1 / 6

Simulation results on p-stop atoll depth/conc and p-stop common unirradiated

Simulation results on p-stop atoll depth/conc and p-stop common unirradiated. Simulations of different doping depths and conc. for the p-stop atoll configuration. ps. electrode #1. electrode #2. p-stop atoll configuration decided to go with 2 strips due to large simulation matrix

pelham
Download Presentation

Simulation results on p-stop atoll depth/conc and p-stop common unirradiated

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Simulation results on p-stop atoll depth/conc and p-stop common unirradiated

  2. Simulations of different doping depths and conc.for the p-stop atoll configuration ps electrode #1 electrode #2 • p-stop atoll configuration • decided to go with 2 strips due to large simulation matrix • goal: dependence of electric field strength on doping depths • varied n+ implant from 1um to 3 um in 0.5um steps (conc. fixed to 1e19cm-3) • varied p+ implant from 1um to 3um in 0.5um steps • varied doping conc. of p-stop from 5e15 cm-3 to 5e16 cm-3 • effective 2-trap proton model with fixed oxide charge Qf=1e12 cm-2 • F=1e15 neq/cm2 • MIP injection • pitch = 90um • w/p = 0.22 • pstop width = 6um • ps: p-stop dist. from n+ edge = 25um Simulation WG meeting May 13th, 2014

  3. Results on electric field and charge sharing Martin Strelzyk – Simulation results on pstop doping depth and concentation • n+ doping depth = 2um, conc. = 1e19cm-3 • in increasing p-stop depth, the charge sharing decreases • with increasing p-stop concentration, the charge sharing appears at lower doping depths • here not shown as curves are directly overlapping: • n+ depth does not affect charge sharing at all! • with increasing p-stop concentration the maximum eField in the bulk increases as well. • is it possible to set the range of the doping concentrations of p-stop and n+ with T-CAD? • here not shown as curves are directly overlapping: • n+ depth does not affect max. eField in bulk!

  4. Matrix of max. electric field n=1um p=1um 5 strips T=-20°C V=-600V p+= 5e16 cm-3 n+= 1e19 cm-3 n=2um p=2um • Synopsys manual: • CurrentPlot { ElectricField (Maximum (Material=„Silicon“)) } Martin Strelzyk – Simulation results on pstop doping depth and concentation

  5. p-stop common configuration simulated geometry like before with p-stop common as set during last meeting unirradiated: no implications on break-down or critical regions of high electric field strength Martin Strelzyk – Simulation results on pstop doping depth and concentation

  6. Summary • n+ implant seems not to be critical in max electrical field • p+ in contrary affects max. electric fields significantly • dependend on p-stop conc. • dependend on p-stop depth Martin Strelzyk – Simulation results on pstop doping depth and concentation

More Related