Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
15th WG4 General Meeting
→
Europe/Zurich
,
Description
Meeting Recording available below:
Contact
15th WG4 General Meeting
The meeting opened at 15:00 and closed at 15:50.
The number of attendees was stable at 14.
General news:
- First meeting after the summer break
- The next DRD3 week takes place at CERN, 10th to 14th of November: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1581713/
- Abstract submission deadline 19th of October - please consider presenting and submit abstracts as soon as possible
- Collaboration Board chair elections are coming up; call for candidates in early October, election in the week following the DRD3 week
Anastasiia Velyka presented work on Simulations of the Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors for the OCTOPUS Project
- OCTOPUS aims to develop a sensor for use in (at the first stage) test beam telescopes, and with a later application in a future lepton collider tracking and vertexing detector
- 3 µm single-point resolution, down to 50 µm thin sensors, average power consumption below 50 mW/cm2, down to 5 ns time resolution
- Simulations using combination of TCAD, Monte Carlo, SPICE, and full detector simulations.
- Deep investigations into multiple sensitive volume layouts, including a tunable "cross" layout allowing scanning of a large parameter space in design to find an optimum.
- Both static and transient simulations performed and presented, investigating efficiency, cluster size, resolution, and time performance.
- Detector simulations also presented, discussing how the innermost detector of future experiments can be optimally laid out, taking material budget and resolutions into account.
Questions and Answers:
- Håkan W: On slide 10, the cluster size at -6 V is lower for a smaller pixel size; this feels a bit counterintuitive. AV: With the smaller pixel size, a larger fraction of the pixel volume is depleted, so we have a smaller charge sharing region.
- Marco M: If we in the end get access to the real doping profiles, will it improve things? Do you foresee it being a big difference? AV: It will make a difference, but it's hard to tell how much. The main thing we could benefit from is the process simulations from the foundry, showing the extent of different doping regions after production. Generic doping profiles are good and take us far.
- Andrei D: Looking at the comparison on e.g. slide 28, the Modified layout (n-blanket) and NCross look similar. AV: We want to use the tunable NCross to cover the gap between standard and n-blanket.
- Andrei D: Would modifying the n-gap size make it more like the standard layout as well? AV: It would, but we would lose depletion and efficiency. Comparison simulations are currently running.
- Andrei D: If you could have a smaller surface for the collection electrode, would that be interesting? AV: I've looked at this. It only affects the standard layout. The larger the p-well opening is for the standard layout, the larger depletion. So better efficiency, but worse spatial resolution.
- Andrei D: Would a lower threshold improve resolution for n-gap? AV: In the graph we show the maximum threshold where we have 99% efficiency. Lower threshold would improve, but how low we can go will depend on chip designers, and it's very nice to have a larger operational range.
- Andrei D: The capacitance for the different layouts would be interesting to see. AV: We have simulated this. The NCross optimised layout has similar capacitance as the n-gap design.
The conveners will announce the time for the next meeting via email.
Please get in touch if you wish to give a longer presentation.
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.
