IS PHYSICALLY SOUND AND PREDICTIVE MODELING OF NMOS SUBSTRATE CURRENTS POSSIBLE

Abstract Practically all NMOS substrate current models used today, which have been successfully verified for a certain range of NMOS devices and bias conditions, yield for a given homogeneous electric field an impact ionization coefficient which is significantly smaller than the corresponding experimental result extracted from bulk silicon. This effect was named “surface impact ionization”, but no conclusive physical explanation was given for this discrepancy. This obvious inconsistency has led to serious doubts concerning the predictive capabilities of these substrate current models, and in fact none of these models could be verified over the full range of available NMOS technologies. However, recently two different substrate current models, (a full-band Monte Carlo model and a nonlocal soft-threshold lucky electron model) appeared, which are consistent with bulk impact ionization and provide accurate substrate current results for advanced NMOS devices without any modification of the model parameters. In this paper we have demonstrated that these models are precise for several NMOS devices fabricated in very different technologies covering the range from the 256 KBit to 1 GBit DRAM generation. To the best of our knowledge this is the widest technology base used for verification so far, which implies that these two models are the first models which really deserve to be called predictive. On the other hand, it is shown that the two substrate current models used most frequently today have poor modeling accuracy and cannot be called predictive at all. Finally, previous work concerning surface impact ionization is re-investigated with full-band Monte Carlo in the light of the new findings. It is shown that the effect called surface impact ionization cannot be associated with an effect in microscopic physics, but is due to the failure of the impact ionization models which have been applied to extract the impact ionization coefficient by reverse engineering based on experimental NMOS substrate currents. In addition the few theoretical explanations of surface impact ionization are discussed and the proposed effects are shown to be of minor influence.

[1]  S. Laux,et al.  Monte Carlo analysis of electron transport in small semiconductor devices including band-structure and space-charge effects. , 1988, Physical review. B, Condensed matter.

[2]  J.W. Slotboom,et al.  Surface impact ionization in silicon devices , 1987, 1987 International Electron Devices Meeting.

[3]  K. Sonoda,et al.  Monte Carlo study of impact ionization phenomena in small geometry MOSFET's , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting.

[4]  B. Meinerzhagen,et al.  Hydrodynamic equations for semiconductors with nonparabolic band structure , 1991 .

[5]  Bernd Meinerzhagen,et al.  A new nonlinear relaxation scheme for solving semiconductor device equations , 1991, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..

[6]  H. Goto,et al.  Is there experimental evidence for a difference between surface and bulk impact ionization in silicon? , 1996, International Electron Devices Meeting. Technical Digest.

[7]  Bude,et al.  Impact ionization in semiconductors: Effects of high electric fields and high scattering rates. , 1992, Physical review. B, Condensed matter.

[8]  B. Meinerzhagen.  Consistent gate and substrate current modeling based on energy transport and the lucky electron concept , 1988, Technical Digest., International Electron Devices Meeting.

[9]  M. Fukuma,et al.  MOSFET substrate current model including energy transport , 1987, IEEE Electron Device Letters.

[10]  G.J. Hu,et al.  Design tradeoffs between surface and buried-channel FET's , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices.

[11]  J. Bude,et al.  Impact ionization and distribution functions in sub-micron nMOSFET technologies , 1995, IEEE Electron Device Letters.

[12]  R. V. Overstraeten,et al.  Measurement of the ionization rates in diffused silicon p-n junctions , 1970 .

[13]  Chenming Hu,et al.  Hot-electron-induced MOSFET degradation—Model, monitor, and improvement , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices.

[14]  W. Shockley.  Problems related to p-n junctions in silicon , 1961 .

[15]  B. Meinerzhagen,et al.  Evaluation of impact ionization modeling in the framework of hydrodynamic equations , 1991, International Electron Devices Meeting 1991 [Technical Digest].

[16]  E. Kane.  Electron Scattering by Pair Production in Silicon , 1967 .

[17]  Siegfried Selberherr,et al.  A two-dimensional model of the avalanche effects in MOS transistors , 1982 .

[18]  T. Thurgate,et al.  An Impact Ionization Model for Two-Dimensional Device Simulation , 1985, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits.

[19]  K. Hess,et al.  Impact ionization of electrons in silicon (steady state) , 1983 .

[20]  C. Jungemann,et al.  On the accuracy and efficiency of substrate current calculations for sub-μm n-MOSFET's , 1996, IEEE Electron Device Letters.

[21]  G. Haddad,et al.  Simulation of GaAs IMPATT diodes including energy and velocity transport equations , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices.

[22]  E. Takeda,et al.  An empirical model for device degradation due to hot-carrier injection , 1983, IEEE Electron Device Letters.

[23]  R. Dutton,et al.  Coupled Monte Carlo-drift diffusion analysis of hot-electron effects in MOSFETs , 1989 .

[24]  A. G. Chynoweth,et al.  Uniform Silicon p‐n Junctions. II. Ionization Rates for Electrons , 1960 .

[25]  Thomas N. Theis,et al.  Electron heating in silicon dioxide and off‐stoichiometric silicon dioxide films , 1985 .

[26]  W. Maes,et al.  Impact ionization in silicon: A review and update , 1990 .

[27]  C. Werner,et al.  A novel impact-ionization model for 1-µm-MOSFET simulation , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices.

[28]  F. M. Bufler,et al.  Effects of band structure and phonon models on hot electron transport in silicon , 1996 .

[29]  Simulation of substrate current characteristics of submicron MOSFETs , 1991 .

[30]  A soft threshold lucky electron model for efficient and accurate numerical device simulation , 1996 .

[31]  W. N. Grant.  Electron and hole ionization rates in epitaxial silicon at high electric fields , 1973 .

[32]  J. Higman,et al.  Nonlocality of the electron ionization coefficient in n-MOSFETs: an analytic approach , 1988, IEEE Electron Device Letters.

[33]  S. Laux,et al.  Understanding hot‐electron transport in silicon devices: Is there a shortcut? , 1995 .

[34]  Isao Takayanagi,et al.  Measurement of electron impact ionization coefficient in bulk silicon under a low‐electric field , 1992 .

[35]  B. Riccò,et al.  Modeling of high energy electrons in n-MOSFETs , 1991, International Electron Devices Meeting 1991 [Technical Digest].

[36]  S. Imanaga,et al.  Inverse modeling of impact ionization rate through comparison of Monte Carlo simulation of Si metal-oxide-semiconductor device characteristics and experimental results , 1993 .

[37]  J. Slotboom,et al.  Non-local impact ionization in silicon devices , 1991, International Electron Devices Meeting 1991 [Technical Digest].

[38]  R. A. Logan,et al.  Ionization Rates of Holes and Electrons in Silicon , 1964 .

[39]  F. M. Bufler.  Decomposition of the Coulomb interaction into self-consistent fields and local scattering terms , 1997 .

[40]  F. Mcfeely,et al.  Impact ionization in silicon , 1993 .

[41]  Sano,et al.  Impact-ionization theory consistent with a realistic band structure of silicon. , 1992, Physical review. B, Condensed matter.