TY - JOUR
T1 - Optimization of the anti-punch-through implant for electrostatic discharge protection circuit design
AU - Li, Yi-Ming
AU - Lee, Jam Wem
AU - Sze, Simon M.
PY - 2003/4
Y1 - 2003/4
N2 - In this study, an optimal anti-punch-through implant for electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection devices is investigated. By solving a two-dimensional (2D) hydrodynamic (HD) device model as well as a lattice temperature equation numerically, the current density, carrier temperature, and parasitic capacitance of four different device structures are analyzed and compared for suppressing short-channel effects, reducing device heating, and improving ESD robustness simultaneously. The structure difference among these four devices is the location of anti-punch-through implantation; that is: (a) the Type 1 device is the control device without anti-punch-through implantation; (b) the Type 2 device is the device with anti-punch-through implantation under the source/drain extension; (c) the Type 3 device, with anti-punch-through implantation under the deep source/drain junction; and (d) the Type 4 device, with anti-punch-through implantation surrounding all junctions. By comparing these four device structures, we find that the Type 4 device not only has a lower electron temperature (and hence good thermal immunity) but also has a larger current density under an applied high bias. Therefore, this device maintains a higher driving capacity without producing a higher amount of heat and is suitable for the ESD protection device application.
AB - In this study, an optimal anti-punch-through implant for electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection devices is investigated. By solving a two-dimensional (2D) hydrodynamic (HD) device model as well as a lattice temperature equation numerically, the current density, carrier temperature, and parasitic capacitance of four different device structures are analyzed and compared for suppressing short-channel effects, reducing device heating, and improving ESD robustness simultaneously. The structure difference among these four devices is the location of anti-punch-through implantation; that is: (a) the Type 1 device is the control device without anti-punch-through implantation; (b) the Type 2 device is the device with anti-punch-through implantation under the source/drain extension; (c) the Type 3 device, with anti-punch-through implantation under the deep source/drain junction; and (d) the Type 4 device, with anti-punch-through implantation surrounding all junctions. By comparing these four device structures, we find that the Type 4 device not only has a lower electron temperature (and hence good thermal immunity) but also has a larger current density under an applied high bias. Therefore, this device maintains a higher driving capacity without producing a higher amount of heat and is suitable for the ESD protection device application.
KW - 2D HD simulation
KW - Anti-punch-through implant
KW - ESD protection device
KW - Electron temperature
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038686438&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1143/jjap.42.2152
DO - 10.1143/jjap.42.2152
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0038686438
SN - 0021-4922
VL - 42
SP - 2152
EP - 2155
JO - Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Part 1: Regular Papers and Short Notes and Review Papers
JF - Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Part 1: Regular Papers and Short Notes and Review Papers
IS - 4 B
ER -