1 atlas pixel sensors sally seidel university of new mexico u.s. atlas pixel review lbnl, 9 november...

43
1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

Upload: charla-lindsey

Post on 13-Dec-2015

218 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

1

ATLAS Pixel Sensors

Sally Seidel

University of New Mexico

U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review

LBNL, 9 November 2001

Page 2: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

2

Features of the Experiment

•10-year fluence @ innermost layer >1015

cm-2 1-MeV n

•~108 channels (1744 sensors) plus spares; want to test these under bias before investing chips on each

•All of the other subsystems located outside the pixels

Impact on the Sensor Design

Guarantee stable operation @ high voltage; operate below full depletion after inversion.

Implement integrated bias circuit.

Minimize multiple scattering; minimize mass.

Page 3: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

3

Total fluence has been predicted for each component’s lifetime assuming luminosity ramp-up from 1033cm-2 to 1034cm-2 during Years 1-3:

Page 4: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

4

Example prediction of depletion voltage versus radius, for 10-year fluence:

Page 5: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

5

Simulations were made to select operating temperature and access time:

Page 6: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

6

Conclusion:

•100 days' operation @ 0 °C

•30 days' warm-up @ 20 °C

•235 days' storage @ -10 °C

Page 7: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

7

General Features of the Production Sensor Design

• Rectangular sensors: 2 chips wide x 8 chips long -– Each chip: 18 columns x 160 rows

– Each pixel cell: 50 x 400 m2

– Active area: 16.4 x 60.8 mm2

• n+ implants (dose 1014/cm2) in n-bulk to allow underdepleted operation after inversion

• Thickness: 250 m

Page 8: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

8

Route to the Design

• First Prototypes -– Designed in ‘97, fabricated by CiS +

Seiko, studied in '98-'99

• Second Prototypes -– Designed in '98, fabricated by CiS,

IRST, and TESLA, studied in '99-2000

• Pre-production Sensors -– Designed in '99-2000, fabricated by CiS

+ TESLA, studied in 2001

• Production Sensors -– Order in process of release now for

delivery to begin in January 2002.

Page 9: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

9

The Production Wafer4-inch diameter, 250 m thick, with:

– 3 full-size Tiles

– 6 single-chip sensors

– various process test structures to monitor oxide breakdown voltage, flat-band voltage, oxide-silicon interface current, p-spray dose

Page 10: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

10

Features of the Full-size Sensors (“Tiles”)

• Pitch 50 x 400 m2 • 47232 cells per sensor• Area 18.6 x 63.0 mm2

• Active area 16.4 x 60.8 mm2

• cells in regions between chips are either – elongated to 600 m to reach the nearest chip, or– ganged by single metal to a nearby pixel that has

direct R/O

Page 11: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

11

Elongation and Ganging of Implants in the Inter-chip Region

Page 12: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

12

n-side isolation: p-sprayA medium [(3.0 ± 0.5) x 1012/cm2] dose implant applied to the full n-side without masks, then overcompensated by the high dose pixel implants themselves.

The p-spray is moderated: it attains a lower boron dose near the lateral p-n junction, thereby reducing the electric field. The surface charge at the junction is optimized at the saturation value (1.5 1012 /cm2 ) and is slightly higher in the center (3.0 1012/cm2) for safe overcompensation. The higher dose in the center also reduces the capacitance.

Title:mod.epsCreator:fig2dev Version 3.2 Patchlevel 0-beta3Preview:This EPS picture was not savedwith a preview included in it.Comment:This EPS picture will print to aPostScript printer, but not toother types of printers.

Page 13: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

13

Title:paw.epsCreator:HIGZ Version 1.23/07Preview:This EPS picture was not savedwith a preview included in it.Comment:This EPS picture will print to aPostScript printer, but not toother types of printers.

Irradiated (21014 55-MeV p/cm2) p-spray sensors: leakage current versus voltage:

Irradiated (21014 55-MeV p/cm2) p-stop sensors: leakage current versus voltage:

Title:paw.epsCreator:HIGZ Version 1.23/07Preview:This EPS picture was not savedwith a preview included in it.Comment:This EPS picture will print to aPostScript printer, but not toother types of printers.

Page 14: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

14

Unirradiated p-spray sensors: breakdown voltage

The same sensors irradiated to 9 1014 1MeV n/cm2: breakdown voltage

Page 15: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

15

Breakdown voltage for tile with moderated p-spray (Prototype 2): 410 V

Breakdown voltage for tile with normal p-spray (Prototype 1): 180 V

Page 16: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

16

•Substrate: oxygenated

From the ROSE Collaboration: Oxygen-enriched (24 hours in 1150C environment) silicon is significantly more radiation hard than standard silicon as tested with protons or pions. Vdep is 2x lower after 1015/cm2.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7eq [1014 cm-2]

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

|Nef

f| [1

012cm

-3]

200

400

600

800

Vde

p [V

] (3

00 m

)

standard FZstandard FZ

oxygenated FZoxygenated FZ

23 GeV proton irradiation23 GeV proton irradiation

Page 17: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

17

•The value of oxygenated substrate was confirmed by the ATLAS pixel group:

Title:JPEG image 661x379 pixelsCreator:Mozilla (NetScape) HTML->PSPreview:This EPS picture was not savedwith a preview included in it.Comment:This EPS picture will print to aPostScript printer, but not toother types of printers.

Title:fig2.epsCreator:HIGZ Version 1.27/03Preview:This EPS picture was not savedwith a preview included in it.Comment:This EPS picture will print to aPostScript printer, but not toother types of printers.

After irradiation to 3 1014/cm2:

Page 18: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

18

Title:sketch.figCreator:fig2dev Version 3.1 Patchlevel 1Preview:This EPS picture was not savedwith a preview included in it.Comment:This EPS picture will print to aPostScript printer, but not toother types of printers.

• Guard ring / treatment of the edge– on the p-side: a 17-ring structure of p+ implants. Pitch

increases with radius. Metal overlaps implant by 1/2 gap width on side facing active area. (See Bischoff, et al., NIM A 326 (1993) 27-37.)

– on the n-side: no conventional guard ring. Inner guard ring of ~90 m width surrounded by a few micron gap. Region outside gap is implanted n+ and grounded externally. Recall that the chip is only a bump’s diameter away. This design guarantees no HV arc from n-side to chip.

Page 19: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

19

• Bias gridFor high yield on assembled modules, we

want to test sensors prior to attaching chips - so we want to bias every channel on a test stand without a chip and without contacting implants directly. A bias grid is implemented:– Bus between every pair of columns connects

to small n+ implant “dot” near each pixel

– When bias is applied (through a probe needle) to the grid, every pixel is biased by punchthrough from its dot.

– p-spray eliminates need for photolithographic registration, permits distance between n-implants to be small low punchthrough voltage

– Bias grid unused after chips are attached but maintains any unconnected pixels (i.e., bad bumps) near ground

Page 20: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

20

Bias Grid

Page 21: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

21

• Selected mechanical and substrate requirements – thickness - 250 m– thickness non-uniformity, wafer to wafer

- +10 m, -30 m– thickness non-uniformity across each

wafer - < 10 m– bow - 40 m– crystal orientation - <111>– resistivity - 2-5 k-cm– resistivity uniformity, wafer to wafer -

±30 %– substrate free of deep levels (C-V

independent of frequency f for 20 Hz < f < 10 MHz)

– substrate oxygenated @ 1150 °C, 24 hrs

Page 22: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

22

• Selected electrical requirements (measured at 20 °C) – initial operating voltage - 150V or

Vdep + 50V, whichever is higher

– initial leakage current @ Vop - < 2 A per tile

– current slope at Vop - I(Vop)/I(Vop - 50V) < 2

– initial oxide breakdown voltage - 50V I 30% after 30 hours operation in dry

air at Vop

Page 23: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

23

• Selected design parameters:– implant spacing 5 m– implant width 5 m– contact hole diameter in oxide or nitride

5 m– contact hole spacing in oxide or nitride

20 m– metal width 8 m– metal spacing 5 m– contact hole diameter in passivation

12 m– contact hole spacing in passivation

38 m– mask alignment tolerance within same

side ±2m– mask alignment tolerance between front

and back sides ±5 m

Page 24: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

24

• Processing parameters:– n+ implantation dose > 1014/cm2

– p-spray effective dose in Si - (3.0 ± 0.5) x 1012/cm2

– p-side contact dose > 1014/cm2

• Radiation hardness

To be tested on 2-4 test structures of 3 types, per batch, after 1015 p/cm2

(CERN PS) and 50 kRad low energy electrons (Dortmund):– Vop 600 V

– I(600 V) < 100 A @ -10 °C I < 30% after 15 hours @ -10 °C

Page 25: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

25

Pixel sensor testing was done on 120 wafers to

reach this design...

• static studies of irradiated + unirradiated devices

• test beam studies of sensors with amplifiers.

Examples...

Page 26: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

26

Static testsQuality assurance procedures assigned a flag Qflag (-1 , 0,

+1) to each tile on the basis of its breakdown voltage.

Qflag = -1 for 50V < Vbreakdown

Qflag = 0 for 50V < Vbreakdown < 150V

Qflag = +1 for Vbreakdown > 150V

Typical results for CiS (predict production yield):

Page 27: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

27

Beam test study of charge collection uniformity

• track position extrapolated to the pixel detector using strip detector telescope

• average cluster charge computed for each position bin

• ~18000e- signal:

Track

yloc

xlc

For an oxygenated Prototype 2 wafer @Vbias = 400 V, = 5.6 1014 neq

/cm2:

Page 28: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

28

Page 29: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

29

Beam test study of depletion depth

Track position from the beam telescope

Computed depth of the charge

Particle Track

Page 30: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

30

After 1015 neq/cm2, Vdep > 227 m @ -600 V for oxygenated substrate

Page 31: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

31

Beam test efficiency study

Vbias = 600 V

98.4% efficiency after = 1015 neq/cm2, for 3000e- threshold:

Page 32: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

32

Beam Test Study of Spatial Resolution

• Resolution at 0o for 3000 e- threshold:• depends on ratio (2 hits):(single hits)• sharing within ± 3 m• ~ 15 % double hits

• Larger charge sharing region for larger angles

• Depleted region reduction due to rad damage affects the multiple hits rate

• Magnetic field modifies charge sharing through Lorentz angle

Page 33: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

33

no charge sharing: 1 hits

charge sharing: 2 hit

1+2 hits

1 hit

2 hits 2 hits

Page 34: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

34

Beam test study of resolution as a function of azimuthal angle

Charge interpolation on the external pixels in the cluster improves spatial precision

Page 35: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

35

Analog (Time over Threshold) measurement of the charge improves resolution.

Page 36: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

36

Production Sensor Testing Program

On all wafers:

•visual inspection by microscope, before and after all other measurements

•I-V of every tile, every single chip, and diode with guard ring (for Vbreak)

•C-V on diode with guard ring (for Vdep)

Once per batch:

•bow

•I versus time

•thickness

Page 37: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

37

On a representative sample of control structures, a few per batch:

•Vflat-band, oxide charge, p-spray dose, electron mobility, Vbreak of oxide and nitride layers, inter-pixel resistance, inter-pixel capacitance, implant and metalization resistivities

On irradiated test structures:

•Vop, Iop, I vs. time, Vbreak, oxide properties, flat-band voltage, oxide charge, p-spray dose, electron mobility

Page 38: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

38

Status the sensors:

•CiS is approved for full production.

•Tesla has met specs on unirradiated devices. 25% of their production sensors will be ordered immediately. Final approval for remaining 75% will be given after test beam of irradiated devices next summer.

•The testing laboratories are ready. QA procedures have been optimized, will be finalized by 7 Dec 2001.

•Production database in use.

Page 39: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

39

Sensor Cost EstimatePlan for purchase of the detectors:

•2000 tiles required (incl. spares)

•Order 1/2 from each vendor

•Both vendors will offer 35% 3-good-tile wafers and 65% 2-good-tile wafers. However present Tesla pricing is based on 50% 3-good/ 35% 2-good so their cost is a conservative estimate. US will pay 20% of total cost.

Page 40: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

40

Sensor Cost Estimate, continuedCiS:

3-good: 150 wafers 1315 ChF/wafer = 197250 ChF

2-good: 275 wafers 840 ChF/wafer = 231000 ChF

CiS total: 428250 ChF

Tesla:

3-good: 200 wafers 765 ChF/wafer = 153000 ChF

2-good: 200 wafers 383 ChF/wafer = 76600 ChF

Tesla total: 229600 ChF

25% of sensors will be ordered in FY02, 75% in FY03.

Total US cost: 20% 657850 ChF = $82.2k

FY02 US cost: 20% 164463 ChF = $20.6k

FY03 US cost: 20% 493387 ChF = $61.7k

Page 41: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

41

Sensor Cost Estimate, continued

CiS has been approved to provide its full production order. Tesla radiation hardness will be checked after 25% production, and a final decision on Tesla full order will be made in Sept. 2002.

If the full 2000-sensor order reverts to CiS:

Total cost increases to 856500 ChF = $535k

US cost increases to $107k (30% change).

Page 42: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

42

Additional 1.1.1.2 costs

Needed for FY02 + FY03:

1.0 FTE student tech: $13k/year 2 yr = $26k

0.5 FTE engineer: $36k/year 2 yr = $72k

total: $98k

Page 43: 1 ATLAS Pixel Sensors Sally Seidel University of New Mexico U.S. ATLAS Pixel Review LBNL, 9 November 2001

43

Milestones for WBS 1.1.1.2

First outer production wafers delivered 18 Jan 02

Outer sensors testing complete 31 Jul 03

Outer sensors needed to begin modules 31 Jul 03

First B-layer wafers delivered 11 Apr03

B-layer sensors needed to begin modules 14 Jul 04