1 / 3

Repair Centers, from a Bonder’s point of view

Repair Centers, from a Bonder’s point of view. Reported by: Salvatore Costa Universit à di Catania and INFN – Sezione di Catania. General remarks.

bert
Télécharger la présentation

Repair Centers, from a Bonder’s point of view

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Repair Centers, from a Bonder’s point of view Reported by: Salvatore Costa Università di Catania and INFN – Sezione di Catania

  2. General remarks At the Bonding WG Meeting of 08 June 2004 we discussed the criteria to send a Module to the new official Repair Centers, from a Bonder’s point of view. • General remarks: • We perceive these centers more as debug places where teams of dedicated people study in deeper detail Modules with non-trivial problems, so that normal production can continue at the usual rate. • Strictly speaking, trivial mechanical Module bonding failures should not be matter for these Centers: a) there is nothing to study; b) bonding centers (operators) are either able to repair them right away or, if they can’t, then most likely the debug centers can’t either. • To repair damage to APV-PA bonds (typically caused by handling accidents), we would like the official procedure to besending Module back to the Hyb bonding place. • For all other cases, which means a variety of electrical misbehaviors that may or may not be related to bonding problems, report the problem and let the ‘experts’ at the Center decide if they think they want to study that Module [following the report procedure that will be decided here]. • Criteria in detail: • Based on type of failure, see next slide 

  3. Criteria in detail • Trivial bond failure detected during bonding or at post-bonding inspection: • Wire won’t stick • Bond pops up (lift off) • Foot is misplaced and causes a short somewhere • We repair these right away as usual if we can and/or list as unbonded the strips that are such as a result of the failure or of the “repair” action. • Trivial (bond) failure detected during post-bonding ARCS or LT tests: • Pinhole (caused by bonding/handling accident or pre-existing and either undetected in Sensor test or on untested Sensor) • Short (caused by bonding/handling accident or by misplaced foot) • Open (bond popped up) • Same action. • Non-trivial electric failure detected with ARCS at any (?) stage (pre-bonding, post-bias-pre-readout-bonding, post-bonding or LT tests which dos not exhibit a clear link to bonding: • Increased LV current • Anomalous IV • We post the problem for the debug Center to consider; they ask for the module at their discretion. • Non-trivial electric failure detected during post-bonding ARCS or LT tests, which might be traced back to a bonding failure: • Example: “pseudo”-pinhole: At post-bonding ARCS test, a “PHL-” (likely pinhole) is found. We pull the readout bond as prescribed for pinholes but the test keeps saying “PHL-”, so the Hyb ch is damaged. Since it was OK at ARCS test on arrival perhaps we killed it with bonding (seen in some TIB centers). • We post the problem for the debug Center to consider; they ask for the module at their discretion.

More Related