3D Finite Element Modeling of Current Densities in Semiconductor Transport with Impact Ionization

Aurelio Mauri,Andrea Bortolossi,Giovanni Novielli,Riccardo Sacco
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.3691
2014-12-11
Abstract:In this article we propose two novel 3D finite element models, denoted method A and B, for electron and hole Drift-Diffusion (DD) current densities. Method A is based on a primal-mixed formulation of the DD model as a function of the quasi-Fermi potential gradient, while method B is a modification of the standard DD formula based on the introduction of an artificial diffusion matrix. Both methods are genuine 3D extensions of the classic 1D Scharfetter-Gummel difference formula. The proposed methods are compared in the 3D simulation of a p-n junction diode and of a p-MOS transistor in the on-state regime. Results show that method A provides the best performance in terms of physical accuracy and numerical stability. Method A is then used in the 3D simulation of a n-MOS transistor in the off-state regime including the impact ionization generation mechanism. Results demonstrate that the model is able to accurately compute the I-V characteristic of the device until drain-to-bulk junction breakdown.
Numerical Analysis
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper attempts to solve the problem of how to accurately and stably calculate the drift - diffusion (DD) current density of electrons and holes in three - dimensional (3D) semiconductor device transport simulations. Specifically, the authors propose two new 3D finite - element models (Method A and Method B) to improve the calculation of DD current density, especially in the case of including impact ionization (II) phenomena. ### Problem Background With the continuous development of semiconductor technology, device sizes are constantly shrinking, and three - dimensional (3D) device modeling and numerical simulation techniques have become crucial in predicting device electrical performance. The traditional 1D Scharfetter - Gummel difference formula has limitations when dealing with complex 3D structures, so more accurate and stable 3D extension methods need to be developed. ### Main Contributions 1. **Method A**: Based on the primal - mixed formula of the quasi - Fermi potential gradient, calculate the current density by introducing appropriate integral averaging and harmonic averaging of conductivity. This method can effectively avoid numerical instability and the numerical cancellation problem between the drift and diffusion terms. 2. **Method B**: Modify the standard DD formula and introduce an artificial diffusion matrix to improve numerical stability under high electric fields. This method draws on the idea of the Streamline Upwind/Petrov - Galerkin (SUPG) method. ### Application Verification The authors conducted numerical simulation experiments on three typical 3D devices using the FEMOS computing platform: - **p - n junction diode**: Verified the performance of different methods in an ideal structure. - **n - MOS and p - MOS transistors**: Tested the accuracy and stability of the methods, especially for non - ideal doping profiles and actual process simulation results. ### Result Analysis - **Method DDFE** (a simple finite - element model based on the standard DD formula) shows severe numerical instability in some cases, especially near the p - n junction. - **Method B** provides relatively good results, but there are still numerical instability problems in some areas. - **Method A** performs the best. It is not only superior to other methods in physical accuracy but also excellent in numerical stability. Especially in simulations including impact ionization phenomena, it can accurately calculate the I - V characteristics of the device until the breakdown point. ### Formula Summary 1. **DD formula**: \[ J_n = q\mu_n n \mathbf{E} + q D_n \nabla n \] \[ J_p = q\mu_p p \mathbf{E} - q D_p \nabla p \] where \( \mathbf{E} = -\nabla \phi \), \( \phi \) is the electric potential, \( \mu_n \) and \( \mu_p \) are the mobilities of electrons and holes respectively, and \( D_n \) and \( D_p \) are the diffusion coefficients of electrons and holes respectively. 2. **Method A**: \[ J_{n,K} = -q\mu_n \left[ n_m B(-\Delta \Phi_{\max}) + n_M B(\Delta \Phi_{\max}) \right] \frac{\nabla \phi_{n,h}}{2} \] where \( n_m = n_i e^{\Phi_m} \), \( n_M = n_i e^{\Phi_M} \), \( \Delta \Phi_{\max} = \Phi_M - \Phi_m \), \( B(Z) = \frac{Z}{e^Z - 1} \) is the inverse of the Bernoulli function. 3. **Method B**: \[ J_{n,K} = q\mu_n \langle n \rangle_K \mathbf{E}_K + q D_n (I + \Phi_K)