Slide 1CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

CMS Database Issues

Derek Barge

ROD INTEGRATION

AachenKarlsruheStrasbourgZurichWien

PETALS INTEGRATIONAachen

Brussels Karlsruhe

Louvain

Lyon Strasbourg

BrusselsWien Lyon

TEC assemblyTEC assembly

CERN

Frames:

BrusselsSensors:factories

Hybrids:Strasbourg

Pitch adapter:Brussels

Hybrid:CF carrier

TK ASSEMBLYCERN

LouvainStrasbourg

Pisa Perugia Wien

BariPerugia

Bari FirenzeTorinoPisaPadova

TIB-TID INTEGRATION

FNAL

UCSB

TOB assembly TIB-ID assemblyCERN Pisa Aachen Karlsruhe. --> Lyon

Karlsruhe

FNAL Pisa

Sensor QAC

Moduleassembly

Bonding & testing

Sub-assemblies

UCSB

FNAL

Integrationinto mechanics UCSB

Slide 3CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Production OverviewSensorsHybridsProduction Overview

• Quick Overview of Production Process: Hybrids (~2755 TOB – 5 types, 500-2613 TEC – 3 types)

1. Receiving / Visual Inspection / Hybrid Assembly

2. Testing – Bonding – Thermal Testing – Module Assembly

Sensors (5510 TOB – 2 types, 1000-5226 TEC – 4 types)1. Receiving / Probing (Special)

2. Module Assembly

Modules (~2755 TOB – 6 types, 500-2613 TEC – 3 types)1. Assembly (using hybrids & sensors)

2. Wire-bonding

3. Testing

Rods ( ~460 - ~24 types)1. Assembly / Testing / ? / Shipping

Slide 3-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Slide 4CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Keeping Track of ThingsSensorsHybridsKeeping Track of Things

• What Do we need to keep track of? For Hybrids, Sensors, Modules & Rods, we need to know:

- Where is it? (What Test Center? UCSB, CERN, etc.)

- What Type is it? (Module or Hybrid? TEC or TOB? Single or Stereo?)

- How is it related to other objects?- Does it contain any other parts? What are their serial numbers?

- Is it a part in another container? What is the container’s serial number?

- Has it been Wire-bonded? (hybrids & modules only)- What channels were NOT bonded successfully?

- Has it been tested?- What channels were faulty and why? Did it Pass or Fail?

- Is it ready for the next production stage?

- History & Shipping (When was it: Made? Bonded? Tested? Shipped?)

Slide 4-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Slide 5CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Data ManagementSensorsHybridsData Management

• Need tools to track parts & record information at different stages of production and centers System must handle:

~ 13,480+ Total Objects of ~ 46+ types

Requirements

- Must be Reliable

- Must be Adaptable, needs to quickly accommodate changes

- Should be centralized

- Should be Internet based for accessibility

- Must be secure

- Should be easy to use

- Should be as fast as possible

What is the CMS collaboration’s solution?

Slide 5-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Slide 6CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

TrackerDBSensorsHybridsTrackerDB

• Oracle (SQL) database for tracking CMS production Relational Database format, data stored in tables:

- Center - Sensor Data (ST, QTC)

- Bonding Data - Gantry Assembly Measurements

- Object Assembly - History & Shipping

Data is uploaded and stored for later reference- Uploading of Module Assembly & Wire-bonding data almost fully

automated, Hybrid data will be automated this month

Queries can be written to get data for- A Specific Part (Example: time history for a particular hybrid)

- All parts meeting certain criteria (Example: all modules at UCSB that have been assembled and not wire-bonded)

Slide 6-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Slide 7CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

DB ProblemsSensorsHybridsDB Problems

• Although the TrackerDB itself is reliable, and has the potential to meet our needs, All the interface tools we need either don’t exist or work

- BigBrowser is slow & can’t track parts through their containers

- Other interfaces track modules only or sensors only

- Interface servers go down (PISA server summer ’03)

Data Problems (being resolved)

- Sensors with incorrect or missing data

- Hybrids received with missing bonding data

Testing Tables not developed- Hybrid Testing Tables not ready until DEC 2003

- Module testing data structures not sufficient for UCSB

Want to know 1. Current (Voltage) curve

- compared to module I(V) in testing, Total I used to pick sensors

Slide 7-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Slide 8CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

SolutionSensors 2SensorsHybridsSolution

• Combine TrackerDB & local UCSB DB Maximize mileage from Tracker DB, rely on it for:

- Sensor Data (unavoidable)

- Bonding Data (also kept locally)

- Gantry Data (also kept locally)

- Relating Object serial numbers (also kept locally)

- Object Histories & Shipping (unavoidable)

Local UCSB DB System handles TrackerDB shortfalls:- Hybrid Testing Data (migrating to DB JAN 2004)

- Module Testing Data

UCSB web interface designed to:- Query TrackerDB & display results

- Interface to local testing data

Slide 8-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Slide 9CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

UCSB Interface WorksDB ProblemsSensorsHybridsUCSB Interface Working

• Currently Relying on UCSB Interface for: Inventory for Hybrids, Sensors & Modules, can sort by:

- #, Center, Type, Bonding Status, Production Stage (container?)

Sensor Data:- Position of Faulty Strips (CAC, IDIEL, ISTRIP, RPOLY)

- Depletion Voltage (used to pair sensors for module production)

- Current(Voltage) curve (compared to module I(V) in module testing)

All Hybrid & Module Electrical Testing Data Tracking incoming & outgoing shipments Frame inventory (otherwise untracked)

Want to know 1. Current (Voltage) curve

- compared to module I(V) in testing, Total I used to pick sensors

Slide 9-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Slide 10CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

UCSB Interface - Main

Slide 11CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

UCSB Sensor Inventory

Slide 12CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Sensor 30210314308203

Slide 13CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Hybrid ResultsSensorsHybridsProcessed Hybrids

• What have we done so far? Hybrids (199 processed so far)

- 160 at UCSB (All wire-bonded)- 126 TOB_P_4U (52 in modules)

- 7 TOB_P_4D (3 in modules)

- 7 TOB_P_6U (6 in modules)

- 6 TOB_S_4U (0 in modules)

- 8 TOB_S_4D (3 in modules)

- 6 TEC (4 in modules)

- 11 sent to Fermilab for module production

- 16 in module at FERMILAB

- 10 in modules at CERN

- 1 in module at STRASBOURG

- 1 in module in TORINO

Slide 13-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Slide 14CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

AutomationSensorsHybridsAutomation

• Tasks previously done by technicians now done automatically: Example: Module Checklist

- Paper Checklist (9 min + / module) - find what hybrid, near sensor, and far sensor are in the module

- lookup channel faults and I(V) curves for both sensors (PIZA interface)

- manually add sensor I(V) curves

- Automated Checklist ( ~ 2 min )- Enter Module serial number and wait

• Efficiency improvement of at least 7 min / module, 1.75 hours / day @ 15 modules / day

Accuracy improved, no data entry errors

Slide 14-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Slide 15CMS Database Issues-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004

Works in ProgressSensorsHybridsWhat’s Left?

• Still need systems to manage: Module Thermal Testing Data Rod Assembly & Testing Data

• Also Distributed to Fermilab Already using UCSB tools for Module checklist & Sensor

Data Still need inventory tools

Slide 15-Derek BargeDOE review, January 20, 2004