Study of radiation damage in silicon detectors for high ... - F9
Study of radiation damage in silicon detectors for high ... - F9
Study of radiation damage in silicon detectors for high ... - F9
- No tags were found...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
7Comparison with Other GroupsWhile no previous measurements <strong>of</strong> bias voltage eect and neutron ux <strong>in</strong>uence havebeen reported, a comparison <strong>of</strong> defect time-development parameters with values, reportedby other groups, is given below.A comparison <strong>of</strong> reverse anneal<strong>in</strong>g parameters as obta<strong>in</strong>ed from the second order twith a global survey, reported by A. Chil<strong>in</strong>garov et al. [15] and results obta<strong>in</strong>ed by S.J.Bates et al. [21] is given <strong>in</strong> table 7.1. A similar comparison was made <strong>for</strong> the rst ordert, us<strong>in</strong>g data reported by H.J. Ziock etal. [45] (table 7.2).The slope at the <strong>in</strong>itial stage <strong>of</strong> reverse anneal<strong>in</strong>g can be compared with the resultsfrom Ziock [45] and ROSE report [13]. While Ziock uses a rst order model, second orderdynamics with the time constant <strong>in</strong>versely proportional to the uence is suggested <strong>in</strong> theROSE reportk Y ( eq )=k Y 01 eq e ; Eak B T(7.1)with k Y 0=(1:91:2)10 16 cm/s and E a =1.31 eV. From equations 4.9 and 4.10 one obta<strong>in</strong>skY l<strong>in</strong> = gY 2 k Y 0<strong>for</strong> the given model. A comparison with kYl<strong>in</strong> <strong>for</strong> 20 C (from table 4.6) and<strong>for</strong> 60 C (from table 4.5) is given <strong>in</strong> the table 7.3.Results on long term anneal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> reverse current were compared with results fromM. Moll et al. [35] (table 7.4). As already shown <strong>in</strong> section 4.4.2, all parameters agreewell with<strong>in</strong> the given errors.To conclude, <strong>in</strong> all observed parameters good agreement <strong>of</strong> values <strong>for</strong> unbiasedsamples with results from other sources was found. This is however not the case <strong>for</strong> thebiased samples. For those, the value <strong>of</strong> g C is about twice the value from other sources,while reverse anneal<strong>in</strong>g constants as obta<strong>in</strong>ed by dierent methods show a systematicallylower values as compared to data from the literature. Those observations agree well with105