1993 Symposium on Semiconductor Modeling & simulation 6.

8
A Fully Analytical Back-Gate Bias Effect Model for n-Channel SZcon MESFET Devices w i t h Back

Channel Implant J. H. Sim, M. C. Tang and J. B. Kuo Rm. 526, Dept. of Electrical Eng., N a t i o n a l T a i w a n University Rooseveft Rd., #1, Sec. 4, Taipei 106-17, Taiwan Fax:886-2-363-8247, Telephone:886-2-363-5251~285 Email:jbkuo@cc.ee.ntu.edu.tw Abstract I n this paper, a fully analytical back-gate bias effect model for n-channel silicon AIESFET devices is presented. As verified by the PISCES results, the analytical n-channel silicon MESFET back-gate bias effect model provides a good accuracy in the internal potential distribution and the threshold voltage as the back gate bias is changed.
summary

MESFET devices are known to be immune to radiation and hot-carrier-induced threshold-voltage shifts for their absence of a gate oxide [1]-[3]. However, their threshold voltages are strongly influenced by the back gate bias effect [4]-[8]. For an advanced MESFET device, the back channel boron implant under the channel has been used to reduce second order effects [3][9][10]. In fact, the back gate bias effect of the MESFET devices with a back channel implant can be complicated. Recently, an analytical back-gate bias dependent threshold voltage model of a MESFET devices with a back channel implant has been reported [l]. However, numerical iteration i s needed in this model. In this paper, using a box-profile approximation, a fully analytical back-gate bias threshold voltage model for a MESFET device with a back channel implant is described. Fig. l(a) shows the 2D cross section of a typical n-channel silicon MESFET device with a boron channel implant under the channel without shallow Shannon implant, which is used to enhance the barrier height of the Schottkygate contacts[l]. In the MESFET device under study, a Schottky-gate contact with a work function of 4.92V is used. As shown in Fig. l(b), in the center the channel, the Gaussian-shape n-channel has a peak doping density of 2.96 x 1017cm-3 and a depth of 0.152pm. Under the conduction channel, a Gaussian-shape back channel implant with a net peak doping concentration of 4.147 x 1016cm-3 and a depth of 0.35pm has been used. Below the back channel implanted area, the p-type substrate has a doping density of 1.5 x 1015cm-3. In order to derive the fully analytical model, a box-profile approximation [U] [12] for the regions in the channel and under the channel has been assumed. As shown in Fig. l(b), consider the MESFET device in the substrate direction with its origin at the silicon surface. Using depletion appro.dmation, in the channel region and solving Poisson's equation, The threshold voltage, which is defined as when the channel potential reaches -+fn, is shown s shown in Fig. 2. If the edge of the depleted region is within the back channel implanted region in Eqs. (1)&(2) a ("d < E B ) , Eq. (1) is applicalbe. If the depletion edge is below the back channel implanted region (Zd > XB), Eq. (2) applies. In order to show the effectiveness of the new model, the back-gate bias effects of the n-channel silicon MESFET device operating at various back-gate voltages using the analytical model have been obtained. PISCES simulation has been used to provide data. Fig. 3 shows the internal electrostatic potential distribution i n the n-channel silicon XESFET with back channel implant, biased at Vc = -1.5V and VB from OV to -5V using the anaIytica1 model and PISCES simulation results. As indicated in the figure, a good match can be identified in the channel region between the analytical model and PISCES simulation results. Fig. 4 shows the threshold voltage of the n-channel silicon MESFET device biased at t ' ~ from O V to -5V based on the analytical model and PISCES simulation results. A good match can be identified between the analytical model and PISCES simulation results. More insight into the back bias effect on the n-channel silicon MESFET can be obtained by studying the slope of the threshold voltage as shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 5 shows the vs. back gate bias curve using Eq. (22)(23) for the n-channel silicon MESFET device with (1) a uniform back channel implanted area as shown in Fig. l(b) (solid h e ) . Also shown in the figure are the curves for the MESFET device (2) without the back channel implanted area (dotted dash), (3) without the back channel implanted area and with a substrate doping density of 2.643 x 1016cm-3 (dashed). As the back gate bias is less negative, its of the MESFET device associated with Fig. l(b) is close to the case without the back channel implant and with a substrate density of 2.643 x 10'6cm-3. On the other hand, for a more negative VB, its of the MESFET device associated with Fig. l(b) is close to the case without back channel impIant and with a substrate density of 1.5 x 1015cm-3. From this figure, the back gate bias effect of the MESFET device with a back channel implant shows a drastic change in back-gate bias effect. Fig. 6 shows the threshold voltage vs. depth of the back channel implanted area in a MESFET device using the analytical model for various back gate biasing voltages. The doping concentration of the back channel implanted area is 2.643 x 1016cm'3. For a device with a depth of the back channel implanted area of less than 0.15pm, the threshold voltage is always linearly proportional to its depth regardless of VB the depletion edge falls in the substrate region and the back channel implant has little effect. For a more negative VB and for a thinner back channel implant depth, the depletion edge has a more tendency in the substrate region - the back channel implant has little effect.

113

1993 Symposium on Semiconductor Modeilng & Simulation 6.8

References 1 1 1 K.MacWilliams et.al, IEEE TED, 12/91 121 K.LlacWilliams et.al, I," IEDilf Digest, 86 [3] A.Gruhle,et.al, I E E E T E D , 4/87 [4] CV.Jutzi et.ai, I E E E T E D , 3/72 [5] G.Taylor et.al, I E E E T E D 3/79 [6]J.;Clarshall et.al, I E E E T E D , 3/88 Figure Captions "3

[7] S.Chattopadhyay et.al, I E E E T E D 1/89 [8] SChattopadhyay et.al, Sol St Elec, 87 (91 C.Hartgring et.al, Sol St Efec, 80 [lo] G. Fernholz et.al., I E E E T E D , 7/83 [ll]V.Rideout et.al, I B N J. Res. Deoef., 1/75 [12]P.Wang, I E E E T E D , 3/77

1ou

+I

Nsub

"B x (wn) Fig. 1 The n-channel silicon MESFET device structure under study. (a) 2D device cross section. (b) 1D doping profile in the center of the channel

:PISCES :OurMade(
'8(v)

x lum) Fig. 3 The internal electrostatic"potentia1 &itribution in the n-Channel silicon MESFET with back channel implant aor . . . . . . . . . I
~

am

0.1

0.1s

0.2

Fig. 4 The threshold voltage of the n-channel silicon MESFET

ao
.IV

,v

4.4

:Our -

:Without N.

N, =2.643=10"(cm' )
. U ao

Mod4

a 1

01

03

0 . 4

:Wilhout NU

&-XI Cm)

Fig. 6 Threshold voltage VS. depth of the back channel implanted v , V) area using the analytical model for the n-channelsilicon Fig. 5 vs- back gate bias curve using the analytical ,MESFET device for various back gate biasing voltages. model for the n-channel silicon MESFET device 114