1 / 33

Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectors

Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectors. Gregor Kramberger , DESY Hamburg Devis Contarato, University of Hamburg. G. Kramberger , Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectors Vertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Outline. Motivation Basics of simulations

patrickjimenez
Download Presentation

Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectors

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. Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectors Gregor Kramberger , DESY Hamburg Devis Contarato, University of Hamburg G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  2. Outline • Motivation • Basics of simulations • calculation of induced current • ATLAS silicon detectors simulation • micro-strip detectors (trapping induced charge sharing) • pixel detectors • More radiation hard detectors (towards SLHC) • thin pixel detectors • novel semi-3D design • Summary G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  3. Motivation • All LHC experiments will use silicon (diamond?) for vertex detectors! • Degradation of performance of irradiated silicon detectors (bulk): • increase of |Neff| • Significant improvement in last years to improve performance: • Material: DOFZ, Czochralski, epitaxial material • Geometry: semi-3D, 3D and thin detectors • Operational conditions: cryogenic operation, • current induced devices • Increase of leakage current (independent on material) • loss of drifting charge – trapping • (TCT studies – systematic measurements of trapping times) CERN: RD48 RD39 RD50 Determine the signal formation in irradiated detectors! G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  4. Questions • How does the geometry of the electrodes influence the performance? • Can silicon detectors be successfully operated at fluences around 1016 cm-2 ? G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  5. Basics of simulation point charge “bucket”: electric and magnetic field trapping weighting field Irradiation: constant 1/D if pad or strip dimension>>D In general complex - highest close to collecting electrodes Calculation of electric and weighting potential performed by custom made software and ISE-TCAD package! G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  6. y ionizing particle track x buckets 1 mm apart y holes x electron-hole pair electrons Point charge track G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  7. What is not considered in simulation! Charge generation – a uniform charge generation along the track was assumed (of course a full GEANT simulation for non-uniform charge generation would be more appropriate for dealing with delta electrons …) Homogenous effective dopant concentration – (so called effect of double-junction is not taken into account – how important is it really?) No further electronic processing of induced current G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  8. Atlas – silicon strip detectors Detector: thickness=280 mm, strip pitch=80 mm , strip width=18 mm weighting potential electric potential Uw Neff=-6x1012 cm-3 y[mm] y[mm] x[mm] x[mm] x[mm] y[mm] carriers drifting towards the strips contribute to a large part of the induced charge far from constant as it is in a diode G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  9. n,p n+,p+ p+-n-n+ p+-p-n+ irrad. Feq=5x1013 cm-2 p+,n+ n+-n-p+ n+-p-p+ irrad. Feq=5x1013 cm-2 NOTE THAT DIODE SIGNAL IS ALWAYS THE SAME! G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  10. p+,n+ p bulk n+,p+ n+ strips p+ strips • U>Vfd are simulated – detectors will be always fully depleted (|Neff| = 0.02 cm-1x Feq) • CCE for detectors with n+ strips is higher than for p+ strips (LHC~10%) • S/N~9 after 10 years of operation (U=450 V) just good enough  G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  11. x p+,n+ p bulk n+,p+ ±U p+ strips Small difference in CCE for detectors with n+ and p+ strips! Loss of charge high U: trapping low U: diffusion Average over all strips yields <4% lower signal than for central strip at 450 V! G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  12. Trapping induced charge sharing measuring p+ n+ ±U x p bulk At 450 V around 1000 e are induced on left and right neighbors for central strip! After Feq=2x1014 cm-2 (F=3.3x1014 p cm-2) p+ strips n+ strips diode G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  13. measuring p+ x p bulk n+ ±U trapped charge trapping absence of trapping • this effect is far more important in irradiated detectors with p+ strips • the amount of charge induced depends also on strip geometry This effect is present also in other devices – not unique to silicon! G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  14. Constant weighting field 1/D equal charge measured in the front and in the back electrode electrode hit by ionizing particle p+ - induced charge on neighboring electrodes has the same polarity as for the hit electrode n+- induced charge on neighboring electrodes has the opposite polarity as for the hit electrode n+ - higher signal in hit electrode p+ -wider clusters G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  15. “Segmentation” in terms of charge collection means how much weighting field deviates from constant (diode) G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  16. Atlas – pixel detectors Pixel: 400 mm x 50 mm, 23 mm implant width, 250-280 mm thick! Electric potential (linear electric field – diode-like) Weighting potential (far from constant – not diode-like) G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  17. Feq=1x1015 cm-2 U=Vfd~350 V, D=250 mm n-type p-type trapping switched offin simulation Trapping times: te~1.8 ns, th~1.3 ns Neff = 0.0071 cm-1 x Feq (DOFZ silicon used, k=0.62) Current integrated over 25 ns! G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  18. d/D=62% but Q(d)/Q(D)=73% Shape of the weighting field (small at x~D) in combination with trapping results in a smaller contribution to the charge from the region at x~D. Overdepletion becomes less important at highFeq Around 10000 e at Feq=1015 cm-2 (most probable – not mean) Even at 200V more than 6000 e, U>400V seems enough with DOFZ G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  19. Vfd experimental data U [V] • good agreement with measured data • only small increase of charge at U>Vfd (saturation of vdr) • clear deviation from: (more linear) • at higher fluences it is difficult to extract depletion voltage G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  20. particle track p+-pixels would perform better than n+-pixels even if operated at U>Vfd. signal on neighbors is below typical cuts applied (2000 - 3000 e) Charge sharing caused by trapping is a very strong argument for using n+ pixels instead of p+! G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  21. Thin Pixel Detectors The way to cope with high fluences (1016 cm-2): - at high Neff detectors can be fully depleted  short collection times i.e. collection distance  small signal: need for radiation hard low noise electronics ATLAS pixel ~ 150 eo, can sustain 2x1015 cm-2 • Other issues: • low mass – small X0 • small pixel dimensions ~50mm – low capacitance – noise • fast read-out high series noise • power consumption as low as possible G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  22. Geometries considered (3x3 pixels array was simulated): • 70 x 70 mm (50 mm implant width) • thicknesses: 25,50,75,100 mm Only central hits were considered: diode-like electric field! Weighting potential along the central line! D=100 mm No difference between n and p pixels is expected for PW/D<1! G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  23. D = 50 mm • Neff = 0.0071 cm-1x Feq • (DOFZ, no donors left after 1015 cm-2 ) • New materials can reduce the increase of |Neff|: • 50 mm thick epi-diodes (small donor removal) • Czochralski material Simulated current at Vfd ! The charge collection times are short – so are trapping times (at Feq=1016 cm-2 of order 0.15 ns ) What are the consequences? G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  24. p-type pixels n-type pixels • At best only 1000-2000 e at high fluences • Small difference between different pixel thicknesses at 1016 cm-2 • Much better performance of n-type pixels for PW/D<1 • almost no difference between U=VFD and U=VFD+100 V • around 800 e more at 5·1015 cm-2 • Very high VFD(<E>=30000 V/cm for 50 mm thick detector) G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  25. Trapping induced charge sharing particle track D=100 mm, Pitch=70 mm, Width=50 mm. operated at Vfd • Diffusion is negligible due to the short collection times • Very beneficial n-type pixels • (possible use of signals of opposite polarity to enhance S/N) • Up to 30% of the signal is induced on neighbors for p-type pixels, which is usually not enough to reach the threshold for detection – it is lost!!!! G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  26. What if we make a device that has ideal Neff~0 ? visible light - hole injection High resistivity EPI materialor Current Induced Devices The signal that we can get out of thin pixel detectors after Feq=1016 cm-2 is between 1000 e – 1600 e ! Is this enough? G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  27. Novel semi-3D silicon strip detectors Junction grows from both sides – reduction of Vfd for up to 40%! Can they stand Feq=1015 cm-2 – also in terms of CCE ? p+ implants 200 mm asymmetric device symmetric device 200 mm n+ implants read-out Detectors studied: thickness=200 mm, strip pitch=120 mm Neff=-8x1012 cm-3 electric potential U=280 V U=250 V G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  28. Neff=-1.2x1013 cm-3 also detectors with p+ Smaller Vfd of semi-3D detectors for wide strips! How much over-depletion is needed to obtain sufficiently large CCE? G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  29. Drift paths of electrons and holes in asymmetric detector U=250 V , Feq~1.1x1015 cm-2, Neff=-8x1012 cm-3 regions with low E central hit 20 mm from center 40 mm from center G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  30. n+ strips Semi 3D n+ strips (U=280 V) U=250 V much larger charge spread, but also larger cluster signal as in detector with n+ strips! U=250 V D=200 mm, pitch/width=120/60 mm Neff=-8x1012 cm-3, Feq~1.1x1015 cm-2 p+ strips Black: hit strip Red: strip left of hit strip Blue: strip right of hit strip G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  31. Cluster charge (3 strips) as a function of impact position Neff=-8x1012 cm-3, Feq~1.1x1015 cm-2 Can large charge sharing in semi-3D detectors be used in non-irradiated detectors to improve position resolution? Only Q>0 considered • Completely different picture as for conventional strip detectors. • The device can be efficiently operated also near the depletion voltage. • A large signal with respect to conventional strip detectors is anyway gained at higher operational voltages. G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  32. The charge spread in symmetric detector is highly position dependent! sensing electrodes connected together U=280 V Neff=-8x1012 cm-3, Feq~1.1x1015 cm-2 Higher noise if both electrodes are connected to same channel? highest cluster charge of all in maximum – but large variations Charge collection is poor for central hit! G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  33. Conclusions • In irradiated segmented detectors it is beneficial to collect electrons (n+-strips, pixels): charge sharing mechanism. • ATLAS strip detectors: Q~15500 e, improvement at U>Vfd , significant signal induced also onneighbors, n+-strips would be a better option. • ATLAS pixel detector: a good agreement with measured values was found: CCE~60% after Feq=1x1015 cm-2 ; if operated at U<Vfd, thecollected charge loss due to partial depletion is smaller than predicted by 1-d/D. • Thin pixel detector: no advantage of n+-type pixels for PW/D>1, even if detectors are operated at Neff~0 expected signals are ~1000-1600 e after Feq=1x1016 cm-2. • Novel semi 3D design: interesting properties, reduction of Vfd, large charge sharing, cluster signal comparable to n+-strip detectors. G. Kramberger, Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectorsVertex 2002, Nov. 3-8, 2002, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

More Related