Figure in png format | other formats | Description |
---|---|---|
![]() |
BPIX power sectors layer 1: The maps show the BPIX power sectors for layer 1 in the phi-z-plane. Thick black lines indicate the four quadrants of BPIX (top-left: BmI, top-right: BpI, bottom-left: BmO, bottom-right: BpO). Dashed lines indicate individual modules. Arrows indicate the inlet and outlet of the 2-phase CO 2 cooling lines. | |
![]() |
BPIX power sectors layer 2: The maps show the BPIX power sectors for layer 2 in the phi-z-plane. Thick black lines indicate the four quadrants of BPIX (top-left: BmI, top-right: BpI, bottom-left: BmO, bottom-right: BpO). Full lines indicate the power sectors, dashed lines indicate individual modules. Arrows indicate the inlet and outlet of the 2-phase CO2 cooling lines. | |
![]() |
BPIX power sectors layer 3: The maps show the BPIX power sectors for layer 3 in the phi-z-plane. Thick black lines indicate the four quadrants of BPIX (top-left: BmI, top-right: BpI, bottom-left: BmO, bottom-right: BpO). Full lines indicate the power sectors, dashed lines indicate individual modules. Arrows indicate the inlet and outlet of the 2-phase CO2 cooling lines. | |
![]() |
BPIX power sectors layer 4: The maps show the BPIX power sectors for layer 4 in the phi-z-plane. Thick black lines indicate the four quadrants of BPIX (top-left: BmI, top-right: BpI, bottom-left: BmO, bottom-right: BpO). Full lines indicate the power sectors, dashed lines indicate individual modules. Arrows indicate the inlet and outlet of the 2-phase CO2 cooling lines. | |
![]() |
BPIX leakage currents layer 1: The maps show the BPIX power sectors. Thick black lines indicate the four quadrants of BPIX (top-left: BmI, top-right: BpI, bottom-left: BmO, bottom-right: BpO). Normal lines indicate the power sectors. Dashed lines indicate individual modules. The values in the map are: sector leakage current divided by the number of connected modules. For sectors (or modules) which are not powered, the corresponding bin is left blank. Modules in Layer 1 marked with a white asterisk have been exchanged during YETS 2017/18 and have less integrated luminosity. Arrows indicate the inlet and outlet of the 2-phase CO2 cooling lines. The plots show that the leakage current decreases along one cooling loop: a temperature drop in CO2 cooling causes lower a leakage current towards the outlet. | |
![]() |
BPIX leakage currents layer 2: The maps show the BPIX power sectors. Thick black lines indicate the four quadrants of BPIX (top-left: BmI, top-right: BpI, bottom-left: BmO, bottom-right: BpO). Normal lines indicate the power sectors. Dashed lines indicate individual modules. The values in the map are: sector leakage current divided by the number of connected modules. For sectors (or modules) which are not powered, the corresponding bin is left blank. Modules in Layer 1 marked with a white asterisk have been exchanged during YETS 2017/18 and have less integrated luminosity. Arrows indicate the inlet and outlet of the 2-phase CO2 cooling lines. The plots show that the leakage current decreases along one cooling loop: a temperature drop in CO2 cooling causes lower a leakage current towards the outlet. | |
![]() |
BPIX leakage currents layer 3: The maps show the BPIX power sectors. Thick black lines indicate the four quadrants of BPIX (top-left: BmI, top-right: BpI, bottom-left: BmO, bottom-right: BpO). Normal lines indicate the power sectors. Dashed lines indicate individual modules. The values in the map are: sector leakage current divided by the number of connected modules. For sectors (or modules) which are not powered, the corresponding bin is left blank. Modules in Layer 1 marked with a white asterisk have been exchanged during YETS 2017/18 and have less integrated luminosity. Arrows indicate the inlet and outlet of the 2-phase CO2 cooling lines. The plots show that the leakage current decreases along one cooling loop: a temperature drop in CO2 cooling causes lower a leakage current towards the outlet. | |
![]() |
BPIX leakage currents layer 4: The maps show the BPIX power sectors. Thick black lines indicate the four quadrants of BPIX (top-left: BmI, top-right: BpI, bottom-left: BmO, bottom-right: BpO). Normal lines indicate the power sectors. Dashed lines indicate individual modules. The values in the map are: sector leakage current divided by the number of connected modules. For sectors (or modules) which are not powered, the corresponding bin is left blank. Modules in Layer 1 marked with a white asterisk have been exchanged during YETS 2017/18 and have less integrated luminosity. Arrows indicate the inlet and outlet of the 2-phase CO2 cooling lines. The plots show that the leakage current decreases along one cooling loop: a temperature drop in CO2 cooling causes lower a leakage current towards the outlet. | |
![]() |
BPix leakage currents vs phi in layer 1: same data as above. Red markers: positive z-end-sectors. Blue markers: negative z-end- sectors. Error bars in x indicate the phi-coverage of the sector. Dashed lines indicate the inlet or outlet of a cooling line. Gray arrows indicate the CO2 flow direction. | |
![]() |
BPix leakage currents vs phi in layer 2: same data as above. Red markers: positive z-end-sectors. Blue markers: negative z-end- sectors. Error bars in x indicate the phi-coverage of the sector. Dashed lines indicate the inlet or outlet of a cooling line. Gray arrows indicate the CO2 flow direction. | |
![]() |
BPix leakage currents vs phi in layer 3: same data as above. Red markers: positive z-end-sectors. Blue markers: negative z-end- sectors. Error bars in x indicate the phi-coverage of the sector. Dashed lines indicate the inlet or outlet of a cooling line. Gray arrows indicate the CO2 flow direction. | |
![]() |
BPix leakage currents vs phi in layer 4: same data as above. Red markers: positive z-end-sectors. Blue markers: negative z-end- sectors. Error bars in x indicate the phi-coverage of the sector. Dashed lines indicate the inlet or outlet of a cooling line. Gray arrows indicate the CO2 flow direction. | |
![]() |
BPix thermal mockup temperatures: The plot shows the temperature values measured with the BPIX thermal mock-up. Measurement conditions: module power 3.1W, nominal CO temperature -22.5°C, ambient temperature -15°C, preheating power 30W. Arrows indicate the inlet and outlet of the 2-phase CO 2 cooling lines. Module temperatures decrease along one cooling loop causing a temperature drop in the 2-phase CO2 cooling. Some irregularities appear which have been cross-checked many times. It is still not clear what is causing them. The white bin is a broken dummy module. Conclusion of the plot: The modules have lower temperatures towards the return of the cooling loop. The module temperature in the detector is not uniformly distributed, but determined by the CO2 flow and its 2-phase behavior. | |
![]() |
BPix thermal mockup temperatures: The mean module temperature is plotted versus the average phi-position of the modules for different mass flows of 2-phase CO2 cooling. Measurement conditions: module power 3.1W, nominal CO temperature -22.5°C, ambient temperature -15°C, preheating power 30W. The plot shows that the overall temperature difference in the mock-up half-shell is about 1.5K smaller if the CO2 mass flow is lowered from 2.5 g/s to 1.5 g/s. Conclusion of the plot: The effect observed is due to the properties of the CO2 in two-phase state, e.g. the velocity of mass flow, friction, boiling behavior. While the module temperature at the return point (phi ~= 90°) stays nearly constant, it is lower for modules which are closer to the inlet of the cooling loop (phi ~= 0°). Reducing the CO 2 mass flow might thus reduce the module temperatures and leakage currents (and their spreads with respect to the whole BPIX). | |
![]() |
BPix thermal mockup temperatures: The plot shows the temperature values measured with the BPIX Thermal Mock-up for different module powers. It is estimated that the BPIX Layer 2 modules currently have a power of ~ 3W. A module power of 4.8 W can be considered as an upper limit for the end-of-life-time power. The mean module temperature is plotted versus the average phi-position of the modules for different module powers at a CO2 mass flow of 2.5g/s. Conclusion of the plot: A significant higher module power also affects the module temperatures (6K higher module temperatures at 2W higher power. The overall temperature difference in the mock-up half-shell is increased from 4K for a module power of 2.7W to 6K for a module power of 4.8W. The temperature differences in the detector do also depend on the full heat load. | |
![]() |
BPix thermal mockup temperatures: The modules are arranged into groups of four modules per ladder and z-end. The factor of HV leakage current per module is normalized to the lowest module temperature T0 that is measured in the mock-up. Then the z-axis is normalized to the module group with the lowest leakage current. Conclusion of the plot: The plot shows that a factor of 1.9 between leakage currents at different ladders is expected from the measurements with the thermal mock-up. These leakage current factors which are estimated from the mock-up measurements, were compared to the detector currents where the location of the cooling was taken into account. The results are in good agreement with the actually measured leakage currents in the BPIX detector. |
Environment variables | Detector parameters | CMS Run variable property |
Dew point | Power supply voltage | Luminosity |
Air pressure | Power group current | Detector run status |
Air temperature | Module temperature | Data acquisition status |
Himidity | Cooling flow status | Data quality monitoring |
... | ... | ... |
Figure in png format | other formats | Description |
---|---|---|
![]() | null |
|
![]() | null |
|
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
| |
![]() |
|
The expected leakage current in each of the pixel barrel layers is calculated based on the full temperature- and irradiation history using the empirical radiation damage model I (Φ, t, T) = I0 + α( t), T (Φ, V). Radiation-induced increase of leakage current depends on fluence Φ, time t, temperature T, volume V. The α-parameter set for radiation damage model used comes from M. Moll, Radiation Damage in Silicon Particle Detectors, Universität Hamburg, DESY-THESIS-1999-040, 1999 https://mmoll.web.cern.ch/mmoll/thesis/. For the simulation, a FLUKA fluence simulation** was used with high granular resolution and detector geometry as input.
The data for comparison is from the CMS pixel detector with an available granularity per sector: there are several modules per sector, the data is not resolved in z.
Figure in png format | other formats | Description |
---|---|---|
Figure in png format | other formats | Description |
---|---|---|
![]() |
The expected leakage current in each of the pixel barrel layers is calculated based on the full temperature- and irradiation history using the empirical radiation damage model I (Φ, t, T) = I0 + α( t), T (Φ, V). Radiation-induced increase of leakage current depends on fluence Φ, time t, temperature T, volume V. The α-parameter set for radiation damage model used comes from M. Moll, Radiation Damage in Silicon Particle Detectors, Universität Hamburg, DESY-THESIS-1999-040, 1999 https://mmoll.web.cern.ch/mmoll/thesis/![]() |
|
![]() |
The expected leakage current in each of the pixel barrel layers is calculated based on the full temperature- and irradiation history using the empirical radiation damage model I (Φ, t, T) = I0 + α( t), T (Φ, V). Radiation-induced increase of leakage current depends on fluence Φ, time t, temperature T, volume V. The α-parameter set for radiation damage model used comes from M. Moll, Radiation Damage in Silicon Particle Detectors, Universität Hamburg, DESY-THESIS-1999-040, 1999 https://mmoll.web.cern.ch/mmoll/thesis/![]() |
|
![]() |
The expected leakage current in each of the pixel barrel layers is calculated based on the full temperature- and irradiation history using the empirical radiation damage model I (Φ, t, T) = I0 + α( t), T (Φ, V). Radiation-induced increase of leakage current depends on fluence Φ, time t, temperature T, volume V. The α-parameter set for radiation damage model used comes from M. Moll, Radiation Damage in Silicon Particle Detectors, Universität Hamburg, DESY-THESIS-1999-040, 1999 https://mmoll.web.cern.ch/mmoll/thesis/![]() |
|
![]() |
The expected leakage current in each of the pixel barrel layers is calculated based on the full temperature- and irradiation history using the empirical radiation damage model I (Φ, t, T) = I0 + α( t), T (Φ, V). Radiation-induced increase of leakage current depends on fluence Φ, time t, temperature T, volume V. The α-parameter set for radiation damage model used comes from M. Moll, Radiation Damage in Silicon Particle Detectors, Universität Hamburg, DESY-THESIS-1999-040, 1999 https://mmoll.web.cern.ch/mmoll/thesis/![]() |
|
![]() |
Based on the full temperature- and irradiation history the expected full depletion voltages of the pixel tracker layers are simulated using the Hamburg model (M. Moll, Radiation Damage in Silicon Particle Detectors, Universität Hamburg, DESY-THESIS-1999-040, 1999) for radiation damage. Warm periods during various technical stops lead to a change of depletion voltage due to annealing. Simulation input: FLUKA fluence simulation** with high granular resolution and detector geometry, and for the material, the different impact of charged and neutral particles on oxygenated silicon are taken into account. In the Hamburg model, the Hamburg parameter set** for oxygenated Si (DOFZ) was used. The actual temperature history is taken from a database** where whenever the low voltage is on, the silicon temperature is greater than the measurement near cooling loop. Data points ** are taken from HV bias scans. Considering the high sensitivity to input data, the simulation matches the data well. **all of these parameters introduce significant uncertainties. |
Figure in png format | other formats | Description |
---|---|---|
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for all four layers of the pixel barrel detector normalized to the number of ROCs in the respective layer. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. The distribution of layer 1 is different, because another type of ROC is used here. Modules in layer 2 that were damaged in 2017 and could not be replaced are shown in a separate distribution. The shown measurement was performed during the commissioning phase in 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for layer 1 of the pixel barrel detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. The shown measurement was performed during the commissioning phase in 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for layer 2 of the pixel barrel detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. Modules that were damaged in 2017 and could not be replaced are shown in yellow, while the modules showing normal behavior are shown in blue. The damaged modules show a higher threshold. The shown measurement was performed during the commissioning phase in 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for layer 3 of the pixel barrel detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. The shown measurement was performed during the commissioning phase in 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for layer 4 of the pixel barrel detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. The shown measurement was performed during the commissioning phase in 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for the whole pixel forward detector normalized to the number of ROCs in the respective ring. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. Modules in the forward pixel that were damaged in 2017 and could not be replaced are shown in a separate distribution (small effect). The shown measurement was performed during the commissioning phase in 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for ring 1 of the pixel forward detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. Modules that were damaged in 2017 and could not be replaced are shown in yellow, while the modules showing normal behavior are shown in blue. The damaged modules have a higher threshold. The shown measurement was performed during the commissioning phase in 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for ring 2 of the pixel forward detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. The shown measurement was performed during the commissioning phase in 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). |
Figure in png format | other formats | Description |
---|---|---|
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for all four layers of the pixel barrel detector normalized to the number of ROCs in the respective layer. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. The distribution of layer 1 is different, because another type of ROC is used here. Modules in layer 2 that were damaged in 2017 and could not be replaced are shown in a separate distribution. The shown measurement was performed in June 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). A minimal degradation of the threshold with respect to the measurement during commissioning is observed. This effect is due to the increased irradiation of the ROCs. The effect cannot be seen in layer 1, as the effect has already reached a plateau here for most ROCs. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for layer 1 of the pixel barrel detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. The shown measurement was performed in June 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). No degradation effect due to irradiation with respect to the measurement during commissioning is observed here, as for most ROCs a plateau of this effect is already reached. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for layer 2 of the pixel barrel detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. Modules that were damaged in 2017 and could not be replaced are shown in yellow, while the modules showing normal behavior are shown in blue. The damaged modules have a higher threshold. The shown measurement was performed in June 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). A minimal degradation of the threshold with respect to the measurement during commissioning is observed. This effect is due to the increased irradiation of the ROCs. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for layer 3 of the pixel barrel detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. The shown measurement was performed in June 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). A minimal degradation of the threshold with respect to the measurement during commissioning is observed. This effect is due to the increased irradiation of the ROCs. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for layer 4 of the pixel barrel detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. The shown measurement was performed in June 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). A minimal degradation of the threshold with respect to the measurement during commissioning is observed. This effect is due to the increased irradiation of the ROCs. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for the whole pixel forward detector normalized to the number of ROCs in the respective ring. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. Modules in the forward pixel that were damaged in 2017 and could not be replaced are shown in a separate distribution (small effect). The shown measurement was performed in June 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). A minimal degradation of the threshold with respect to the measurement during commissioning is observed. This effect is due to the increased irradiation of the ROCs. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for ring 1 of the pixel forward detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. Modules that were damaged in 2017 and could not be replaced are shown in yellow (small effect), while the modules showing normal behavior are shown in blue. The damaged modules have a higher threshold. The shown measurement was performed in June 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). A minimal degradation of the threshold with respect to the measurement during commissioning is observed. This effect is due to the increased irradiation of the ROCs. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The distribution of the readout chip (ROC) threshold in number of electrons for ring 2 of the pixel forward detector. The threshold is measured as the value where the turn-on of the ROC reaches an efficiency of 0.5. The shown measurement was performed in June 2018. The number of electrons were calculated from the measured calibration units (VCal). A minimal degradation of the threshold with respect to the measurement during commissioning is observed. This effect is due to the increased irradiation of the ROCs. |
Figure in png format | other formats | Description |
---|---|---|
![]() |
.eps .pdf | Two tests are performed to classify the DCDC converters as either working normally, having high-current or being broken. The first test is the disable test, where the DCDC converter is disabled and the input voltage is scanned from 0 V to 5.5 V (upper plot). The second test is the enable test, where the DCDC is enabled and a load of 1.5A is connected. The input voltage is then scanned from 0 V to 10 V. There is a difference in the behavior between a high-current DCDC and a normal working DCDC in the disabled test, while the converters show the same behavior in the enable test. A DCDC converter is considered as having high-current, when the input current at 5.5V is larger than 4mA. The behavior of a broken DCDC converter is not shown. A DCDC converter is considered broken, when the input current at 10V in the enabled test is less than 400mA. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The input current of the DCDC converters that were extracted from the detector after the 2017 run. The current was measured at an input voltage of 5.5V while the DCDC is disabled. DCDCs with an input current less than 4mA are considered as working normally. DCDCs with an input current greater than 4mA are considered as high-current. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | The input current of the DCDC converters that were extracted from the detector after the 2017 run. The current was measured at an input voltage of 10V while the DCDC is enabled. A clear separation between the broken DCDC converters (input current less than 400 mA), the working analog converters (input current between 400 and 540 mA) and the working digital converters (input current greater 540 mA) is observed. While a DCDC converter is enabled no difference between the normal behavior and the high-current behavior is visible in this distribution. |
Figure in png format | other formats | Description |
---|---|---|
![]() |
Summary of the characterization of the 2017 DCDC converters for the barrel pixel detector. The number of normal behaving, high-current and broken DCDC converters is given for each half-cylinder separately and for the total barrel pixel detector. The defects of DCDCs are randomly distributed. | |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | Overview of the DCDC converter classification after the 2017 run for the half-cylinder in minus direction wrt. the beam on the inner side (BmI) of the barrel pixel detector. The coordinates correspond to the position of the DCDC converter in the detector during the run. Analog DCDC converter are marked with an “a”, digital DCDC converter are marked with a “d”. The defects of DCDCs are randomly distributed. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | Overview of the DCDC converter classification after the 2017 run for the half-cylinder in minus direction wrt. the beam on the outer side (BmO) of the barrel pixel detector. The coordinates correspond to the position of the DCDC converter in the detector during the run. Analog DCDC converter are marked with an “a”, digital DCDC converter are marked with a “d”. The defects of DCDCs are randomly distributed. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | Overview of the DCDC converter classification after the 2017 run for the half-cylinder in plus direction wrt. the beam on the inner side (BpI) of the barrel pixel detector. The coordinates correspond to the position of the DCDC converter in the detector during the run. Analog DCDC converter are marked with an “a”, digital DCDC converter are marked with a “d”. The defects of DCDCs are randomly distributed. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | Overview of the DCDC converter classification after the 2017 run for the half-cylinder in plus direction wrt. the beam on the outer side (BpO) of the barrel pixel detector. The coordinates correspond to the position of the DCDC converter in the supply tube in the detector. Analog DCDC converter are marked with an “a”, digital DCDC converter are marked with a “d”. The defects of DCDCs are randomly distributed. |
Figure in png format | other formats | Description |
---|---|---|
![]() |
Summary of the characterization of the 2017 DCDC converters for the forward pixel detector. The number of normal behaving, high-current and broken DCDC converters is given for each half-cylinder separately and for the total forward pixel detector. The defects of DCDCs are randomly distributed. | |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | Overview of the DCDC converter classification after the 2017 run for the half-cylinder in minus direction wrt. the beam on the inner side (BmI) of the forward pixel detector. The converters are grouped into readout groups (ROG) and the coordinates correspond to the position in the detector. Analog DCDC converter are marked with an “a”, digital DCDC converter are marked with a “d”. The defects of DCDCs are randomly distributed. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | Overview of the DCDC converter classification after the 2017 run for the half-cylinder in minus direction wrt. the beam on the outer side (BmO) of the forward pixel detector. The coordinates correspond to the position of the DCDC converter in the detector during the run. Analog DCDC converter are marked with an “a”, digital DCDC converter are marked with a “d”. The defects of DCDCs are randomly distributed. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | Overview of the DCDC converter classification after the 2017 run for the half-cylinder in plus direction wrt. the beam on the inner side (BpI) of the forward pixel detector. The coordinates correspond to the position of the DCDC converter in the detector during the run. Analog DCDC converter are marked with an “a”, digital DCDC converter are marked with a “d”. The defects of DCDCs are randomly distributed. |
![]() |
.eps .pdf | Overview of the DCDC converter classification after the 2017 run for the half-cylinder in plus direction wrt. the beam on the outer side (BpO) of the forward pixel detector. The coordinates correspond to the position of the DCDC converter in the detector during the run. Analog DCDC converter are marked with an “a”, digital DCDC converter are marked with a “d”. The defects of DCDCs are randomly distributed. |