High Luminosity ATLAS
- vs. CMOS Sensors
Where we currently are and where we’d like to be Jens Dopke, STFC RAL
1
High Luminosity ATLAS vs. CMOS Sensors Where we currently are and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
High Luminosity ATLAS vs. CMOS Sensors Where we currently are and where wed like to be Jens Dopke, STFC RAL 1 Disclaimer I usually do talks on things where I generated all the imagery myself (ATLAS Pixels/IBL) - CMOS as a topic was a
Where we currently are and where we’d like to be Jens Dopke, STFC RAL
1
I usually do talks on things where I generated all the imagery myself (ATLAS Pixels/IBL) - CMOS as a topic was a particular wish and I’ll give some insights, but much of it will rely on you asking questions (and quite possibly people in the audience knowing better answering them…) Many images “stolen” from others, all of it is collaborative effort...
2
○ What do we do now ○ ATLAS ITk in the making ○ What can we do different?
○ How would we do it ○ What exists
○ Are we there yet?
3
ATLAS
slide has to happen
detector:
○ Tracker, Calorimeter, Muon Spectrometer ○ ~4pi coverage ○ 2 separate magnetic fields, solenoid and toroidal
○ 13 years and counting
4
ATLAS Tracker
○ TRT: Gaseous detector with transition radiation ○ Stried semiconductor ○ Pixelised semiconductor
○ D0 ~ 10um ○ Z0 ~ 50um
○ Unmaintainable (Well...) ○ Power consumption (Mostly in delivery) ○ Cooling (For now based
5
from individual sensor pieces bonded to multiple front-end asics
○ Sensors are usually oxygenated silicon made in large feature sizes ○ Front-end asics are made from small feature size CMOS technologies
cooling/mechanical support structure, either by gluing or clamping, forming detector layers
current measured by front-ends
○ From locating many of those, we reconstruct tracks
6
7
Tracks reconstructed from individual hits from a 900 GeV collision
8
In particular in low granularity regions, tracking gets a lot harder with pile-up
Next Upgrade turns a mixed detector into an all-silicon detector:
O(200m2) of Silicon to be put into shape, major cost drivers being:
modules
9
Like before - all Baseline ITK Modules are Hybrid assemblies:
front-end circuit
○ Either through wire-bonding (strips) or bump-bonding (pixels)
HV
10
System concepts
Major effort has already been spent developing the system concepts of ITk, therefore implying:
consumption)
○ Cooling
Less true for Pixels!
11
ITk as a project is quite well advanced:
What Options does that still leave us with?
12
13
The idea behind CMOS in HEP is to join two silicon functionalities:
To first order this gives us:
less steps of integration
Front-end chip Dedicated sensor Sensor with integr. front-end
14
Many people approach CMOS, everyone claims they’re different from the others...
○ Large collecting diode (easy to deplete) ○ Small collecting diode (low noise)
○ High voltage to the substrate (Special design rules and processes) ○ Low voltage to the substrate (needs high resistivity)
In ATLAS we end up calling them HV- or HR-CMOS
15
Another main aspect are technology differences - what do the fabs offer?
Foundry list during investigation got a bit excessive, can now break it down to about 4 foundries that will deliver all of the above
16
Within ATLAS, large collecting terminal structures are labelled as HV-CMOS (as they usually come on standard substrates with high voltage bias)
surrounding the electronics
These devices come with two features: 1. Resistivity over irradiation changes -> different depletion depth 2. The signal is picked up from a deep well that surrounds electronics a. Large capacitance to the local Pwell b. Possible crosstalk with the electronics
17
Charge Coupled Pixel Device: CCPD
○ Sends hit response through capacitive coupling into a frontend circuit ○ Subpixel resolution, local hit position is encoded into the charge transferred
cost, generated in AMS (both 180nm and 350nm nodes) Advantage: Small analogue pixels can be integrated with dense memory blocks in frontend
18
Equivalent approach in LFoundry:
quadruple wells
Complementary Isolation in XFAB:
collecting silicon from the electronics
19
Mu3e experiment at PSI
○ 50um thinned CMOS sensors, based on AMS 180 HV
per bunch crossing
cooling, which they’re now trying to market for ATLAS
○ Only needs a factor of about 1000 more area...
20
ATLAS nomenclature: HR-CMOS usually refers to any implementation based on small collecting terminals
imaging processes
Potential advantages:
Major problem of achieving depletion
21
ALPIDE, the ALICE upgrade sensor:
○ Chip relies on diffusion as much as drift ○ Only possible due to low NIEL dose received in ALICE
22
Two major projects within ATLAS:
○ Now evolved into a MAPS program ○ Not really mine, haven’t looked at things here in a while...
Both aiming at a plug-in solution - time is too short to require significant modification of mechanical/thermal supports Given that we need a stable baseline, both projects are funded either through individual funding requests, tapping into the upgrade project or being lucky...
23
Evaluation program for a strip-like implementation:
Initial revision with very quick turnaround envisaged (program started mid 2014)
24
Start of CHESS in Summer 2014:
MPW submission by KIT: HVStripV1
progressed very quickly
○ Submission in August 2014 ○ Received in November 2014
25
Due to successful first submission, HV-CHESS has gone into a second submission
○ Less sensitive to Ionising dose ○ Faster ○ Lower power
○ Increased cost ○ Increased initial depletion allows to optimise the detector for operational dose range
26
late 2014 - 49 test structures
○ All nodes are shorted due to lack of p-stop
month, expected back in May 2017
Secrets here
27
Promising route for HV-CHESS submissions:
○ Module can be prototyped from this, though not 100% efficient
○ Includes design of the HCC interface Of course, Pixels are easier:
assembled from reticules now!
28
Many CMOS implementations coming up in HEP:
CMOS is really getting somewhere, in particular in terms of radiation hardness
implementation for the outermost pixel layer
29
Started collecting but didn’t get very far... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.09052.pdf
30