4.4 Article

Pulse-shape calculations and applications using the AGATAGeFEM software package

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL A
卷 57, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00512-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNRS
  2. CEA
  3. OASIS project [ANR-17-CE31-0026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AGATAGeFEM software package is used for modeling segmented High-Purity Segmented Germanium detectors, discussing geometry implementation choices, electric field calculations, and charge-carrier velocity models. The impact of noise and crosstalk on position resolution is investigated, showing that crosstalk is of minor importance in AGATA detectors. The sensitivity of pulse shapes to parameters in pulse-shape calculations is determined, with improvements seen in the new data base compared to the standard AGATA data base.
A software package for modeling segmented High-Purity Segmented Germanium detectors, AGATAGeFEM, is presented. The choices made for geometry implementation and the calculations of the electric and weighting fields are discussed and models used for charge-carrier velocities are described. Numerical integration of the charge-carrier transport equation is explained. The impact of noise and crosstalk on the achieved position resolution in AGATA detectors is investigated. The results suggest that crosstalk, as seen in the AGATA detectors, is of minor importance for the position resolution. The sensitivity of the pulse shapes to the parameters in the pulse-shape calculations is determined as a function of position in the detectors. Finally, AGATAGeFEM has been used to produce pulse-shape data bases for pulse-shape analyses of experimental data. The results with the new data base indicate improvement with respect to those with the standard AGATA data base. The AGATAGeFEM package sets itself apart with its high precision of the detector geometry description. This lends itself to numerical studies of the impact of segmentation lines and charge diffusion in the next step of code development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据