performance evaluation of sipm arrays under strong magnetic fields
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Performance Evaluation of SiPM Performance Evaluation of SiPM Arrays under Strong Magnetic Arrays under Strong Magnetic
FieldsFieldsS 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
IntroductionIntroduction
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 SiPMsCalorimeter Tests of SiPMs
CALICE-HCAL (ILC): CAlorimeter for the Linear Collider Experiment
CALICE-HCAL (ILC): CAlorimeter for the Linear Collider Experiment
4
GoalsGoals
• Previous results: Previous results:
SiPMs (1 × 1 mmSiPMs (1 × 1 mm22))
• New results:New results:
2 x 2 SiPM array (6 × 6 mm2 x 2 SiPM array (6 × 6 mm22))
Strong Magnetic Field (7 Tesla)Strong Magnetic Field (7 Tesla)
1 mm1 mm
5
MaterialsMaterials
VendorVendorActive Active
area (mmarea (mm22))Number of Number of
PixelsPixelsPixel Pixel
size (size (μμm)m)PDE PDE (%)(%)
Hamamatsu
(2 × 2 array)6 × 6
3600/
element50 5050
Single crystalSingle crystalCrystal matrixCrystal matrix
4 × 44 × 4
10 10 × 10 × 20 mmmm33 LYSO LYSO 1.5 x 1.5 x 12 mm1.5 x 1.5 x 12 mm33 LYSO LYSO
6
Bruker BioSpec 70/20 USR7 Tesla
LIM – Hospital Gregorio Marañón
MaterialsMaterials
7
Experimental SetupExperimental Setup1.- Single crystal1.- Single crystal
LYSO crystal (10 × 10 × 20 mm3) LYSO crystal (10 × 10 × 20 mm3)
22Na22NaSiPM covers 36% SiPM covers 36%
of scintillator baseof scintillator baseSiPM covers 36% SiPM covers 36%
of scintillator baseof scintillator base
8
Pulse ShapePulse Shape
NO preamplifierNO preamplifierNO preamplifierNO preamplifier
9
Gain vs VoltageGain vs Voltage
T=20ºC
10
Gain vs TemperatureGain vs Temperature
Bias = 69.0 V
11
Dynamic RangeDynamic Range
12
Energy spectra Energy spectra 2222NaNa
ΔE@511 keV = 14%ΔE@511 keV = 14%
Bias = 69.0 VT = 20ºC
13
Experimental SetupExperimental Setup2.- Crystal matrix2.- Crystal matrix
4 × 4 LYSO matrix (1.5 × 1.5 × 12 mm3) 4 × 4 LYSO matrix (1.5 × 1.5 × 12 mm3)
18F18F
14
Flood Field ImageFlood Field Image
•18F• 68.2 V - 20ºC• 5·105 counts• SoftwareAnger logic
15
Flood Field ImageFlood Field Image
•18F• 68.2 V - 20ºC• 5·105 counts• SoftwareAnger logic Peak to valley ratio = 10:1
16
Crystal Energy SpectrumCrystal Energy Spectrum
•18F• 68.2 V - 20ºC• 3·104 counts/crystal
17
Energy Resolution @ 511keVEnergy Resolution @ 511keV
FWHM (%) 0 Tesla 7 Tesla
Center 11.2 11.9
Center Edge row 14.1 14.4
Corner 21.7 21.4
18
ConclusionsConclusions
• 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 SiPMsFuture SiPMs
1 × 4 channels array1 × 4 channels array1 × 4 mm1 × 4 mm22
1 × 1 mm1 × 1 mm22 / channel / channel 25/50/100 μm
4 × 4 channels array4 × 4 channels array16 × 16 mm16 × 16 mm22
3 × 3 mm3 × 3 mm22 / channel / channel25/50/100 μm