1 / 19

Performance Evaluation of SiPM Arrays under Strong Magnetic Fields

Performance Evaluation of SiPM Arrays under Strong Magnetic Fields. S España 1 , G Tapias 2 , L M Fraile 1 , J L Herraiz 1 , E Vicente 1,3 , J M Udias 1 , M Desco 2 , J J Vaquero 2 1 Grupo de Física Nuclear, Dpto. Física Atómica, Molecular y Nuclear, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

nalani
Download Presentation

Performance Evaluation of SiPM Arrays under Strong Magnetic Fields

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. Performance Evaluation of SiPM Arrays under Strong Magnetic Fields S España1, G Tapias2, L M Fraile1, J L Herraiz1, E Vicente1,3, J M Udias1, M Desco2, J J Vaquero2 1Grupo de Física Nuclear, Dpto. Física Atómica, Molecular y Nuclear, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain 2Unidad de Medicina y Cirugía Experimental, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain 3Instituto de Estructura de la Materia, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Madrid, Spain

  2. Introduction SiPM (G-APD, MPPC, …) have many advantages compared to APD and PMT: • High gain • Low Voltage • Fast Timing • Compact size • Low cost • Compatible with magnetic fields

  3. Calorimeter Tests of SiPMs CALICE-HCAL (ILC): CAlorimeter for the Linear Collider Experiment

  4. Goals • Previous results: • SiPMs (1 × 1 mm2) • New results: • 2 x 2 SiPM array (6 × 6 mm2) • Strong Magnetic Field (7 Tesla) 1 mm

  5. Materials

  6. Materials Bruker BioSpec 70/20 USR 7 Tesla LIM – Hospital Gregorio Marañón

  7. Experimental Setup 1.- Single crystal LYSO crystal (10 × 10 × 20 mm3) SiPM covers 36% of scintillator base 22Na

  8. Pulse Shape NO preamplifier

  9. Gain vs Voltage T=20ºC

  10. Gain vs Temperature Bias = 69.0 V

  11. Dynamic Range

  12. Energy spectra 22Na ΔE@511 keV = 14% Bias = 69.0 V T = 20ºC

  13. Experimental Setup 2.- Crystal matrix 4 × 4 LYSO matrix (1.5 × 1.5 × 12 mm3) 18F

  14. Flood Field Image • 18F • 68.2 V - 20ºC • 5·105 counts • Software • Anger logic

  15. Flood Field Image • 18F • 68.2 V - 20ºC • 5·105 counts • Software • Anger logic Peak to valley ratio = 10:1

  16. Crystal Energy Spectrum • 18F • 68.2 V - 20ºC • 3·104 • counts/crystal

  17. Energy Resolution @ 511keV

  18. Conclusions • The 2 × 2 SiPM array from Hamamatsu shows very good suitability for its use in the presence of strong magnetic fields. • Monitoring of Temperature and Voltage is needed to correct gain variations. • Combination with LYSO crystals shows potential to obtain energy resolution below 10% @ 511 keV. • The 4 × 4 crystal array of 1.5 mm pitch size was perfectly resolved with negligible differences at 0 and 7 Tesla.

  19. Future SiPMs 1 × 4 channels array 1 × 4 mm2 1 × 1 mm2 / channel 25/50/100 μm 4 × 4 channels array 16 × 16 mm2 3 × 3 mm2 / channel 25/50/100 μm

More Related