results of qtc and hpk scenarios
DESCRIPTION
Results of QTC and HPK scenarios. IEKP – University of Karlsruhe Alexander Furgeri [email protected]. QTC in Karlsruhe. QTC status prequalification W1TID for Louvain Scenarios of U dep for inner Barrel sensors. Status QTC. Prequalification W1TID. Diodes 2-5 and 10-13 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 1
Results of QTC and HPK Results of QTC and HPK scenariosscenarios
IEKP – University of Karlsruhe
Alexander Furgeri
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 2
QTC in KarlsruheQTC in Karlsruhe
• QTC status
• prequalification W1TID for Louvain
• Scenarios of Udep for inner Barrel sensors
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 3
Status QTCStatus QTC
Set (meas./tot.) OK IV Bad Strips Opt. defect PQC % rejects
14 W5A 15/15 9 32 (many pinholes)
1 (D) OK 40
15 W3 2/44 2 0 0 0To high resistivity
100 ?
0 ?
16 W6A 16/16 12 1 0 3 OK 25
17 W6B 13/13 121 destructed
0 0 OK 08
18 W6A 15/16 12 1 11 etched strips
OK 19
19 W6B 3/10 2 1 0 0 Not done 10
22 W3 2/55 1 0 0 1 (D)Not doneUdep=176V
4
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 4
Prequalification W1TIDPrequalification W1TID• Diodes 2-5 and 10-13 not measurable• breakdown for diodes between 460V and 530V• depletion voltage for diodes 50V (for all !)• depletion voltage for minis 80V (~1.3*Udep of diodes)• Depletion voltage for sensor 105V (picture of HPK seems to be right)• Same picture for W3
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 5
Experimental data for donor Experimental data for donor removal in Hamburg modelremoval in Hamburg model
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,00
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Fit parameters:g
c=1.49e-2 /cm
rc=0.65
c=10.9e-2/N0g
a=1.81e-2 /cm
ta=19 min
gY=5.16e-2 /cm
tY=1260 min
320µm minisensors: r
c=0.65
rc=0.8
rc=0.5
Ful
l dep
letio
n vo
ltage
in V
Fluence in 1014 n1MeV
/cm2
HPK with high fluence
rC=NC,0/Neff,0
Describes complet or partial donor removal
rC <1 !
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 6
Reverse annealingReverse annealing
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E7200
400
600
800
1000
1200
De
ple
tion
ssp
an
nu
ng
[V]
annealing Zeit [min]
fit • Time constant ~20% higher as ROSE• deepest niveau of depl. voltage as predicted
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 7
Batches with high resistivityBatches with high resistivity
• HPK delivers sensors with high resistivity– higher depletion voltage in the end of CMS expected– Forseen fluence in the inner part of the tracker is
1.6e14 n(1MeV)/cm², distributed in• 1. year 10%• 2. year 33%• 3. year 67%• 4.-10. year 100%
– In reality depending from the location in the tracker• Radial location (high effect)• Z-location (low effect, except of W2 and W3)
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 8
Calculation of the scenarioCalculation of the scenario
• Local Distribution of fluence in the Tracker– Tracker-TDR
– comparison with E. Migliore (same source ?!)
• Fluences for different geometries• Per year:
1. Irradiation (at once)
2. Beneficial annealing (20 degree, 14 days)
3. Reverse annealing (20 degree, 14 days)
• Scenario for 10 years• time without beam and annealing not shown
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 9
Differences Differences A. FurgeriA. Furgeri E. Migliore E. Migliore
• A. Furgeri– 14 days per year @ 20 degree
• 5 Times higher time constant for beneficial annealing
– Donor removal (rC) from experimental data in Karlsruhe (better for low resistivities, less uncertainties)
– Fluences together as hadrons (main part)
– Factor 1.3 for sensors, confirm with exp. Data
– Factor of 1.5 for fluences
• E. Migliore– 28 days per year @ 10
degree• 26 times reduced time
constant for reverse annealing
– Complete donor removal for hadron fluences (worse for low resistivity, but not confirm with exp. data)
– Neutron & proton fluences separated
– No factor of 1.3 (diodes instead of sensors)
– No factor for uncertainties
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 10
Fluence distribution in the Fluence distribution in the trackertracker
Low variation in fluence formost geometries.
geometry Fluence [10e14-1MeV]
IB1 – 1. Layer IB1 – 2. Layer 1.6 1.1
IB2 0.6
W1TID 1.6
W1 1.6
W2 0.9 - 1.1
W3 0.5 - 1.1
W4 0.5 - 0.8
eqcc
ceqc geNN eq )1()( 0Stable damage:
Important part for high fluences
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 11
Nominal fluencesNominal fluences
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
100
200
300
400
500
600
=1.6e14W1(TID)IB1 - 1. Layer
1.25 kOhmcm 3.25 kOhmcm 5 kOhmcm
depl
etio
n vo
ltage
[V]
years [y]
Sensors depletion voltageOverdepletion possible with 500V !
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 12
Comparison of scenarios @ Comparison of scenarios @ 10°C and 20°C10°C and 20°C
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
100
200
300
400
500
600
=2.4e14W1(TID)IB1 - 1. Layer
1.25 kOhmcm 3.25 kOhmcm 5 kOhmcm
de
ple
tion
vo
ltag
e [V
]
years [y]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
100
200
300
400
500
600
=2.4e14W1(TID)IB1 - 1. Layer
1.25 kOhmcm 3.25 kOhmcm 5 kOhmcm
de
ple
tion
vo
ltag
e [V
]
years [y]
+10°C, 28 days per year +20°C, 14 days per year
Sensor depl. Voltage !
More reverseAnnealing !
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 13
Different donor removalDifferent donor removal
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
100
200
300
400
500
600
=2.4e14W1(TID)IB1 - 1. Layer
1.25 kOhmcm 3.25 kOhmcm 5 kOhmcm
de
ple
tion
vo
ltag
e [V
]
years [y]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
100
200
300
400
500
600
=2.4e14W1(TID)IB1 - 1. Layer
1.25 kOhmcm 3.25 kOhmcm 5 kOhmcm
de
ple
tion
vo
ltag
e [V
]years [y]
Donor removal of 65%, due to exp. data from p-irradiation
Complete donor removalNot confirm with KA-data
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 14
Worst case scenariosWorst case scenarios
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
100
200
300
400
500
600
=2.4e14W1(TID)IB1 - 1. Layer
1.25 kOhmcm 3.25 kOhmcm 5 kOhmcm
de
ple
tion
vo
ltag
e [V
]
years [y]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
100
200
300
400
500
600
=1.65e14W2W3IB1 - 2. Layer
1.25 kOhmcm 3.25 kOhmcm 5 kOhmcm
de
ple
tion
vo
ltag
e [V
]
years [y]
Worst case = highest fluence * 1.5 , 14 days per year @ 20°C(uncertainties in fluence, see Mika Huhtinen “Radiation Environment in Experimantal (CMS) Area”,10.4.2000)Thickness = 320μm
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 15
Worst case scenarios with Worst case scenarios with virtual thicknessvirtual thickness
Worst case = highest fluence * 1.5, 14 days per year @ 20°C Thickness = 290μm, due to n++-thickness of 30µm)
effect of 100V !
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
100
200
300
400
500
600
=2.4e14W1(TID)IB1 - 1. Layer
1.25 kOhmcm 3.25 kOhmcm 5 kOhmcm
de
ple
tion
vo
ltag
e [V
]
years [y]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
100
200
300
400
500
600
=2.4e14W1(TID)IB1 - 1. Layer
1.25 kOhmcm 3.25 kOhmcm 5 kOhmcm
de
ple
tion
vo
ltag
e [V
]
years [y]
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 16
DiscrepancesDiscrepancesIQC and ScenariosIQC and Scenarios
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 140
100
200
300
400
500
600
=2.4e14W1(TID)IB1
3kOhmcm 3.5kOhmcm 1.25kOhmcm 4.5kOhmcm 5kOhmcm
depl
etio
n vo
ltage
[V]
annealing [d]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
100
200
300
400
500
600
=2.4e14W1(TID)IB1 - 1. Layer
1.25 kOhmcm 3.25 kOhmcm 5 kOhmcm
de
ple
tion
vo
ltag
e [V
]
years [y]
Result after IQC No reverse annealing!
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 17
Summary of uncertaintiesSummary of uncertainties• Effects of uncertainties ?
– Donor removal complete ? • Less expected for uncharges particles
– Temperature during shutdown and repair periods ?• Avoid reverse annealing ! Try to keep temperature
below 20°C !
• Effects of unpredictables ?– Time of shutdown and repair periods ?
• Open (warm up) the Tracker as late as possible !
– Fluences in different running periods ?
1.6.2003 Sensor meeting A. Furgeri 18
ConclusionsConclusions
1. Worst case for IB1,W1 and W1TID needs ~700V bias voltage, but expected to be better
2. Separation of sensors with different resistivities possible for IB1, for W1 and W1TID senseless