1 / 14

Electromagnetic Radiation Hardness for the ILC BeamCal Sensors

Electromagnetic Radiation Hardness for the ILC BeamCal Sensors. Argonne SiD Workshop Friday, June 4 2010 Bruce Schumm Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics. The SCIPP/UCSC ILC R&D GROUP. Faculty/Senior Vitaliy Fadeyev Bruce Schumm. Collaborators Takashi Maruyama Tom Markiewicz

floyd
Download Presentation

Electromagnetic Radiation Hardness for the ILC BeamCal Sensors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Electromagnetic Radiation Hardness for the ILC BeamCal Sensors Argonne SiD Workshop Friday, June 4 2010 Bruce Schumm Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics

  2. The SCIPP/UCSC ILC R&D GROUP Faculty/Senior Vitaliy Fadeyev Bruce Schumm Collaborators Takashi Maruyama Tom Markiewicz (SLAC) Students Spencer Key Donish Khan

  3. Some notes: • Beam Calorimeter is a sizable project, ~2 m2 of sensors. • Sensors are in unusual regime: ~ 1 GRad of e+/e-; 1014 n/cm2 after several years. • There are on-going studies with GaAs, Diamond, Sapphire materials (FCAL report, Nov 2009). • We’ll concentrate on mainstream Si technology proven by decades of technical development. • There is some evidence that p-type Si may be particularly resilient… 3

  4. Rates (Current) and Energy • Basic Idea: • Direct electron beam of moderate energy on Tungsten radiator; follow with silicon sensor at shower max • For Si, 1 GRad is about 3 x 1016/cm2, or about 5 mili-Coulomb • Current scale is A, which points to the 1-5 GeV beam at CBAF (Jefferson Lab, Virginia, USA) 4

  5. G.P. Summers et al., IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 40, 1372 (1993) NIELe- Energy 2x10-2 0.5 MeV 5x10-2 2 MeV 1x10-1 10 MeV 2x10-1 200 MeV Damage coefficients less for p-type for Ee- < ~1GeV (two groups); note critical energy in W is ~10 MeV But: Are electrons the entire picture? 5

  6. Hadronic Processes in EM Showers • There seem to be three main processes for generating hadrons in EM showers (all induced by photons): • Nuclear (“giant dipole”) resonances • Resonance at 10-20 MeV (~Ecritical) • Photoproduction • Threshold seems to be about 200 MeV • Nuclear Compton scattering • Threshold at about 10 MeV;  resonance at 340 MeV •  Flux through silicon sensor should be ~10 MeV e/, but also must appropriately represent hadronic component 6

  7. 1mm Downstream of 18mm Tungsten Block Not amenable for uniform illumination of detector. Instead: split 18mm W between “pre” and “post” radiator separated by large distance Caution:nuclear production is ~isotropic  must happen dominantly in “post” radiator! Boundary of 1cm detector Fluence (particles per cm2) 7 Radius (cm)

  8. 5.5 GeV Shower Profile “Pre” “Post” e+e- (x10) All  Remember: nuclear component is from photons in 10-500 MeV range. Fluence (particles per cm2) E > 100 MeV (x20) E > 10 MeV (x2) 8 Radius (cm)

  9. Possible split radiator configuration (needs more study) Boundary of 1cm detector 6mm Tungsten “pre” 12mm Tungsten “post” Separated by 2m Fluence (particles per cm2) 9 Radius (cm)

  10. No Beam Spread Beam Spread = 1mm Radial Fluence Distributions for Differing Sizes of Gaussian Beam Width (x = y) Beam Spread = 5mm Beam Spread = 2mm 10

  11. Irradiation Plan • Intend to use existing sensors from ATLAS R&D (made at Micron). Both n- and p- type, Magnetic Czochralski and Oxygenated Float Zone. • Plan to assess the bulk damage effects, charge collection efficiency. This will further assess the breakdown on NIEL scaling (x50 at 2 MeV and x4 at 900 MeV) in the energy range of interest. Sensors Sensor + FE ASIC DAQ FPGA with Ethernet 11

  12. Summary Suggestion that p-type bulk may be more resilient (why?) is intruiguing Need to think about nuclear component: may be dominant source of damage Believe we are getting close to configuration that will accurately reflect BeamCal sensor conditions Initial contacts with JLab made; not dismissed (yet…) Much work to do to set up and execute meaningful test run, but shooting for Dec 2010  a few months. 12

  13. BeamCal Incident Energy Distribution 2 4 6 8 10 e+/e- ENERGY (GEV) BUT: Most fluence is at shower max, dominated by ~10 MeV e-, e+ and . Why might (?) incident energy matter? 13

  14. NIEL (Non-Ionizing Energy Loss) • Conventional wisdom: Damage proportional to Non- Ionizing Energy Loss (NIEL) of traversing particle • NIEL can be calculated (e.g. G.P. Summers et al., IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 40, 1372 [1993]) • At EcTungsten ~ 10 MeV, NIEL is 80 times worse for protons than electrons and • NIEL scaling may break down (even less damage from electrons/psistrons) • NIEL rises quickly with decreasing (proton) energy, and fragments would likely be low energy •  Might small hadronic fractions dominate damage? 14

More Related