ATLAS12 Sensor Testing Meeting 24/06/14 1

Birmingham Irradiations and Charge Collection Measurements

Anthony Affolder, Paul DervanThe University of Liverpool, UK

ATLAS12 Sensor Testing Meeting 24/06/14 2

Birmingham Irradiations

• For previous irradiations at Birmingham at the highest beam currents (1 mA), the sensors reach about 130-140 C° Lower currents (.5 mA), sensors stay below 80 C°

• Implies we have to replace a number of pieces in current studies Need to figure out what we want to replace

ATLAS12 Sensor Testing Meeting 24/06/14 3

Barrel Irradiations surface measurements

PTP, Cint, Rint… Each cell has a BZ3C and a BZ3F, both slim and standard edge

Source Fluence Test SiteB'ham 1.00E+12 Glasgow Lancaster UCSCB'ham 5.00E+12 Glasgow Lancaster UCSCB'ham 1.00E+13 Glasgow Lancaster UCSCB'ham 1.00E+14 Glasgow Lancaster UCSCB'ham 1.00E+15 Glasgow Lancaster UCSCB'ham 5.00E+15 Glasgow Lancaster UCSC

Low Beam Current

High Beam Current

• We do not have enough standard edge device to repeat study; not sure if it is of interest, if slim is ok.

• Are we still interested in C vs F for PTP structures? If so, reduces parts available for other studies. Assume we need 3 of each fluence/C-F set for cross-

checking any unusual results

ATLAS12 Sensor Testing Meeting 24/06/14 4

Barrel Irradiations Charge CollectionCharge Collection tests on standard BZ3C

Source Fluence Test SiteB'ham 5.00E+14 Liverpool Sheffield LjubljanaB'ham 1.00E+15 Liverpool Sheffield LjubljanaB'ham 2.00E+15 Liverpool Sheffield KEKB'ham 5.00E+15 Liverpool Sheffield KEKMixed 5.00E+14 Glasgow DESY ValenciaMixed 1.00E+15 Glasgow DESY ValenciaMixed 2.00E+15 Glasgow DESY LiverpoolMixed 5.00E+15 Glasgow DESY Liverpool

High Beam Current

• Will have to replace with slim edge devices• Have added ATLAS07/12 comparisons since

How many sets do we need per fluence? If believe we had 5 or 6 sets for neutrons. Limited by number of ATLAS07 left.

Which fluences? We did 5e14 and 1e15 with neutrons From other measurements, we think ATLAS07 and 12 will roughly be the

same after protons. Should we just do 5e14 and 1e15 now for the pairs (still do 2e15 and 5e15 for just ATLAS07) and save parts for higher fluences of neutrons?

ATLAS12 Sensor Testing Meeting 24/06/14 5

EC Irradiations (Birmingham)

10 types of sensors

Source Fluence # done # to do Test SiteB'ham 5.00E+14 16 4 FreiburgB'ham 1.00E+15 16 4 FreiburgB'ham 2.00E+15 16 4 Freiburg

High Beam Current

All of these would have to be re-done. Some have been done at Karlsruhe.

ATLASATLASATLASATLASEnvironments, settings, voltages

• Voltages: Pre-irradiated 50-600 V in 50 V steps; Post- X-1000 V where X is lowest 100s voltage with S/N >4

• Annealing: first measure with no additional annealing, then after 80 min at 60 C– Allows for untangling of unintended

annealing during shipping, bonding, testing, ….

• Measure pre/post at the temperature needed for highest dose, highest voltage measurement planned as normalization might change (ALIVABA)– -20 C to -25 C

Slide 6

• Use common ALIVABA settings (Kazu.ini) which gives highest S/N with 25 ns risetime

ATLASATLASATLASATLAS Pre-irradiated (Normalization)• Calibration inside Beetle non-optimal. Need to take raw

ADC measurements and normalize to “standard candle”– Use ATLAS12A BZ3C sensors– Each Alibava card (or new Beetle) needs to be normalized

• Signal plateau (400V-600 V) average set to expected charge for thickness– N=t/3.7*[190+16.3ln(t)]

• from H. Bischsel, “Straggling in thin silicon detectors”, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 60, No. 3, 663 (July 1988).

• Edge-TCT and CV measurements both consistent with 302 mm thickness for ATLAS12A– 23105 e- expected charge

Slide 7

ATLAS12 Sensor Testing Meeting 24/06/14 8

Charge Collection Spreadsheet• I’ve still haven’t made a common excel file for comparisons. Will

try to finish this week. Sorry.– Idea would be a new column per measurement where you input the

e-/ADC for the card used• Second page will have table to make calibration constant calculations for cards.

– What info would be useful in the “header” of the measurements?• Site, board, part, pre/post-annealing, source, fluence, temperature, gain

• We need an agreed upon common error. – Never completed this. We need to get a defendable error from

somewhere– In the past, it was a 4% relative error from normalization and a 500 e-

run-to-run variation in fit value– Neither shown in pre-irradiated measurements