Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 43 references

Changing adhesive choice and glue patterns stops ATLAS petal silicon sensors from cracking down to −45 °C, with only a few-percent crack rate at −55 °C.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 01:49 UTC pith:7AEMFCMT

load-bearing objection Solid petal-specific campaign that freezes Improved Nominal SE4445 as a workable temporary fix; abstract’s clean −45 °C line is a bit cleaner than the 10 °C passive-cycle window and small-n pre-series data support. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25080 v1 pith:7AEMFCMT submitted 2026-07-27 physics.ins-det

Cracking under pressure --- investigating mitigation approaches for silicon fractures on ATLAS strip tracker petals at cold temperatures

S.H. Abidi , J.-H. Arling , M.J. Basso , S. Beaupre , I. Bloch , A.J. Blue , M. Caspar , J. Chen
show 30 more authors
S. D\'iez Cornell U. Epstein E.K. Filmer A. Fournier L. Franconi A. Gabrielli J.A. Hallford S. Heim C.M. Helling N.P. Hessey R.M. Jacobs T. Kuhl M. Licht C.K. Mahajan S. Manson K. Mauer S. Oerdek V. Platero Montagut L. Poley C.O. Sander K. Ran S. Sinha C. Solaz Contell U. Soldevila Serrano D. Sperlich B. Stelzer A.H. Tigchelaar E. Torres Reoyo G. Vallone L.M. Veloce
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det
keywords Si microstrip detectorssensor crackingthermal cyclingadhesive patternsATLAS ITk petalsCTE mismatchdetector construction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Silicon strip modules on ATLAS Inner Tracker end-cap petals can physically crack when cooled below the nominal −35 °C operating point, because copper in the readout boards contracts more than the silicon and the adhesives transmit that stress. Cooling failures can drive sensors to −45 °C or, in extreme cases, −55 °C, so the collaboration had to find a fix that did not redesign the whole module stack. This paper shows that an “Improved Nominal” recipe—keeping the soft SE4445 loading gel, covering module edges and gaps more completely, and eliminating small glue-dots under the boards—pushes the onset of cracking past −45 °C. On the petals built this way, only a few percent of modules show crack signatures after cycling to −55 °C. That headroom makes the design usable for early petal construction while a more invasive interposer solution is prepared for the bulk of production.

Core claim

The Improved Nominal mitigation—SE4445 as the loading adhesive deposited with full edge-and-gap coverage, combined with removal of small glue-dots from the PCB-to-sensor adhesive pattern—prevents sensor cracking on petals to temperatures as low as −45 °C and yields only a small percentage of cracks after thermal cycling to −55 °C.

What carries the argument

The Improved Nominal adhesive recipe: SE4445 loading gel in an optimized snake-like pattern that covers PCB edges and inter-hybrid gaps, plus a module-assembly glue pattern that omits the high-stress glue-dots previously used under hybrids and powerboards.

Load-bearing premise

The crack rates and onset temperatures measured on a handful of mixed-build pre-production and six pre-series petals are assumed to predict the failure rate of full production under real cooling-failure thermal profiles.

What would settle it

If a statistically larger set of production-specification petals, cycled under the same protocol, shows cracks appearing at or above −45 °C or a crack fraction well above a few percent at −55 °C, the claim of adequate headroom fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Part of the ATLAS ITk end-cap strip detector can be built with the Improved Nominal recipe while the interposer solution finishes development.
  • Cooling-system failure scenarios that reach −45 °C no longer force wholesale module replacement on Improved Nominal petals.
  • Module assembly can tolerate modest adhesive-height and bow variations without losing the −45 °C headroom.
  • Stiffer loading adhesives such as HYSOL are not required once glue-dot stress concentrations are removed and edge coverage is improved.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same glue-dot and edge-coverage rules are likely to be the dominant stress knobs for any silicon-strip module that bonds stiff copper boards directly to the sensor with a hard epoxy.
  • Because SE4445 stiffens dramatically below −40 °C, future adhesive selection for cold detectors should quote modulus at the coldest credible temperature, not only at room temperature.
  • A quantitative fracture-stress map versus local adhesive geometry could turn the empirical “two-of-three” crack identification rule into a predictive design tool for the next tracker generation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript documents an iterative, multi-site experimental study of silicon sensor cracking on ATLAS ITk strip end-cap petals during cold thermal cycling, and of adhesive-based mitigation strategies. Using IV compliance curves, per-channel noise maps, visual inspection (in some cases after PCB removal), and stress simulations, the authors trace cracks to CTE-mismatch stress concentrated at PCB edges, hybrid/powerboard gaps, and small "glue-dots" in the PCB-to-sensor adhesive pattern. A harder loading adhesive (HYSOL) is shown not to help, partly because SE4445 stiffens to comparable modulus below −40 °C. The resulting "Improved Nominal" design (SE4445 loading with full edge/gap coverage and curved lines, plus a glue-dot-free module adhesive pattern) is tested on two pre-production petals (VAN6, VAN7), two further petals (IFIC3, IFIC4), and six pre-series petals. The central claim is that this design prevents cracking down to −45 °C, with only a few-percent crack rate after cycling to −55 °C.

Significance. If the headline numbers hold, this is a result of direct and high practical significance: sensor cracking was a project-level risk for the ITk, and the paper documents the evidence base for adopting the Improved Nominal pattern in part of end-cap production. Strengths include a genuinely empirical, multi-site dataset with thermal cycling to −75 °C; a three-pronged crack-identification methodology (IV early breakdown, noise clusters, visual confirmation, including destructive PCB removal on VAN3/VAN4 that yielded ground truth); identification of the glue-dot stress mechanism corroborated by FEA; and commendably transparent reporting of out-of-spec modules and anomalous builds. The work is hypothesis-driven (each petal tests a specific pattern change) and the negative HYSOL result is reported honestly. However, the production-relevant evidence is thin: the −45 °C survival claim rests on n=2 pre-production petals with known anomalies plus six pre-series petals whose crack onset is only bracketed to a 10 °C window, and the "few percent" rate is unquantified with respect to denominator and small-sample uncertainty.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.5.3 and Table 4 (vs. abstract)] The load-bearing sentence for the abstract's claim is ambiguous: the text states four of six pre-series petals 'cracked at a temperature between the −45 and −55 °C temperature cycles,' while the Table 4 caption states 'All cracks occurred after thermal cycling at −55 °C.' Because cycling was passive (climate chamber, petal unpowered, no in-situ electrical test, §2.1.3), a crack initiating during the −45 °C cycles would only be detected at the next warm test. The manuscript must state explicitly whether IV/DAQ tests were performed after the −45 °C cycles and before the −55 °C cycles, and whether those tests were clean. If no intermediate test exists, the onset for the production-representative sample is only bracketed to (−55, −45] °C and the abstract's 'prevents cracking to temperatures as low as −45 °C' is not supported for pre-series builds. Relatedly, the actual sensor temperature dur
  2. [§3.5.3 and abstract] The 'small percentage' / 'few percent' crack rate is never given a denominator or uncertainty. Five suspected cracks over six petals corresponds to 5/72 ≈ 7% at module level (or a different number per sensor half, petal side, or channel); the small-sample binomial uncertainty on any of these is large (roughly a factor of three). Please state the rate with an explicit denominator and confidence interval, and reconcile the comparison with the 'at most 10% failing channels' requirement: §1.1 states a crack renders a full module unusable, so a module-level loss rate is not directly comparable to a channel-level budget without conversion.
  3. [Table 2] The Young's modulus values appear to be swapped between the two adhesives: the table lists SE4445 at 2.75×10^3 MPa and HYSOL at 2×10^−1 MPa at 25 °C, whereas the text (§1.1) describes SE4445 as the low-modulus gel and HYSOL as the stiff adhesive, and §3.4.1 states both reach ~2000 MPa only below −40 °C. As printed, the table contradicts the mechanical narrative on which the mitigation logic rests. Please correct the values/units and, if possible, add the cold-temperature modulus data from the differential material analysis mentioned in §3.4.1, since the SE4445 low-temperature stiffening is a key argument for abandoning HYSOL.
  4. [§3.5.4 and Fig. 27] The 'approximately 10 °C of headroom' claim excludes the pre-series petals (acknowledged in the caption), which are precisely the sample showing reduced headroom (onset in the −45 to −55 °C window). A summary figure that includes the pre-series and IFIC3/IFIC4 results would give a more honest picture. In addition, the cross-petal comparison is confounded by module-build differences (Table 3): early petals carried modules cycled to +40 °C, which §3 states increased deformation and cracking tendency, and used mixed PCB-to-sensor adhesives. The cleanest like-for-like comparison is VAN6/VAN7 versus IFIC2 (largest fraction of in-spec modules); the discussion should be reframed around that comparison or the confound addressed quantitatively.
  5. [§2.2 and §3.5.3] All five pre-series cracks (Table 4) are 'suspected' under the two-of-three rule with no visual confirmation, so both false-positive and false-negative rates enter the headline rate estimate unquantified. The VAN3/VAN4 campaigns, where PCBs were removed and suspected sites inspected, provide ground truth: please summarize how often two-of-three signatures corresponded to visually confirmed cracks in those petals (e.g., VAN3: 20 confirmed vs. 3 unconfirmable) and propagate this into a statement about the reliability of the pre-series crack count. Also specify what the IFIC4 'modified adhesive pattern' (§3.5.3) actually was, since IFIC4's −45 °C crack is the clearest demonstration that the margin is fragile to pattern-level deviations.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.2] Garbled sentence: 'The new loading patterns developed for this petal based on these recommendations are seen was additionally optimized to provide support to the DC-DC converter and the ASICs.' Please rewrite.
  2. [§1.1 and Fig. 6] Typographical: 'is therefore not subject of this publication' → 'is therefore not the subject'; Fig. 6 caption 'Results are shows' → 'Results are shown'; §3.1.4 'not completely understood. but' — stray period.
  3. [§3.5.2] VAN7's first crack is reported at −67 |C, a set-point inconsistent with the 5 |C step schedule of |2.1.3. Please explain the origin of this value (system limit, ramp overshoot, or typo).
  4. [§3.5.3] The number of thermal cycles per set-point for the six pre-series petals is not stated (the general 1–5 cycle scheme of §2.1.3 may or may not apply); please give the exact cycle counts at −45 and −55 °C, since crack probability is cycle-dependent (cf. IFIC2 cracks after first vs. second −50 °C cycles).
  5. [Fig. 27] Axis title 'Cumulative Cracks Counts' is ungrammatical; the colour coding described in the caption (orange/blue/green) is hard to discern — consider distinct markers or direct labelling. It would also help to mark suspected vs. visually confirmed cracks differently.
  6. [§1.1 and ref. [23]] The simulation support rests on ref. [23], listed as 'In preparation.' Since the glue-dot stress identification is central to the mitigation logic, please quote at least the peak stress values from the simulations relative to the measured fracture thresholds (350 MPa typical, outliers at 200/100 MPa, ref. [26]) so the corroboration is quantitative rather than qualitative.
  7. [Abstract] 'liquid $\textrm{CO}^2$' should be CO$_2$; consider also quantifying 'small percentage' in the abstract once the rate is defined (see major comment 2).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical assembly/materials study; crack onset temperatures are measured outcomes, not forced by fit, definition, or self-citation loop.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing claim—that Improved Nominal (SE4445 loading with edge/gap coverage plus removal of PCB-to-sensor glue-dots) prevents cracking down to −45 °C with only a few-percent crack rate after −55 °C cycles—rests on direct thermal-cycling campaigns and post-cycle IV/DAQ/visual diagnostics on named petals (VAN2–VAN7, IFIC2, DESY1–2, pre-series). Crack identification is an operational rule (early breakdown + noise cluster + optional visual), not a quantity defined from the mitigation pattern. Stress simulations and adhesive-modulus measurements are used diagnostically to motivate pattern changes; they do not algebraically produce the reported onset temperatures. Self-citations (prior ITk QC, stave cracking, interposer work, Vallone simulations in prep.) supply context and parallel results but are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or as the sole warrant for the −45/−55 °C numbers. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no self-definitional identity, and no renaming of a known empirical law. Circularity score is therefore 0; any weakness is statistical/experimental (small n, coarse temperature bins, mixed builds), not circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard detector-construction domain facts (CTE mismatch, adhesive mechanical properties, QC electrical signatures of cracks) plus the empirical identification protocol and the representativeness of the tested petal sample—not on free theoretical parameters or newly postulated entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Thermal cycle set-point step and dwell schedule (−5 °C steps, 1–5 cycles per set-point) = 5 °C steps; up to 5 cycles per temperature
    Protocol chosen by the collaboration; crack onset temperatures are reported relative to these discrete set-points rather than a continuous failure curve.
  • Crack declaration threshold (require ≥2 of 3: early IV breakdown, noise cluster, visual) = 2-of-3 criteria
    Operational definition that gates which modules enter the cumulative crack counts underlying the −45/−55 °C claim.
  • Acceptable production crack rate benchmark = ≤10% failing channels (project requirement)
    Pre-series few-percent rate is judged compatible with “at most 10% failing channels”; that project budget is an external acceptance parameter, not measured here.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Sensor cracks are driven primarily by CTE mismatch between copper-bearing PCBs and silicon under cold thermal load, with stress concentrated at adhesive discontinuities.
    Stated in §1.1 and used throughout to interpret glue-dot and edge cracks; supported by cited simulations [23] and fracture-stress measurements [26].
  • domain assumption Early breakdown below ~−100 V after colder cycles plus localized under-stream noise anomalies are reliable proxies for physical sensor cracks even when visual confirmation is impossible without de-lidding.
    Crack identification protocol in §2.2; load-bearing for counting “suspected” cracks that enter the summary plot (Fig. 27).
  • domain assumption SE4445 Young’s modulus rises to ~2000 MPa below −40 °C, comparable to HYSOL, so cold stiffness—not only room-temperature datasheet values—governs loading stress.
    Invoked in §3.4.1 after DMA measurement to explain why SE4445 petals can show HYSOL-like edge cracks.
  • domain assumption Cooling-pipe set-points with stated +2 to +7 °C gradients to the sensor surface adequately bound the temperatures modules would see in cooling-system failure scenarios (−45 °C problems, −55 °C catastrophic).
    §2.1.3 temperature-gradient note and abstract failure-scenario mapping; maps lab set-points onto operational claims.
  • standard math Standard arithmetic/statistics for counting modules and reporting leakage current density and ENC noise.
    Used for IV curves, noise plots, and cumulative crack counts; no exotic formalism.
invented entities (1)
  • Improved Nominal adhesive design (SE4445 loading pattern with edge/gap coverage and curved lines + PCB-to-sensor pattern without glue-dots) no independent evidence
    purpose: Named mitigation recipe claimed to provide ~10 °C headroom versus default petals.
    Not a new physical substance but a specific process definition introduced and tested in this paper (§3.4.1–3.5). Independent evidence is the petal thermal-cycle data themselves; no external non-ITk validation yet.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 26098 in / 3694 out tokens · 76204 ms · 2026-07-31T01:49:11.308167+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

For the High-Luminosity upgrade of the Large Hadron Collider, the ATLAS experiment will replace its current Inner Detector with an all-silicon Inner Tracker (ITk), consisting of pixel and strip detectors. The strip detector will consist of a central region or "barrel" assembled with staves and forward regions or "end-caps" assembled with petals. The ITk will nominally operate with liquid $\textrm{CO}^2$ cooling at $-35\,^\circ\textrm{C}$; however, in the event of cooling system failures, it is possible that sensors will experience temperatures below $-35\,^\circ\textrm{C}$. At these low temperatures, it has been observed that the silicon sensors within modules --- the fundamental readout units of the detector --- can physically crack, rendering the modules inoperable. Understanding and resolving the issue of sensor cracking was one of the most important and urgent issues for the ITk project. This paper presents part of the mitigation strategies developed for petals. These mitigation strategies are based on modifications to the choice of adhesive and its deposition pattern for module assembly and petal loading. The most promising mitigation strategy presented here prevents cracking to temperatures as low as $-45\,^\circ\textrm{C}$, which can be expected in case of cooling system problems, with a small percentage of cracks observed after being cycled to $-55\,^\circ\textrm{C}$, which can be expected in case of catastrophic cooling system failures.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine,JINST3(2008) S08001

    2008

  2. [2]

    Béjar Alonso et al.,High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report, Tech

    I. Béjar Alonso et al.,High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report, Tech. Rep. CERN-2020-010, CERN, 2020. 10.23731/CYRM-2020-0010

    doi:10.23731/cyrm-2020-0010 2020

  3. [3]

    ATLAS collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,JINST3(2008) S08003

    2008

  4. [4]

    ATLAS collaboration,ATLAS Inner Detector Technical Design Report: Vol. I, Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-97-16, ATLAS-TDR-4, CERN, 1997

    1997

  5. [5]

    II, Tech

    ATLAS collaboration,ATLAS Inner Detector Technical Design Report: Vol. II, Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-97-17, ATLAS-TDR-5, CERN, 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    ATLAS collaboration,Letter of Intent for the Phase-II Upgrade of the ATLAS Experiment, Tech. Rep. LHCC-I-023, CERN-LHCC-2012-022, CERN, 2012

    2012

  7. [7]

    ATLAS collaboration,Technical Design Report for the ATLAS Inner Tracker Pixel Detector, Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-2017-021, ATLAS-TDR-030, CERN, 2017. 10.17181/CERN.FOZZ.ZP3Q

    doi:10.17181/cern.fozz.zp3q 2017

  8. [8]

    ATLAS collaboration,Technical Design Report for the ATLAS Inner Tracker Strip Detector, Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-2017-005, ATLAS-TDR-025, CERN, 2017

    2017

  9. [9]

    Diez,The ATLAS ITk strip local support structures,Nucl

    S. Diez,The ATLAS ITk strip local support structures,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1066(2024) 169552

    2024

  10. [10]

    L.Poleyetal.,TheABC130barrelmoduleprototypingprogrammefortheATLASstriptracker,JINST 15(2020) P09004 [2009.03197]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Kuehn et al.,Prototyping of hybrids and modules for the forward silicon strip tracking detector for the ATLAS Phase-II upgrade,JINST12(2017) P05015

    S. Kuehn et al.,Prototyping of hybrids and modules for the forward silicon strip tracking detector for the ATLAS Phase-II upgrade,JINST12(2017) P05015

    2017

  12. [12]

    S.BeaupreandB.Stelzer,AutomatedAssemblyofPetalsandStavesfortheATLASNewInnerTracker Strip Detector,PoSICHEP2024(2025) 1201

    2025

  13. [13]

    A. L. Boebel et al.,The End-of-Substructure (EoS) card for the ATLAS Strip Tracker upgrade — from design to production,JINST19(2024) C02067

    2024

  14. [14]

    ATLAS Inner Tracker Layout 03-00-00

    ATLAS collaboration, “ATLAS Inner Tracker Layout 03-00-00.” https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PLOTS/ITK-2023-001, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    M. J. Basso,Characterization of pre-production petals for the ATLAS Inner Tracker strip detector, JINST20(2025) C01044. – 36 –

    2025

  16. [16]

    Y. Unno et al.,Specifications and pre-production of n+-in-p large-format strip sensors fabricated in 6-inch silicon wafers, ATLAS18, for the Inner Tracker of the ATLAS Detector for High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider,JINST18(2023) T03008

    2023

  17. [17]

    Haber et al.,Production and testing of the powerboard for ATLAS ITk Strip barrel modules,JINST 18(2023) C01043

    C. Haber et al.,Production and testing of the powerboard for ATLAS ITk Strip barrel modules,JINST 18(2023) C01043

    2023

  18. [18]

    M. J. Basso et al.,A Starry Byte — proton beam measurements of single event upsets and other radiation effects in ABCStar ASIC Versions 0 and 1 for the ITk strip tracker,JINST17(2022) P03017 [2203.12641]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    J. R. Dandoy et al.,Quality control testing of the HCC ASIC for the HL-LHC ATLAS ITk strip detector,JINST18(2023) C02026

    2023

  20. [20]

    T. C. Gosart et al.,Quality control testing of the AMAC ASIC for the HL-LHC ATLAS ITk Strip Detector,JINST18(2023) C02013

    2023

  21. [21]

    Tishelman-Charny,The quality control programme for ITk strip tracker module assembly,JINST 19(2024) C03015 [2401.17054]

    A. Tishelman-Charny,The quality control programme for ITk strip tracker module assembly,JINST 19(2024) C03015 [2401.17054]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Tishelman-Charny,Mitigation strategies for sensor fracturing in the ATLAS ITk strips detector, PoSLHCP2024(2025) 215

    A. Tishelman-Charny,Mitigation strategies for sensor fracturing in the ATLAS ITk strips detector, PoSLHCP2024(2025) 215

    2025

  23. [23]

    Investigating Cracks in Silicon Strip Sensors for ATLAS ITk Modules

    G. Vallone et al., “Investigating Cracks in Silicon Strip Sensors for ATLAS ITk Modules.” In preparation, 2026

    2026

  24. [24]

    Dow SE 4445 CV Thermally Conductive Gel

    Ellsworth Adhesives, “Dow SE 4445 CV Thermally Conductive Gel.”https://www.ellsworth. com/products/by-market/consumer-products/thermally-conductive-materials/ encapsulants/dow-se-4445-cv-thermally-conductive-gel-gray-210-ml-cartridge/

  25. [25]

    Loctite Eccobond F 112

    Henkel Adhesive Technologies, “Loctite Eccobond F 112.” https://www.henkel-adhesives.com/ca/en/product/ electrically-non-conductive-adhesives/loctite_eccobondf1120.html

  26. [26]

    Abidi et al.,Silicon wafer fracture stress for tracking sensors in particle physics experiments, JINST20(2025) P10020 [2510.08441]

    H. Abidi et al.,Silicon wafer fracture stress for tracking sensors in particle physics experiments, JINST20(2025) P10020 [2510.08441]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Fortman,A new stress-relieving layer in ATLAS ITk strip modules,Nucl

    A. Fortman,A new stress-relieving layer in ATLAS ITk strip modules,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1081 (2026) 170896

    2026

  28. [28]

    D’Amen et al.,First stave results towards mitigating sensor fracturing with interposers in the ATLAS ITk strips barrel,JINST20(2025) P09025 [2508.18015]

    G. D’Amen et al.,First stave results towards mitigating sensor fracturing with interposers in the ATLAS ITk strips barrel,JINST20(2025) P09025 [2508.18015]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Fadeyev et al.,Long-term humidity exposure of ATLAS18 ITk strip sensors,Nucl

    V. Fadeyev et al.,Long-term humidity exposure of ATLAS18 ITk strip sensors,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1064(2024) 169430

    2024

  30. [30]

    MARTA (Monoblock Approach for a Refrigeration Technical Application)

    CEBEA Bochnia, “MARTA (Monoblock Approach for a Refrigeration Technical Application).” http://icp.mech.pk.edu.pl/martaco2/

  31. [31]

    Diez et al.,Cooling and noise performance of the ATLAS ITk strip system tests,Nucl

    S. Diez et al.,Cooling and noise performance of the ATLAS ITk strip system tests,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1070(2025) 170020

    2025

  32. [32]

    Giulio Villani et al.,HVMUX, high voltage multiplexing for the ATLAS strip tracker upgrade, JINST15(2020) C05003

    E. Giulio Villani et al.,HVMUX, high voltage multiplexing for the ATLAS strip tracker upgrade, JINST15(2020) C05003

    2020

  33. [33]

    Troska et al.,The VTRx+, an Optical Link Module for Data Transmission at HL-LHC,PoS TWEPP-17(2017) 048

    J. Troska et al.,The VTRx+, an Optical Link Module for Data Transmission at HL-LHC,PoS TWEPP-17(2017) 048

    2017

  34. [34]

    Moreira et al.,lpGBT: Low-Power Radiation-Hard Multipurpose High-Speed Transceiver ASIC for High-Energy Physics Experiments,IEEE Trans

    P. Moreira et al.,lpGBT: Low-Power Radiation-Hard Multipurpose High-Speed Transceiver ASIC for High-Energy Physics Experiments,IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.72(2025) 24. – 37 –

    2025

  35. [35]

    Genesys 2 FPGA development board documentation

    Digilent Inc., “Genesys 2 FPGA development board documentation.” https://digilent.com/reference/programmable-logic/genesys-2/reference-manual

  36. [36]

    ITSDAQ Firmware

    M. Warren, “ITSDAQ Firmware.”https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~warren/upgrade/firmware

  37. [37]

    C. T. Klein et al.,ATLAS ITk Strip Sensor Quality Control and Review of ATLAS18 Pre-Production Sensor Results,JPS Conf. Proc.42(2024) 011016

    2024

  38. [38]

    K. J. R. Cormier et al.,Development of the front end amplifier circuit for the ATLAS ITk silicon strip detector,JINST16(2021) P07061

    2021

  39. [39]

    Loctite EA 9396 (HYSOL 9396)

    Henkel Adhesive Technologies, “Loctite EA 9396 (HYSOL 9396).” https://dm.henkel-dam.com/is/content/henkel/ brochure-structural-adhesive-solutions-composite-repair-loctite

  40. [40]

    Salami et al.,Quality concerns caused by quality control — deformation of silicon strip detector modules in thermal cycling tests,JINST20(2025) P03004 [2503.03133]

    R. Salami et al.,Quality concerns caused by quality control — deformation of silicon strip detector modules in thermal cycling tests,JINST20(2025) P03004 [2503.03133]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Epolite FH-5313 Epoxies

    Andover Corporation, “Epolite FH-5313 Epoxies.” https://store.andovercorp.com/product-category/epolite-fh-5313-epoxies/

  42. [42]

    G. I. Dyckes and M. G. Kurth,How the discovery of Cold Noise delayed the production of ATLAS ITk strip tracker modules by a year,JINST19(2024) C04058

    2024

  43. [43]

    Arling,Development of the system tests for the ATLAS Inner Tracker strip detector,Nucl

    J.-H. Arling,Development of the system tests for the ATLAS Inner Tracker strip detector,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1064(2024) 169427. – 38 –

    2024