| ID |
Date |
Author |
Category |
Subject |
|
270
|
Fri May 22 16:19:01 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Software | Change in MoreWeb GradingParameters.cfg |
Xray noise:
grade B moved from 300e to 400e
grade C moved from 400e to 500e |
|
271
|
Fri May 22 17:09:37 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | FTs for ETHZ | Module list1 |
green: correct in Total production overview
black: to remove old entries/raws
red: many failures at one or both temperatures
M1536: M20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-29
M1537: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-29
M1538: 149 defects, retest at m20?
M1539: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-05-11
M1540: M20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-05-04
M1541: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-29
M1542: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-22
M1543: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-29
M1545: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-03-26
M1546: 167 defects, retest at p10?
M1547: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-29
M1548: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-30
M1549: 196 defects, retest at m20?
M1550: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-30
M1551: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-30
M1552: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-30
M1553: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-30
M1554: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-22
M1555: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-22
M1556: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-23
M1557: to be checked on May27 at -20C: run Vcal Scurves for trimmed to VCal=50 module and with -10 to VthrComp value to check failed 61 pixels on ROC4
....................
M1565: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-23
M1566: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-23
M1568: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-24
M1569: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-24 |
|
272
|
Mon May 25 16:58:23 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | XRay HR tests | a few commments |
These is just to record the information:
1. measured hit rates at which Efficiency and Xray hits Maps are taken are 40-50% of the 50-400MHz/cm2 that in the titles of corresponding plots
2. in 2016 the maximum rate was 400MHz/cm2 but with such rate (or better corresponding settings of HV and current of Xray tube) in double columns of certain modules (likely depending on a module position with respect to Xray beam spot) the measured rate was smaller than 300MHz/cm2 that is target rate. Somtimes extrapolation of efficiency curve to 300MHz/cm2 is too large. I think this is not correct. Unfortunately higher rates cause too many readout errors that prevent a proper measurement of the hit efficiency. May be a new DTB with than 1.2A maximum digital current will help.
3. |
|
273
|
Mon May 25 17:24:05 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Software | Change in MoreWeb ColumnUniformityPerColumn.py |
In file
~/L1_SW/MoReWeb/Analyse/TestResultClasses/CMSPixel/QualificationGroup/XRayHRQualification$ emacs Chips/Chip/ColumnUniformityPerColumn/ColumnUniformityPerColumn.py
the high and low rates at which double column uniformity is checked are hard coded. Rates for L2 was there. Now correction is added:
# Layer2 settings
# HitRateHigh = 150
# HitRateLow = 50
# Layer1 settings
HitRateHigh = 250
HitRateLow = 150 |
|
276
|
Thu May 28 14:38:43 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Module transfer | 18 Modules shipped to ETHZ |
1536, 1537, 1539, 1540, 1541,
1543, 1545, 1547, 1548, 1550,
1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1565,
1566, 1568, 1569 |
|
277
|
Thu May 28 14:40:57 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Module transfer | 8 modules shipped to PSI |
Quick check: Leakage current, set Vana, VthrCompCalDel and PixelAlive
Module Current@-150V Programmable Readout
M1555 -6.000uA OK OK Current is rising up to 11uA with time after PixelAlive is done at +22C !!!
M1556 -1.282uA OK OK
M1557 -0.600uA OK OK
M1558 -0.835uA OK OK
M1559 -0.930uA OK OK
M1560 -0.745uA OK OK
M1561 -0.770uA OK OK
M1564 -1.755uA OK OK |
|
278
|
Fri May 29 13:56:35 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Re-grading | M1630 |
In ROC1 of M1630 gain calibration failed massively (3883 pixels) at +10C with CtrlReg 9.
A special test of M1630 only at +10C and with CtrlReg 17 showed no problem.
p10_1 from ~/L1_DATA/ExtraTests_ToBeKept/M1630_FullTestp10_2020-04-17_15h54m_1587131688/000_Fulltest_p10
copied to ~/L1_DATA/M1630_FullQualification_2020-04-06_08h35m_1586154934/005_Fulltest_p10
and original files from ~/L1_DATA/M1630_FullQualification_2020-04-06_08h35m_1586154934/005_Fulltest_p10
copied to ~/L1_DATA/ExtraTests_ToBeKept/p10RemovedFrom_M1630_FullQualification_2020-04-06_08h35m_1586154934/005_Fulltest_p10
This is done to have a clean ranking of modules based on # of defects. |
|
279
|
Fri May 29 15:04:04 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | XRay HR tests | Analysis of HRT: M1555-M1561 and M1564 |
Module HRtest VCal calibration Grade
#defects max #noisy pix
ColdBox XRay
M1555: 24 44 375 44xVcal-388e- A
M1556: 54 74 507 43xVcal-370e- B
M1557: 109 63 145 43xVcal-216e- A
M1558: 127 113 103 44xVcal-145e- B
M1559: 69 59 92 46xVcal-119e- A
M1560: 35 54 66 46xVcal-123e- A
M1561: 33 44 129 45xVcal-244e- A
M1564: 26 36 93 47xVcal- 29e- A
|
|
280
|
Fri May 29 15:41:40 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | General | M1546 |
ROC10 of M1546 has 107 pixels with trimming problems:
in a VCal threshold scan after trimming 81 has a threshold underflow, means <0, and 26 pixels are outside 40-60VCal window (around Vcal 50) at +10C only.
Trimbit distribution looks reasonable.
It has been checked that using trimming parameters VCal threshold distribution is fine (checked at +20C). See plots attached:
VCal threshold distribution in p10_1 test:
Trim bits distribution in p10_1 test:
VCal threshold distribution taken with trim parameters at +20C:
 |
|
281
|
Fri May 29 15:56:27 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | FTs for ETHZ | Module list2 |
green: correct in Total production overview
black: to remove old entries/rows
red: many failures at one or both temperatures
M1538: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-29
M1546: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-02
M1549: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-05-04
M1557: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-23
M1570: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-24
M1571: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-05-04
M1572: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-08
M1573: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-24
M1574: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-05-05
M1576: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-24
M1577: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-24
M1578: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-27
M1579: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-27
M1580: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-27
M1581: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-05-05
M1582: m20_1 of 2020-04-27 and p10_1 of 2020-05-11
M1583: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-27
M1584: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-27
M1585: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-27
M1586: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-28
M1587: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-28
M1588: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-28
M1589: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-28
M1590: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-28
M1591: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-03
M1592: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-28
M1593: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-04-07 NOT shipped to ETHZ
M1595: m20_1 and p10_1 of 2020-05-06
|
|
284
|
Thu Jun 4 15:32:50 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Module transfer | 18 Modules shipped to PSI |
Quick check: Leakage current, set Vana, VthrCompCalDel and PixelAlive
T=+24C
Module Current@-150V Programmable Readout
M1569 -0.690uA OK OK
M1568 -0.530uA OK OK
M1566 -1.530uA OK OK
M1565 -1.430uA OK OK
M1554 -0.970uA OK OK
M1553 -1.300uA OK OK
M1552 -0.919uA OK OK
M1551 -1.310uA OK OK
M1550 -1.708uA OK OK
M1548 -0.470uA OK OK
M1547 -1.510uA OK OK
M1545 -0.770uA OK OK
M1543 -0.800uA OK OK
M1541 -0.750uA OK OK
M1540 -1.440uA OK OK
M1539 -0.680uA OK OK
M1537 -0.816uA OK OK
M1536 -4.270uA OK OK |
|
285
|
Fri Jun 5 13:47:11 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Module grading | M1613 |
| FT of this modules has been done twice: March 23 and March 25, in both cases with the final test SW. On March 23 module was graded C due to many trim bit failures. That is why it was retested. But after failure in trimbits were excluded from the grading, FT of Mar 23 looks better then later FT of Mar25. That is why FT of Mar 23 is kept. |
|
286
|
Fri Jun 5 16:22:19 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | General | Cleaning L1_DATA directory |
To be able to analyse Xray data and keep Total Production overview in a proper state we need to clean L1_DATA directory.
Reasons:
1) if one analyse Xray test results with flag -new, then all deleted with -d flag tests will be analysed again and Total production overview will have problems
2) if one analyse Xray test results with flag -m, then, first, it's very time consuming and, second, again all tests of this module will be analysed and again this module in total production overview will not have information and hence not ranged.
Solution:
leave only directories with relevant tests: one from cold box test and one from Xray tests.
I also started to remove directories with Reception test.
This should be completed next week of June 8th. |
|
288
|
Mon Jun 15 10:36:45 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | FTs for ETHZ | Module list 3 |
M1596 2020-04-28
M1597 2020-04-30
M1598 2020-05-04
M1599 2020-03-25
M1600 2020-04-28
M1601-M1605: only single test
M1606 2020-05-11
M1607-1608: only single test
M1609 2020-03-23
M1610-1612: only single test
M1613 2020-03-23
M1624-1622: only single test
M1624-1629: only single test
M1631: only single test
M1641-1648: only single test
M1649 2020-05-05
M1651: only single test
M1653 2020-04-22
M1654-1658: only single test
M1659 2020-05-06
M1660 2020-05-05
M1661-1666: only single test
M1667 2020-05-05
M1668 2020-05-05
M1669-1676: only single test |
|
296
|
Fri Aug 14 13:47:26 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | General | new PH optimisation test and Total Overview |
New PH optimisation is done at -20C as a FT, hence the results of this test are added to "DB" file as the second m20_1 test.
If there are more than one result per test in the DB file the total production overview is corrupted in a way that for such
modules # of defects is not calculated (due to ambiguity) and hence these modules are not rank according to the number of defects.
To correct this one has to remove from the DB file the second row with the same test. In our case one needs to remove the "old" m20_1 test.
While doing this I noticed that some new FT ended with grade C while the previous ones were fine (graded B) or some subtests are failed
wile grading remains B. Here is the list of such modules:
M1546 graded C
M1556 graded B but trimming completely failed (DTB_WRE1O5): TO RE-TEST
M1624 graded B but instead if 79 pixel defects it has 295 in 3 chips due to trimming problem (DTB_WRE1O5): TO RE-TEST
M1600 graded B but instead of ~50 pixel defects it has about 300 due to trimming problems (DTB_WXC03A): to retest
In general latest FT at -20C has shows less defective pixels and bumps but often leakage current is slightly higher. |
|
297
|
Fri Aug 28 11:13:33 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Module grading | M1615 |
M1615: one pixel in ROC10 unmaskable hence should be graded C. Otherwise the module is of grade A
To be checked! |
|
298
|
Fri Aug 28 11:53:23 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | PhQualification | M1555 |
There is no new PH optimisation for this module?!
To be checked! |
|
299
|
Fri Aug 28 12:02:48 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | XRay HR tests | M1599 |
| ROC5 has eff=93.65% and should be graded C. Somehow efficiency was not taken into account for HR test grading??? |
|
300
|
Fri Aug 28 14:07:24 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | PhQualification | M1539 |
There is no new PH optimisation for this module?!
To be checked! |
|
303
|
Fri Sep 18 15:45:21 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Other | M2211 and M2122 |
I made a mistake and instead M2122 used ID M2211 in the .ini file.
Hence now we do not have entry for M2122 but have 2 entries for M2211: one is of Sept 18 and another one called old of Sep 17).
Test results of Sep 17 are for 2211
Test results of Sep 18 are for 2122
To be corrected later |