 pixels) and ROC15 (94 pixels)
M1597: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs |
|
Mon May 4 14:18:20 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1540, 1549, 1571, 1598
|
M1540: Grade A
M1549: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC2 and 48 dead pixels in ROC5
M1571: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for many ROCs
M1598: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs |
|
Mon May 4 15:28:14 2020, Andrey Starodumov, General, M1660
|
M1660 is taken from gel-pak and cabled for retest.
This module was graded C only at second FT at-20C, the first FT at -20C and FT at +10C give grade B. Massive trimming failure of pixels in ROC7 was not observed.
The module will be retested. |
|
Tue May 5 13:58:45 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1582, M1649, M1667
|
M1582: Grade C due to trimming failure in ROC1 for 189 pixels at +10C. This is third time module restesed:
1) February 26 (trimming for VCal 40 and old PH optimization): Grade B, max 29 failed pixels and in few ROCs mean noise
2) April 27: Grade C due to trimming failure in ROC1 for 167 pixels at +10C, at -20C still max 45 failed pixels and in few ROCs mean noise
3) March 5: Grade C due to trimming failure in ROC1 for 189 pixels at +10C, at -20C trimming failure in ROC1 for 157 pixels
The module quality getting worse.
M1649: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in ROC11
M1667: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in few ROCs
M1582 is in C* tray. To be investigated. |
|
Wed May 6 13:20:28 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1574, M1581, M1660, M1668
|
Modules tested on May 5th
M1574: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in ROC10 and trimming failures for 89 pixels in ROC0, the same as the first time April 24 (there 104 pixels failed)
M1581: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in ROC8/13, no trimming failures in ROC8/13, as it was on April 27 (120+ pixel in ROC8/13 failed) -> Resalts improved!
M1660: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in few ROCs, no more trimming failure for 172 pixels in ROC7 as it was on April 7 in ROC7 -> Results improved!
M1668: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in few ROCs results are worse than were on April 14: one more ROC with mean noise > 200e
resume: for 2 modules results are improved for 2 others almost the same |
|
Wed May 6 16:24:21 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1580, M1595, M1606, M1659
|
M1580: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in ROC5/8 and trimming failures for 100+ pixels in the same ROCs at +10C, previous result of April 27 was better
M1595: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in few ROCs, previous result of April 30 was much worse with 80/90 pixels failed trimming in ROC0 and ROC15
M1606: Grade C due to 192 pixels failed trimming in ROC2 at +10C, previous result of April 6 was much better with B grade
M1659: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in few ROCs, previous result of Aplirl 7 was almost the same
M1606 to tray C* for further investigation |
|
Mon May 11 13:19:51 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Cold box tests, M1539
|
After several attempts including reconnecting the cable, M1539 had no readout if it's connected to TB3. When connected to TB1, M1539 did not show any problem. M1606 worked properly both with TB1 and TB3.
For FT test the configuration is following:
TB1: M1539
TB3: M1606 |
|
Tue May 12 13:29:27 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Full test, FT of M1539, M1582, M1606
|
M1539: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in few ROCs
M1582: Grade B due to mean noise >200e in few ROCs and at -20C 137 pixels in ROC1 failed trimming. For P5 could use older test results (trim parameters) of April 27 M20_1 when only 23 pixels in ROC1 failed trimming
M1606: Grade C due to 161 pixels failed trimming in ROC2 and total # of defects in this ROC 169. For P5 could use older test results (trim parameters) of March 19 M20_2 when only 36 pixels in ROC2 failed trimming or April 6 when 40 pixels failed (at all T this test has the best performance). |
|
Wed May 13 17:57:45 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Other, L1_DATA backup
|
| L1_DATA files are backed up to the LaCie disk |
|
Fri May 15 17:15:34 2020, Andrey Starodumov, XRay HR tests, Analysis of HRT: M1630, M1632, M1636, M1638
|
Krunal proved test result of four modules and Dinko analised them.
M1630: Grade A, VCal calibration: Slope=43.5e-/Vcal, Offset=-145.4e-
M1632: Grade A, VCal calibration: Slope=45.4e-/Vcal, Offset=-290.8e-
M1636: Grade A, VCal calibration: Slope=45.9e-/Vcal, Offset=-255.2e-
M1638: Grade A, VCal calibration: Slope=43.3e-/Vcal, Offset=-183.1e-
A few comments:
1) Rates. One should distinguish X-rays rate and the hit rate seen/measured by a ROC (as correctly Maren mentioned).
X-rays rate vs tube current has been calibrated and the histogramm titles roughly reflect the X-rays rate. One could notice that
number of hits per pixel, again roughly, scaled with the X-rays rate (histo title)
2) M1638 ROC7 and ROC10 show that we see new pixel failures that were not observed in cold box tests. In this case it's not critical, since only
65/25 pixels are not responcive already at lowest rate. But we may have cases with more not responcive pixels.
3) M1638 ROC0: number of defects in cold box test is 3 but with Xrays in the summary table it's only 1. At the same time if one looks at ROC0
summary page in all Efficiency Maps and even in Hit Maps one could see 3 not responcive pixels. We should check in MoreWeb why it's so.
4) It's not critical but it would be good to understand why "col uniformity ratio" histogramm is not filled properly. This check has been introduced
to identify cases when a column performace degrades with hit rate.
5) PROCV4 is not so noisy as PROCV2, but nevertheless I think we should introduce a proper cut on a pixel noise value and activate grading on
the total number of noisy pixels in a ROC (in MoreWeb). For a given threshold and acceptable noise rate one can calculate, pixels with noise
above which level should be counted as defective. |
|
Mon May 18 14:05:01 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Module transfer, 8 modules shipped to ETHZ
|
M1555, M1556, M1557,
M1558, M1559, M1560,
M1561, M1564 |
|
Tue May 19 13:43:55 2020, Andrey Starodumov, Module transfer, 9 modules shipped to PSI
|
Quick check: Leakage current, set Vana, VthrCompCalDel and PixelAlive
Module Current@-150V Programmable Readout
M1623 -0.335uA OK OK
M1630 -0.430uA OK OK
M1632 -0.854uA OK OK
M1634 -0.243uA OK OK
M1636 -0.962uA OK OK
M1637 -0.452uA OK OK
M1638 -0.440uA OK OK
M1639 -0.760uA OK OK
M1640 -0.354uA OK OK |
|
Fri May 22 16:06:43 2020, Andrey Starodumov, XRay HR tests, Analysis of HRT: M1623, M1632, M1634, M1636-M1639,M1640
|
Module HRtest VCal calibration Grade
#defects max #noisy pix
ColdBox XRay
M1623 130 151 91 45xVCal-67e- B
M1630 80 1 385 43xVcal-290e- A
M1632 14 9 124 45xVcal-145e- A
M1634 33 81 339 43xVcal-347e- B
M1636 10 14 109 46xVcal-255e- A
M1637 71 45 175 45xVcal-182e- A
M1638 12 95 269 43xVcal-183e- B
M1639 21 96 482 43xVcal-441e- B
M1640 30 22 115 44xVcal-134e- A |
|