Performance evaluation of electron multiplier tubes as a high-intensity muon beam monitor

Abstract

Upgrade work towards increasing the beam intensity of the neutrino production beamline at J-PARC is underway. Tertiary muon beam monitoring is essential for stable operation of the beamline. Accordingly, we are planning to replace the present muon monitor detectors with electron multiplier tubes (EMTs). We investigated the linearity and radiation tolerance of EMTs using a 90 MeV electron beam at the Research Center for Electron Photon Science. EMTs show higher radiation tolerance than the Si sensors which are presently used as one of the muon monitor detectors for the T2K long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment at J-PARC. The signal yield decrease is found to be less than 10% after a beam irradiation equivalent to 132-days of operation at the future J-PARC beam power of 1.3 MW. The observed yield decrease is likely due to dynode deterioration, based on the results of a detailed investigation. The studies described here confirm that EMTs can be used as a high-intensity muon beam monitor.

1 Introduction

In the Tokai-to-Kamioka (T2K) long-baseline neutrino experiment T2K2020 and the future project, Hyper-Kamiokande (HK) HK2017 , it is essential to increase the number of observed neutrino statistics to achieve an effective search for CP violation in the lepton sector. Currently, an upgrade to increase the intensity of proton beams for producing neutrino beams is underway at the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex (J-PARC) J-PARCUpgrade2019 . Charged pions emitted by protons hitting a graphite target produce neutrinos and muons. Monitoring beam intensity and direction is crucial for maintaining safety at the facility as well as the stable data taking and control of systematic uncertainties in the T2K physics analysis. In T2K, for the purpose of monitoring the beam intensity and direction, a muon beam monitor (MUMON), composed of two arrays of silicon pinphotodiodes (Si) and ion chambers (IC), has been used since the beginning of the operation MUMON2010 ; MUMON2015 . MUMON measures the neutrino beam directions with a precision better than 0.25 mrad. As the proton beam intensity increases from $\sim$500 kW as of 2019 to 1.3 MW in the future, MUMON needs to be able to work with high intensity beams. The muon flux per bunch will be $7.7\times 10^{6}\,\rm muons/cm^{2}/bunch$ that is 2.2 times higher compared to that in 2019. Also, the muon flux per second will be $5.3\times 10^{7}\,\rm muons/cm^{2}/sec$ that is 4.7 times higher.

It is previously reported that there are concerns about Si and IC regarding their performance at the high-intensity beam operation; Si yield was found to degrade after irradiation and IC showed a non-linearity behavior along the beam power Ashida2018 . Diamond sensors were investigated as a candidate of the replacement. However, they do not show sufficient radiation tolerance Yasutome-san-proceedings . As an alternative MUMON candidate in the future, the first prototypes of electron multiplier tubes (EMTs) were investigated using the T2K muon beam Ashida2018 . This study found that the EMT time response is faster than Si and IC and they keep signal linearity up to 460 kW beam power. While a drift in an EMT yield was observed after the start of the measurement. This drift was called initial instability in this study. After the initial drift period, the yield gets stable within ±1%. This indicates the EMT has the potential to be used in the T2K. In order to conclude the feasibility of EMT as the replacement of the MUMON detector, it is necessary to investigate whether it can be used for a longer-term operation and whether linearity can be maintained at future strength for use in the T2K. The performance of Si and IC was checked in an electron beam test before being used in the T2K. This time, beam tests were conducted for EMT as the similar process.

We measured characteristics of EMT using an electron beam at Research Center for Electron Photon Science (ELPH) of Tohoku University. In the beam test, we measured the linearity, radiation tolerance, and initial instability of EMTs. In addition, we also investigated the causes of the radiation degradation and potential causes for the initial instability.

After mentioning our EMT design in detail In section 2, we describe electron beam irradiation tests to evaluate the performance of EMTs in section  3. In section 4, we explain the result of the beam irradiation tests. In section 5, we discuss temperature dependence and causes of radiation degradation. Finally, we summarise this paper in section 6.

2 Electron Multiplier Tube

Photomultipliers (PMTs) have a superior radiation tolerance and signal response speed compared to semiconductor detectors. So, they may be more suitable for use in MUMON where radiation level is high and the beam needs to be measured bunch-by-bunch ($\sim$50 ns width and $\sim$500 ns interval). PMTs were then tested as a candidate sensor, but their radiation tolerance were not satisfactory for the use in MUMON. As the cause seemed to be the cathode, cathode was replaced by aluminium to improve the radiation tolerance. This replacement is not a problem for the use in MUMON as it measures charged particles. Hamamatsu^® PMT (R9880U-110) are modified with their photocathode deposited with aluminum to produce EMTs. EMTs used for the beam test described in this paper are identified as Hamamatsu^® R15435-01. The original bleeder circuit used for PMTs has an insulating cover made of polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) or polyacetate (POM), but we decided to use it without the cover as shown in Figure 1 to avoid potential deterioration due to radiation.

The EMT signal is produced by secondary electrons which are avalanche-amplified in dynodes initiated by charged particles passing through the cathode or dynode. The shape of the EMT dynode is a metal channel type with 10 stages. The bleeder circuit (Hamamatsu^® E10679-Y001) connected to the EMT consists of 11 resistors $R_{1}-R_{11}$ and 5 capacitors $C_{1}-C_{5}$, as shown in Figure 2. Each resistance and capacitance values are listed in Table 1.

The sensitive area of the aluminized cathode is $50.26\,\rm mm^{2}$ and that of the dynode is approximately $77\,\rm mm^{2}$. The size of the electron beam used in this beam irradiation test was smaller than the EMTs area. However, the muon beam size in T2K is very wide as $\sigma\approx 100\,\rm cm$, and the muon beam is almost uniform for EMT sensitive area. Therefore, we shifted the irradiation position using a moving stage so that radiation damage was uniformly applied to the EMT. The electron beam irradiation method will be explained in Section 3.2.

Figure 1: Photograph of an EMT (left) and a bleeder circuit (right).

Figure 2: Structure of the bleeder circuit. “K”, “P”, “HV”, “DY”, “R”, “C” and “GND” represent the cathode, anode, high voltage, dynode, resistance, capacitor and ground, respectively.

Table 1: The resistance and capacitance values of the bleeder circuit (E10679-Y001).

	Resistance ($\rm k\Omega$)		Capacitance ($\mu$F)
R1	200	-	-
R2	200	-	-
R3	150	-	-
R4	150	-	-
R5	150	-	-
R6	150	-	-
R7	150	C1	0.01
R8	150	C2	0.01
R9	150	C3	0.01
R10	510	C4	0.33
R11	75	C5	0.33

3 Electron Beam Irradiation Test at ELPH

3.1 Experiment

In order to evaluate the performance of EMTs, we conducted electron beam irradiation tests using an electron linear accelerator for synchrotron injection at ELPH. In the electron beam test, we investigate linearity response, radiation tolerance, and initial instability of the EMT signal. The experiment was conducted four times between 2019 and 2022, and Figure 3 show the setup from the fourth irradiation test. In the first test in 2019, we mainly tested EMT’s linearity response. In the second test in 2020, we irradiated EMTs as well as Si sensors to compare their radiation tolerances. The third and fourth tests were performed in 2021 and 2022, respectively, to investigate specific features of EMTs and their individual difference in quality. In particular, we investigated temperature dependence of the signal degradation of EMTs in the fourth test.

Three different electron beam intensities were used depending on the purpose, as shown in Table 2. The low-intensity beam was adjusted to about $1\,\rm pC$ so that one pulse was equivalent to muon yield at MUMON for one bunch of the T2K neutrino beam. The high-intensity beam was adjusted so that the charge amount was as large as possible, resulting in 20 nC pulse with 7 Hz. In order to reduce the effect of electron scattering, the energy of the electron beam was set as high as possible at the facility, consistently $\sim$90 MeV.

Figure 3: A photograph (left) and 3D CAD model (right) of the experimental setup from the fourth beam test.

Figure 4: Schematic diagram of the alignment of each detector along the beam axis.

Table 2: Electron beam parameters used for the beam irradiation test at ELPH.

Beam power	Frequency (Hz)	Current (nA)	Charge per pulse (nC/pulse)	Purpose
low intensity	7	0.007	0.001	EMT yield check
middle intensity	7	0.5	0.071	irradiation
high intensity	7	140	20	irradiation

The purpose of the electron beam irradiation test at ELPH is to confirm how the EMT yield changes after irradiation with a large amount of radiation. In order to quantify the amount of radiation for EMTs, the charge amount and profile of the electron beam during high-intensity irradiation were measured using a Current Transformer (CT) and an Optical Transition Radiation monitor (OTR), respectively.

Table 3: Beam monitor detectors used for the beam irradiation tests at ELPH.

Instrument	Model number	Purpose
ref-Si	S3590-08	Intensity monitor for low-intensity beam
Si-array	S13620-02	Profile monitor for low-intensity beam
CT	FT-3KM F7555G	Intensity monitor for high-intensity beam
OTR	hand-made	Profile monitor for high-intensity beam

In addition, in order to accurately measure yield of the EMT sgnal, we measured the electron beam charge and profile using the ref-Si that is the same type as used in MUMON and 64 channel silicon pin photodiode array (Si-array) during low-intensity irradiation as shown in Table 3. To avoid beam irradiation, Si sensors and Si-array shown in Figure 3 were moved to position away from the beam line using a movable stage during irradiation with high-intensity beams. The Si located upstream of the movable stage is called ref-Si, and the measured electron beam charge is used as reference to normalize the EMT signal and evaluate the degradation. As shown in Figure 4, OTR, CT, ref-Si, and EMT were installed at positions where the electron beam passed. In addition, a heater and thermometer were installed to measure the temperature dependence of EMTs in the fourth beam test. The CT, EMT, and Si signals were acquired with an 8-channel 250-MHz sampling 14-bit 2-Vpp FADC (CAEN DT5725). The Si-array signal was acquired using two 32-channel 62.5-MHz sampling 12-bit 2-Vpp FADCs (CAEN DT5740).

3.2 High- and middle-intensity beams

CT can measure the amount of charged particles that have passed by measuring the current that flows to cancel out the magnetic field created by the passing of charged particles. For the CT used in the beam test described here, the inner and outer diameter are $79\,\rm mm$ and $51\,\rm mm$, respectively, and its width is $25\,\rm mm$. The material is FINEMET (manufactured by Hitachi Metals, Ltd.) with the magnetic permeability of $18500\,\rm H/m$, and the number of turns of the coil is 1. The input waveform was derived by Fourier transformation from the CT signal, and the amount of charge passed was determined from the area of that waveform. The waveform measured by CT and the waveform after Fourier transformation are shown in Figure 5. As can be seen, the baseline distortion remained in the waveform after the Fourier transformation, and the reproduction of the input waveform was not perfect. While, since the pulse height and time width are determined by the differentiation of the input waveform, the influence of the distortion of the baseline is considered to be small. So, by using the height $H$ and width $W$ of the reproduced waveform and the impedance of the measuring instrument $R=50\ \Omega$, the amount of charge $Q$ was calculated by $Q=H\times W\times\frac{1}{R}$. The systematic uncertainty of this method is described in Section 3.4.

Figure 5: Measured and Fourier transformed CT waveform at a high-intensity beam. Charge in this pulse is 32.97 nC.

The OTR monitor is a detector that measures the position and shape of the beam by using a camera to take a picture of the transitional radiation generated when relativistic charged particles pass through interfaces with different dielectric constants. When the accelerator changes the beam intensity greatly, a slit was inserted to cut the beam. Therefore, there was a possibility that the beam profile was different between high and low intensities, and it was necessary to measure the beam profile at a high intensity. OTR monitors were introduced from the third beam test. Aluminum foil was settled at 45 degrees to the beam (Figure 6), and images were taken with a CMOS camera (model number CS165MU, lens: FL-BC7528-9M) positioned 30$\,\rm cm$ away.

Figure 6: Photograph of OTR foil. Aluminium foil is attached to a 1 cm square window.

Figure 7 shows the beam profile during high-intensity beam irradiation taken by OTR. From the measured position and spread of the beam, the fraction at which the charged particles hit the EMT’s sensitive area, or irradiation efficiency, is calculated. The irradiation efficiency means the ratio of electrons that hit the EMT out of the electrons in the beam.

Figure 7: High-intensity electron beam profile for one bunch taken with OTR.

The electron beam size of ELPH is $\sigma\sim$1 mm which is smaller than the sensitive area of EMT, while the muon beam size of T2K beam is $\sigma\sim 100\,\rm cm$ which is so large that muons arrive almost uniformly at an EMT. In the beam tests at ELPH, the irradiation method is devised to make the irradiation to the EMT as uniform as possible. By placing the EMT on a movable stage and moving the EMT’s position during high-intensity beam irradiation, uniform irradiation was reproduced. In the first and second tests, the electron beam was irradiated at nine points in a grid pattern, and in the third test, the electron beam was irradiated at seven points in a hexagonal arrangement. From the third test, we installed OTR to measure the high-intensity beam profile, so we were able to obtain the irradiation efficiency based on the center position of the EMT. The irradiation efficiency at the third test was 70%. However, the quantity of electrons that hit the most and least exposed points differed by three times. In the fourth test, in order to further improve the uniformity, the EMT was irradiated while continuously scanned over a range of $16\times 16\,\rm mm^{2}$. When the irradiation efficiency was calculated for the fourth beam test taking into account the actual beam spread, the irradiation efficiency for EMTs was about 28%, and the non-uniformity was found to be about 3% at maximum. By multiplying the irradiation efficiency to the amount of charge measured by CT, the total irradiated charge on EMTs can be determined. During high-intensity irradiation, to prevent too much signal current from the EMT to readout electronics, a 1$\,\rm\Omega$ resistor was inserted between the EMT signal line and ground.

3.3 Low-intensity beam

The ref-Si was used to measure the low-intensity beam. During the test, an attenuator of 1/79.4 was applied. The applied voltage for Si was 80 V. Low-pass filters were used to ensure stable voltage supply for Si sensors. When measuring the EMT yield with a low-intensity beam, we acquired the ref-Si signal at the same time as the EMT signal, and by taking the ratio, we were able to accurately measure the EMT yield regardless of shot-to-shot variations in the electron beam. The applied voltage of the bleeder circuit of EMT was $-450\,\rm V$ for the signal check. Typical ref-Si and EMT waveforms during low-intensity beam irradiation are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: The measured waveforms with a low-intensity beam from a ref-Si (left) and EMT (right).

The ref-Si was calibrated by simultaneously irradiating the ref-Si and CT with a beam that is several times more intense than the low-intensity beam but still lower than high-intensity beam and taking the ratio of their respective signals as shown in Figure 9. The reason for increasing the beam intensity during the calibration was that the low-intensity beam is too small to detect by CT. According to the calibration result, the integral value of the ref-Si signal can be converted to the amount of charge.

Figure 9: Relation of integrated signals between ref-Si and CT with a low-intensity beam with a linear fit. The slope is $2.3\times 10^{9}\,\rm ADC\,counts/nC/pulse$.

The Si-array was used to measure the profile of the low-intensity beam. The Si-array has $8\times 8$ silicon photodiode sensors at 3 mm intervals and can monitor in a $24\,\rm mm$ square area. The Si-array was used to confirm the position and spread of the low-intensity beam. The variation in gain for each channel was measured in advance using LED.

For the Si-array signal, we calculated the amount of charge for each channel and created a two-dimensional profile as shown in Figure 10. By fitting this with a two-dimensional Gaussian, the size and position of the beam were determined. The fluctuation in the position of the low-intensity beam was approximately $1\,\rm mm$ in the horizontal direction and $4\,\rm mm$ in the vertical direction, and a typical beam width is $\sim$1–6 mm which was smaller than the EMT cathode area.

Figure 10: Typical low-intensity beam profile measured by the Si-array in the fourth beam test. The mean in the x-direction is $-$0.44 mm and the mean in the y-direction is 1.85 mm. The sigma in the x-direction is 3.51 mm and the sigma in the y-direction is 5.26 mm.

3.4 Systematic uncertainties of beam irradiation

In this section, the systematic uncertainties are summarized. Table 4 and Table 5 shows the list of systematic uncertainties on the amount of high- and low-intensity beam irradiation, respectively. The former affect to the calculation of the applied radiation dose to the EMT and the latter affect to the yield measurement of the EMT.

Systematic uncertainties associated with the variations in beam position due to differences in the sensitive areas of the EMT and Si are estimated. The position and width of the beam were measured by Si-array for low intensity. The results were used to estimate the fluctuation of the amount of particles entering the sensitive areas.

In the T2K experiment, the particles measured at the MUMON location are muons, which are different from the electrons used in the ELPH beam test. Additionally, the average muon energy measured at MUMON is approximately $3\,\rm GeV$, while the electron energy in this test is $90\,\rm MeV$. As a result of performing a simulation using FLUKAFLUKA1 ; FLUKA2 with each energy distribution, it was found that the difference in energy loss when irradiating EMT is about 3%. Therefore, when converting the amount of charge irradiated to the EMT in this beam test to the amount of irradiation during the T2K beam operation, this 3% is considered as a systematic uncertainty. For low-intensity beam irradiation, the effect of particle differences is cancelled out because the evaluation is based on the EMT yield over the Si yield.

We estimated the systematic uncertainty of the CT charge calculation method by examining the charge amount and width dependence of the response using a known signal as the input, as summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: The systematic uncertainties for charge amount of high-intensity beam irradiation. The ordinal numbers represent the each beam test.

Source of uncertainty	uncertainty (%)
	second	third	fourth
Particle difference	$\pm$3	$\pm$3	$\pm$3
reproduction of CT input signal	${}^{+2.1}_{-10}$	$\pm$13	$\pm$13

Table 5: The systematic uncertainties for charge amount of low-intensity beam irradiation. Since there were two measurement days in the third and fourth tests, systematic uncertainties were evaluated for each.

Source of uncertainty	uncertainty (%)
	second	third (day1, day2)	fourth (day1, day2)
Low intensity beam fluctuations	$\pm$0.6	$\pm$4.1, $\pm$3.9	$\pm$2.1, $\pm$4.6

4 Results

In this section, we will show the result of beam irradiation tests at ELPH regarding linearity, stability, and radiation tolerance, which are important when using EMT as a sensor of the muon beam.

4.1 Linearity

In order to confirm the linearity of EMTs, we irradiated the similar amount of charge as during T2K operation and compared the yield with Si sensors (Figure 11). According to the previous studies MUMON2010 , Si sensors keep their linearity within $2.9\%$ up to $3.5\times 10^{7}\,\rm pC/cm^{2}$. The low-intensity beam (Table 2) was used for this measurement, and the intensity dependence was measured using pulse-to-pulse variations. The amount of muon charge per pulse of the T2K beam observed by MUMON is proportional to the number of protons per bunch, and will increase by about 2.2 times compared to that is 2019 when it operates at 1.3MW corresponding to 0.95 pC for one EMT. EMT was linear up to the future intensity 0.95$\,\rm pC$, the residual was less than 5%.

Figure 11: Measurement results of the EMT signal as a function of the incident beam power (left). The slope with a linear fitting is 166. The figure on the right shows the residuals from the fitted straight line.

4.2 Signal stability

When the stability was measured around the MUMON site in the past, the signal yield decreased by 2.6% about a week after starting the measurement, and then stabilized, as reported in Ref. Ashida2018 . In order to confirm the stability of EMT for several days to a month in T2K, we measured EMT signals while inflicting radiation damage. The intensity of the electron beam when causing radiation damage was adjusted to the amount equivalent to the radiation exposure for several days of T2K operation (middle intensity in Table 2). The stability measurement results are shown in Figure 12. In this measurement, the variation in signal yield during medium-intensity irradiation was within 2%. One possibility to explain this fluctuation seen in the MUMON site is due to the temperature dependence of EMTs because the temperature of the installed position was not controlled and there was cooling water nearby. The relationship between EMT signals and temperature will be discussed in detail in Section 5.1.

Figure 12: Measurement result of the variation in EMT signal yield depending on the radiation dose with medium-intensity beam. The ref-Si was not irradiated with a medium-intensity beam. The legend notes the serial number of each EMT identification and the date of the test.

4.3 Radiation tolerance

In order to confirm whether the EMT can be used for a long period, we irradiated EMTs with a high-intensity electron beam equivalent to several years of the T2K operation, and measured the relative signal yield of EMTs. In the first beam test, the beam was stopped for a few minutes each time the intensity was switched and settings were changed within the controlled area, which is thought to have caused a large degree of uncertainty in the beam intensity due to changes in the vacuum state of the accelerator. Therefore, in the second irradiation test, we made it possible to control some devices remotely, and from the third and fourth irradiation test, all settings were made remotely. Figure 13 shows the measurement results. For comparison, we also measured the signal yield of Si, the present MUMON sensor, and plotted the result. The radiation tolerance of EMT is overwhelmingly better than that of Si, and even after 600 days of operation at a future intensity of 1.3 MW, the signal decrease is less than 18%.

The typical operating period for the beam in a year allocated to HK is approximately 132 days, and therefore the sensor must withstand at least 132 days of continuous operation. Assuming extreme scenarios that the signals of half of the sensors decreased and the rest is unchanged, it was found that the T2K requirement for muon monitor is satisfied if the decrease is within 3%. If Si is operated for 132 days at future beam power, the signal will decrease by 25%, and in addition, the leakage current will increase, making it impossible to apply high voltage. On the other hand, signal decrease of EMT is expected to be less than 10% even after 132 days. Some EMTs hardly degraded after 132 days. If the maximum degradation occurs as a conservative scenario calibration should be carried out every 50 days of operation. While as the degradation is slowing down after certain amount of irradiation, we consider the calibration will be necessary every 132 days in practice, and it can be used for several years without replacement.

Figure 13: The results of EMT and Si radiation tolerance measurement. The horizontal axis shows the amount of charge of the electron beam irradiated to the sensor and the value converted into the number of days of T2K operation. The vertical axis is the relative signal amount when the yield before radiation irradiation is set to 1. The ref-Si was not irradiated with a high-intensity beam. Different colors are used to indicate different beam test dates and different tested sensors.

5 Discussion

In this section, we will discuss the following two points. One is to qualify whether temperature dependence can explain the initial instability. The other is investigation of the cause of the signal decrease of up to 18% after irradiation in the case of the biggest decrease.

5.1 Temperature dependence

A 2–3% of initial instability observed in the measurements at J-PARC Ashida2018 may be due to temperature changes. The EMT was installed at a location where the temperature is not controlled during the test at J-PARC. Therefore, we measured the temperature dependence of the EMT signal this time. The actual MUMON sensor location is surrounded by the enclosure and temperature is controlled at approximately $34^{\circ}\rm C$, so the temperature dependence measurements were performed within a temperature range around $34^{\circ}\rm C$.

Although the EMT cathode is made of vapor-deposited aluminum, it is sensitive to photon to some extent, so we evaluated using an LED at first. The EMT was placed in a constant temperature bath and the EMT yield was measured at different temperatures. At this time, since the amount of photons emitted by the LED also changes depending on the temperature, we corrected it based on the standard specification “NSPW500GS-K1” of Nichia Chemical Industries, Ltd. as a typical temperature characteristic. At the same time, we also measured Si, which is supposed to have no temperature dependence of the signal to confirm that the temperature characteristics of the LED could be canceled out through correction. Figure 14 shows the measurement results. The the temperature change coefficient of the EMT yield was 0.16–0.18%/${}^{\circ}\rm C$, which was insufficient to explain the signal fluctuations at around the MUMON site.

Figure 14: Measured temperature dependence of the EMT signal yield. Red points are data when the temperature is rising, and the blue points are data when the temperature is falling. EMT signal is corrected by the temperature dependence of the LED emission.

In the fourth irradiation test, we measured the temperature dependence of the EMT signal. The temperature was varied by applying hot air to the EMT using a heater and fan, and a platinum resistance thermometer was used to measure the temperature at the EMT location. Figure 15 shows the measured temperature dependence, and the temperature change coefficient in the range of 30${}^{\circ}\rm C$ or higher was $0.6\%/^{\circ}\rm C$. This is larger than that measured using LEDs.

Regarding the difference of the measurements using LED and that of the fourth irradiation test, the latter measures the signal due to penetrating charged particles, and that condition is close to the the measurement at J-PARC Ashida2018 . The EMT that measured the initial instability seen at J-PARC Ashida2018 was installed outside the temperature-controlled enclosure with cooling water from the beam dump flowing nearby. Therefore, this suggests the possibility that the temperature of the cooling water rose as the beam operated, causing the EMT signal to drop. Converting yield instability 2–3% to temperature by using the coefficient of $0.6\%/^{\circ}\rm C$, the variation of approximately $4^{\circ}\rm C$ can explain the instability. The temperature inside the temperature-controlled enclosure, which is the actual environment of MUMON sensor location, is controlled so that the temperature change is less than $\pm 0.7^{\circ}\rm C$ MatsuokaDtheses . Therefore, the temperature dependence of EMT is not a problem even if it exists.

Figure 15: Temperature dependence of the EMT signal yield measured at fourth ELPH test. The measurement started at $20\rm^{\circ}C$, increased to $40\rm^{\circ}C$ (red points), and then decreased to $20\rm^{\circ}C$ (blue points). The vertical axis is the ratio to the yield at the first $20\rm^{\circ}C$.

5.2 Cause for yield degradation

The radiation tolerance of EMTs is found to be much better than that of Si, but a signal drop of about $15\%$ in maximum case was observed when it is irradiated with $500\times 10^{3}\,\rm nC$. In this section, we investigate the potential causes of signal degradation by dividing them into the following four areas (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Schematic diagram of an EMT. Numbers are assigned to each location where the effects of radiation damage are discussed.

1. Deterioration of the last dynode

2. Deterioration of the bleeder circuit

3. Deterioration of the aluminum cathode

4. Deterioration of the dynodes

First, we focused on deterioration of the last dynode. Measuring a large amount of charge by EMTs means that a large amount of secondary electrons collide with the final stage of the dynode. In order to verify the hypothesis that the signal is reduced due to dynode deterioration, we irradiated with a high-intensity beam and measured the change in yield with and without high voltage application. Figure 17 shows the results measured in the third beam test. Even when high voltage was not applied to EMT during a high-intensity beam, the similar degradation was observed. This result indicates that deterioration in the downstream stage of the dynode was not the main cause of radiation damage.

Figure 17: EMT yield as a function of radiation dose with and without high voltage applied measured in third irradiation test. The axes are same to the Figure 13. The legend notes the serial number of each EMT, identification and date of the test.

Second, as a survey on deterioration of the bleeder circuit, we irradiated only the bleeder circuit with a high-intensity beam and measured the change in yield. Table 6 shows the measurement results. There there was a tendency for the signal yield to slightly increase rather than decrease. We measured the resistance and capacitance of the circuits with and without irradiation using a multimeter. There was no significant difference in the measured values and they were consistent with the catalog values.

Table 6: The EMT yield after irradiating only the bleeder circuit with a high-intensity beam for $2.5\times 10^{5}-4.7\times 10^{5}\,\rm nC$ (1.3MW 330 - 620 day). The yield before irradiation is normalized to 1.

Irradiation test	Irradiation amount	Ratio of yield
third irradiation test	$2.5\times 10^{5}\,\rm nC$	1.1
fourth irradiation test (day 2)	$4.7\times 10^{5}\,\rm nC$	1.01
fourth irradiation test (day 3)	$3.3\times 10^{5}\,\rm nC$	1.025

Third, as an investigation into cathode deterioration, we verified the possibility that the probability of electron emission from the aluminum-deposited cathode surface was worsened by irradiation. We created a special bleeder circuit in which the resistance between the cathode and the first dynode (R1 in Figure 2) was set to $0\,\Omega$. When this bleeder circuit is used, the initial electron when a charged particle passes through is not at the cathode but at the first dynode. Therefore, if cathode deterioration is the main cause, it is thought that using a special circuit will prevent the signal yield from decreasing. Table 7 shows the yield ratio after high-intensity beam irradiation for each condition. There were cases where the signal decreased and cases where it did not, depending on the day of measurement, but no significant difference was observed between the normal circuit and the special one within each set.

Table 7: Survey results regarding deterioration of aluminum cathode. Yield ratio show the relative yield after irradiating only the EMT body with a high-intensity beam with respect to the yield before irradiation.

Irradiation test	Irradiation amount	Bleeder circuit	Yield ratio
fourth irradiation test (day 2)	$4.7\times 10^{5}\,\rm nC$	normal	0.92
fourth irradiation test (day 2)	$4.7\times 10^{5}\,\rm nC$	special	0.91
fourth irradiation test (day 3)	$3.3\times 10^{5}\,\rm nC$	normal	1.045
fourth irradiation test (day 3)	$3.3\times 10^{5}\,\rm nC$	special	1.001

Finally, we consider the deterioration of the dynodes. Since the three hypothesis discussed above were not the main causes of deterioration, it is thought that the deterioration of dynodes is the main cause. It is considered that the state of the secondary electron emitting agent (alkali-metal antimony) coated on the dynodes has deteriorated due to irradiation, and the secondary electron amplification factor has decreased. Therefore, we conducted a test on EMTs without applying a secondary electron emitting agent. The gain of the EMTs without the secondary electron emitting agent, even when applying a voltage of $-$1000 V, was very low, about 0.5% compared to a usual EMT with an applied voltage of $-$450 V. This signal is too small to accurately measure the muon beam and we need alternative approach to suppress the signal decrease if it is due to deterioration of the dynodes.

6 Summary

We are develo** EMTs as a muon monitor candidate in the future T2K operation. We measured the linearity and radiation tolerance of EMTs using the electron beam at ELPH. The EMTs have linearity that is better than $\pm 5\%$ at the future intensity. The signal yield decreased by 10% over the equivalent of 132 days of 1.3 MW beam operation, indicating that it has much higher radiation tolerance than conventional Si sensor. At doses exceeding the equivalent of 200 days of operation, deterioration become rather mild, so with the sufficient calibration, it is possible to use the EMT without having to replace the sensor. The cause of the deterioration was investigated in detail. The aluminium cathode, bleeder circuits and last dynodes were not the main cause of the deterioration. The dynode deterioration was thought to be the main cause. Measurement of the temperature dependence of the EMT signal yiels indicates the observed initial instability can be explained by the variation of temperature at the location of the test, while this should not be an issue in the J-PARC beamline, since the actual sensor location will be temperature controlled.