1. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 1 Low-capacitance CCD Chris Damerell  An idea to reduce inter-gate capacitance in CPCCDs, hoping to achieve busline distribution of clocks and hence minimal demands on driver and storage capacitors  Valuable help and advice from Konstantin, Brian Hawes, Rainer Richter (MPI) and David Burt – and all who came to the e2V meeting on 18 th May  Started as a cross-check whether the DALSA inter-gate figure of 0.33 pF/cm (per edge) was at all credible, contrary to simulations by Konstantin and Brian and opinions at e2V …

2. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 2  Even with 0.05  m thick metal and 0.1  m gap, capacitance buildup in the underside dielectric rapidly exceeds the DALSA value, and increases almost linearly over ~ 2  m either side of edge  Conclude that the fine details of the gate thickness and edge (DALSA vs e2V) are irrelevant  What mainly drives the capacitance is the coupling through the dielectric+depleted silicon of broad strips ~2.5  m wide, either side of the edge  Achieving low C ig would require a different architecture, with wide gaps between active gate edges. This would invite potential barriers, pockets, and CTE failure …  Maybe not entirely excluded: who remembers the pnCCD architecture from MPI? 1: DALSA parameters 2: double dielectric 3: double inter-gate gap 4: DALSA datasheet

3. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 3  Original design (1996) failed. As predicted, the floating surface under the oxide isolation layers caused major CTE problems  Final version (2000) had these strips metallised and biased – these CCDs are still working well in XMM  Thick oxide (~250 nm) used to minimise capacitive coupling between active gates and pedestal gates  Pixel size is 150  m, gap between active gate implants is 5  m, this gap being stabilised electrostatically by the metallised pedestals  Note that the signal charge is stored at depth of 12  m – by no means comparable to our CCDs

4. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 4 Could this work for MOS CCDS with 20  m pixels, and charge storage at ~1  m depth? Can imagine active gates of width 5  m or less, with the gaps under pedestal gates having inbuilt drift fields Active gates and 2-phase implants are self-aligned using the pedestal gates What of alignment of profiled channel implant? What of another variant from Konstantin (Xmas tree) which could avoid 2-phase implants entirely? Advice from e2V on feasibility: YES in principle, though not initially with 20 micron pixels

5. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 5  Brian Hawes is performing beautiful simulations rapidly, exploring a range of structures  2  m wide gates on 10  m pitch (’microstrip’ structure) – need to simulate a string of gates

6. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 6  Rough approximation to e2V gates – 10  m pitch and 0.1  m gaps  Can ‘see’ the field lines, but it will be nice if possible to have a computer-generated one, lines spaced at equal intervals of surface charge  2  m wide gates on 10  m pitch (’microstrip’ structure) – need to simulate a string of gates

7. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 7  Parameters in this example: active gate length = pedestal gate length = 5  m gate thickness (active and pedestal) = 0.1  m Pedestal height = 0.5  m oxide Dielectric isolation above Si: 85 nm oxide plus 85 nm nitride (e2V standard)

8. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 8  For min cap in open phase region, actually better to fill the available space with pedestal gate, completely avoiding any implanted region 8  m wide pedestal, C eff = 1.98 pF/cm if 0.5  m high, 2.61 pF/cm if 0.2  m high 3/2/3  m wide implant/pedestal/implant shown above gives 3.06 pF/cm if 0.2  m high All implant (not feasible in practice) gives 3.09 pF/cm

9. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 9  High fields in corner regions of active gate and pedestal gate  Capacitance will be slightly sensitive to the true electrode shapes in these regions (but not by much – for one example, Brian found a 45 degree bevel gave only a 2% change)

10. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 10  D Husson (IEEE NS 41 (1994) 811) models microstrip detectors and compares with data  2  m active gates and 0.5  m high pedestal gives 1.98 pF/cm, including capacitance to substrate, whereas e2V process gives 8.72 pF/cm (Kon simulation for C ig only)  C eff reduced by factor 4.40

11. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 11  If this works, one may get close to the DALSA datasheet (C eff = 0.33x4 = 1.32 pF/cm), so the dream of narrow buslines (my presentation of 17 th Jan) could be realised  Even if we don’t quite get there, what about a 1-sided busline architecture?  Several advantages: Relatively free choice of busline width metal contacts to the two sets of active gates (  -1 and  -2) will give adequate clock distribution Eliminates competition for space and risk of crosstalk on ends of ladder between drive and readout Good width available for bump-bond connections to CPD  Leaves the other edge of the CCD available for a narrow busline connecting to the pedestal gates  Creates a modest increase in material budget, but could still be the winner

12. 23 May 2006LCFI Collab Meeting – Chris Damerell 12  There are several possible showstoppers, even if such a structure can be made: Potential barriers or pockets at the transitions between active gates and pedestal gates Jitter in potential under the pedestal gate, due to fluctuations in phi-1 and phi-2 waveforms Radiation-induced shifts in this potential. However, if this is uniform across the device, it can be eliminated by adjusting the pedestal gate voltage  The possibility of greatly reduced CCD capacitance is of general interest. It has always been frustrating that transferring such small signal charges needed such high driver power  If it can be made to work, there could be wider applications  We have started to discuss possible test structures with e2V  We (Brian?) could extend the model outwards from the CCD, back through the buslines (how wide should they really be?) and through bump bonds back to the CPD output