Performance Evaluation of SiPM Arrays under Strong Magnetic Fields
description
Transcript of Performance Evaluation of SiPM Arrays under Strong Magnetic Fields
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