Download fluence

1
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Displacement Damage Test Guideline Development
ESA contract n°4000115513/15/NL/RA/zk
T. Nuns, C. Inguimbert, Jean-Pierre David - ONERA- DPhIEE
C. Poivey - ESA ESTEC
Context of the study
•
Test standards proposed have existed for some time
•
•
•
ESCC25100 for SEE
ESCC22900 and MIL-STD-883 G method 1019.9 for TID
Goal
•
•
•
•
•
But no standard for displacement damages
•
Goal of the study
•
•
•
•
•
Drafting of an ESCC guideline for displacement damage testing
Cover all types of parts sensitive to displacement damage except solar cells
Milestones
•
3
Support for defining a test plan and conduct irradiations
Achieve a harmonization of testing activities
Simplification for interpretation, comparison of data
Warranty the relevance of the results and hardness assurance for the application
Write a document with recommendations that is submitted to the Component Technology Board
(RTB) Radiation Working Group (RWG) for corrections and validation
Write a final test guideline
Today’s presentation presents some of the ONERA recommendations. They have to be validated by
the RWG
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
References
•
Some existing guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Some existing courses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
"Proton Test Guideline Development – Lessons Learned", S. Buchner, P. Marshall, S. Kniffin and K. LaBel,
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, 08/22/02.
"Spécification générique pour le test d’irradiation des composants optoélectroniques", O. Gilard and G. Quadri, CNES
DTC/AQ/EC-2008/06142, 03/13/2008.
"CCD Radiation Effects and Test Issues for Satellite Designers", C. J. Marshall and P. W. Marshall, NASA-GSFC Draft
1.0, 10/06/2003.
MIL-HDBK-814, Military Handbook, Ionizing dose and neutron hardness assurance guidelines for microcircuits and
semiconductor devices, Department of Defense, 02/08/1994.
"Guideline for Ground Radiation Testing and Using Optocouplers in the Space Radiation Environment", R. Reed,
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, 3/28/2002.
"Displacement Damage Guideline", M. Robbins, Surrey Satellite Technology LTD, Revision 01.02, 05/16/2014.
"Component Characterisation and Testing: Displacement Damage", G. Hopkinson et al., Notes from the RADECS
Conference Short Course "Radiation Engineering Methods For Space Applications", Part 4-A, Noordwijk 2003.
"Displacement Damage: Analysis and Characterisation of Effects on Devices", G. Hopkinson, Space Radiation
Environment and its Effects on Spacecraft Components and Systems (SREC04), part II-03, pp 175–198, Cépaduès
Editions, June 2004. (Sre04)
"Optoelectronic Devices with Complex Failure Modes", A. Johnston, Notes from the IEEE Nuclear and Space Radiation
Effects Conference Short Course, Part 2, Reno NV, 2000.
"Radiation Testing and the RHA Process", R. Mangeret, Notes from the RADECS Conference Short Course, Part VI,
Oxford, 2013
"Proton Effects and Test Issues for Satellite Designers", P. W. Marshall and C. J. Marshall, Notes from the IEEE Nuclear
and Space Radiation Effects Conference Short Course, Norfolk VA, 1999.
"Diplacement damage testing", C. Poivey, G. R. Hopkinson, Space Radiation and its Effects on EEE Components,
Continuing Education Course, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland, 06/09/2009.
And publications on the topic…
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Outline
•
Context of the study
•
Radiation type and dosimetry
•
•
•
•
Irradiation Level
•
•
Fluence
Flux
•
Irradiation conditions
•
Sample considerations
•
•
5
Particle type
Particle energy
Dosimetry
Sample size selection
Preparation
•
Measurement conditions
•
Environmental control
•
Possible outline of the guideline
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Choice of the particle type
•
Choose mono-energetic particles of the dominant type responsible of the
displacement damage at the device level (after the particle transport through the
shielding)
•
•
•
•
The relative contribution to non-ionizing energy deposition between protons and electrons
depends on the environment and should be evaluated prior choosing the particle type for
the ground tests
For Earth-orbiting environments, the protons are generally the dominant contribution of
the displacement damages
In the case of Low Earth Orbit the contribution of electrons is negligible whatever the
shielding thickness. But for MEO and GEO orbits that crosses the electrons belts the
contribution of electrons is not negligible and can either dominates the degradation for
shielding in the range [~10 µm, ~mm].
Notes
•
•
•
Electrons deposit a large amount of TID compared to protons
It is recommended to separate TID and DD tests
Be careful with neutrons. No TID, but:
•
•
•
•
6
Not dominant particles in space environment
Only nuclear type interactions, no coulombic interactions (representativeness issue)
NIEL scaling data for other materials than Silicon are still questionable (technical issue)
Generally, no mono-energetic neutrons in most facilities (practical issue)
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Choice of the particle energy
•
Protons
•
For silicon devices, one energy could be enough
•
•
•
•
For other materials than Si or compound devices (optocouplers)
•
•
•
•
Walters et al. IEEE Trans. Nucl.
Sci., vol. 48, pp. 1773-1777, 2001
NIEL scaling fails (example GaAs for high proton energies)
It is recommended to use 3 or 4 energies representative of the environment at device level
Lowest energy range should be sufficient to go through DUT sensitive volume of the DUT
and the possible shielding over it (Dewar, lid, window)
⇒ Care should be taken on particle range
Electrons
•
•
7
NIEL scaling is valid
The energy should represent the damage-weighted proton
spectrum of the considered mission (most often in the 40 to 60
MeV range for Earth missions)
For low shielding application, the most significant contribution
comes for low proton energy (typically in the 3-10 MeV range)
> 1MeV to remove uncertainties related to the threshold displacement energy; generally
select energies in the 1 to 3 MeV range
No data available to determine NIEL scaling of electrons above 5 MeV
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Dosimetry considerations
•
Tradeoff between an ideal beam and the practical limits of the standard facilities
•
Energy
•
Energy accuracy
•
•
•
•
•
Energy non uniformity: 10% over all irradiated samples
Range of particles: energy shall be almost constant:
•
•
•
Across the depth of the sensitive volume of tested devices (if known)
Across the depth of the die of the tested devices (if the depth of the sensitive volume is
unknown)
Fluence
•
•
8
Degraders, shielding (window,..) broaden the spectrum of primary beam. It is necessary to
evaluate the spectrum that reaches the device (computation, measurements)
Energy accuracy +/-5 %
∆E/E < 5%
Fluence accuracy 10%
Fluence non uniformity across samples < 10%
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Irradiation level and flux 1/2: fluence
•
Fluence and NIEL scaling
•
•
Use mission equivalent fluence for a given energy instead of displacement damage
dose (to avoid using two different NIEL for mission environment definition and test
fluence)
Test Fluence
•
•
•
•
Related to the Radiation Design Margin (RDM), which is the ratio between the fail
equivalent fluence and the mission equivalent fluence
The definition of the margins is a project management decision
> Mission equivalent Fluence
Intermediate fluences are recommended to look at non linear degradation with
fluence
•
•
9
The bigger the number of steps is, the finer the degradation is known. Suggest at least
three intermediate fluence levels
When testing at irradiation facility is not possible, use of several sample or masking of
device (imagers)
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Irradiation level and flux 2/2: flux
•
Flux
•
•
•
Flux has little effect, but irradiation time shall be long enough to avoid error on flux
measurement and therefore fluence ( > 1 min)
High flux causes warming of the device that could induce annealing
Flux limits:
•
•
10
< 109 protons/cm2/s in the air and < 108 protons/cm2/s in vacuum
< 5.109 electrons/cm2/s
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Irradiation conditions
•
Air or vacuum?
•
Protons
•
•
•
•
Electrons
•
•
•
•
•
Irradiation shall be intentionally performed in the dark
Tilt during irradiation
•
11
In general parts shall be unbiased to minimize annealing and TID (all the pins shortcircuited and optionally grounded)
If operational conditions are known, it is possible to apply these conditions
Light
•
•
Ideally irradiation temperature should be equal to application temperature +/- 10°C
Temperature should be maintained up to the last step of irradiation and the post irradiation
measurement
Bias conditions
•
•
In vacuum below 5 MeV
In Air above 5 MeV
Irradiation temperature
•
•
In Air down to 20 MeV
Below 30 MeV, distance of Air shall be reduced
In vacuum below 20 MeV
Normal irradiation only
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Sample considerations
•
Sample size selection
•
The choice of the number of devices that should be selected for the irradiation is
managed by two different necessities:
•
•
•
Sufficient to cover possible part to part variability
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10 samples if the samples are from different batches or are hybrid devices
Otherwise, ≥ 4 samples if only one test energy, ≥ 2 samples per energy otherwise
Lower sample size for imagers (expensive and possible partial irradiation)
An additional control part should be used and tested at each measurement step
Sample delidding
•
•
12
Variability should be small of the defects responsible of the electrical degradation are
intrinsic or associated to the dopants
Variability may be large if the defects are related to impurities
Assembly may also be a source of variability (VCSELs, LEDs, optocouplers)
Suggested sample numbers
•
•
The number of fluences and energies to apply if the electro-optical tests cannot be made at
the irradiation facility; in this case, one device per fluence and energy is required,
The number due to possible part-to-part and batch-to-batch variations
Generally not necessary with protons >10 MeV (at DUT surface)
Recommended for electron irradiations and protons < 10 MeV
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Measurement conditions
•
Electrical testing
•
•
•
•
A complete characterization shall be performed before and after irradiation
The value of the parameters depend on how the device works in term of biasing
conditions, frequency, pattern generator (for imagers), temperature, lighting
conditions (for detectors)
Measurement conditions shall be adapted to the final application or shall be
performed in different representative conditions
Time between end of irradiation and measurements
•
•
•
•
Degradation generally maximum just after irradiation
Several days are necessary to let the device stabilize
Delay between end of irradiation and measurement shall be defined in the test plan
and reported
One month delay can be a practical reference for comparison between different
irradiation even if some measurements are made before
•
•
13
Time for stabilization
Time for device “cooling” after irradiation and return back to the measurement site (if
needed)
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Some well known sensitive parameters
Technology category
General bipolar
Sub-category
BJT
diodes
Electro-optic sensors
CCDs
APS
Photodiodes
Photo transistors
Light-emitting diodes
LEDs (general)
Laser diodes
Opto-couplers
Solar cells
SiliconGaAs, InP etc
Optical materials
Alkali halidesSilica
Effects
hFE degradation in BJTs, particularly for low-current conditions
Increased leakage current
increased forward voltage drop
CTE degradation, Increased dark current, Increased hot spots,
Increased bright columns
Random telegraph signals
Increased dark current, Increased hot spots, Random telegraph signals
Reduced responsivity
Reduced photocurrents and response
Increased dark currents
Shunt resistor, NEP, Linearity, ise/fall time [Gil08]
hFE degradation
Reduced responsivity
Increased dark currents
Spectral response, rise/fall time
Reduced light power output
I(V) curves
Reduced light power output
Increased threshold current
Reduced current transfer ratio
Emitter-collector saturation voltage [Gil08]
Reduced short-circuit current
Reduced open-circuit voltage
Reduced maximum power
Reduced transmission
After C. Poivey (course) and O. Gilard (guideline)
14
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Environmental control
•
Irradiation and measurement temperature
•
Advice to control and report the irradiation temperature
•
•
•
•
Advice to control and report the measurement temperature
Storage conditions
•
•
DUT in the dark, pins shorted and at the same temperature as irradiation (±10°C)
between irradiation and measurements
Annealing
•
•
No recommendation on annealing in general
for low temperature applications, 24 hours at room temperature
•
•
15
Mandatory for low temperature irradiations
For room temperature, at least avoid unexpected heating of the samples
Other temperatures and duration can be decided at project level and clearly reported
Annealing shall be performed after all electro optical measurements after irradiation
are completed
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017
Possible outline for the guideline
•
•
•
•
Scope
Related documents
Terms and definitions
Equipment and general procedures
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Test procedure
•
•
•
•
•
16
Radiation source and dosimetry
Radiation Levels
Radiation Flux
Temperature requirements
Electrical measurement systems
Test fixture
Test setup and requirements
Test plan
Sample selection
Radiation exposure and test sequence
Electrical measurements
Documentation
ESA Final Presentation Days 08th March 2017