Sherwood Parker Chris Kenney

Silicon Detectors Novel Detectors Sherwood Parker Chris Kenney Nov. 6,1998 SLUO Lecture # 9 Silicon Detectors / Novel Detectors 1. a brief histor...
Author: Susanna Green
0 downloads 2 Views 6MB Size
Silicon Detectors

Novel Detectors Sherwood Parker Chris Kenney

Nov. 6,1998

SLUO Lecture # 9

Silicon Detectors / Novel Detectors 1. a brief history of silicon detectors: challenges and turning points

2. the present challenge 3. a solution from micromachining:

3D

4. 3D fabrication, micromachining

5. results from the first fabrication runs 6. some future directions: a. thin detectors b. active edges

c. ....

1. history: 1962 - Wegner: surface barrier detectors 1964 - Madden: oxide passivation, diffused junctions 1966 - checker board counter (1.37 rnrn x,y strips) 1968 - ion implantation 4

Pixels, increased accuracy

1979 - Algranati, ... : charge transfer array detect. c--1979 - Kernrner: oxide passivation

+ ion implantation 1 output) 1982 - UCSB proposes SSVD for photoproduction

1983 - CERN/Hyams,.. ion imp./ox. pass., cap. chg. div. 6 strips / output for first SSVD experiment

1984 - finish fabrication of Microplex 1984 - Bailey, ..Hyams: CERN SSVD - first physics 1984 - Gatti, Rehak: silicon drift detector proposed 1985 - first beam tests results with Microplex 1985 - UCSB SSVD in (with non-VLSI electronics) 1985 - Hughes/SSRL/SLAC bump-bonded pixels 1986 - UCSB

-

first physics from US SSVD

1987 - monolithic pixels proposed 1988 - first collider SSVD ready (Microplex / Mark I1 / SLC) (installed 1989) 1990 - monolithic pixel fabrication complete 1991-2 - Fermilab tests: Hughes, monolithic pixels (monolithic: first ever < 2 pn 0)

+

1993 - SSC killed; LHC on; radiation levels higher

1996 - 3D proposed 1998 - 3D: first fabrication

--

.=a

v3

c I

,

v

z

rv'

0 h/-

E-

z

-

z

rT1

l

rT)

c

'/

2 54

June

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE

UNIFORM AND STABLE dE/dx P-n JUNCTION PARTICLE DETECTORS T. C. Madden and W. M. Gibson B e l l Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated Murray H i l l , New J e r s e y S o l i d - s t a t e dE1dx.E p a r t i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n systems r e q u i r e t h i n dE/dx d e t e c t o r s having a high tlegree of t h i c k n e s s uniformity. The l a c k of t h i s uniformity has been a I l m i t i n g f a c t o r i n achieving optimum results with t h e s e systems. I n a d d i t i o n , reproducible and s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d f a b r i c a t i o n techniques, long term s t a b i l i t y , and ruggedness are d e s i r e d f o r t h e r o u t i n e use of such devices. The w e of oxide s u r f a c e p a s s i v a t i o n , a planar-etching procedure, and a n improved back c o n t a c t have m d e p o s s i b l e t h e reproducible c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h i n , uniform, and s t a b l e diffused-junction p a r t i c l e d e t e c t o r s which meet t h e s e requirements. The response of t h e s e d e t e c t o r s t o b o t h p e n e t r a t i n g and nonpenetrating p a r t i c l e s , and t h e e f f e c t s of p a r t i c l e channeling through t h e c r y s t a l l a t t i c e are discussed.

INTRODUCTION Wegner1'2 has pointed out t h e p o t e n t i a l advantages i n t h e use of t h i n semiconductor d e t e c t o r s as transmission counters i n dE/dx.E p a r t i c l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n systems. The f a b r i c a t i o n of both d i f f u s e d junction2,3,4 and s u r f a c e barrier5,6 s t r u c t u r e s f o r t h i s purpose has been r e p o r t e d . I n this work, devices were f a b r i c a t e d usiog a combination of phosphorus d l f f u s i o n , oxide p a s s i v a t i o n , and s u r f a c e barrier techniques. Thin transmission d e t e c t o r s p r e s e n t unusual f a b r i c a t i o n problems f o r two major reasons: (1) t h e t h i c k n e s s uniformity must be very good so t h a t s t a t i s t i c a l f l u c t u a t i o n s alone determine t h e energy spread of p a r t i c l e s p e n e t r a t i n g a t h i n d e t e c t o r ; and ( 2 ) t h e back c o n t a c t must block i n j e c t i o n t o avoid an i n c r e a s e i n t h e device noise when t h e space charge r e g i o n reaches t h e back. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e are t h e problems p r e s e n t with standard semiconductor d e t e c t o r s : long-term s t a b i l i t y , r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y of f a b r i c a t i o n , e t c . These p r o b l e m , i f anything, m e more severe f o r t h i n detectors. Several methods have been r e p o r t e d f o r making t h i n s i l i c o n wafers f o r use as G / d x d e t e c t o r s . These include conventional lapping and e t c h i n g techniques as used by Wegner2 and An&ews,5 and t h e more s o p h i s t i c a t e d techniques of Inskeep, Edison and LBSalle3 and E l l i o t and Pehl.4 Howe v e r , a p l a n a r - e t c h i n g system was a v a i l a b l e which showed promise of producing t h i n s i l i c o n wafers which were more uniform and of l a r g e r area t h a n those p r e v i o u s l y r e p o r t e d . I n a d d i t i o n , it was f e l t t h a t t h e use of s i l i c o n dioxide s u r f a c e p a s s i v a t i o n 7 could o f f e r

s p e c i a l advantages f o r t h i n d e t e c t o r s . k s i d e s junction edge p r o t e c t i o n , t h e p l a n a r s t r u c t u r e (1)t h e provides two a d d i t i o n a l advantages: oxide f i l m l e n d s s t r e n g t h t o t h e device; and ( 2 ) t h e use of t h e oxide f i l m f o r d i f f u s i o n masking removes t h e n e c e s s i t y of forming a mesa s t r u c t u r e . A blocking s u r f a c e - b a r r i e r back contact of t h e type described by Andrews5 was f e l t t o be t h e most e f f e c t i v e c u r r e n t s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem of electron injection.

One problem which was a n t i c i p a t e d b u t which d i d not p r e s e n t any s p e c i a l d l f f i c u l t y w a s t h a t of devlce breakage due t o t h e b r i t t l e n e s s of t h i n s i l i c o n . Thin d e t e c t o r s n a t u r a l l y r e q u i r e more c a r e f u l handling than conventional devices, b u t they need not be f r a g i l e or b r i t t l e . With sawing and lapping d-ge removed, s i l i c o n i s extremely strong, and i n t h e case of s e c t i o n s a s t h i n as 1 mil, f l e x i b l e .

DEVICE FABRICATION

Preparation of Silicon The lapped s i l i c o n wafer from which a t h i n d e t e c t o r i s made must be very uniform i n t h i c k ness, s i n c e t h e f i n a l device can be no more uniform t h a n t h e o r i g i n a l wafer. I n t h i s work t h e s i l i c o n wafers were lapped on a b i s u r f a c e p l a n e t a r y lapping machine using 3034 A1203 abrasive which l e f t t h e f i n i s h e d wafers with To i n s u r e thickness v a r i a t i o n of 0.01 removal of s t r u c t u r a l damage r e s u l t i n g from t h e sawing and lapping operations, 3 mils were etched from each s i d e of t h e s e wafers.




. -0

Fig.3A

Fig. 3B

Fig. 3C

- 250k

dra*''l

c

z

v)

X

?.?

10-x

5

-

X

x

L P +

2001

2

t

m

cy m

5 MICRON DIAMETER

3-'

10 MICRON D!IAMET€R 15 MJCRON WAMETER

__

-

I

l

l

1

I

l

l

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

l

.

- 1 -x - +1

-

l

1

I 1 1 1

-

30 -

U

5

I - Q3 -I20

?'
20 deg H W H , 0, helps crack propagation.) No wafer survives all following steps. w ~f e r e*(? c c o J C r

+

*

0."

CY+

sp

cyp.suue

JUNE TEST OXIDE BONDING OF TWO WAFERS

i-ti.4

(OUTSIDE POLISHING F€RM), START FABRICATION AUGUST COMPLETE FABRICATION SEPTEMBER START TESTING

G

I\

wa

feY s surv iv

c

f

J

c

1

L

/

;.:I

... .. .... y:

'

.. ... ... .... .:A,.,

Y

/

/

/

"I

/

1

....

/

E;.....;:;: ....

.,. .. ... . ...... . ._. ..... :::. . '

10.00 0

0 I

lo"

1

1

I

a

1.11

le2

.

0 1

1

,

1

1

1

1

1

lo"

NEI' DOPAKT OONCEKlRAnON

1

.

I

1

1

1

10"

p+ to

'1

adjacrnr n+

?

0

07

n+ ta adjacent n+

0

4.

0

0 "0 -0

?.

X -0

6'9

0

0

0

1. 0

0

LI

0 0 0 0

0.0

5.0

15.0

10.0

-D

~KIQCIDKS)

Figure

20.0

(4cf 5 . 0

4

Electric field magnitudes for the quaIter cell of Fig. 2a, substrate doping of lO"/cc, and applied voltages of 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, and 0 V (top to bottom lines) along lines from (a) the p+ to the adjacent n+ electrode, (b) the p+ to the diagonally opposite n+ electrode, and (c) the n+ to the adjacent n+ electrode.

9

p+ to adjacent n+

(2

0.0

5.0

10.0 15.0 D I S T m E (MCRONS)

20.0

(5)

25.0

Figure 5 Comparison of electric field magxitudes for the quarter cell of Fig. 2, 10 V applied voltage, along the line from the p+ to the adjacent n+ electrode for substrate dopings of 10l2/cc and lO"/cc. With higher substrate dopant levels, as can occur with radiation damage, the p e a k fields, located where the depletion volume meets the electrodes, actually decrease due to the increase in voltage dropped across the lightly doped (compared to the electrodes) substrate.

-

-

10

w u -

Bo-

$00-

0.0

N+

5.0

10.0 15.0 DISTANCE (MICRONS)

20.0

(3)

Figure 3

Drift lines for Figure 2a:

10” dopant atoms/cc and 5V.

8

25.0

N+

iov, ld2, 0 . 2 5

NS

0

n

VI

8p:

:-lo c w

Y

E VI

E-20

DISTANCE (MICRONS) ( 6 )

Figure 6

-

-

Lines of equal drift time for potential distributions of Figure 2c (10l2/cc and 1OV). Zero time is measured from the p+ electrode (top left corner) at r=5pm and charges are traced backwards. Lines in the immediate vicinity of the zero-field points at the bottom center and right center are n o t reliable: diffusion plays a major role there. In addition, few of the tracks being traced backwards go there.

11

0

- - - -.

O!

n!

!

4,le.S

t I

ot

0.0

Figure 7

.o

10.0.

20.0

15.0

xsma! 1KIcAoKSl

25.0

(7f1

Charge density contours (2 per decade) for electron-hole pairs, (a) (c) holes starting from the cell center at 0.1, 89, and 432 ps, (d)-(e) electrons from the cell center at 89 and 432 ps, (f) electrons from the null point at 175 ps, and ( g )- ( 1 ) holes from the null point at 0.1, 175 ps, 1.7, 3, 4 , and 5 ns. The fields are those of Figure 2c, 10'2/cc, 1 O V . ~

-

12

!

0 0m .--

N*

v)'

5 0

10 0 15 0 D l s m b n z uLtab3aSl

20.0

25.0

_ - -.

l

0)

0.0

*

\

\ (' I

5 0

0 0

(7g)

.

10 G 10.G

15 0

DISTAHI IIUCXNS)

25 0

20 0

( 7 11

t

1

N

--

-

- 5 0

1G 0 D

I

, 15 0 W (l5-1

20 0

- _ - -.

-:-- - c ,-

I

'

13

25 0

(7k)

0-

0 0

.

/I

1, O G

.--

5 0

* I

; I

10 0 15 D DISTAKE I=-I

20 0

25.0

(711

0

9; -.

cell center

i1

.5j/’; - . X

\

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50 3.00 (N)

3.50

4.00

4

7.0

8.0

9.0

T m

n u l l point

0 3 I

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0 6.0 TIHE (nc)

Figure

8

Current pulses on the electrodes from a track parallel to the electrodes, (a) t h r o u g h t h e c e l l c e n t e r , and (b) t h r o u g h e l e c t r o d e s . The f i e l d s a r e t h o s e of F i g u r e 2 c , p u l s e s from moving c h a r g e s and d i f f u s i o n f l u c t u a t i o n s o r Coulomb f o r c e s from t h e o t h e r

14

t h e n u l l p o i n t between two n + lO”/cc, 1 O V . E f f e c t s of i n d u c e d are i n c l u d e d , b u t n o t Landau charges along t h e t r a c k .

Electrostatic simulations for the design of silicon strip detectors and front-end electronics I

R. Sonncnblick, N. Cartiglia, B. Hubbard, J. Leslie. H.F.-W. Sadrozinski and T. Schalk &nu CW k&ut

IN ? u r ~ GR t y i a , Umirrmry of Calif-.

- Measured

imv1

---

8

1.5

Sanru C w , C'A V S M I . USA

'

II II

Amp. response = 0 ns

.-._.Amp. response = 3 ns

I1

3D

'-:\

\

I

I

I

I

I

5

10

15

20

25

\

1

- .-

30

,

35

Ins1

3/

i I

~ i g 3. . I'ulse shape at t ~ i ejunction side from a minimum ionizing particle. The three curves are the simulated current (with initial diffusion), the simulated current convoluted with the preamplifier response, and a typical observed pulse, respect ive ly.

2D

0

10

20

30

ns

Calculated pulses on a 3D P' electrode and on a standard 2D (planar electrode) strip detector normalized to the same total area.

25.:

(9a)

Figure

9

Effects of an oxide interface charge of 10"/cm2. In this two-dimensional example, the p+ and n+ electrodes are at 0-5pm and 20-25pm, doped throughout at 101e/cc,and the charges are along the top between them. The substrate doping is 1012/cc. (a) Applied voltage=OV. The effect of negative charge induced by the oxide charge can be seen with the closest equipotential almost parallel to the surface. The contact of the induced charge with the n+ electrode on the right forces the equipotentials fxom the built-in field into a bundle next to the p+ electrode. The capacity between the two electrodes will be relatively high. (b) Similar equipotentials fox 5V and, (c) 1OV. An increasingly wider depletion zone at the surface can be seen. (d)- (e) Electron density contours for 0 and IOV. ( f ) Net carrier concentration 0.1 microns below the surface for 0, 5, 10, and 20V.

16

-.

I.L_...