12.12.2012 Views

characterization, modeling, and design of esd protection circuits

characterization, modeling, and design of esd protection circuits

characterization, modeling, and design of esd protection circuits

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

170 Chapter 6. Conclusion<br />

6.2.2 Modeling<br />

As shown by the results <strong>of</strong> Chapter 4, simulations may actually provide a more useful<br />

method for studying ESD-circuit turn-on time because good agreement between simulated<br />

<strong>and</strong> measured low-current snapback parameters was demonstrated. Of greater concern is<br />

the ability to simulate the high-current portion <strong>of</strong> the MOSFET snapback curve <strong>and</strong> the<br />

onset <strong>of</strong> thermal failure. It was found that some <strong>of</strong> the assumptions <strong>of</strong> the calibration<br />

procedure were incorrect. Calibration <strong>of</strong> mobility <strong>and</strong> impact ionization using only<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ard room-temperature MOSFET characteristics is not adequate for simulation <strong>of</strong><br />

ESD phenomena above the point <strong>of</strong> snapback. One procedure which was not attempted<br />

was the calibration <strong>of</strong> MOSFET characteristics at higher temperatures. Even if data <strong>and</strong><br />

simulations are only examined up to 250 o C, proper calibration will aid the prevention <strong>of</strong><br />

the exaggerated increase in snapback resistance observed in present simulations. It may<br />

also be worthwhile to measure the temperature-dependent thermal resistance <strong>and</strong><br />

capacitance <strong>of</strong> the silicon material to ensure the corresponding simulator models are<br />

accurate. Regardless, the most critical issue which must be addressed is the effect <strong>of</strong><br />

simulation grid on the electric field pr<strong>of</strong>ile, which was shown to be the main obstruction <strong>of</strong><br />

proper high-current impact-ionization <strong>modeling</strong>.<br />

Limitations <strong>of</strong> 2D device simulation also need to be further quantified. Although the<br />

difference between 2D <strong>and</strong> 3D thermal models was studied, the implications <strong>of</strong> this study<br />

remain unclear due to the incomplete thermal-failure calibration <strong>and</strong> the deviation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

boundary conditions in a real MOSFET structure from the assumptions <strong>of</strong> the model.<br />

Another concern for future simulations is the validity <strong>of</strong> the assumption that the electron<br />

<strong>and</strong> hole temperatures are in thermal equilibrium with the lattice. As discussed in Chapter<br />

3, as electric fields increase due to smaller device dimensions <strong>and</strong> greater stress, hot<br />

carrier effects will become more important. During extremely brief, high-field ESD events<br />

such as CDM stress, carriers may no longer be in equilibrium with the lattice <strong>and</strong> full twocarrier-plus-lattice-temperature<br />

<strong>modeling</strong>, such as <strong>of</strong>fered by PISCES-2ET (dual energy<br />

transport model), will be needed. Such <strong>modeling</strong> would require calibration <strong>of</strong> different<br />

mobility <strong>and</strong> impact ionization models which are dependent on carrier temperature.<br />

Another type <strong>of</strong> <strong>modeling</strong> which was not studied in this thesis is compact <strong>modeling</strong>, i.e.,<br />

circuit-level or SPICE-level <strong>modeling</strong>. For ESD simulation, compact <strong>modeling</strong> is<br />

especially useful for determining current paths in <strong>circuits</strong> subjected to ESD stress.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!