2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-9002(00)00574-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The ATLAS silicon pixel sensors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…is achieved after tuning. In these conditions the average noise level is 160 e for most pixels, and slightly higher for pixels of 600 µm size (long pixels) or for pairs of interconnected pixels (ganged pixels), which are used to cover the otherwise dead area between front-end chips [32]. The tails in Fig.…”
Section: Pixel Detector Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…is achieved after tuning. In these conditions the average noise level is 160 e for most pixels, and slightly higher for pixels of 600 µm size (long pixels) or for pairs of interconnected pixels (ganged pixels), which are used to cover the otherwise dead area between front-end chips [32]. The tails in Fig.…”
Section: Pixel Detector Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simulation is shown as the solid histogram and the test beam data are shown as solid points. Note that the sensor simulation does not include the "punch-through" structure on the n + implants which is used to provide a high resistance connection to ground and to provide the possibility of on-wafer IV measurements [18]. There is reduced charge collection from this portion of the implant and the data show reduced signal in both projections at the bias dot.…”
Section: Simulation and Comparison With Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2×6 cm 2 in size [3]. The sensor is subdivided into 47,268 pixels which are connected individually to 16 front-end (FE) chips using fine pitch "bump bonding" either done with Pb/Sn by IZM 1 or with Indium by AMS 2 .…”
Section: Module Layoutmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The slope of the efficiency curve is slightly distorted w.r.t. unirradiated modules because of poor charge collection in a small region of the irradiated sensor ("bias-dot" region) which was implemented to allow reasonable testing of the sensor without readout electronics [3], [7]. …”
Section: Irradiationmentioning
confidence: 99%