Analysis of 3D Stacked Fully Functional CMOS Active Pixel Sensor Detectors (1) Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Perugia – Italy Sezione.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Torino Exploiting commercial CMOS technologies for:  detection of Minimum Ionizing Particles for High Energy Physics experiments  direct detection.
Advertisements

Università degli Studi di Perugia Università degli Studi di Perugia IMM Bologna 1 Measurements and Simulations of Charge Collection Efficiency of p+/n.
Multiplicity analysis and dN/d  reconstruction with the silicon pixel detector Terzo Convegno Nazionale sulla Fisica di ALICE Frascati (Italy) – November.
Section Two Requires e-h pair creation data from Section One and electric field model from Maxwell software package (Fig. 6 - left). The induced strip.
May 14, 2015Pavel Řezníček, IPNP Charles University, Prague1 Tests of ATLAS strip detector modules: beam, source, G4 simulations.
Simulation Studies of a (DEPFET) Vertex Detector for SuperBelle Ariane Frey, Max-Planck-Institut für Physik München Contents: Software framework Simulation.
Jaap Velthuis, University of Bristol SPiDeR SPiDeR (Silicon Pixel Detector Research) at EUDET Telescope Sensor overview with lab results –TPAC –FORTIS.
Standalone VeloPix Simulation Jianchun Wang 4/30/10.
Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments.
Jianchun Wang Marina Artuso Syracuse University 11/06/00 MC Simulation of Silicon Pixel Detector.
SPiDeR  First beam test results of the FORTIS sensor FORTIS 4T MAPS Deep PWell Testbeam results CHERWELL Summary J.J. Velthuis.
Study of FPCCD Vertex Detector 12 Jul. th ACFA WS Y. Sugimoto KEK.
Fine Pixel CCD Option for the ILC Vertex Detector
1 Alessandra Casale Università degli Studi di Genova INFN Sezione Genova FT-Cal Prototype Simulations.
15 Dec 2010 CERN Sept 2010 beam test: Sensor response study Chris Walmsley and Sam Leveridge (presented by Paul Dauncey) 1Paul Dauncey.
VI th INTERNATIONAL MEETING ON FRONT END ELECTRONICS, Perugia, Italy A. Dorokhov, IPHC, Strasbourg, France 1 NMOS-based high gain amplifier for MAPS Andrei.
Ooo Performance simulation studies of a realistic model of the CBM Silicon Tracking System Silicon Tracking for CBM Reconstructed URQMD event: central.
1 Realistic top Quark Reconstruction for Vertex Detector Optimisation Talini Pinto Jayawardena (RAL) Kristian Harder (RAL) LCFI Collaboration Meeting 23/09/08.
Performance limits of a 55  m pixel CdTe detector G.Pellegrini, M. Lozano, R. Martinez, M. Ullan Centro Nacional de Microelectronica, Barcelona, 08193,
Vertex Detector for GLD 3 Mar Y. Sugimoto KEK.
Impact parameter resolution study for ILC detector Tomoaki Fujikawa (Tohoku university) ACFA Workshop in Taipei Nov
CEA DSM Irfu 20 th october 2008 EuDet Annual Meeting Marie GELIN on behalf of IRFU – Saclay and IPHC - Strasbourg Zero Suppressed Digital Chip sensor for.
Design and development of micro-strip stacked module prototypes for tracking at S-LHC Motivations Tracking detectors at future hadron colliders will operate.
NA62 Gigatracker Working Group 28 July 2009 Massimiliano Fiorini CERN.
65 nm CMOS analog front-end for pixel detectors at the HL-LHC
Charge Collection and Trapping in Epitaxial Silicon Detectors after Neutron-Irradiation Thomas Pöhlsen, Julian Becker, Eckhart Fretwurst, Robert Klanner,
PIXEL Slow Simulation Xin Li 3/16/2008. CMOS Active Pixel Sensor (APS) Epitaxy is a kind of interface between a thin film and a substrate. The term epitaxy.
Impact parameter resolutions for ILC detector Tomoaki Fujikawa (Tohoku university) ACFA Workshop in Taipei Nov
Radiation hardness of Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors (MAPS)
INFN and University of Perugia Characterization of radiation damage effects in silicon detectors at High Fluence HL-LHC D. Passeri (1,2), F. Moscatelli.
Jonathan BouchetBerkeley School on Collective Dynamics 1 Performance of the Silicon Strip Detector of the STAR Experiment Jonathan Bouchet Subatech STAR.
CMOS MAPS with pixel level sparsification and time stamping capabilities for applications at the ILC Gianluca Traversi 1,2
A. Dorokhov, IPHC, Strasbourg, France 1 Description of pixel designs in Mimosa22 Andrei Dorokhov Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC) Strasbourg,
Custom mechanical sensor support (left and below) allows up to six sensors to be stacked at precise positions relative to each other in beam The e+e- international.
-1-CERN (11/24/2010)P. Valerio Noise performances of MAPS and Hybrid Detector technology Pierpaolo Valerio.
Beam Test of a Large-Area GEM Detector Prototype for the Upgrade of the CMS Muon Endcap System Vallary Bhopatkar M. Hohlmann, M. Phipps, J. Twigger, A.
Villa Olmo, Como October 2001F.Giordano1 SiTRD R & D The Silicon-TRD: Beam Test Results M.Brigida a, C.Favuzzi a, P.Fusco a, F.Gargano a, N.Giglietto.
Timepix test-beam results and Sensor Production Status Mathieu Benoit, PH-LCD.
Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments.
CMOS Pixels Sensor Simulation Preliminary Results and Plans M. Battaglia UC Berkeley and LBNL Thanks to A. Raspereza, D. Contarato, F. Gaede, A. Besson,
Presented by Renato Turchetta CCLRC - RAL 7 th International Conference on Position Sensitive Detectors – PSD7 Liverpool (UK), September 2005 R&D.
LDC behavior at θ ≤ 20° ALCPG '07, Fermilab, Oct M. Regler, M. Valentan presented by W. Mitaroff LDC behavior of ∆(1/p t ) at polar angle θ.
1 /28 LePIX – Front End Electronic conference – Bergamo 25 May 2011 – Piero Giubilato LePIX – monolithic detectors in advanced CMOS Collection electrode.
SPiDeR  Status of SPIDER Status/Funding Sensor overview with first results –TPAC –FORTIS –CHERWELL Beam test 09 Future.
The design of fast analog channels for the readout of strip detectors in the inner layers of the SuperB SVT 1 INFN Sezione di Pavia I Pavia, Italy.
Andrei Nomerotski 1 Andrei Nomerotski, University of Oxford Ringberg Workshop, 8 April 2008 Pixels with Internal Storage: ISIS by LCFI.
IPHC, Strasbourg / GSI, Darmstadt
Charge sensitive amplifier
Design and Characterization of a Novel, Radiation-Resistant Active Pixel Sensor in a Standard 0.25 m CMOS Technology P.P. Allport, G. Casse, A. Evans,
M. Manghisoni, L. Ratti, V. Re, V. Speziali, G. Traversi
Radiation Tolerance of a 0.18 mm CMOS Process
The CBM sensor digitizer
Detectors of JWST Near IR Instruments
A 3D deep n-well CMOS MAPS for the ILC vertex detector
Status of the Chronopixel Project
S-D analog to digital conversion
L. Ratti V SuperB Collaboration Meeting
First results on irradiated OVERMOS1 HR CMOS for HEP applications
Characterization of a Pixel Sensor for ITK
TCAD Simulations of Silicon Detectors operating at High Fluences D
5% The CMS all silicon tracker simulation
Simulation on the Response of the STAR HFT Pixel Detector
The Pixel Hybrid Photon Detectors of the LHCb RICH
MAPS with advanced on-pixel processing
Simulation of signal in irradiated silicon detectors
Time-sensitive CMOS MAPS
TCAD Simulation and test setup For CMOS Pixel Sensor based on a 0
Simulation on the Response of the STAR HFT Pixel Detector
R&D of CMOS pixel Shandong University
Stefano Zucca, Lodovico Ratti
Presentation transcript:

Analysis of 3D Stacked Fully Functional CMOS Active Pixel Sensor Detectors (1) Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Perugia – Italy Sezione di Perugia – Italy (2) Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettronica e dell’Informazione Università degli Studi di Perugia - Italy D. Passeri (1, 2), L. Servoli (1), S. Meroli (1)

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 2/24 Outline Introduction: Introduction: - CMOS Active Pixel Sensor (RAPS02/03); -design options (pixel architecture). Motivation and Aim: Motivation and Aim: - suitability of “stacked” all-in-one CMOS APS sensors (3D) for particle tracking purposes. TCAD Device/Circuit simulations: TCAD Device/Circuit simulations: - hit position and incidence angle calculation; - noise analyses; -sensitivity. Geometrical optimization: pitch analyses. Geometrical optimization: pitch analyses. Conclusions. Conclusions.

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 3/24 Background CMOS Active Pixel Sensor for Ionizing Particle detection. CMOS Active Pixel Sensor for Ionizing Particle detection. Technology analysis. Technology analysis. Standard CMOS (twin-tub, no-epi) technology –> 0.18  m Standard CMOS (twin-tub, no-epi) technology –> 0.18  m - performance <- device level analyses; - access; - maintenance (since 2001/2002 – Pixel 2002, Carmel); - costs (EUROPRACTICE).

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 4/24 Background: the RAPS 02/03 chips UMC 0.18  m 1P6M MM CMOS 3T architecture (nMOS & pMOS); 4x4  m 2, 10x10  m 2 pixel size; sparse read-out prone; high-gain, in-pixel amplification; self-reset mode (event-triggered). RAPS02RAPS03 APS WIPS SHARPS 256x256 pixels, 10x10  m 2 pixel size. ~5mm

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 5/24 Motivations and Aim The IC technology trend is to move from 3D flexible configurations (package on package, stacked dies) to 3D ICs:The IC technology trend is to move from 3D flexible configurations (package on package, stacked dies) to 3D ICs: - increased electrical performances; - cost of 3D integration may be cheaper than to keep shrinking 2D. Perspective advantages for particle tracking / vertex detectors:Perspective advantages for particle tracking / vertex detectors: - separation of sensor, analog read-out electronics, A/D conversion layers (increased fill-factor, performance). All-in-one chip featuring multiple, stacked, fully functional CMOS APS detector layers:All-in-one chip featuring multiple, stacked, fully functional CMOS APS detector layers: - momentum measurement (impact point and trajectory) with a single detector; - low material detector (reduced multiple scattering issues).

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 6/24 The RAPS03 “stacked” system This is what we have… ~15mm CERN PS Irradiation Facilities, Sept. 08 … and this what we would like to have! ~ 15  m Each layer would be a complete sensor (APS diodes + MOSFETs, read-out and control electronics)! Outputs Global signals

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 7/24 FTD … … 10  m ±45° ±15  m … x y The simulated structures Device/Circuit simulation of a 2D cross-section of a CMOS Active Pixel Sensor sub-array (7 pixels). n-well p-sub

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 8/24 The simulated structures (2) Up to four (isolated) sub-arrays.Up to four (isolated) sub-arrays. Voltage response as a function of a particle hit (e/h pairs generation corresponding to a Minimum Ionizing Particle).Voltage response as a function of a particle hit (e/h pairs generation corresponding to a Minimum Ionizing Particle). 10  m

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 9/24 Overall voltage drop Hit Position (  m) Incidence Angle (°) Voltage Drop (mV)

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 10/24 Central pixel responses (voltage drop) Hit Position (  m) Incidence Angle (°) Voltage Drop (mV) Hit Position (  m) Incidence Angle (°) Voltage Drop (mV) Layer #1 Layer #2 Layer #3 Layer #4

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 11/24 Signal and Noise analyses We considered a cluster signal, featuring three pixels (the seed pixel and the two neighboring ones).We considered a cluster signal, featuring three pixels (the seed pixel and the two neighboring ones). We considered the (dominant) kTC equivalent noise contribution as measured from our APS sensors (below 1.0mV).We considered the (dominant) kTC equivalent noise contribution as measured from our APS sensors (below 1.0mV). The equivalent noise voltage was added to the voltage response of each pixel (using a Gaussian distribution).The equivalent noise voltage was added to the voltage response of each pixel (using a Gaussian distribution). The hit position and angle were therefore reconstructed, by a weighted average of the voltage signals and linear fitting.The hit position and angle were therefore reconstructed, by a weighted average of the voltage signals and linear fitting. All the results were obtained by considering both charge drift and diffusion components, for a typical CMOS substrate doping concentration and under biasing conditions, and the load effect of reset and source-follower MOSFETs.All the results were obtained by considering both charge drift and diffusion components, for a typical CMOS substrate doping concentration and under biasing conditions, and the load effect of reset and source-follower MOSFETs.

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 12/24 Hit position reconstruction error If we have a single layer...If we have a single layer... V0V0V0V0  V -1  V +2  V +1  V -2  Hit a X Ha = -10  m  Ha = 0° X B1 = -10  m } Hit b X Hb = -6  m  Hb = 30° X B2 = -10  m } y x x y x XBXBXBXB BBBB

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 13/24 Hit position reconstruction error (2) If we have two (or more) layers... … we can get a “spreading” of tracks… …and better hit and angle reconstruction.

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 14/24 Hit position reconstruction error (2) E.g., given an impact point X H =0  m and incidence angle of 20°… y x Hit position (  m) Mean =  m Sigma = 0.56  m Two Layers Hit position (  m) Mean =  m Sigma = 0.53  m Three Layers Hit position (  m) Mean =  m Sigma = 0.49  m Four Layers

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 15/24 Incidence angle reconstruction error (2) E.g., given an impact point X H =0  m and incidence angle of 20°… x Incidence angle (°) Mean = 15.83° Sigma = 4.54° Two Layers Incidence angle (°) Mean = 20.90° Sigma = 2.03° Three Layers Incidence angle (°) Mean = 19.40° Sigma = 1.31° Four Layers

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 16/24 Impact point reconstruction error Standard deviation of the impact point calculation as a function of the incidence angle and hit position.Standard deviation of the impact point calculation as a function of the incidence angle and hit position.

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 17/24 Incidence angle reconstruction error Standard deviation of the incidence angle calculation as a function of the incidence angle and hit position.Standard deviation of the incidence angle calculation as a function of the incidence angle and hit position.

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 18/24 Angular Sensitivity Angular sensitivity: How separated have to be two different tracks to be appreciated (as different ones)? 1111 } It depends on the noise (and layer numbers…)

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 19/24 Angular Sensitivity (2) Angular sensitivity as a function of the noise. Angular Separation ( ° ) Noise  (mV) 3layers 4 ° ) Noise  (mV) 3layers 4 2 2

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 20/24 Pitch analyses Central pixel response (layer I) for different incidence hit positions and angles at different pitches (5, 10, 20  m) Hit Position (  m) Incidence Angle (°) Voltage Drop (mV)

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 21/24 Pitch analyses (2) Standard deviation of the impact point calculation as a function of the incidence angle and hit position at different pitch values (4 layers). Hit Position (a.u. – pitch) Incidence Angle (°)  impact point (  m)

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 22/24 Pitch analyses (3) Standard deviation of the incidence angle calculation as a function of the incidence angle and hit position at different pitch values (4 layers). Incidence Angle (°)  impact point (  m) Hit Position (a.u. - pitch)

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 23/24 On going works… GEANT4 simulations in order to account for magnetic fields effects (multiple scattering).GEANT4 simulations in order to account for magnetic fields effects (multiple scattering). Effects of two separate (Si / Air) multiple-layers sensors on the particle momentum reconstruction.Effects of two separate (Si / Air) multiple-layers sensors on the particle momentum reconstruction. Optimization of pixel architecture/pitch with respect to candidate vertical integration technology.Optimization of pixel architecture/pitch with respect to candidate vertical integration technology.

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 24/24 Conclusions Vertically Integrated Circuits (3D) diffusions.Vertically Integrated Circuits (3D) diffusions. Is it worthwhile to have an all-in-one detector featuring multiple stacked APS CMOS layers for particle tracking applications?Is it worthwhile to have an all-in-one detector featuring multiple stacked APS CMOS layers for particle tracking applications? Comprehensive device/circuit simulations demonstrate the advantaged of having two/three stacked (closed, very precisely aligned) fully-functional pixel layers.Comprehensive device/circuit simulations demonstrate the advantaged of having two/three stacked (closed, very precisely aligned) fully-functional pixel layers. Momentum measurement with a single detector.Momentum measurement with a single detector. Low material detector.Low material detector. Is this affordable in terms of design & fabrication costs?Is this affordable in terms of design & fabrication costs? -Tezzaron/Chartered technology; -VIPIX (INFN Italian collaboration, prof. Valerio RE). YES (*) (*) in our opinion…

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 25/24 Backup

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 26/24 Hit position reconstruction error (3) X B = f (X H,  ) -> X H = f (H B,  )X B = f (X H,  ) -> X H = f (H B,  ) Hit position (a.u. – pitch) Incidence Angle (°) Calculated H B (a.u. – pitch)

PIXEL 2008 International Workshop, September, 2008 – Fermilab, Batavia, IL 27/24 Overall sensitivity (3) Frequency of ambiguously matching pixel value patterns (reference hit position X H = 0  m and  H = 0°).