Analysis of the Effects of Proton Energy and Silicon Detector Thickness on the Total Ionizing Dose (TID) Using Phits Monte Carlo Simulation

Sitti Yani; Siti Karmilah Syahri Fartini; Rima Fitria Adiati; Tony Sumaryada

doi:10.24036/axdg7y88

Authors

Sitti Yani IPB University Author
Siti Karmilah Syahri Fartini Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, IPB University Author
Rima Fitria Adiati Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, IPB University Author
Tony Sumaryada Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, IPB University Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24036/axdg7y88

Keywords:

Silicon Detector, Total Ionizing Dose (TID), Monte Carlo, PHITS

Abstract

This study analyzes the effects of proton energy and silicon detector thickness on particle distribution and dosimetric response using Monte Carlo simulations based on the Particle and Heavy Ion Transport System (PHITS) code. Simulations were performed at two proton energies, namely 25 MeV and 100 MeV, with variations in silicon detector thickness grouped into thin and bulk categories. The analyzed results include the two-dimensional distributions of protons, secondary photons, and secondary neutrons, as well as the Total Ionizing Dose (TID) values in the silicon detector. The simulation results show that the proton distribution is clearly influenced by particle energy, where 100 MeV protons have a longer transport range and more dominant penetration compared to 25 MeV protons. Conversely, visual differences in the distribution of secondary particles, namely photons and neutrons, across all energy and thickness variations are not clearly apparent in the obtained two-dimensional maps. From a dosimetric perspective, TID increases linearly with increasing silicon detector thickness for both proton energies. Furthermore, the TID values at 100 MeV are consistently higher than those at 25 MeV across all thickness variations. Analysis of the D100(t)/D25(t) ratio indicates that an increase in proton energy enhances the dosimetric response at every detector thickness. These results confirm that within the detector thickness range of 0.001 cm to 0.5 cm, thickness directly determines the magnitude of TID, while proton energy enhances the detector’s dosimetric response.

Author Biographies

Siti Karmilah Syahri Fartini, Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, IPB University

Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, IPB University
Rima Fitria Adiati, Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, IPB University

Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, IPB University
Tony Sumaryada, Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, IPB University

Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, IPB University

References

A. Karmakar, J. Wang, J. Prinzie, V. De Smedt, and P. Leroux, “A Review of Semiconductor Based Ionising Radiation Sensors Used in Harsh Radiation Environments and Their Applications,” Radiation, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 194–217, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.3390/radiation1030018.

[2] I. Jun et al., “A review on radiation environment pathways to impacts: Radiation effects, relevant empirical environment models, and future needs,” Adv. Space Res., Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2024.03.079.

[3] J. Cardenas Chavez, D. Hiemstra, A. Noguera Cundar, B. Johnson, D. Baik, and L. Chen, “Total Ionizing Dose and Single-Event Effect Response of the AD524CDZ Instrumentation Amplifier,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 18, p. 4725, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3390/en17184725.

[4] J. Yang, G. Ma, X. Li, C. Liu, D. Yang, and S. He, “Effects of multilayer and multimaterial structures on space proton radiation protection,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. Mater. At., vol. 365, pp. 352–356, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.nimb.2015.08.054.

[5] Z. Liu, B. Li, J. Quan, and J. Luo, “Total-Ionization-Dose Radiation Effects and Hardening Techniques of a Mixed-Signal Spike Neural Network in 180 nm SOI-Pavlov Process,” Electronics, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 1643, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3390/electronics11101643.

[6] Z. Liu et al., “Impact of proton-induced total ionizing dose effects on electrical characteristics and safe operating area of trench field-stop IGBT devices,” Microelectron. Reliab., vol. 154, p. 115326, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.microrel.2024.115326.

[7] G. D. H et al., “High-energy electron measurements with thin Si detectors,” Measurement, vol. 228, p. 114392, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2024.114392.

[8] J. M. Rafí et al., “Ultrathin four-quadrant silicon photodiodes for beam position and monitor applications: Characterization and radiation effects,” Solid-State Electron., vol. 209, p. 108756, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.sse.2023.108756.

[9] H. Park et al., “Development of accurate dose evaluation technique of X-ray inspection for quality assurance of semiconductor with Monte Carlo simulation,” Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 154, p. 108851, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2019.108851.

[10] M. Liu et al., “Analysis of Difference in Areal Density Aluminum Equivalent Method in Ionizing Total Dose Shielding Analysis of Semiconductor Devices,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 19, p. 4181, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/electronics12194181.

[11] K. Sedlačková, B. Zaťko, A. Šagátová, and V. Nečas, “Monte Carlo simulations of the particle transport in semiconductor detectors of fast neutrons,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip., vol. 709, pp. 63–67, May 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2013.01.011.

[12] A. Fetzer, M. Anger, P. Oleynik, and J. Praks, “Total ionising dose multilayer shielding optimisation for nanosatellites on geostationary transfer orbit,” Adv. Space Res., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 831–845, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.10.028.

[13] T. Sato et al., “Features of Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) version 3.02,” J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 684–690, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1080/00223131.2017.1419890.

[14] P. Papadimitroulas, “Dosimetry applications in GATE Monte Carlo toolkit,” Phys. Med., vol. 41, pp. 136–140, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.02.005.

[15] R. Danieli et al., “Personalized Dosimetry in Targeted Radiation Therapy: A Look to Methods, Tools and Critical Aspects,” J. Pers. Med., vol. 12, no. 2, p. 205, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.3390/jpm12020205.

[16] S. H. Park and J. O. Kang, “Basics of particle therapy I: physics,” Radiat. Oncol. J., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 135–146, Sep. 2011, doi: 10.3857/roj.2011.29.3.135.

[17] F. Folkmann, C. Gaarde, T. Huus, and K. Kemp, “Proton induced X-ray emission as a tool for trace element analysis,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 487–499, Apr. 1974, doi: 10.1016/0029-554X(74)90831-3.

[18] M. Pinto, “Prompt-gamma imaging in particle therapy,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus, vol. 139, no. 10, p. 884, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05664-4.

[19] A. Pehlivanlı and M. H. Bölükdemir, “Investigation of the effects of biomaterials on proton Bragg peak and secondary neutron production by the Monte Carlo method in the slab head phantom,” Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 180, p. 110060, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2021.110060.