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.

72 Chapter 3. Simulation: Methods <strong>and</strong> Applications<br />

methodology “may be used to achieve a successful first-pass <strong>design</strong>” <strong>and</strong> that device<br />

simulations are useful for determining qualitative relationships such as the effect <strong>of</strong> the<br />

npn junction capacitances on the trigger voltage.<br />

Use <strong>of</strong> 2D device simulation in predicting ESD robustness was studied by Amerasekera et<br />

al. [32], who investigated the use <strong>of</strong> simulated peak power density ( ), peak<br />

temperature, <strong>and</strong> second-breakdown trigger current, It2 , as relative figures <strong>of</strong> merit <strong>of</strong><br />

MOS devices with various source/drain pr<strong>of</strong>iles, contact-to-gate spacings, <strong>and</strong> gate<br />

biasing. A Texas Instruments in-house electrothermal simulator was used to generate dc<br />

curves which exhibited snapback <strong>and</strong>, surprisingly, second breakdown (a drop in device<br />

voltage due to thermal runaway is usually not observed in 2D dc simulations due to the 3D<br />

nature <strong>of</strong> the phenomenon). Thermal electrodes with a lumped resistance <strong>of</strong> 10 6 J ⋅ E<br />

K/W were<br />

placed on each <strong>of</strong> the four electrical contacts. The authors found that reaching a critical<br />

temperature is a better figure <strong>of</strong> merit than reaching a critical J ⋅<br />

E because the peak<br />

electric field is very dependent on the simulation grid, which is different for different<br />

structures. Using simulated It2 as a failure criteria was found to agree qualitatively with<br />

experiments <strong>of</strong> varying drain junction pr<strong>of</strong>iles <strong>and</strong> to agree quantitatively with<br />

experimental It2 vs. gate bias. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, simulated It2 did not increase with drain<br />

contact-to-gate spacing as it does in experiment, leading the authors to conclude that it is<br />

not possible to model the effect <strong>of</strong> some layout parameters on ESD robustness because the<br />

simulation is only two dimensional. It is important to note, however, that they are looking<br />

at dc results, i.e., EOS, not ESD. Since ESD events are very brief, the effects <strong>of</strong> thermal<br />

diffusion in the width dimension may not have an impact on the device robustness <strong>and</strong> no<br />

conclusions should be drawn from dc simulations on <strong>modeling</strong> the ESD regime.<br />

Transient simulations were also run with constant-current pulses used as the ESD input. A<br />

good fit <strong>of</strong> transient simulation points to an experimental Pf vs. tf curve between 25ns <strong>and</strong><br />

200ns <strong>of</strong> a 0.6µm device was obtained by defining failure as the time at which the peak<br />

temperature reaches 1000K. (Experimentally, failure is the point at which a device enters<br />

second breakdown.) The analytic thermal model (Section 2.2.2) was also fit to the data<br />

using a Tc <strong>of</strong> 1000K <strong>and</strong> box dimensions <strong>of</strong> c = 0.5µm, b = 0.5µm, <strong>and</strong> a = device width.<br />

The good agreement <strong>of</strong> the Pf vs. tf results led the authors to conclude that “the concept <strong>of</strong><br />

a critical temperature for (thermal) breakdown is valid for the devices investigated in this<br />

study.”

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!