Simulation results from double-sided and standard 3D detectors

Simulation results from double-sided and standard 3D detectors David Pennicard, University of Glasgow Celeste Fleta, Chris Parkes, Richard Bates University of Glasgow G. Pellegrini, M. Lozano - CNM, Barcelona 1 th RD5 Workshop, June 27, Vilnius, Lithuania

Overview Simulations of different 3D detectors in ISE- TCAD Comparison of double-sided 3D and full-3d detectors before irradiation Radiation damage models Preliminary results of radiation damage modelling

Double-sided 3D detectors Proposed by CNM, also being produced by IRST Separate contact to each n+ column p-stop Inner radius 1μm Outer radius 15μm Dose 1 13 cm -2 Columns etched from opposite sides of the substrate Metal layer on back surface connects bias columns Backside biasing Oxide layer n+ column 25μm length 1μm diameter p+ column 25μm length 1μmμ diameter p- substrate 3μm thick, doping 7*1 11 cm -3 p+ column Medipix configuration (55μm pitch) and 3μm thickness 55μm pitch On back side: Oxide layer covered with metal All p+ columns connected together

Double-sided 3D: Depletion behaviour ~2V lateral depletion (same as standard 3D) ~8V to deplete to back surface of device Doping V V 1V 1V 1V 1V Space charge (e/cm 3 ).x1 + -1.x1 +11-2.x1 +11-3.x1 +11-4.x1 +11-5.x1 +11-6.x1 +11 Mostly depleted Fully depleted -7.x1 +11 n+ p+ n+ p+ n+ p+ n+ p+ n+ p+ Depletion around n+ column Undepleted around p+ column and base

Double - sided 3D Double-sided 3D: Electric field Standard 3D Electric field (V/cm) in cross-section of double-sided detector at 1V bias 25 p+ Similar behaviour in overlap region Y(um) 2 15 1 5 n+ 1 2 X(um) Electric field (V/cm) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Double-sided 3D: Electric field at front Detail of electric field (V/cm) around top of double-sided 3D device (1V bias) Low fields around front m) Z(u 1 2 3 4 Detail of electric field (V/cm) around top of double-sided 3D device (1V bias) n+ p-stop Z(um) 1 2 3 n+ 2 5 1 25 Electric field (V/cm) 13 9 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 p+ 1 2 3 4 D (um) Electric field matches full 3D where columns overlap 4 High field at column tip 5 6 2 p+ 1 2 3 4 D(um) 13

Double-sided 3D detectors: Collection time Simulated particle track passing midway between n+ and p+ columns Electrode cu urrent (μα) MIP signals in double-sided and standard 3D at 1V 24 22 2 18 Double-sided detector Standard 3D detector 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2..5 1. 1.5 2. 2.5 Time (ns) Collection tim me (ns) Variation in charge collection time with depth 5 1 15 2 25 3 4. 5 3. 2. 1 1.. Time (ns) for given collection: 5% 9% Full 5 1 15 2 25 3 Depth (um) 4 3 2 1 Variation in charge collection time with choice of device structure Detector Column length 9% collection 99% collection Double-sided 3D 25μm.75ns 2.5ns Double-sided 3D 27μm.4ns 1.ns Double-sided 3D 29μm.35ns.5ns Standard 3D 3μm.35ns.5ns

University of Perugia trap models IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 53, pp. 2971 2976, 26 Numerical Simulation of Radiation Damage Effects in p-type and n-type FZ Silicon Detectors, M. Petasecca, F. Moscatelli, D. Passeri, and G. U. Pignatel Perugia P-type model (FZ) Ec Type Acceptor Energy (ev) Ec-.42 Trap VV σ e (cm 2 ) 2.*1-15 σ h (cm 2 ) 2.*1-14 η (cm -1 ) 1.613 - -- Acceptor Ec-.46 VVV 5.*1-15 5.*1-14.9 Donor Ec+.36 CiOi 2.5*1-14 2.5*1-15.9 2 Acceptor levels: Close to midgap Leakage current, negative charge (N eff ), trapping of free electrons Donor level: Further from midgap Trapping of free holes Ev

University of Perugia trap models Aspects of model: Leakage current reasonably close to α=4.*1-17 A/cm Depletion voltage matched to experimental results (M. Lozano et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 52, pp. 1468 1473, 25) Carrier trapping Model reproduces CCE tests of 3μm pad detectors But trapping times don t match experimental results Link between model 1 e and experiment n = n 1 = vth σ en = β τ t τ eφ eq e e e τ e βe = v th σ eη e = v σ Φ η Experimental trapping times for p-type silicon (V. Cindro et al., IEEE NSS, Nov 26) up to 1 15 n 2 eq /cm β e = 4.*1-7 cm 2 s -1 β h = 4.4*1-7 cm 2 s -1 Calculated values from p-type trap model β e = 1.6*1-7 cm 2 s -1 β h = 3.5*1-8 cm 2 s -1 th e eq I Vol = αφ

Altering the trap models Priorities: Trapping time and depletion behaviour Leakage current should just be sensible : α = 2-1 *1-17 A/cm Chose to alter cross-sections, while keeping σ h /σ e constant t Carrier trapping: β e h, e, h = v th σ e, h η Space charge: n e, Trap = N trap f n N trap E exp t n kt ni σ hv + σ v e h th e th E exp t kt Modified P-type model Type Energy (ev) Trap σ e (cm 2 ) σ h (cm 2 ) η (cm -1 ) Acceptor Ec-.42 VV 9.5*1-15 9.5*1-14 1.613 Acceptor Ec-.46 VVV 5.*1-15 5.*1-14.9 Donor Ec+.36 CiOi 3.23*1-13 3.23*1-14.9

Modified P-type model and experimental data Type Energy (ev) Trap σ e (cm 2 ) σ h (cm 2 ) η (cm -1 ) Acceptor Ec-.42 VV 9.5*1-15 9.5*1-14 1.613 Acceptor Ec-.46 VVV 5.*1-15 5.*1-14.9 Donor Ec+.36 CiOi 3.23*1-13 3.23*1-14.9 P-type trap models: Depletion voltages P-type trap model: Leakage Current 6 55 Comparison of Radiation Hardness of P-in-N, N-in-N, and N-in-P Silicon Pad Detectors, M. Lozano et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 52, pp. 1468 1473, 25.2.16 α=3.75*1-17 A/cm Depletion volta age (V) 5 45 4 35 3 Default p-type sim Modified p-type sim Experimental 1E+14 2E+14 3E+14 4E+14 5E+14 6E+14 7E+14 Lea akage current (A/cm^3).12.8.4. Experimentally, α=3.99*1-17 A/cm 3 after 8 mins anneal at 6 C (M. Mollthesis) 1E+15 2E+15 3E+15 4E+15 5E+15 6E+15 Fluence (Neq/cm2) Fluence (neq/cm^2)

Perugia N-type model Perugia N-type model (FZ) Donor removal Type Acceptor Acceptor Donor Energy (ev) Ec-.42 Ec-.5 Ec+.36 Trap VV VVO CiOi σ e (cm 2 ) 2.*1-15 5.*1-15 2*1 2. -18 σ h (cm 2 ) 1.2*1-14 3.5*1-14 25*1 2.5-15 η (cm -1 ) 13.8 11 1.1 N D = N D D exp( c Φ) N D * cd = K C = const K C =(2.2±.2)*1-2 cm -1 Works similarly to the p-type model Donor removal is modelled by altering the substrate doping directly Experimental trapping times for n-type silicon (G. Kramberger et al., NIMA, vol. 481, pp297-35, 22) β e = 4.*1-7 cm 2 s -1 β h = 5.3*1-7 cm 2 s -1 Calculated l values from n-type trap model β e = 5.3*1-7 cm 2 s -1 β h = 4.5*1-8 cm 2 s -1

Modified N-type model Type Energy (ev) Trap σ e (cm 2 ) σ h (cm 2 ) η (cm -1 ) Acceptor Ec-.42 VV 1.5*1-15.9*1 9-14 13 Acceptor Ec-.5 VVO 5.*1-15 3.5*1-14.8 Donor Ec+.36 CiOi 2.5*1-17 3.1*1-15 1.1 Dep pletion voltag e (V) 5 4 3 2 1 N-type trap models: Depletion voltages Characterization of n and p-type diodes processed on Fz and MCz silicon after irradiation with 24 GeV/c and 26 MeV protons and with reactor neutrons, Donato Creanza et al., 6th RD5 Helsinki June 2-4 25 Default n-type sim Modified n-type sim Experimental 2E+14 4E+14 6E+14 8E+14 1E+15 1.2E+15 Fluence (Neq/cm2) Leaka age current (A A/cm^3).16.12.8.4. N-type trap model: Leakage Current α=2 2.35*1-17 A/cm Experimentally, α=3.99*1-17 A/cm after 8 mins anneal at 6 C (M. Mollthesis) 1E+15 2E+15 3E+15 4E+15 5E+15 6E+15 Fluence (neq/cm^2)

Bug in ISE-TCAD version 7 Currently using Dessis, in ISE-TCAD v7 (21) Non time-dependent simulations with trapping are OK Error occurs in transient simulations with traps Carrier behaviour in depletion region is OK Displacement current is miscalculated This affects currents at the electrodes Correct behaviour:. J =. J +. J +. J = tot disp n p Error: J =. J = q( R R )*(~)1. 73. disp, error tot e, Trap h, Trap This bug is not present in the latest release of Synopsis TCAD (27) Synopsis bought ISE TCAD, and renamed Dessis as Sentaurus Device Don t know which specific release fixed the problem

Test of charge trapping in Synopsis TCAD Simulated a simple diode with carriers generated at its midpoint No traps Double step seen because electrons are collected before e holes

Test of charge trapping in Synopsis TCAD Simulated a simple diode with carriers generated at its midpoint Acceptor and donor traps further from the midgap Produces charge trapping but little change in N eff Trap levels should give τ e τ h 1ns ISE TCAD traps?!

Full 3D Depletion voltage (p-type) Depletion voltage is low, but strongly dependent on pitch Double sided 3D shows the same lateral depletion voltage as full 3D 16 14 12 Depletion voltages and radiation damage Full 3D, ptype, Medipix i (55um) Full 3D, ptype, 3-column ATLAS 133μm Depletio on voltage (V V) 1 8 6 5μm 4 1 2 Y 2 3 2E+15 4E+15 6E+15 8E+15 1E+16 1.2E+16 Fluence (Neq/cm^2) 4 5 2 4 6 X 55μm

Full 3D electric field at 1V Full depletion is achieved well under 1V, but electric field is altered No damage 1 16 n eq /cm 2 Full 3D, p-type Full 3D, p-type, neq/cm 2 Full 3D, p-type, 1e+16neq/cm 2 4 35 3 4 1 8 Electric 35 6 Field (V/cm) 4 2 3 4 1 8 Electric 35 6 Field (V/cm) 4 2 3 Y(μm) 25 2 p+ Y(μm) 25 2 1 55 p+ Y(μm) 25 2 1 3 p+ 3 15 15 15 3 1 1 3 1 5 n+ 1 2 X(μm) 5 55 n+ 1 2 X (μm) 1 5 8 n+ 1 2 X (μm) 1

3 3 Double-sided 3D front surface Once again, double-sided devices show different behaviour at front and back surfaces No damage 1 16 n eq /cm 2 Double-sided 3D, p-type, front surface Double-sided 3D, p-type, neq/cm 2, front surface Double-sided 3D, p-type, 1e+16neq/cm 2, front surface 25 1 1 25 1 Z(μm) 2 3 4 5 6 n+ p+ Z(μm) 2 3 4 5 6 n+ 1 3 2 5 p+ Electric Field (V/cm) 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 2 1 5 Z(μm) 2 3 4 5 6 n+ 2 1 5 3 p+ Electric Field (V/cm) 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 2 1 5 7 7 7 25 5 D(μm) 25 5 D(μm) 25 5 D(μm)

Double-sided 3D back surface Region at back surface depletes more slowly not fully depleted at 1V bias Double-sided 3D, p-type, back surface No damage 1 16 n eq /cm 2 Double-sided 3D, p-type, neq/cm 2,backsurface Double-sided 3D, p-type, 1e+16neq/cm 2,backsurface 23 23 5 4 23 7 25 Z(μm) 24 24 24 n+ n+ n+ 25 25 Electric Field (V/cm) 25 19 26 p+ 26 p+ 17 15 26 13 11 27 27 9 27 7 75 5 3 28 28 2 28 1 5 29 29 29 Undepleted Z(μm) 3 15 25 Z(μm) 25 1 25 p+ Electric Field (V/cm) 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 2 1 5 3 25 5 D(μm) 3 25 5 D(μm) 3 25 5 D(μm)

Further work Simulate charge collection! Consider effects of different available pixel layouts CCE, depletion voltage, insensitive iti area, capacitance 1 1 2 2 Y 3 Y 3 4 4 5 5 2 4 6 X 2 4 6 X 3 133μm 8 5μmμ 5μm

Conclusions Double-sided 3D detectors: Behaviour mostly similar to standard 3D Depletion to back surface requires a higher h bias Front and back surfaces show slower charge collection Radiation damage model Trap behaviour is directly simulated in ISE-TCAD Trap models based on Perugia models, altered to match experimental trapping times Preliminary tests of damage model with 3D Relatively low depletion voltages, but electric field pattern is altered Double-sided 3D shows undepleted region at back surface at high fluences

Thank you for listening

Additional slides

3D detectors +ve n-electrode N+ and p+ columns pass through Planar substrate e - h + ~3um Fast charge collection p-electrode Low depletion voltage Particle Low charge sharing +ve -ve -ve ~3um Additional processing (DRIE for hole etching) 3D e - h + n-column Particle p-column

Breakdown in double-sided 3D Breakdown occurs at column tips around 23V Dependent on shape, e.g. 185V for square columns 4 42 44 Electric field (V/cm) around tip of p+ column at 215V 6 Z(um) 46 48 5 1 2 52 54 p+ 343 56 25 3 35 D (um)

Breakdown in double-sided 3D With 1 12 cm -2 charge, breakdown at 21V Front Z(um) Electric field (V/cm) in double-sided 3D at 175V with 1 12 cm -2 oxide charge Back Electric field 6 (V/cm) P-stop 3 25 1 2 5 15 1 2 5 4 3 n+ Column tips Z(um) 3 Electric field (V/cm) in double-sided 3D at 175V with 1 12 cm -2 oxide charge n+ p+ 4 2 Electric field (V/cm) 3 25 2 5 1 15 1 p+ 5 6 1 2 3 4 3 D(um) 2 D(um) P+ base 1

Example of ISE TCAD bug Current distribution ib ti after.6ns 6 4. 3.5 3. Total Current Current density (A/cm m2) 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5. 5 1 15 2 25 3 -.5-1. 1 N+ In simulation, charge deposited at the front Position (um) P+ 3μm

Example of ISE TCAD bug Current distribution ib ti after 1ns 4. 3.5 3. Total Current Current density (A/cm m2) 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5. 5 1 15 2 25 3 -.5-1. 1 N+ Holes drift Position (um) P+ 3μm

Example of ISE TCAD bug

Full 3D Depletion voltage (p-type) Depletion voltage is low, but strongly dependent on pitch Double sided 3D shows the same lateral depletion voltage as full 3D Depletion voltages and radiation damage 16 14 Full 3D, ptype, Medipix (55um) Full 3D, ptype, 3-column ATLAS 133μm Depletio on voltage (V V) 12 1 8 6 3-column ATLAS test, point where CCE maximised 5μm 4 1 2 Y 2 3 2E+15 4E+15 6E+15 8E+15 1E+16 1.2E+16 Fluence (Neq/cm^2) 4 5 2 4 6 X 55μm

Weighting fields and electrode layouts 1 Y 2 3 4 5 Symmetrical layout of n+ and p+ Weighting potential is the same for electrons and holes 2 4 6 X Square layout, symmetrical layout of p+ and n+ Square layout, symmetrical layout of n+ and p+ Y 1 2 3 Max field: 265 V/cm Abs(ElectricField) 3 25 2 15 1 5 4 4 Y 1 2 3.1.3.2.4.5.6.7.8.9 Weighting potential 1.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1 5 Electric field, 1V bias 5 Weighting potential ti 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 45 5 55 6 65 7 X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X

Weighting fields and electrode layouts 1 2 3 bias columns per readout column Y 3 4 5 Weighing potential favours electron collection 2 4 6 X Square layout, 3 n+ bias columns per p+ readout column Square layout, 3 p+ bias columns per n+ readout column Y 1 2 3 Max field: 447 V/cm Abs(ElectricField) 3 25 2 15 1 5 4 4 Y 1 2 3.1.2.3.5.7.9 Weighting Potential 1.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1 5 Electric field, 1V bias 5 Weighting potential ti 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 45 5 55 6 65 7 75 X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X

Future work Design choices with 3D Choice of electrode layout: In general, two main layouts possible 1 1 2 2 Y 3 Y 3 4 4 5 5 2 4 6 X 2 4 6 X Second option doubles number of columns However, increasing no. of p+ columns means larger electron signal

Future work Design choices with 3D ATLAS pixel (4μm * 5μm) allows a variety of layouts No of n+ electrodes per pixel could vary from ~3-8 Have to consider V dep, speed, total t column area, capacitance FP42 / ATLAS run at Stanford already has different layouts CMS (1 μm * 15μm) 3 5μm 133μm 8 5μm