Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

CP-CCD Comparisons of Full and Analytic Simulations

02-03-08
1) Introduction
This report describes the systematic development of the updated model based
originally from improved heady model. It describes the comparisons of full and fast
analytic simulations for the prototype CP-CCD. The influence of frequency and
occupancy are studied and compared to the full simulation done by Lancaster and
Glasgow group. The edges effect is presented by means of the volume of the ionised
traps. The effects of radiation damage in a particular detector are studied by
examining two electron trap levels: the 0.17 eV and 0.44 eV below the bottom of the
conduction band.
2) Models
a) Hardy Model
The model considers the effect of a single trapping level and include the emission
time only in the following differential equation:
e
t
n
dt
t
dn


(1)
The traps are initially filled for this model and
sh c
t <<
(Hardy).

Then the CTI is given by:
( )
e
temit
e
tjoin
s
e e
n
Nt
CTI

2
(2)
Where
t
emit
is the total emission time from the previous packet=tw, which means
waiting time between two charges packets related to the mean occupancy of
pixels in the device.
t
join
is the time during which the charges can join their parent packet
The 2 factor means here we considered that the same phenomena happens at each
node, such as, shift time is the same.
b) Improved Hardy Model:
Hardy model neglect the capture process, that means
sh c
t <<
. But in our case this
condition is not valid, which means,
c sh
t <<
, so we include the capture process in
the model neglected in Hardy model. Therefore the solution of this differential
equation leads to an estimator of the CTI.
1
( )( )
e
temit
e
tjoin
c sh
t
s
e e e
n
Nt
CTI

1 2
(3)
where t
sh
is the shift time, that is the time spend under each node.
4) Updated CTI Analytical Model:
So for a better understanding we propose the following updated CTI analytical model:
The model considers the effect of a single trapping level and leads to differential
equation:
s
f
c e
f
c
f f
r r r
dt
dr

1
1
(4)
Where
e c s

1 1 1
+
Providing the signal is sufficiently large for
c
to be independent of deviations in n
s
then the solution of equation 4 is:
( ) ( )
c
s
s c
s
f f
t
r t r

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|
exp 0
(5)
Here r
f
(0) is the filled fraction of the trap prior to signal packet arriving at a node.
After time t the fraction of filled traps is given by equation 5. The CTI for a signal
arriving under one node for a time t is
( ) ( ) { 0
f f
s
t
r t r
N
N
CTI
(6)
( )

'

'

,
`

.
|

'

'


s
f
c
s
s
t
t
r
N
N
CTI

exp 1 0
(7)
The diagram below represent how the signal packet is transferred from one node to
another in the case of 2 phase CP CCD
2
Figure 1: Diagram of the consecutive transfer stages
The solution of the equation 4 under node 1 at time t1 (stage A) leads :
( )
c
s
s
t
c
s
f
r t
A f
r

+
,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|
1
exp
0 1 1
(8)
The signal moves to the node 2, the remaining fraction of filled trap at time t2
(stage B) ( there is only emission process), is given by:
( ) ( )

,
`

.
|

e
A f B f
t
t r t r

2
1 1 2 1
exp
(9)
We fellow the same procedure as in node 1 for the node 2, here we do have stage B
and C instead of stage A and B in node 1, hence
( )
c
s
s c
s
f B f
t
r t r

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

2
0 2 2
exp
(10)
One pixel
0
t
1
t
2
time
A
B
Node 1
Node 2
C
r
f
(0)
r
f1A
r
f1B
r
f2B
r
f2C
Space
t
1
Joining
3
( ) ( )

,
`

.
|

e
B f C f
t
t r t r

1
2 2 1 2
exp
(11)
To calculate r
f0
we assume that the charge packet has substantially arrived under the
node. Also we assume that all traps are initially empty. Traps in the volume occupied
by the charge packet will be partially filled, governed by equation 5 (during time t
1
).
The traps under this node will emit until the next arriving packet (during time t
w
). The
process will be repeated until the steady state is established. So r
f0
is calculated by:
Initially empty, that means, r
f0
(0)=0
After the time t
1
, the fraction of filled trap is given by:
( ) ( )
c
s
s
t
c
s
f
r t
f
r

+
,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|
1
exp 0
0 1
(12)

At the time t=t
w
, we do have only emission process, then
( )
( )
)
1
exp(
1
exp 0
0
0
e
t
w
t
c
s
s
t
c
s
f
r
w
t
f
r

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

'

'

(13)
At (k+1)ith time the fraction of initially filled trap is given by:
( ) )
1
exp(
1
exp
0
) 1 (
0
e
t
w
t
c
s
s
t
c
s
w
kt
f
r
w
t k
f
r

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|
+

'

'

(14)
In steady state k we obtain, using the sum of suite gomtrique, the following
expression:

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

e
w
e
w
c
s
c
s
f
t t
t t
t
r

1
1
1
0
exp
exp 1
exp 1
(15)
So the CTI in one pixel is the sum of the CTI under each node
2 1
CTI CTI CTI +
(16)
( ) ( ) {
0 1 2 2 1
2
f C f B f
s
t
r t r t r
N
N
CTI +
(17)
3) Comparisons of Different Full Simulations
4
250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasgow
Full Sim Lancaster
0.44 eV
1e12/cm3
50 MHz
Occ=1%
120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasgow
Full Sim Lancaster
50 MHz
0.17 eV
1e12/cm3
Occ=1%
a) Glasgow-Lancaster 0.17eV Traps
Fig 1 a: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation results of Lancaster and Glasgow
for 0.17 eV at 50 MHz
b) Glasgow-Lancaster 0.44eV Traps
Fig 1 b: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation results of Lancaster and Glasgow
for 0.44 eV at 50 MHz
5
4) Comparisons of Fast and Full Simulations:
e) Comparison Full simulation fast simulation model for the 0.17eV traps:
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasgow
Full Sim Lancaster
Imp AM
Updated AM
0.17 eV
10
12
cm
-3
50 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 2a: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation results of Lancaster and Glasgow, Improved and
Updated Analytical model for 0.17 trap at 50 MHz

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasgow
Full Sim Lancaster
Imp AM
Updated AM
0.17 eV
10
12
cm
-3
25 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 2b: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation results of Lancaster and Glasgow, Improved and
Updated Analytical model for 0.17 trap at 25 MHz
6
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasgow
Imp AM
Updated AM
0.17 eV
10
12
cm
-3
10 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 2c: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation results Glasgow, Improved and Updated Analytical
model for 0.17 trap at 10 MHz

f) Comparison Full simulation fast simulation model for the 0.144eV traps:
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasgow
Full Sim Lancaster
Imp AM
Updated AM
0.44 eV
10
12
cm
-3
50 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 2d: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation results Glasgow and Lancaster, Improved and Updated
Analytical model for 0.44 trap at 50 MHz
7
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasgow
Full Sim Lancaster
Imp AM
Updated AM
0.44 eV
10
12
cm
-3
10 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 2d: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation results Glasgow and Lancaster, Improved and Updated
Analytical model for 0.44 trap at 10 MHz
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Dima
Imp AM
Updated AM
0.17 eV
10
12
cm
-3
50 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 2e: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation results Glasgow (Dima), Improved and Updated
Analytical model for 0.17 trap at 50 MHz
8
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.5
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Dima
Imp AM
Updated AM
0.17 eV
10
12
cm
-3
25 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 2e: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation results Glasgow (Dima), Improved and Updated
Analytical model for 0.17 trap at 25 MHz
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Dima
Imp AM
Updated AM
0.17 eV
10
12
cm
-3
10 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 2e: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation results Glasgow (Dima), Improved and Updated
Analytical model for 0.17 trap at 10 MHz
9
5) Trap Concentration effect:
10
10
10
11
10
12
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
Trap concentration (cm
-3
)
C
T
I

(
%
)


T=170 K
T=185 K
0.17 eV
50 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 3 a: CTI vs Trap concentration using updated analytical model for 0.17 trap at 50 MHz
at 170 K and 185 K
10
10
10
11
10
12
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
Trap concentration (cm
-3
)
C
T
I

(
%
)


T=355 K
T=450 K
0.44 eV
50 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 3 b: CTI vs Trap concentration using updated analytical model for 0.44 trap at 50 MHz
at 355 K and 450 K
10
10
10
10
11
10
12
10
-20
10
-15
10
-10
10
-5
10
0
Trap concentration (cm
-3
)
C
T
I

(
%
)


50 MHz 0.17 eV
25 MHz 0.17 eV
10 MHz 0.17 eV
10 MHz 0.44 eV
25 MHz 0.44 eV
50 MHz 0.44 eV
T=230 K
Fig 3 c: CTI vs Trap concentration using updated analytical model for 0.17 and 0.44 trap at 230 K for
various frequencies.
205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240
10
-8
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


0.175 eV
0.170 eV
0.165 eV
10
12
cm
-3
50 MHz
Occ=1%
Fig 3 d: CTI vs Temperature using updated analytical model for 0.17 trap at 50 MHz for different
energy levels
6) Frequency effect:
11
120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


50 MHz
25 MHz
15 MHz
10 MHz
0.17 eV
10
12
cm
-3
Occ=1%
Fig 4a: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation (Glasgow) for 0.17 trap for various frequencies.
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


50 MHz
25 MHz
15 MHz
10 MHz
0.17 eV
10
12
cm
-3
Occ=1%
Fig 4b: CTI vs Temperature for updated analytical model for 0.17 trap for various frequencies.
12
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


50 MHz
25 MHz
15 MHz
10 MHz
0.17 eV and 0.44eV
10
12
cm
-3
Occ=1%
Fig 4c: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation (Glasgow) for 0.17 and 0.44 trap for various
frequencies.
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


50 MHz
25 MHz
10 MHz
0.17 eV and 0.44 eV
10
12
cm
-3
Occ=1%
Fig 4d: CTI vs Temperature for updated analytical model for 0.17 and 0.44 trap for various
frequencies.
7) Occupancy effect:
13
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasg Occ=0.1%
Updated AM Occ=1%
Full Sim Glasg Occ=1%
Updated AM Occ=0.1%
0.17 eV
10
12
cm
-3
50 MHz
Fig 5a: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation (Glasgow) and updated Analytical model for 0.17 trap
for 50 MHz and various occupancies .
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasg Occ=0.1%
Updated AM Occ=0.1%
Full Sim Glasg Occ=1%
Updated AM Occ=1%
0.17 eV
10
12
cm
-3
25 MHz
Fig 5b: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation (Glasgow) and updated Analytical model for 0.17 trap
for 25 MHz and various occupancies
14
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasg Occ=0.1%
Updated AM Occ=0.1%
Full Sim Glasg Occ=1%
Updated AM Occ=1%
0.44 eV
50 MHz
10
12
cm
-3
Fig 5c: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation (Glasgow) and updated Analytical model for 0.44 trap
for 50 MHz and various occupancies
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
Temperature (K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


Full Sim Glasg Occ=0.1%
Updated AM Occ=0.1%
Full Sim Glasg Occ=1%
Updated AM Occ=1%
0.44 eV
10
12
cm
-3
25 MHz
Fig 5d: CTI vs Temperature for full simulation (Glasgow) and updated Analytical model for 0.44 trap
for 25 MHz and various occupancies
15
Substrate
x
n p
w
p
0
-w
n
-x
t1
E
C
E
V
E
Fi
-x
t2
V
2
V
1
E
f
E
t1
E
t2
E
t1,2
are the trap energy levels,
E
C
and E
V
are respectively the conduction and the valence bands,
E
f
and E
Fi
are respectively Fermi level and intrinsic Fermi level,
w
n
and w
p
are the edges of the depletion region,
x
t1,2
are the intersection points of Fermi level with trap energy level.
V
1,2
are the volume of ionised traps
I
n
s
u
l
a
t
o
r
Gate
16