1 / 29

Massimo Caccia, P.I. Universita’ dell’Insubria [UINS] Como (Italy) & INFN- Sezione di Milano

The MIMOTERA: a monolithic pixel detector for real-time beam imaging and profilometry [ U.S. patent no. 7,582,875 ]. Featuring: Designers: G. Deptuch [ FERMIlab] W. Dulinski [IRES-Strasbourg] DAQ: A. Czermak [INP-KraKow] I. Defilippis [SUPSI-Lugano]. Exploitation team:

helki
Download Presentation

Massimo Caccia, P.I. Universita’ dell’Insubria [UINS] Como (Italy) & INFN- Sezione di Milano

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. The MIMOTERA: a monolithic pixel detector for real-time beam imaging and profilometry [U.S. patent no. 7,582,875 ] • Featuring: • Designers: • G. Deptuch [FERMIlab] • W. Dulinski [IRES-Strasbourg] • DAQ: • A. Czermak [INP-KraKow] • I. Defilippis [SUPSI-Lugano] • Exploitation team: • A. Bulgheroni [UINS/JRC Ispra] • C. Cappellini [UINS] • L. Negrini [UINS] • M. Maspero[UINS] • F. Toglia[UINS] • F. Risigo [UINS] • M. Jastrzab[AGH-Krakow] • S. Martemyianov [ITEP/UINS] Massimo Caccia, P.I. Universita’ dell’Insubria [UINS] Como (Italy) & INFN- Sezione di Milano • Staff at HIT & CERN-AD • M. Holzscheiter [MPI-Heidelberg & UNM Albuquerque, US] • R. Boll [Heidelberg University] • Staff at LARN-Namur: • A. C. Heuskin [LARN] • A.C. Wera [LARN] • S. Lucas [LARN] GSI, Darmstadt, July 22nd, 2011

  2. Essentials on the MIMOTERA (1/2): • AMS CUA 0.6 µm CMOS 15 µm epi, 17.136×17.136 mm2 28 columns (30 clocks) • chip size: 17350×19607µm2 MimoTera • array 112×112 square pixels, • four sub-arrays of 28×112 pixels read out in parallel tread/integr<100µs (i.e. 10 000 frames/second) • Backthinnedto the epi-layer (~15 µm ), back illuminated through an ~80 nm entrance window Subarray 1 Subarray 2 Subarray 3 Subarray 0 112 rows (114 clocks) • no dead time digital

  3. Essentials on the MIMOTERA (2/2): • pixel 153×153µm2 square pixels, • two 9×9 interdigited arrays (A and B) of n-well/p-epi collecting diodes (5×5 µm2) + two independent electronics – avoiding dead area, Layout of one pixel • In-pixel storage capacitors – choice ~0.5pF or ~5pF to cope with signal range (poly1 over tox capacitors), B A 153 mm • Charge To Voltage Factor = ~250nV/e- @ 500fF well capacity of ~ 36 MeV • Noise ~1000 e-Å 280 e- kTC (ENC) @ 500fF

  4. Original push for the MIMOTERA development: minimally invasive real-time profilometry of hadrontherapy beams by secondary electron imaging [IEEE Trans.Nucl.Sci. 51, 133 (2004) and 52, 830 (2005))] Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Basic principle: collection and imaging of secondary 20 keV electrons emitted by sub- mm thin Aluminum foils The SLIM installed on an extraction line at the Ispra JRC-Cyclotron (p, 2H, 4H at energies 8-38 MeV, 100 nA- 100uA) Secondary electrons emitted by a proton beam through a multi-pin hole collimator (Ø = 1mm, pitch = 1.5-6.5 mm) Today: results on beam imaging by DIRECT IMPACT on the sensor

  5. Introductory slides on different imaging modalities

  6. The analysis matrix methods • is any of the matrix elements more robust and reliable? • any irreducible problem preventing to use any of them?

  7. Single matrix + single polarity signal + spot the detail of the matrix (e.g. hot pixels) strongly dependent on a good pedestal calculation And even more on a reliable pedestal variation tracking (due to thermal effects, Charge Collection efficiency variations, else) Differential imaging both positive and negative signals If pile-up occurs, the signal averages out to ZERO Matrix details can be masked off + NO NEED of pedestals + self-tracking of the pedestal variations Imaging modalities: Advantages and disadvantages

  8. Analog Info provides and effective measurement of the intensity, requiring a [possibly time dependent] calibration Possibly affected by Pixel-to-pixel gain variations (requires a normalization, implemented by measuring the signal in sigma units) + it works also when pile-up occurs IDEAL for real-time, qualitative, imaging More difficult to get a quantitative measurement Counting + provides a direct measurement of the flux [provided you can spot in an unbiased way the hit pixels…] + in principle, no calibration required + not expected to depend on local gain variations - HARD to use it as pile-up approaches [look at the non-fired pixels..]  RELIABLE & ROBUST for a quantitative approach  as the pile-up probability increases, play with the integration time… Methods: Advantages and Disadvantages

  9. Assisting the AD-4 [ACE] collaboration [ACE, http://www.phys.au.dk/~hknudsen/introduction.html] “Cancer therapy is about collateral damage”  compared to a proton beam, an antiproton beam causes four times less cell death in the healthy tissue for the same amount of cell deactivation in the cancer. [courtesy of ACE] Michael Holzscheiter, ACE spokesperson (left), retrieves an experimental sample after irradiation with antiprotons, while Niels Bassler (centre) and Helge Knudsen from the University of Aarhus look on [courtesy of ACE]

  10. Shot-by-shot beam recording at the CERN anti-proton decelerator tests Single shot picture • beam characteristics: • 120 MeV energy • 3x107 particles/spill • 1 spill every 90” • FWHM ~ 8 mm • acquisition modality: - triggered • imaging modality: - differential • radiation damage: - irrelevant so far [max no. of spills on a detector: 1436] • data taking runs: - September 2009 - June 2010 - October 2010

  11. Generally speaking, the beam is stable … unless it moves! Antiproton.wmv • Quantitative information: • profiling, compared to a GafChromic film • Intensity, compared to a calibrated ionization chamber (UNIDOS, by PTW)

  12. Profiling the beam • [PRELIMINARY RESULTS: • FWHM calculation checked, • errors on the GAF still being evaluated] With the MIMO, overlaying the 120 events in run #37 events to mimic the Gaf With a GafChromic Film, integrating the spills over a full run …and PROJECTING FWHM = 7.11 ± 0.05 mm FWHM = 7.64 ± 0.05 mm

  13. More on the analysis.. Step 1: Preparation of the reference beam image. Find a proper observable, possibly independent from quarter-to-quarter gain variation: A plot of the mean values of every pixel, averaged over all of the spills in the run

  14. Step 2: check the x & y projections • 2 remarks: • projections look pretty smooth, implying the normalized quantity is not so bad • deviations from the gaussian are significant… • (qualitative and quantitative analysis)

  15. Step 3: move from projections to slices: X slices Y slices FWHMx = f(y) [and the other way round) i.e. being F & G the marginal distributions

  16. Step 4: estimate the “width” as the mean FWHM over the central 9 slices Vs.

  17. Monitoring the intensity fluctuations MIMO Vs UNIDOS* *The PTW UNIDOS is a high performance secondary standard and reference class dosemeter / electrometer

  18. HIT [Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center]: Quality control of pencil Carbon Ions & proton beams http://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php?id=113005&L=en The accelerator complex [patients treated since 2008] The facility building The beam parameters Interested in high granularity (in time & space) because they do feature “intensity-controlled raster-scan technique”

  19. I = 7x107 particles/s, C ions Time development of the beam Data taking conditions & qualitative information • beam time characteristics: • duty cycle 50% • spill duration 5 s • FWHM ~f(particle, intensity, energy) • acquisition modality: - free run • imaging modality: • radiation damage: - relevant but not dramatic [Total exposure time so far ~ 3h; about 1’-2’ per run at a specified nrj, intensity] • data taking runs: - May 2010 - October 2010

  20. Quantitative information (C ions) Intensity Scan Energy Scan

  21. Playing back the data Carbon5.wmv

  22. Imaging the LARN Tandem beams at Namur (B) • Main interests: • The MIMO as a real-time, high granularity “digital” alumina screen, to optimize the set-up • QC of the beam in terms of homogeneity • quick measurement of the absolute intensity (particle counting!)

  23. Data taking conditions & qualitative information • beam time characteristics: • continuous beams! • any ion (!) with an energy in MeV/amu range • intensities  [103;108] p/cm2/s range • acquisition modality: - free run; MIMOin vacuum • radiation damage: - may really be dramatic! [Total exposure time so far ~ 60h; p, , C ion beams] • imaging modality: • standard: signal - pede • differential: (i,j,n) = signal (i,j,n) - signal(i,j,n-1) • based on < 2(i,j,N) > • digital with a pixel dependent threshold • data taking runs: - July 2008, April 2009 + series of short runs since April 2010 performed by the people at LARN - next extensive run planned for end of May 2011

  24. Beam profile with different imaging modalities [protons, E = 1.2 MeV, I = 6 x 105 p/cm2/s] Signal - pede: + easy & classic - critical wrt pedestal variations Delta: + robust against pedestal variations - failing as pile-up is approaching Counting with pixel dependent thresholds: + quite robust against detector degradation - failing as pile-up approaches Delta2 : + applicable also for high intensities - emphasizes local differences

  25. Flat beam Real-time profiling Image of a tilted beam 2 frames 10 frames 20 frames

  26. Preliminary measurements on the intensity Proton beam, 5 Gy/m = 2 x 106 p/cm2/s Still working on the absolute particle counting, since it is a tough business…

  27. Intensity by counting, with a pixel dependent threshold based on a common pre-set spurious hit level • DATA SET • A page from my logbook • Scan runs 1,2,4,5 • #3 excluded because of a significant beam instability • #6 & 7 excluded here because they require an overlap of several events to achieve the required sensitivity+ ion source flickering • rely on the unfired pixels to reduce the pile-up effects

  28. Linearity, up to 8.8 x 106 particles/cm2/s • protons, 1.2 MeV energy; • MIMO clocked at 2.5 MHz • differential mode • pixel dependent threshold at 5% spurious hit level • p0 ≠ 0, we are still cutting off a few pixels which were actually hit • as usual, a trade off between sensitivity and purity has to be searched for.. • clocking at 25 MHz, we can use the MIMO in counting mode till ~ 108 particles/cm2/s

  29. Conclusions • The MIMOTERA appears to be an interesting device for RT beam profilometry at high granularity in space & time • radiation hardness is a certainly a concern, especially at Tandem beams [but so far we did not manage to kill a single detector…] • more tests are on the way, to quantify its lifetime in beam hours • other facilities showed some interests (Krakow, ITEP Moscow) and tests are planned

More Related