hv edmos design with expansion regime suppression · 2015-09-15 · ii hv edmos design with...
Post on 29-Jan-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
HV EDMOS Design with Expansion Regime Suppression
by
Jingxuan Chen
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Toronto
© Copyright by Jingxuan Chen 2013
ii
HV EDMOS Design with Expansion Regime Suppression
Jingxuan Chen
Master of Applied Science
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Toronto
2013
Abstract
Lateral Extended Drain MOSFET (EDMOS) is one of the most popular high voltage
structures used to implement modern smart power integrated circuits. However,
conventional EDMOS suffers from an expansion effect of the IV characteristics under
high Vgs and Vds conditions. This greatly degrades the safe operating area (SOA) of the
devices and the performance of the power ICs. In this thesis, effective methods to
suppress the expansion regime without sacrificing the important baseline device
characteristics are introduced and analyzed. Enhancements to the baseline device
structure include the implementation of PBE (P-Buried Enhancement), double implanted
RESURF (Reduced SURface Field), NDE (N-Drift Enhanced) and NBD (N-Buffered
Drain) layers. The optimized design is simulated and verified experimentally. An n-type
EDMOS with BV of 70V, Ron,sp of 48mΩmm2 and no expansion effect until Vgs reaches
5.5V is successfully fabricated and tested.
iii
Acknowledgments
First of all, I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my research supervisor,
Prof. Wai Tung Ng, who has given a great deal of time, valuable advices, and continuous
guidance from the beginning until the final revision of this research. I have been enjoying
working in the Smart Power Integration & Semiconductor Devices Research Group under
his strong leadership. His knowledge and vision in power electronics has been invaluable
for my career development.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards Asahi Kasei EMD. Their technical
support in the device design and fabrication has made the realization of this work
possible. It has been an enriching experience to work with AKPD on this project.
I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students and researchers for many fruitful
discussions over the course of this research as well as their companionship along the way,
namely; Jing Wang, Andrew Shorten, Edward Xu, Jumin Lee, Shuang Xie, Wenfang Du,
Jingshu Yu, Niloufar Hashemi, Zhihua Ning, Ning Yang, Simon Jin, and Weijia Zhang.
Lastly, I would like to extend my appreciation to my fiancé, Patrick Li for his patience,
consideration and encouragement during the past two years. Also, special thanks to my
mother, Huiming Li for her constant support and encouragement throughout my studies.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................. iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii
List of Glossary ................................................................................................................. xii
List of Symbols ................................................................................................................ xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Trends in Power MOSFETs Technology .................................................................. 2
1.2 Later Power MOSFET Design Considerations ......................................................... 6
1.2.1 Quasi-Saturation Effect ...................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 Expansion Effect ................................................................................................. 7
1.2.3 RESURF Principle ............................................................................................ 13
1.3 Research Objective and Thesis Organization .......................................................... 18
Chapter 2 Methods to Suppress the Expansion Regime in EDMOS ......................... 20
2.1 P-body Enhancement Layer .................................................................................... 20
2.2 N-drift Region Design Using Double Implanted RESURF .................................... 24
2.3 Additional N-drift Enhanced Layer and N-buffered Layer ..................................... 28
2.3.1 N-Drift Enhanced (NDE) Layer ....................................................................... 29
2.3.2 N-type Buffered Drain (NBD) .......................................................................... 34
2.4 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 3 Device Optimization with Expansion Regime Suppression ...................... 37
3.1 P-body Region Design ............................................................................................ 37
3.1.1 P-body Implant ................................................................................................. 37
v
3.1.2 LDD Implant ..................................................................................................... 39
3.2 Device Dimensions ................................................................................................. 42
3.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 48
Chapter 4 Device Fabrication and Experimental Results ........................................... 49
4.1 Low Side Device Fabrication Design ...................................................................... 49
4.1.1 Thermal Budget Control ................................................................................... 51
4.1.2 Calibration of the Diffusion Model .................................................................. 51
4.1.3 Simulation Results ............................................................................................ 53
4.2 Experimental Results and Discussion ..................................................................... 57
4.2.1 Threshold Voltage and IV Characteristics ........................................................ 57
4.2.2 Effect of Ldrift Variations ................................................................................... 60
4.2.3 Effect of Implant Dose Variations .................................................................... 62
4.4 Summary ................................................................................................................. 63
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Future Work .................................................................... 64
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 64
5.2 Future Work ............................................................................................................ 66
Reference ......................................................................................................................... 68
vi
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Parameters Modified for Boron Diffusion Model Calibration ......................... 52
Table 4.2 Ion Implant Conditions of the designed EDMOS ............................................. 64
Table 4.3 Key Dimensions of the designed EDMOS ....................................................... 64
Table 4.4 Key Device Performance Parameters Comparison ........................................... 64
Table 5.1 Design Procedures for an EDMOS with Expansion Regime Suppression ....... 65
vii
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Evolution of vertical MOSFET structures .......................................................... 2
Fig. 1.2 Schematic representation of (a) Extended Drain MOSFET (EDMOS) (b)
Lateral double-Diffused MOSFET (LDMOS) ................................................. 3
Fig. 1.3 Modern lateral power MOSFETs technology benchmark: Ron,sp vs. BV ............ 5
Fig. 1.4 Applications for power devices with respect to their voltage and current
ratings ................................................................................................................. 5
Fig. 1.5 Ids vs. Vds curves for a conventional High-Voltage (70V) EDMOS.
Vgs is increased from 2V to 16V ....................................................................... 7
Fig. 1.6 Ids vs. Vds curves for a conventional High-Voltage (70V) EDMOS. Vgs is
increased from 2V to 10V .................................................................................. 8
Fig. 1.7 The cross section of a 70V EDMOS used for simulation. The body contact (p+)
and source contact (n+) are combined and grounded together. The cutline is for
the results in Fig. 1.15 ........................................................................................ 9
Fig. 1.8 (a) Illustration of the parasitic BJT and the two hot spots that appear with the
increase of Vds; (b) the electron and hole flow direction when the impact
ionization at hot spot #2 is initiated .................................................................... 9
Fig. 1.9 Hole current vectors with Vgs = 6V and Vds is (a) 5V (b) 20V (c) 50V ......... 10
Fig. 1.10 Impact ionization rate spatial distribution with Vgs = 6V and Vds is (a) 5V (b)
20V (c) 50V ...................................................................................................... 10
Fig. 1.11 Electron and hole concentrations along x = 5µm (center of the n-drift region)
cutline at Vds = 20V/50V (before and after the impact ionization effect occurs)
.......................................................................................................................... 11
Fig. 1.12 Electric field along the x-direction with Vgs = 6V and Vds = 5V/20V/50V. The
cutline is under the LOCOS as shown in Fig. 1.11 .......................................... 11
Fig. 1.13 Potential profile along the x-direction with Vgs = 6V and Vds = 5V~50V (The
intrinsic drain of the MOSFET is at around x = 3.5µm) .................................. 12
viii
Fig. 1.14 (a) A conventional pn diode structure with breakdown limited by the lateral
p+/n-drift region;(b) A RESURF pn diode structure with breakdown limited
by the vertical n-drift region/p-substrate junction ............................................ 13
Fig. 1.15 (a) Potential distribution and (b) surface E-field distribution of an optimized
RESURF diode when Vds = 150V .................................................................... 15
Fig. 1.16 Surface electric field distribution for different n-drift region layer doping
concentrations (Tepi is fixed at 2.5µm) ............................................................. 16
Fig. 1.17 Surface electric field distribution for different n-drift region layer thicknesses,
Tepi (n-drift doping concentration is fixed at 8 1015
cm-3
) ............................... 16
Fig. 1.18 (a) Double RESURF structure with a p-type top layer; (b) double implanted
RESURF with p-type buried layer (PBL) ........................................................ 18
Fig. 1.19 Basic device structure used in this thesis for simulation .................................. 19
Fig. 2.1 EDMOS structure with p-body enhancement layer to suppress the base
resistance of the parasitic BJT .......................................................................... 20
Fig. 2.2 Ids vs. Vds curves with Vgs = 6V (PBE implant energy = 300keV) ................... 21
Fig. 2.3 Impact Ionization rate spatial distribution with Vgs = 6V and Vds = 50V (a)
without and (b) with the PBE layer (PBE dose = 41014
cm2
) ....................... 21
Fig. 2.4 Electron and hole concentrations at x = 5µm (center of the n-drift region)
cutline with PBE (dose is 41014
cm2
) and without PBE ................................ 22
Fig. 2.5 Ids vs. Vds with Vgs = 0V .................................................................................... 23
Fig. 2.6 The Ids vs. Vds curves with Vgs = 6V (PBE implant dose = 41012
cm2
) .......... 23
Fig. 2.7 Breakdown voltage vs. n-drift dose for single RESURF EDMOS structure ... 24
Fig. 2.8 Electric field contour plots upon breakdown with (a) n-drift dose of 11012
cm2
and (b) n-drift dose of 21012
cm2
......................................................... 25
Fig. 2.9 A double RESURF EDMOS structure ............................................................. 25
Fig. 2.10 Breakdown voltage vs. n-drift dose with varying PBL dose. Here the
implantation energy for n-drift is 300keV and for PBL is 800keV .................. 26
ix
Fig. 2.11 Ron,sp vs. PBL dose with varying n-drift dose. Here the implantation energy for
n-drift is 300keV and for PBL is 800keV ........................................................ 27
Fig. 2.12 Ids vs. Vds curves with different PBL implant doses (n-drift dose = 21012
cm2
at 300keV. The PBL implantation energy is 800keV) ..................................... 28
Fig. 2.13 Double RESURF EDMOS structure with an n-drift enhanced layer and an n-
type buffered drain ........................................................................................... 28
Fig. 2.14 Phosphorus doping profile along the cutline at x = 5µm (around the center of
the n-drift region) with and without the NDE implantation ............................. 29
Fig. 2.15 Ids vs. Vds curves for different NDE dose conditions (implantation energy for
NDE layer = 60keV) ......................................................................................... 31
Fig. 2.16 Electric field along the x-direction with Vgs = 6V. The cutline is under the
LOCOS as shown in Fig. 1.11. ......................................................................... 31
Fig. 2.17 Electron and hole concentration along x = 5µm (center of the n-drift region)
cutline with NDE (dose = 31012
cm2
at 50keV) and without NDE ............... 32
Fig. 2.18 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. NDE implantation dose (implantation energy
for NDE layer = 60keV. n-drift implant is 21012
cm2
at 300keV, and PBL
implant is 1.51012
cm2
at 800keV). ................................................................ 32
Fig. 2.19 Specific on-resistance profile along the surface of the EDMOS during on-state
(Vgs = 5V and Vds = 5V) .................................................................................... 33
Fig. 2.20 Ids vs. Vds curves with and without NBD implant. The NBD implant is
performed at an angle ....................................................................................... 34
Fig. 2.21 Electrical field along the specified cut line for different NBD implants .......... 34
Fig. 2.22 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. NBD implantation dose (NBD implantation
energy = 100keV) ............................................................................................. 35
Fig. 3.1 Illustration of the p-body region of the EDMOS ............................................. 37
Fig. 3.2 Ids vs. Vgs curves for different p-body dose conditions (Vds = 0.1V) ................ 38
x
Fig. 3.3 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. p-body implantation dose (implantation
energy for p-body is 100keV) .......................................................................... 38
Fig. 3.4 Ids vs. Vds curves at different p-body dose condition (Vgs = 6V) ...................... 39
Fig. 3.5 Ids vs. Vds curves for different HV_NLDD dose and PBE implant energy
conditions (Vgs = 6V, PBE dose = 41014
cm2
and HV_NLDD implant energy
= 40keV) ........................................................................................................... 40
Fig. 3.6 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. HV_NLDD implantation dose (implant
energy for HV_NLDD = 40keV) ..................................................................... 40
Fig. 3.7 Specific On-resistance profile along the drift region of the EDMOS structure
during on-state for different HV_NLDD implant dose (Vgs = 5V and Vds = 5V).
.......................................................................................................................... 41
Fig. 3.8 Device structure with labeled dimensions ........................................................ 42
Fig. 3.9 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. Ldrift.............................................................. 43
Fig. 3.10 Ids vs. Vds curves with varying Ldrift (Vgs = 6V) ................................................. 43
Fig. 3.11 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. Lbody ............................................................. 44
Fig. 3.12 Ids vs. Vds curves with varying Lbody (Vgs = 6V) ................................................ 44
Fig. 3.13 Impact ionization rate spatial distribution with Vgs = 6V and Vds = 50V (a) Lbody
= 0.1µm (b) Lbody = 0.4µm ................................................................................ 45
Fig. 3.14 Electron and hole concentrations along x = 5µm (center of the n-drift region)
cutline with Lbody = 0.1µm and Lbody = 0.4µm .................................................. 45
Fig. 3.15 Net doping concentration along y = 0.4µm cutline when Lbody = 0.1µm and
Lbody = 0.4µm .................................................................................................... 46
Fig. 3.16 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. Lac length (all the other dimension parameters
and process conditions remained the same, and Lbody = 0.3µm, and Lg = 1.2µm)
.......................................................................................................................... 47
Fig. 3.17 Ids vs. Vds curves with varying Lac length (Vgs = 6V) ........................................ 47
Fig. 4.1 Process steps for n-EDMOS fabrication in 0.35µm CMOS technology .......... 50
xi
Fig. 4.2 Device structures with (a) LV_NLDD implant only and (b) both LV_NLDD
implant and HV_NLDD implant ...................................................................... 51
Fig. 4.3 Boron implantation SIMS and simulation data (before and after simulation) . 52
Fig. 4.4 Phosphorus implantation SIMS and simulation data (The model is accurate
without calibration) .......................................................................................... 53
Fig. 4.5 Ids vs. Vds curves for different Vgs conditions .................................................... 54
Fig. 4.6 Ids vs. Vgs curve with Vds =0.1V ........................................................................ 55
Fig. 4.7 Ids vs. Vds curve for Vgs =5V ............................................................................. 55
Fig. 4.8 Ids vs. Vds curve with Vgs =0V ........................................................................... 56
Fig. 4.9 Electric field contour plot upon breakdown at Vds = 72V ................................ 56
Fig. 4.10 Measured Ids vs. Vgs curve ................................................................................ 57
Fig. 4.11 Measured Ids vs. Vds characteristic with Vgs varied from 2V to 6V .................. 57
Fig. 4.12 Measured breakdown voltage with Vgs =0V ..................................................... 58
Fig. 4.13 Layout design for the proposed EDMOS ......................................................... 59
Fig. 4.14 Ids vs. Vds curves with (a) Ldrift =2µm and (b) Ldrift =2.3µm.............................. 60
Fig. 4.15 Measured breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. Ldrift variation .............................. 60
Fig. 4.16 Measure threshold voltage vs. Ldrift variation ................................................... 61
Fig. 4.17 Ids vs. Vds with Vgs =5.5V as Ldrift is varied ....................................................... 61
Fig. 4.18 Ids vs. Vds curves for varying PBE implant dose ............................................... 62
Fig. 4.19 Ids vs. Vds curves for varying n-drift dose and NDE dose .................................. 62
Fig. 5.1 Ron,sp vs. BV curves for this work compared with some recent published results
.......................................................................................................................... 66
Fig. 5.2 Proposed high side EDMOS structure .............................................................. 67
xii
List of Glossary
BPSG Boro-Phospho-Silicate-Glass
BJT Bipolar Junction Transistor
EDMOS Extended Drain MOS
CMOS Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor
DMOS Double-diffused MOS
LDMOS Lateral double-Diffused MOS
LDD Lightly Doped Drain
LOCOS LOCal Oxidation of Silicon
MOS Metal Oxide Semiconductor
MOSFET Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor
NBD N-Buffered Drain
NDE N-Drift Enhanced
PBE P-Buried Enhancement
PBL P-Buried Layer
RESURF REduced SURface Field
SIMS Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry
SOA Safe Operating Area
UMOS U-shape Gate MOS
VDMOS Vertical DMOS
VMOS V-shaped Gate MOS
xiii
List of Symbols
BV Breakdown Voltage
E-field Electrical Field
Ec Critical Electric Field
εsi Dielectric Constant of Silicon
Ids Drain to Source Current
Lac Accumulation region Length
Lbody Length of P-body implant layer mask opening under gate region
Lchannel Channel Length
Lg Gate Length
Ldrift Drift Length
Lfp Field Plate Length
Ron,sp Specific On-resistance
Vds Drain to Source Voltage
Vgs Gate to Source Voltage
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Power semiconductor devices play a crucial role in the conditioning and distribution of
power and energy in the world. Their characteristics and limitations are key
considerations in the design of power electronic systems. In recent years, power
semiconductor technology has made impressive progress, greatly benefitting power
electronic systems with increased efficiency and performance [1].
Power switches are essential components of all power electronic systems. The first power
semiconductor switches were the thyristors and the bipolar transistors developed in the
1950’s. Power MOSFETs were introduced in the 1970’s with several advantages over
their bipolar counterparts. They are majority carrier devices, with high input impedance,
high switching speed, ease of paralleling, and superior Safe Operating Area (SOA). This
makes the power MOSFETs attractive for many applications such as industrial and
consumer power supplies, and automotive electronics [1-3].
Lateral power MOSFET is one of the most popular power MOSFET structures since its
fabrication technology is compatible with standard integrated circuit (IC) technology. In
addition, it can be self-isolating, making it attractive for the fabrication of complex high-
voltage ICs (HVICs) and power ICs. Many advancements have already been made to the
design of lateral MOSFET, especially with low on-state resistance and high breakdown
capability using REduced SURface Field (RESURF) technology [2]. However, most
current lateral power MOSFETs, such as the EDMOS devices are still limited by the
quasi-saturation effect at lower voltage and expansion effect at higher voltage operating
condition. The expansion effect, sometimes also referred to as the Kirk effect in power
MOSFETs, could greatly degrade the Safe Operating Area (SOA) of the device and also
the performance of the power electronic circuits [4, 5].
This thesis focuses on effective ways to suppress the expansion effect without sacrificing
the important baseline device characteristics such as breakdown voltage (BV) and specific
on-state resistance (Ron,sp).
2
In this introductory chapter, trends in power MOSFET technology will be reviewed in
Section 1.1; the basic EDMOS design considerations, including the quasi-saturation
effect and expansion effect, as well as the RESURF principle will be reviewed in Section
1.2; the thesis objective and organization will be introduced in Section 1.3.
1.1 Trends in Power MOSFETs Technology
The first power MOSFET introduced in 1970’s is a vertical MOSFET. By using a V-
grove etch and timing the difference in diffusion rates, very short channel (< 1µm) can be
obtained without the availability of fine line photolithography. This structure is known as
the VMOS, and is as shown in Fig. 1.1. The vertical structure is designed to handle much
higher drain currents than the standard MOSFETs. When a positive gate voltage is
applied to the device, the VMOS forms a channel on both sides of the gate. This channel
can be much shorter than the standard MOSFET channel. As a result, the device exhibits
very high drain current per µm of channel width [1].
(a) VMOS Structure (b) DMOS Structure (c) UMOS Structure
Fig. 1.1 Evolution of vertical MOSFET structures.
However, the sharp tip at the bottom of the V-groove creates a high electric field which
would degrade the breakdown voltage. At the same time, the fabrication method for the
V-groove could cause instability in the threshold voltage. Therefore, the VMOS structure
is soon replaced by the Double-diffused MOS (DMOS) structure in late 1970’s. In the
DMOS structure, the sub-micron channel length is produced by simply controlling the
difference between the n+ source and p-base diffusion processes through the same mask
opening. In addition, the incorporation of the drift region greatly improved the
breakdown voltage and provided an effective trade-off with the on-state resistance [1, 3].
3
The UMOS structure, appeared in 1990’s, achieves even better device performance by
using the trench-etch process originally developed for memory cells in DRAM’s. This
greatly decreased the cell size and hence the Ron,sp [3]. In the past two decades, the
vertical power MOSFETs have been further developed based on the improvements in
advanced photolithography, trench technology and vertical super-junction drift layers [6].
Another direction of power MOSFETs development is the lateral power MOSFET
technology mainly aimed for low voltage (less than 100V) and smart integrated power
applications. The main advantage of LDMOS over VMOS is the fact that multiple
devices can be integrated onto the same chip. It can also be designed to be compatible
with advanced VLSI technologies. The ability to fabricate LDMOS devices with modern
VLSI processes makes the prospect of smart power ICs a reality [7].
(a) (b)
Fig. 1.2 Schematic representation of (a) Extended Drain MOSFET (EDMOS) (b) Lateral
Double-diffused MOSFET (LDMOS) [8].
Lateral power MOSFETs could be categorized into EDMOS (Extended Drain MOS) and
LDMOS (Lateral Double-diffused MOS). As shown in Fig. 1.2 (a), the EDMOS with a
thin n-drift region makes the well-known “RESURF” phenomenon possible [9]. At high
drain voltage condition, the lightly doped n-drift region will be fully depleted, and the
positive charge in the depleted n-drift region can be balanced by the negative charge in
the p-substrate underneath. In such case, the more ideal planar junction between the n-
well (n-drift region) and the p-substrate limits the breakdown voltage. This leads to an
effective trade-off between high breakdown voltage and low on-resistance. By
maintaining the charge balance, the breakdown voltage could be further increased by
increasing the n-drift (n-well) length, however, this would result in the increase of Ron,sp
[10].
4
Fig. 1.2 (a) shows the structure of an early EDMOS design. One problem is the premature
punch-through breakdown across the MOS channel that can easily occur due to the
lightly doped p-substrate. The LDMOS employs a lateral double diffusion process to
produce a highly doped and short channel region that could alleviate this punch-through
breakdown. This also, results in a non-uniform doping profile along the MOS channel
[10]. In addition, as shown in Fig. 1.2 (b), the n-type LDMOS structure uses a thick field
oxide and field plate to reduce the surface electric field. This could significantly increase
the breakdown voltage [8]. Therefore, the modern EDMOS structure also implements the
p-body implantation as well as the thick field oxide; which enables much better device
performance.
The merit of modern LDMOS technology is often compared using the vs. Ron,sp plot
as shown in Fig. 1.3. For power switching applications, the driving force for the power
MOSFETs development is always to achieve high blocking capability ( ) and low Ron,sp.
However, there is a trade-off relationship between these two key parameters [11]:
(1.1)
This equation shows a near quadratic relationship between and Ron,sp. A higher than
necessary can result in a significant increase in Ron,sp of the device. Therefore, high
voltage lateral MOSFET always exhibits high on-state resistance. As a result, it is less
area efficient. Modern technologies such as double-RESURF and super-junction concept
were introduced to achieve lower Ron,sp for HV lateral power MOSFET [12, 13].
Compared with the lateral power MOSFET, vertical power MOSFETs have the drift
region located vertically inside the silicon. Hence, a current path can be elongated across
the thickness of the wafer without sacrificing the silicon area. Therefore, a much denser
high voltage layout could be achieved. However, the device’s switching speed is
sacrificed due to the large overlap capacitance between the gate and drain. In addition,
the fabrication technology of the VDMOS is not compatible with the current CMOS
technology due to the bottom drain electrode. Consequently, the VDMOS structures are
not widely adopted for high frequency and low voltage integrated applications.
5
BVdss (V)
10 100
Ro
n,s
p (
m
*mm
2)
1
10
100
1000
STM_BCD6 (0.35um)
STM_BCD8 (0.18um)
Freescale SMOS8 (0.25um)
TI_LBC7 (0.25um)
TI_LBC5 (0.35um)
Si-limit
Fig. 1.3 Modern lateral power MOSFETs technology benchmark: Ron,sp vs. BV [14, 15].
Power MOSFETs are employed in many power electronic applications, such as display
drives, motor controls, automotive electronics, switching power suppliers,
telecommunication circuits and factory automation, etc. Fig.1.4 shows the prominent
application fields for power semiconductors devices with various voltage and current
ratings [1].
Fig. 1.4 Applications for power devices with respect to their voltage and current ratings
[16].
6
The two important applications in below 100V voltage range include switched mode
power supplies for computers, telecommunications or office equipment, and for
automotive electronics. With the proliferation of personal computers, an improvement in
the efficiency of the power supply is essential to reduce wastage of electricity. This will
also lead to a reduction in the size and weight of the computer which is attractive to
consumers. While for the automotive industry; particularly in hybrid, electric, and fuel
cell vehicles. Power MOSFETs are widely used in engine control, vehicle dynamic
control, vehicle safety, and body electronics subsystems in both electric and conventional
internal combustion engine vehicles [1, 3].
1.2 Lateral Power MOSFET Design Considerations
Lateral power MOSFET usually suffers from quasi-saturation and expansion effects. This
section gives a detailed explanation on these phenomena. In addition, the RESURF
principle that can be used for the optimization of BV and Ron,sp is discussed.
1.2.1 Quasi-Saturation Effect
The quasi-saturation effect, also referred to as the compression effect, is one of the
unique effects observed in HV devices due to the existence of the drift region.
As shown in Fig. 1.5, for a conventional 70V EDMOS, at high gate voltages, the increase
in saturation current with increasing gate voltages diminishes, which indicates the onset
of quasi-saturation (reduction in transconductance, gm). This effect does not originate
from the pinch-off of the channel at the drain end, but because of the velocity saturation
in the drift region, prior to the saturation of the intrinsic MOSFET.
This effect is visible when Vgs is high while Vds is lower. The high Vgs causes a significant
reduction in the intrinsic MOSFET channel resistance. The overall device resistance
becomes dominated by the drift region resistance and is relatively independent of the
intrinsic channel resistance. This causes the drain current to be less dependent on the gate
bias at high Vgs and low Vds regime [17, 18].
7
Vds (V)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ids (
A/
m)
0.00000
0.00005
0.00010
0.00015
0.00020
0.00025
0.00030
Vgs=2V
Vgs=4V
Vgs=6V
Vgs=8V
Vgs=10V
Vgs=12V
Vgs=14V
Vgs=16V
Fig. 1.5 Ids vs. Vds curves for a conventional High-Voltage (70V) EDMOS. Vgs is
increased from 2V to 16V.
1.2.2 Expansion Effect
The expansion effect refers to a sudden increase of the drain current at high Vgs and Vds
condition. The name “expansion” is used in contrast to the “compression phenomenon”
which refers to the quasi-saturation effect [19]. As shown in Fig. 1.6, when Vds is
increased beyond 30V, a sudden step up of the drain current is observed when Vgs is
larger than 4V. With further increase in Vgs, this hump or current enhancement becomes
more severe and the SOA of the device is greatly degraded.
The expansion regime is in fact a combination effect of the parasitic BJT structure
turning on and impact ionization. This expansion phenomenon is first addressed as Kirk
effect [4, 20]; and some recent work also addressed the impact ionization effect as the
Kirk effect. However, this is not accurate. Kirk effect is in fact the well-known “base
pushout” effect in bipolar junction transistors. As the collector current increases, the
concentration of minority carriers leaving the base and entering the collector increases
significantly. This minority carrier concentration can exceed the background doping
concentration in the collector. When this happens, the depletion charge on the collector
8
side of the base-collector space charge region is neutralized by the large number of free
carriers entering the collector, effectively eliminating the depletion region and extending
the base region into the collector, hence the name “base pushout”. The outcome is a
sudden increase of the effective base width with a drop in the current gain as well as the
cut off frequency [21]. The mechanism of the Kirk effect in BJT is different from the
expansion effect in EDMOS. Therefore, later on, the name “expansion effect” or
“expansion regime” is used. Some work also refers to this as “current enhancement effect”
or “saturation effect” [5]. There are also works calling it the impact ionization effect
directly [17, 22]. However, impact ionization is only one of the reasons for the expansion
effect. In this work, the name “expansion effect” will be used for simplicity and accuracy.
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
Vgs=2V
Vgs=4V
Vgs=6V
Vgs=8V
Vgs=10V
Fig. 1.6 Ids vs. Vds curves for a conventional High-Voltage (70V) EDMOS. Vgs is
increased from 2V to 10V.
The mechanisms for the expansion effect have already been explored in previous work [4,
19, 23-27]. As shown in Fig. 1.7 and Fig. 1.8, the explanation of the process involves the
parasitic BJT model as well as the impact ionization hot spots due to the peaks in the
electric field distribution. The hot spots generate electron/hole pairs which turn on the
BJT, leading to an increase in the overall current flow. The enhanced current flow
9
produces even more impact ionization hot spots. This regenerative effect will eventually
lead the device to destructive breakdown [5, 19, 23-25].
Fig. 1.7 The cross section of a 70V EDMOS used for simulation. The body contact (p+)
and source contact (n+) are combined and grounded together. The cutline is for the
results in Fig. 1.16.
(a) (b)
Fig. 1.8 (a) Illustration of the parasitic BJT and the two hot spots that appear with the
increase of Vds; (b) the electron and hole flow direction when the impact ionization at hot
spot #2 is initiated.
For a better understanding of the impact ionization process, the hole current vectors and
impact ionization rate contours are extracted at Vgs = 6V and Vds = 5V/20/50V, as shown
in Fig. 1.9 and Fig. 1.10. When Vgs is high (larger than 4V), and Vds is low (less than 5V),
the hot spot for the highest impact ionization rate is at the LOCOS edge near the source
region (hot spot #1 in Fig. 1.8 (a)). The generated hole current flows into the p-body,
creating a forward voltage drop between p-body and n+ source contact (the base and
10
emitter of the parasitic BJT). Therefore, the parasitic BJT is softly turned on and it
injects excess electrons from the source (emitter). These electrons flow into the n-drift
region and begin to cause additional impact ionization near the drain edge (hot spot #2 in
Fig. 1.8 (a)). The hole current flows back to the p-body which further biases the p-
body/n+ junction and the parasitic NPN transistor is now strongly turned on, as can be
seen from Fig. 1.9 (c) and Fig. 1.10 (c).
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 1.9 Hole current vectors with Vgs = 6V and Vds is (a) 5V (b) 20V (c) 50V.
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 1.10 Impact ionization rate spatial distribution with Vgs = 6V and Vds is (a) 5V (b)
20V (c) 50V.
As the avalanche process from the drain edge further activates the NPN parasitic
transistor, the snapback phenomenon may occur. Snapback is disruptive to the circuit
operation and the onset of snapback is usually defined as the boundary of the SOA of the
device.
The electric field profile along the x-direction near the surface of the substrate is as
shown in Fig. 1.12. It is clearly shown that the electric field along the drift region
increases with increasing Vds and the peak electric field is shifted from the channel edge
to the drain edge.
11
Distance along Y direction (m)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
cm
-3)
0.0
5.0e+16
1.0e+17
1.5e+17
2.0e+17
2.5e+17
Electron concentration when Vds=20V
Electron concentration when Vds=50V
Hole concentration when Vds=20V
Hole concentration when Vds=50V
Fig. 1.11 Electron and hole concentrations along x = 5µm (center of the n-drift region)
cutline at Vds = 20V/50V (before and after the impact ionization effect occurs).
Distance along X direction (m)
0 2 4 6 8
Ele
ctr
ic F
ield
(V
/cm
)
0
5e+4
1e+5
2e+5
2e+5
3e+5
3e+5
Vds=5V
Vds=20V
Vds=50V
Fig. 1.12 Electric field along the x-direction with Vgs = 6V and Vds = 5V/20V/50V. The
cutline is under the LOCOS as shown in Fig. 1.7.
12
Distance along X direction (m)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Po
ten
tia
l (V
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Vds=5V
Vds=20V
Vds=40V
Vds=50V
Fig. 1.13 Potential profile along the x-direction with Vgs = 6V and Vds = 5V~50V (The
intrinsic drain of the MOSFET is at around x = 3.5µm).
Fig. 1.13 shows the potential profile along the surface at Vgs = 6V for different Vds values.
It can be seen that when Vds reaches 50V, the intrinsic MOSFET is already saturated. This
is because of the fact that when impact ionization occurs, the generated electron/hole
current causes the conductivity of the drift region to be greatly increased (or the
resistance of the drift region to be greatly reduced). Therefore, the potential of the
intrinsic MOSFET’s drain region (at the junction of the channel and n-drift region) is
increased to larger than Vgs Vth (here Vth is around 0.6V).
It has already been proven that in real devices, the self-heating effect could alleviate the
impact ionization effect to some extent. In large devices where self-heating is more
pronounced, the impact ionization current is suppressed due to the reduced mean free
path at high temperature. However, in small size power devices which are more efficient
in heat dissipation, the self-heating is relatively smaller and the impact ionization effect
as well as the resulting expansion effect is more pronounced [17].
13
1.2.3 RESURF Principle
Single-RESURF
RESURF (REduced SURface Field) technology is one of the most widely-used methods
in the design of lateral high-voltage, low on resistance devices. Traditional high-voltage
devices usually require thick and lightly doped epitaxial layer, which results in high on-
state resistances. In 1979, Appels and Vaes suggested the RESURF concept to provide a
good trade-off between the breakdown voltage and the on-resistance of lateral devices.
The traditional Single RESURF structure (as shown in Fig. 1.14) is constructed by a
lateral diode that defines the on-resistance characteristic of the device and a vertical diode
which supports a depletion region for high breakdown voltage [9].
(a) (b)
Fig. 1.14 (a) A conventional pn diode structure with breakdown limited by the lateral
p+/n-drift region;(b) A RESURF pn diode structure with breakdown limited by the
vertical n-drift region/p-substrate junction.
The electric field at the surface of the RESURF device assumes a parabolic rather than a
linear distribution as often found in conventional high voltage devices. This helps to
reduce the peak electric field on the surface, hence improving the breakdown
14
performance. The condition to obtain a benefit from the RESURF principle is that the n-
drift region must be fully depleted before the lateral diode breaks down [9].
In Fig. 1.14 (b), the breakdown voltage of the lateral diode and the depletion width
extended vertically into the n-drift are given as:
(1.2)
( ) √
( ) (1.3)
where is the dielectric constant of silicon, is the voltage applied to the cathode,
is the silicon critical electric field which is around 3 1015
V/cm. and are the
doping concentrations of the substrate and drift region, respectively. In order to satisfy
the RESURF condition, the n-drift region must be fully depleted before the lateral
breakdown. This requires that:
( ) (1.4)
where ( ) is the depletion width in the n-drift region at breakdown, is
the drift region layer thickness. Combining Equation 1.3 and 1.4; we could obtain the
optimal integrated charge for the n-drift region as:
√
√
(1.5)
In a practical fabrication process, in order to have reasonable control over the thickness
and doping concentrations of these regions, it is essential that the doping concentration of
the n-drift region to be higher than that for the p-substrate [7]. In such case, we
have , and equation 1.5 can be simplified to:
to (1.6)
This equation could be used as a guide line for the single RESURF structure design.
15
(a) (b)
Fig. 1.15 (a) Potential distribution and (b) surface E-field distribution of an optimized
RESURF diode when Vds = 150V.
Fig. 1.15 shows the potential distribution and surface electric field under RESURF
condition when a cathode voltage of 150V is applied. It can be seen that there is parabolic
distribution of the E-field on the surface, and the electric field peaks at the edges of anode
and cathode. Metal field plates could also be used to reduce the electric field peaks to
some extent.
The influence of the n-drift region doping on the electric field strength near the surface of
the device is as shown in Fig. 1.16. The cathode side has higher electric field when the
doping concentration is lower; meanwhile the breakdown voltage is decreased. With the
increase in doping level, the E-field peak will move towards the anode, which is the p+
and n-drift region junction. In such case, the electric field at the anode side exceeds the
critical value of silicon before complete depletion is achieved. Therefore, a premature
breakdown would occur at the surface of the p+/n-drift junction. The optimal condition is
reached when the doping concentration is around 81015
cm3
where the parabolic
distribution achieves the lowest peaks [7].
Distance from Anode to Cathode(um)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ele
ctr
ic F
ield
(V/c
m)
0
5e+4
1e+5
2e+5
2e+5
16
Distance from Anode to Cathode(µm)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ele
ctr
ic F
ield
(V/c
m)
0
1e+5
2e+5
3e+5
4e+5
5e+5
Nepi=5e15 cm-3
Nepi=8e15 cm-3
Nepi=1e16 cm-3
Nepi=2e16 cm-3
Fig. 1.16 Surface electric field distribution for different n-drift region layer doping
concentrations (Tepi is fixed at 2.5µm).
Distance from Anode to Cathode(µm)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ele
ctr
ic F
ield
(V/c
m)
0.0
5.0e+4
1.0e+5
1.5e+5
2.0e+5
2.5e+5
t(epi)=1.5um
t(epi)=2.5um
t(epi)=3.5um
t(epi)=4.5um
t(epi)=5.5um
t(epi)=6.5um
Fig. 1.17 Surface electric field distribution for different n-drift region layer thicknesses,
Tepi (n-drift doping concentration is fixed at 8 1015
cm-3
).
17
The impact of the variation of the n-drift layer thickness on the surface electric field is as
shown in Fig. 1.17. It is obvious that with thicker drift region layer thickness, the E-field
peaks at the anode. The peak will move towards the cathode with the decrease in the drift
region layer thickness. The trade-off between the n-drift region doping and layer
thickness is actually a charge balance issue which is explained previously by Equation
1.6. When the RESURF condition is optimized and the lateral distance is sufficient to
support cathode voltage applied, breakdown would occur at the planar (horizontal)
junction in the semiconductor bulk under the n+ region, which is the only desired
breakdown location.
Double RESURF
Double RESURF structures are formed by incorporating an extra layer with opposite
doping on top of the existing drift region layer. In the previous lateral diode, either a p-
type top layer or a p-type buried layer could be implemented as shown in Fig. 1.18.
Based on the charge balance theory, the doping concentration of the n-drift region could
be increased, which results in the further decrease of Ron,sp. However, the breakdown
voltage will be degraded at the same time.
For the structure in Fig. 1.18 (a), the p-top layer and the underlying n-drift layer are
required to be fully depleted before lateral diode breakdown. The vertical integrated
charge in the p-top layer and the n-drift layer are approximately 11012
cm2
and
21012
cm2
, respectively. This doubling of the drift region charge allows the double
RESURF device to have a drift region resistance that is about one-half that of the single-
RESURF device [28]. There are many extensions of this structure, such as the
implementation of the Linearly Varying Doped p-top layer [29], or the dual conduction
device which makes the p-layer embedded inside the n-drift region [28]. All these
structures require accurate charge control since variation of charge balance may lead to
lower breakdown voltage causing limitations on the device performance [30]. Therefore,
this kind of structure is usually used for very high voltage devices ( a few 100s of volts)
with very long drift region length.
18
(a) (b)
Fig. 1.18 (a) Double RESURF structure with a p-type top layer; (b) double implanted
RESURF with p-type buried layer (PBL).
The double implanted RESURF structure in Fig. 1.18 (b) utilizes the p-type buried layer
(PBL) to ensure full depletion of the n-type drift region so that the doping concentration
of the n-drift region could be increased. The doping concentration of the PBL should be
carefully designed to achieve optimization between Ron,sp and . Here the PBL shares
the same masking layer with the n-drift layer. Comparing with the structure in Fig. 1.18
(a), the structure with the PBL has easier control of charge balance and thus is better for
lower voltage power MOSFETs ( ) with shorter drift region length [31].
1.3 Research Objective and Thesis Organization
The expansion effect will lead the device to a drastic breakdown at the drain. This
restricts the maximum allowable Vds to a lower value as the drain current is increased. In
addition, the generated excess carriers from impact ionization would cause electrical
instability and degrade the reliability of the device [4, 10].
Much effort has been carried out on the explanation and modeling of the expansion effect
[17, 20, 22]. However, there is a lack of discussion on how to effectively suppress this
effect. The objective of this thesis is to provide a systematic approach on how to design a
19
HV EDMOS (less than 100V) with suppressed expansion effect. At the same time, the
breakdown voltage and Ron,sp must also to be optimized. The thermal effect is not taken
into consideration in this thesis and isothermal condition is used throughout all the
simulations.
The basic EDMOS structure used in this work is as shown in Fig. 1.19. A long drift
region is used for sustaining the high drain voltage. The source and body contacts are
integrated together in order to minimize the intrinsic base resistance and improve the
device robustness [10].
Fig. 1.19 Basic device structure used in this thesis for simulation.
This thesis consists of 5 chapters. Chapter 1 gives a brief overview of the research
background and basic modern EDMOS characteristics.
Chapter 2 introduces the effective methods to suppress the expansion effect in EDMOS.
It includes the implementation of a p-body enhancement layer under the source contact,
the n-drift region doping optimization, as well as use of the additional n-drift enhanced
layer and n-buffered drain layer.
Chapter 3 presents the device optimization with suppressed expansion regime. Various
devices parameters will be considered and their impact on the expansion effect will be
explained.
Chapter 4 describes the fabrication process design for the optimized device. Experimental
results will also be discussed.
Chapter 5 presents the conclusions and suggestions for future work.
20
Chapter 2
Methods to Suppress the Expansion Regime
in EDMOS
This chapter describes the most effective methods to suppress the expansion regime in
EDMOS. The contents are organized as follows: Section 2.1 introduces the method of
inserting a p-body enhancement layer. Section 2.2 presents the design procedures for
double implanted RESURF and how it could minimize the impact ionization effect while
minimizing Ron,sp. Section 2.3 is dedicated to the implementation of additional n-drift
enhanced layer and n-buffered layer. Finally, chapter summary will be provided in
Section 2.4.
2.1 P-body Enhancement Layer
The p-body enhancement (PBE) layer was first introduced to prevent the parasitic BJT
from turning on [32]. It was also found that through proper design of the PBE layer, the
expansion effect could be greatly alleviated [25].
Fig. 2.1 EDMOS structure with p-body enhancement layer to reduce the base resistance
of the parasitic BJT.
As shown in Fig. 2.1, the PBE layer with much higher doping concentration compared to
the p-body could greatly reduce the base resistance of the parasitic BJT and hence reduce
the bias between the base and emitter (p-body and n+ source) junction. In such case, the
21
parasitic BJT would not turn on until the base current becomes very large. Therefore, the
snapback effect can be completely eliminated, as shown in Fig. 2.2.
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
Original device w/o PBE
PBE dose 1e14cm-2
PBE dose 2e14cm-2
PBE dose 4e14cm-2
Fig. 2.2 Ids vs. Vds curves with Vgs = 6V (PBE implant energy = 300keV).
From Fig. 2.2, it is obvious that with higher PBE dose, the suppression of the expansion
phenomenon is more effective. This is because the lower the base resistance, the harder
for the parasitic BJT to turn on. This suppresses the impact ionization effect inside the
drift region and the current hump is mitigated. Fig. 2.3 shows that with the presence of
the PBE layer, the impact ionization rate is reduced both at the channel edge and the
drain edge. As a result, there will be fewer electrons and holes generated in the drift
region due to impact ionization (see Fig. 2.4).
(a) (b)
Fig. 2.3 Impact ionization rate spatial distribution with Vgs = 6V and Vds = 50V (a)
without and (b) with the PBE layer (PBE dose = 41014
cm2
).
22
Vgs=6V and Vds=50V
Distance along Y direction (m)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Co
ncen
tra
tion (
cm
-3)
0.0
2.0e+16
4.0e+16
6.0e+16
8.0e+16
1.0e+17
1.2e+17
1.4e+17
1.6e+17
1.8e+17
Electron concentration for device w/o PBE
Hole concentration for device w/o PBE
Electron concentration for device with PBE
Hole concentration for device with PBE
Fig. 2.4 Electron and hole concentrations at x = 5µm (center of the n-drift region) cutline
with PBE (dose is 41014
cm2
) and without PBE.
The impact of the PBE doping has on the breakdown voltage of the device is as
illustrated in Fig. 2.5. With the increase in the PBE dose, the breakdown voltage is
slightly decreased. Further increase in the PBE dose does not seems to have any impact
on the breakdown voltage. It is already well known that higher PBE dose is better for the
suppression of the expansion effect. However, when the PBE dose is very high, several
side effects will arise. First, the extremely high boron dose (in the order of 1014
cm2
or
higher) will cause severe crystalline damage to the substrate and result in un-predictable
out-diffusion of the boron profile. The detail of this effect will be introduced in the
subsequent fabrication design chapter. Second, the high doping concentration of the PBE
layer will increase the electric field at the p-body/n-drift junction considerably. This will
cause the breakdown location of the EDMOS to shift from the bulk region to the p-
body/n-drift junction under the gate. This will give rise to numerous reliability issues.
Finally, the high PBE dose will increase the Vth drastically. As a result, the NLDD (n-
lightly doped drain) dose needs to be increased and a Vth adjustment implantation step
may need to be added in order to achieve proper Vth value. From Fig. 2.2 it is can also be
seen that even with a high PBE dose of 41014
cm2
, the expansion phenomenon is still
obvious when Vgs = 6V.
23
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ids (
A/
m)
1e-15
1e-14
1e-13
1e-12
1e-11
1e-10
1e-9
1e-8
1e-7
1e-6
1e-5
Original device w/o PBE
PBE dose 1e14cm-2
PBE dose 2e14cm-2
PBE dose 4e14cm-2
Fig. 2.5 Ids vs. Vds with Vgs = 0V.
Nevertheless, the implantation energy of the PBE layer could also be adjusted to achieve
better control of the expansion effect. As shown in the Fig. 2.6, when the implant energy
is reduced to 200keV, the expansion effect seems to be greatly suppressed. However,
both the Vth and Ron,sp are increased considerably at the same time. One possible solution
is to increase the NLDD doping or using Vth adjutstment implant to balance the high
concentration of boron near surface. However, this will cause the expansion effect to
deteriorate again. The optimization of the p-body region will be discussed in Chapter 3.
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
PBE implant energy is 200keV
PBE implant energy is 300keV
PBE implant energy is 400keV
Fig. 2.6 The Ids vs. Vds curves with Vgs = 6V (PBE implant dose = 41012
cm2
).
24
It can be concluded that with the PBE layer alone, it is impossible to completely
eliminate the expansion effect without degrading the other performance of the device.
Therefore, other methods are needed to further optimize the device.
2.2 N-drift Region Design Using Double Implanted RESURF
With the p-substrate doping concentration at around 81014
cm3
, the relationship between
the breakdown voltage and the n-drift dose for the single RESURF case can be obtained
as shown in Fig. 2.7.
Breakdown Voltage vs. N-drift Dose
N-drift Dose (cm-2
)
6.0e+11 8.0e+11 1.0e+12 1.2e+12 1.4e+12 1.6e+12 1.8e+12 2.0e+12 2.2e+12
Bre
akd
ow
n V
olta
ge
(V
)
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
Breadkown location is at drain edge near surface
Breakdown location is at channel edge near surface
Fig. 2.7 Breakdown voltage vs. n-drift dose for single RESURF EDMOS structure.
Due to the low doping concentration in the p-substrate, bulk breakdown cannot be
achieved no matter how the n-drift dose is varied. When the n-drift dose is too low, the
peak electric field will be at the drain edge under the bird’s beak of the n-drift region.
When the n-drift dose is getting higher, the peak electric field will shift to the surface at
channel edge adjacent to the n-drift region. From Fig. 2.7, it can be observed that for the
maximum breakdown voltage, the n-drift dose is around 1.51012
cm2
. The breakdown
location is at channel edge under the gate electrode which will cause severe reliability
issues at high operating voltage. The spatial distribution of the electric field upon
breakdown for different n-drift dose is as shown in Fig. 2.8.
25
(a) (b)
Fig. 2.8 Electric field contour plots upon breakdown with (a) n-drift dose of 11012
cm2
and (b) n-drift dose of 21012
cm2
.
To provide an extra degree of design freedom, the double implanted RESURF structure is
implemented. This structure could achieve better trade-off between Ron,sp and the
breakdown voltage. At the same time, bulk breakdown becomes possible. The p-buried
layer (PBL) is obtained through ion-implantation and it shares the same masking layer as
n-drift region. The PBL could also be realized in the form of an epi layer with higher
doping than the p-substrate. However, the ion-implantation approach is more cost
effective. The device structure is as illustrated in Fig. 2.9.
Fig. 2.9 A double implanted RESURF EDMOS structure.
26
The idea of inserting the PBL layer was previously introduced to fully deplete the upper
n-drift layer and thus increase the n-drift doping concentration in a 7-30V EDMOS
application [31]. By optimizing the RESURF charge, the Ron,sp could be greatly reduced.
However, with the increase of the PBL dose, the breakdown voltage will be degraded.
As shown in Fig. 2.10, when the PBL dose is increased to 21012
cm2
, the maximum
breakdown voltage achievable is only 56V. When compared to the case where the PBL
dose is 51011
cm2
, the highest breakdown voltage could be 72V. As can be seen from
Fig. 2.12, the addition of PBL layer would make the expansion effect more obvious.
Fig. 2.10 Breakdown voltage vs. n-drift dose with varying PBL dose. Here the
implantation energy for n-drift is 300keV and for PBL is 800keV.
However, when compared with the single RESURF condition, as shown in Fig. 2.2 where
the n-drift dose is selected to be 11012
cm2
to avoid surface breakdown under the gate,
the suppression on the expansion effect is greatly improved with double implanted
RESURF structure. The on-state current is also greatly increased, indicating a lower on-
state resistance at the same time. In addition, the existence of PBL layer ensures bulk
27
breakdown even with n-drift implant dose greater than 1.51012
cm2
as shown in Fig.
2.10. Therefore, it can be concluded that the double implanted RESURF structure is
superior to the single RESURF structure in this case from the aspect of breakdown
voltage, Ron,sp and expansion effect control.
Ron,sp vs. PBL implant dose
PBL dose (cm-2
)
0.00 5.00e+11 1.00e+12 1.50e+12 2.00e+12 2.50e+12 3.00e+12
Ro
n,
sp
(mm
m2)
100
150
200
250
N-drift dose is 1.5e12cm-2
N-drift dose is 2.0e12cm-2
N-drift dose is 2.5e12cm-2
N-drift dose is 3.0e12cm-2
Fig. 2.11 Ron,sp vs. PBL dose with varying n-drift dose. Here the implantation energy for
n-drift is 300keV and for PBL is 800keV.
Fig. 2.11 illustrates the trend of Ron,sp with PBL and n-drift implant dose variations. It can
be seen that the PBL dose does not have significant impact on Ron,sp and the higher the n-
drift dose, the smaller the Ron,sp. This can be easily understood since higher n-drift dose
basically provides more conducting electrons, lowering the resistance of the drift region.
Based on this conclusion, the optimized combination of n-drift and PBL would be
31012
cm2
and 1.51012
cm2
, respectively. The resulting breakdown voltage is 68.5V
with bulk breakdown. The IV characteristics at Vgs = 6V can be found in Fig. 2.12 (the
line with red square symbol). The control of expansion effect is much better but still
needs to be improved. The Ron,sp obtained based on this selection is 95mΩmm2, which is
28
still a bit high. Therefore, a new structure will be proposed in the next section to further
improve the device performance.
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
PBL dose is 1.5e12cm-2
PBL dose is 2.0e12cm-2
PBL dose is 3.0e12cm-2
Without PBL implant
Fig. 2.12 Ids vs. Vds curves with different PBL implant doses (n-drift dose = 21012
cm2
at
300keV. The PBL implantation energy is 800keV).
2.3 Additional N-drift Enhanced Layer and N-buffered Layer
Fig. 2.13 Double implanted RESURF EDMOS structure with an n-drift enhanced layer
and an n-type buffered drain layer.
29
The new proposed structure is as shown in Fig. 2.13. A shallow n-drift enhanced (NDE)
layer and n-type buffered drain (NBD) layer are added to the n-drift region.
2.3.1 N-Drift Enhanced (NDE) Layer
The main purpose of adding the NDE layer is to alleviate the expansion effect and
meanwhile to further reduce the on-state resistance.
The NDE layer is designed to be under the field oxide throughout the n-drift region, thus
it is sharing the same masking layer as n-drift implant and PBL implant. Ideally, the NDE
layer should be shallow and with high doping concentration (The implantation angle of
the NDE layer is chosen to be 45° and implantation energy is set to be only 50keV).
However, since it has to be implanted before the field oxidation step, the subsequent
thermal budget, which includes the oxidation, annealing etc., would make shallow NDE
layer difficult to obtain. The optimized n-type doping profile of the n-drift region can be
found in Fig. 2.14. Instead of forming an abrupt junction, the NDE and n-drift doping
profiles merge into a steep profile.
Phosphorus doping profile along the center of n-drift region
Distance along Y direction (m)
1 2 3 4
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
cm
-3)
0
2e+16
4e+16
6e+16
8e+16
1e+17
Without the NDE implant
With NDE implant of 3e12cm-2
and 60keV
Fig. 2.14 Phosphorus doping profile along the cutline at x = 5µm (around the center of
the n-drift region) with and without the NDE implantation.
30
With the properly designed NDE implantation, the expansion effect could be further
alleviated, as shown in Fig. 2.15. The reason for this is that the NDE layer greatly
increases the doping concentration along the surface of the n-drift region. This alters the
surface electric field distribution. As it can be seen from Fig. 2.16, with the insertion of
the NDE layer, the peak electric field at the drain edge is reduced while the electric field
at the channel edge is slightly increased; the effect is the same as the one shown in
Fig.1.16 when the n-drift layer dose is varied for the RESURF condition optimization.
Here in this case, the drain edge is the location where the electric field and the impact
ionization rate are highest. Therefore, the NDE effectively reduced the electric field at
this hot spot and the impact ionization effect is suppressed. In addition, this NDE layer
mainly alters the charge distribution at the surface, thus the breakdown voltage of the
vertical diode will not be degraded significantly.
Fig. 2.17 illustrates the electron and hole concentrations at high Vgs and Vds condition
with and without NDE implantation. It is clearly shown that the impact ionization
generated hole concentration is decreased by more than 40% with the addition of NDE
layer, which means that the impact ionization rate at the drain edge is greatly reduced.
From Fig. 2.15 it can be inferred that the higher the NDE implant dose, the greater
suppression on the impact ionization effect could be achieved. However, there is an upper
limit for the NDE dose for any fixed combination of PBL and n-drift implantation
condition based on the charge balance theory. When the NDE dose is too high it might
cause surface breakdown which is detrimental to the device. As shown in Fig. 2.18, when
the NDE dose reaches 41012
cm2
, the breakdown location will shift from bulk to the
surface region at the channel edge. Therefore, the NDE implantation dose should be
carefully controlled to avoid surface breakdown.
31
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
NDE dose is 1e12cm-2
NDE dose is 2e12cm-2
NDE dose is 3e12cm-2
Without NDE implant
Fig. 2.15 Ids vs. Vds curves for different NDE dose conditions (implantation energy for
NDE layer = 50keV).
Distance along X direction (m)
0 2 4 6 8
Ele
ctr
ic F
ield
(V
/cm
)
0
1e+5
2e+5
3e+5
4e+5
Without NDE implant
With NDE implant of 4e12cm-2
Fig. 2.16 Electric field along the x-direction with Vgs = 6V. The cutline is under the
LOCOS as shown in Fig. 1.11.
32
Fig. 2.17 Electron and hole concentration along x = 5µm (center of the n-drift region)
cutline with NDE (dose = 31012
cm2
at 50keV) and without NDE.
Breakdown Voltage & Ron,sp vs. NDE Dose
NDE Dose (cm-2
)
0 1e+12 2e+12 3e+12 4e+12 5e+12 6e+12
Bre
akd
ow
n V
olta
ge
(V
)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Ro
n,
sp
(mm
m2)
80
100
120
140
Breadkown location is at bulk
Breakdown location is at channel edge near surface
Ron,sp
Fig. 2.18 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. NDE implantation dose (implantation energy
for NDE layer = 50keV, n-drift implant is 21012
cm2
at 300keV, and PBL implant is
1.51012
cm2
at 800keV).
Vgs=6V and Vds=50V
Distance along Y direction (m)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Conce
ntr
atio
n (
cm-3
)
0.0
2.0e+16
4.0e+16
6.0e+16
8.0e+16
1.0e+17
1.2e+17
Electron concentration for device w/o NDE
Hole concentration for device w/o NDE
Electron concentration for device with NDE
Hole concentration for device with NDE
33
Another benefit of adding the NDE layer is that it could reduce the Ron,sp. This can be
easily understood since the increase in the concentration of the n-type dopants could
increase the conductivity of the drift region. This is in fact the largest contribution to the
total resistance as demonstrated in Fig. 2.19. However, when the NDE dose is increased
beyond a certain limit (41012
cm2
, from Fig. 2.18), Ron,sp could not be further reduced.
This is due to the fact that when the free carrier concentration is too high, the carrier
mobility will be greatly degraded. According to the equation below, conductivity is
proportional to the product of mobility and carrier concentration.
(2.2)
Therefore, the NDE dose needs to be carefully selected to suppress the expansion effect,
as well as to optimize the breakdown condition and Ron,sp.
L-drift (m)
2 3 4 5 6
Ro
n, sp (
mm
m2)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
NDE dose is 1e12cm-2
NDE dose is 2e12cm-2
NDE dose is 3e12cm-2
NDE dose is 4e12cm-2
Without NDE implant
Fig. 2.19 Specific on-resistance profile along the surface of the EDMOS during on-state
(Vgs = 5V and Vds = 5V).
34
2.3.2 N-type Buffered Drain (NBD)
The region under the LOCOS bird’s beak near the drain contact always has very high
electrical field at high Vds condition due to the triangular shape of the oxide. This high
electrical field is the origin of the detrimental impact ionization effect. The N-type
Buffered Drain (NBD) layer is basically a buffered layer around the drain region with
moderate increase in the doping concentration under the bird’s beak. This enhances the
conductivity and the E-field under the bird’s beak is decreased. This could alleviate the
expansion regime to some extent, as can be seen from the Fig. 2.20.
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
Without NBD implant
NBD dose is 1e13cm-2
Fig. 2.20 Ids vs. Vds curves with and without NBD implant at Vgs = 6V. The NBD implant
is performed at an angle.
Distance along the cut line (m)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Ele
ctr
ic fie
ld (
V/c
m)
0.0
5.0e+4
1.0e+5
1.5e+5
2.0e+5
2.5e+5
3.0e+5
3.5e+5
Without NBD doping
NBD dose 1e12cm-2
NBD dose 1e13cm-2
Fig. 2.21 Electrical field along the specified cut line for different NBD implants.
35
The NBD layer could be implemented after the NDE implant to achieve a graded doping
profile through the thermal annealing process. It can also be implemented after the n+
source/drain implant with a much higher dose since there is not much thermal budget
afterwards. The NBD layer has its own lithography mask which is slightly larger than the
drain region. The implantation angle of NBD is designed to be 45° and the implant
energy is only 100keV to make it a shallow layer. The higher the NBD dose, the lower
the Ron,sp and the lower the breakdown voltage. In addition, heavier NBD dose does not
necessarily provide better control of the expansion effect. Therefore, the NBD layer dose
needs to be carefully designed through numerous simulations.
Breakdown Voltage & Ron,sp vs. NBD Dose
NBD Dose (cm-2
)
0.0 5.0e+12 1.0e+13 1.5e+13 2.0e+13 2.5e+13 3.0e+13 3.5e+13
Bre
akd
ow
n V
olta
ge
(V
)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Ro
n, sp
(mm
m2)
80
100
120
140
Breadkown voltage
Ron,sp
Fig. 2.22 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. NBD implantation dose (NBD implantation
energy = 100keV).
2.4 Chapter Summary
This chapter presented some of the key design methods to control the expansion effect in
the conventional EDMOS.
Inserting the p-body enhancement (PBE) layer was mentioned in some previous work to
effectively suppress the turn on of the parasitic BJT and the subsequent impact ionization
effect. It is demonstrated that increasing the PBE dose or decreasing the PBE implant
36
energy could have better suppression of the expansion effect. However, the PBE dose
cannot be too high in order to prevent the unwanted out diffusion of the boron. This
would cause the threshold voltage to be extremely high and breakdown location to be
moved to be under the gate. The decrease in the PBE implant energy will also increase
the threshold voltage and decrease the on-state current flow.
A double implanted RESURF structure is implemented to achieve the best trade-off
between breakdown voltage and Ron,sp. The inserted P-buried layer (PBL) shifts the
breakdown location to be in the bulk under the drain.
The n-type drift enhanced (NDE) layer is introduced to further suppress the expansion
effect as well as to decrease Ron,sp. The simulation results demonstrated that this method
is very effective. The NDE layer is designed to be a very thin and highly doped layer
under the field oxide which is sharing the same masking layer as the n-drift. The dose of
the NDE layer should be carefully chosen to achieve the optimized breakdown voltage
and Ron,sp.
Another possible way to alleviate the expansion effect is to add the n-type buffered drain
(NBD) layer around the drain region to reduce the electrical field under the bird’s beak of
the LOCOS field oxide. As a result the impact ionization rate is reduced and the
expansion effect is alleviated. However, this method is not as effective as the NDE layer.
37
Chapter 3
Device Optimization with Expansion Regime
Suppression
In the previous chapter, several effective ways to suppress the expansion regime in the IV
characteristics of the EDMOS are discussed and a new structure is proposed. However,
there are many other factors in this device structure which could affect the expansion
effect. This chapter will provide a systematic approach to complete the design of the
EDMOS. Various device parameters will be taken into consideration to suppress the
expansion effect.
3.1 P-body Region Design
The formation of the p-body region includes the p-body implant, PBE implant,
HV_NLDD implant and LV_NLDD implant. In the previous chapter, the effect of adding
the PBE implant has already been discussed. In this section, the design methodology of
the three remaining implantation steps will be introduced.
Fig. 3.1 Illustration of the p-body region in the EDMOS.
3.1.1 P-body Implant
The main purpose of p-body implant is to avoid punch-through between the n+ source
and n-drift region and also to achieve proper threshold voltage. The implantation energy
38
selected for the p-body layer is 80 to 100 keV which is much shallower when compared
to the energy for the PBE implant (200keV~300keV).
Vgs (V)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ids (
A/
m)
0
2e-6
4e-6
6e-6
8e-6
P-body dose is 1e13cm-2
P-body dose is 5e13cm-2
P-body dose is 8e13cm-2
P-body dose is 1e14cm-2
Fig. 3.2 Ids vs. Vgs curves for different p-body dose conditions (Vds = 0.1V).
In Fig. 3.2, the p-body implant energy is fixed at 100keV, the dose is varied from
11013cm
2 to 110
14cm2
. The threshold voltage increases with the dose at first due to the
increased p-type doping concentration near surface. However, when the dose increases
further, the threshold voltage decreases since the heavier dose drives the peak doping
concentration to be deeper. This results in a decrease of dopants near the surface where
the majority n-type carriers flow through.
Breakdown Voltage & Ron,sp vs. P-body Dose
P-body Dose (cm-2
)
0.0 2.0e+13 4.0e+13 6.0e+13 8.0e+13 1.0e+14 1.2e+14
Bre
akd
ow
n V
olta
ge
(V
)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Ro
n,
sp
(mm
m2)
80
100
120
140
Breadkown location is at bulk
Ron,sp
Fig. 3.3 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. p-body implantation dose (implantation energy
for p-body is 100keV).
39
From Fig. 3.3 it can be observed that the dose of p-body implant will not affect the
breakdown voltage when it is controlled within a reasonable range. Ron,sp varies slightly
with the implant dose due to the variation of threshold voltage.
In general, the higher the p-body dose, the better control of the expansion effect due to
the suppression of the parasitic BJT. As shown in Fig. 3.4, this observation is similar to
the effect of varying the PBE implantation. In this case, the lower the implant energy, the
better control of the expansion effect and the higher the threshold voltage.
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
P-body dose is 1e13cm-2
P-body dose is 5e13cm-2
P-body dose is 8e13cm-2
Fig. 3.4 Ids vs. Vds curves at different p-body dose condition (Vgs = 6V).
3.1.2 LDD Implant
There are two LDD implantation steps: LV_NLDD implant and HV_NLDD implant. The
LV_NLDD implant is applied at the same time as for the low voltage CMOS devices, and
it takes place after the gate electrode formation. While the HV_NLDD implant shares the
same masking layer with the p-body/PBE implant and occurs before the poly gate
formation. It diffuses deeper into the channel region and therefore has much more impact
on the device characteristics (see Fig. 3.1).
As discussed in Section 2.1, the location of the peak of the PBE implant has significant
influence on the expansion effect. As can be seen from Fig. 3.5, when the implant energy
40
of PBE is reduced from 300keV to 160keV, the expansion regime is greatly supressed,
but the on-state current and Ron,sp are sacrificed at the same time. Therefore, the
HV_NLDD implant dose needs to be increased in order to maintain the device
performance. Although the heavier doping of HV_NLDD would worsen the expansion
effect, it is still better when compared to the condition with higher PBE implant energy.
Meanwhile, a comparable on-state current could still be achieved.
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
HV_NLDD dose is 2e13cm-2
, PBE implant energy is 300KeV
HV_NLDD dose is 2e13cm-2
, PBE implant energy is 160KeV
HV_NLDD dose is 4e13cm-2
, PBE implant energy is 160KeV
HV_NLDD dose is 6e13cm-2
, PBE implant energy is 160KeV
Fig. 3.5 Ids vs. Vds curves for different HV_NLDD dose and PBE implant energy
conditions (Vgs = 6V, PBE dose = 41014
cm2
and HV_NLDD implant energy = 40keV).
Breakdown Voltage & Ron,sp vs. HV_NLDD Dose
HV_NLDD Dose (cm-2
)
1e+13 2e+13 3e+13 4e+13 5e+13 6e+13 7e+13
Bre
akd
ow
n V
olta
ge
(V
)
45
50
55
60
65
70
Ro
n,
sp
(mm
m2)
50
100
150
200
250
Breadkown voltage
Ron,sp
Fig. 3.6 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. HV_NLDD implantation dose (implant energy
for HV_NLDD = 40keV).
41
As shown in Fig. 3.5, when the HV_NLDD dose increases, the IV characteristics
becomes worse due to the higher current drive which would raise the impact ionization
rate near the drain edge. However, the higher the HV_NLDD dose, the lower the Ron,sp.
As illustrated in Fig. 3.6 and Fig. 3.7, higher HV_NLDD doping could reduce the
resistance in the source side LDD region as more carriers are readily available for
conduction. However, the threshold voltage is lowered, resulting in higher on-state
current. In such case, the design of the HV_NLDD implantation needs consideration with
regard to the trade-off between the expansion effect control and on-state current drive.
L-drift (m)
2 3 4 5 6
Ro
n, sp
(mm
m2)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
HV_NLDD dose is 3e13cm-2
HV_NLDD dose is 4e13cm-2
HV_NLDD dose is 6e13cm-2
HV_NLDD dose is 8e13cm-2
Fig. 3.7 Specific on-resistance profile along the drift region of the EDMOS structure
during on-state for different HV_NLDD implant dose conditions (Vgs = 5V and Vds = 5V).
The energy and tilt angle of HV_NLDD implant only have minor impact on the device
IV characteristics when compared to the implant dose. As for the LV_NLDD implant, it
closely resembles the effect of the HV_NLDD implant, and also with minor impact.
However, since the LV_NLDD implant is already fixed for the low voltage CMOS
device, only HV_NLDD implant can be varied for our design.
42
For a properly designed device, the breakdown voltage is dominated by the drift region. It
can be seen from Fig. 3.6 that within a certain range, the variation of the HV_NLDD dose
will not affect the breakdown voltage.
In conclusion, the design of the p-body region involves the optimization of the PBE, p-
body and NLDD dose, as well as the trade-off between the depth of the PBE implant and
NLDD implant dose. It is possible that there are many different combinations for these
implants to achieve optimized control on suppressing the parasitic BJT and the threshold
voltage values.
3.2 Device Dimensions
In this section, the device dimensions and geometries will be adjusted in order to further
optimize the device. All the dimension parameters are as shown in Fig 3.8.
Fig. 3.8 Device structure with labeled dimensions.
Ldrift represents the drift region length of the n-drift region. Decreasing Ldrift could reduce
Ron,sp but the breakdown voltage will be sacrificed at the same time. In this case, the Ldrift
length must at least 2µm in order to achieve a breakdown voltage of 65V. The effects of
Ldrift variation are as illustrated in Fig. 3.9 and Fig. 3.10. All other device dimensions and
process conditions remain the same as Ldrift is varied. The optimized Ldrift is found to be
2.3µm.
43
Breakdown Voltage & Ron,sp vs. Ldrift Length
Ldrift Length (m)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Bre
akd
ow
n V
olta
ge
(V
)
40
50
60
70
80
Ro
n, sp
(mm
m2)
60
80
100
120
140
Breakdown location is at channel edge near surface
Breakdown location is at bulk
Ron,sp
Fig. 3.9 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. Ldrift.
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
Ldrift=1.5m
Ldrift=2.0m
Ldrift=2.3m
Ldrift=2.5m
Fig. 3.10 Ids vs. Vds curves with varying Ldrift (Vgs = 6V).
Lbody indicates the window opening under the gate electrode region where HV_NLDD/p-
body/PBE doses are implanted. This is an important parameter which determines the
channel length as well as the junction between the p-body region and the n-drift region.
From Fig. 3.11 and Fig. 3.12 it can be seen that the smaller the Lbody, the smaller Ron,sp
and the higher on–state current. However, the expansion regime would become worse. In
44
addition, smaller Lbody may also cause surface breakdown at the channel edge due to the
increased n-type doping concentration at the bird’s beak.
Breakdown Voltage & Ron,sp vs. Lbody
Length
Lbody
Length (m)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Bre
akd
ow
n V
olta
ge
(V
)
40
50
60
70
80
Ro
n, sp
(mm
m2)
60
80
100
120
140Breakdown location is at channel edge near surface
Breakdown location is at bulk
Ron,sp
Fig. 3.11 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. Lbody.
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
Lbody=0.1m
Lbody=0.2m
Lbody=0.3m
Lbody=0.4m
Fig. 3.12 Ids vs. Vds curves with varying Lbody (Vgs = 6V).
45
When Lbody is increased from 0.1µm to 0.4µm, the impact ionization rate at the drain edge
is greatly decreased, as it can be seen in Fig. 3.13. This is confirmed by the amount of
electron-hole pairs generated as illustrated in Fig. 3.14.
Fig. 3.13 Impact ionization rate spatial distribution with Vgs = 6V and Vds = 50V (a) Lbody
= 0.1µm (b) Lbody = 0.4µm.
Vgs=6V and Vds=50V
Distance along Y direction (m)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
cm
-3)
0.0
2.0e+16
4.0e+16
6.0e+16
8.0e+16
1.0e+17
1.2e+17
1.4e+17
Electron concentration when Lbody=0.1m
Hole concentration when Lbody=0.1m
Electron concentration when Lbody=0.4m
Hole concentration when Lbody=0.4m
Fig. 3.14 Electron and hole concentrations along x = 5µm (center of the n-drift region)
cutline with Lbody = 0.1µm and Lbody = 0.4µm.
In fact, as shown in Fig 3.15, the longer Lbody length shifts the p-body and n-drift junction
to the right and makes the channel length to become longer. As a consequence, the on-
state current is reduced and the IV curve hump is alleviated. In addition, the longer Lbody
makes the doping profile at the p-body/n-drift junction to be steeper, and the average p-
46
type doping concentration at the p-body region is also increased. This results in better
suppression of the parasitic BTJ due to the reduced shunting base-emitter resistance.
Net doping concentration along Y=0.4m cutline
Distance along X direction (m)
2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0
Co
nce
ntr
ation
(cm
-3)
1e+15
1e+16
1e+17
1e+18
1e+19
Lbody=0.1m
Lbody=0.4m
Fig. 3.15 Net doping concentration along y = 0.4µm cutline when Lbody = 0.1µm and Lbody
= 0.4µm.
Lac is the accumulation length of the overlap between n-drift region and the gate
electrodes. Fig. 3.16 and Fig. 3.17 describe the effect of varying Lac on the device
performance based on previous optimized condition. It is clear that the breakdown
voltage remains relatively unchanged as Lac is varied while Ron,sp fluctuates a bit with the
changes in Lac. This demonstrates good stability for this design. As observed before, the
Ron,sp always decreases when Lac increases and the sensitivity is really high.
Nevertheless, the expansion control would be better when the Lac is increased as it can be
seen in Fig. 3.17. In fact, the increase in Lac could make the n-type doping concentration
at the p-body and n-drift junction to be higher. In such case, the electric field at the p-
body and n-drift junction is reduced the impact ionization effect will be suppressed.
However, Lac could not be overly long otherwise the actual channel length would be too
small ( ). There should also be some design margin in
consideration of possible misalignment in the real fabrication process.
47
Breakdown Voltage & Ron,sp vs. Lac Length
Lac Length (m)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Bre
akd
ow
n V
olta
ge
(V
)
40
50
60
70
80
Ro
n, sp
(mm
m2)
60
80
100
120
140Breakdown location is at bulk
Ron,sp
Fig. 3.16 Breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. Lac length (all the other dimension parameters
and process conditions remain the same, and Lbody = 0.3µm, and Lg = 1.2µm).
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
Lac=0.2m
Lac=0.4m
Lac=0.6m
Fig. 3.17 Ids vs. Vds curves with varying Lac length (Vgs = 6V).
48
3.3 Summary
This chapter first described the p-body region design, which mainly includes the p-body
implant and the LDD implant, as well as the PBE implant which was introduced in the
previous chapter. It is found that the effect of the p-body implantation resembles that of
the PBE implantation. For example, the larger the dose or the shallower the implant
energy, the better the suppression of the parasitic BTJ. The variation of both the PBE and
p-body implant steps do not have any significant impact on the breakdown voltage or
Ron,sp of the device. While for the LDD implant, the higher the implant dose, the smaller
the Ron,sp. Meanwhile the expansion effect becomes worse with increased LDD dose.
For the optimized design of the p-body region, the desired threshold voltage, the
appropriate on-state current and Ron,sp, as well as suppression of the parasitic BTJ should
all be taken into consideration. Trade-off between the p-type implantation depth and the
LDD dose should be proper managed according to the specific design requirement.
This chapter also documents the impacts of the variation of the device dimensions, which
also serves as a sensitivity check for the so far optimized design. It turns out that the
sensitivity is well under control, within a reasonable range.
In the next chapter, the device fabrication design and the experimental results will be
presented and analyzed.
49
Chapter 4
Device Fabrication and Experimental Results
This chapter focuses on the process development for the designed EDMOS with
suppressed expansion effect as well as optimized device performance. The detailed
fabrication schemes for the optimized EDMOS will be described. In addition, the
experimental electrical measurement results will be presented, and the performance
advantage of the proposed EDMOS structure over the conventional EDMOS will also be
verified experimentally.
4.1 Low Side Device Fabrication Design
The process design for the low side device is based on a 0.35µm CMOS technology
developed by AKPD (Asahi Kasei EMD). The fabrication steps are compatible with the
standard CMOS flow.
Fig. 4.1 illustrates a condensed flow chart for the conventional n-channel EDMOS
process. While the proposed n-EDMOS fabrication process needs just one extra masking
layer for the NBD implantation, and a few more implantation steps (PBL implant and
NDE implant share the same mask with the n-drift implant, PBE implant and HV_NLDD
implant share the same mask with the p-body implant). Originally, there was no
HV_NLDD implant, only LV_NLDD implant step is implemented. The device structure
is as shown in Fig. 4.2 (a). Although the LV_NLDD implant is self-aligned to the gate
electrode, it is verified by experimental results that this structure would cause large
variation of the threshold voltage over the wafer, especially when the dimension of Lbody
is small. However, when HV_NLDD implant step is added, the variation of the threshold
voltage is narrowed even with shorter channel. Another reason for introducing the
HV_NLDD, as explained in Section 3.2, is the fact that the LV_NLDD is already fixed
for the low voltage CMOS devices. Since the threshold voltage of the n-EDMOS would
be too low with only the LV_NLDD implant due to the high PBE implant dose, the
addition of a HV_NLDD step is essential to achieve proper Vth and Ron,sp.
50
Fig. 4.1 Process steps for n-EDMOS fabrication in 0.35µm CMOS technology.
51
(a) (b)
Fig. 4.2 Device structures with (a) LV_NLDD implant only and (b) both LV_NLDD
implant and HV_NLDD implant.
4.1.1 Thermal Budget Control
Thermal budget is defined as the total amount of thermal energy applied to the wafer
during a given elevated temperature treatment. It is proportional to the temperature and
the duration of the thermal process. Low thermal budget is desired in deep sub-micron
and nanometer scale VLSI manufacturing to prevent dopant redistribution, and to reduce
excessive stress between various deposited layers which may cause wafer warp.
The dopant redistribution is one of the major concerns in the EDMOS fabrication process.
In this design, the PBE implant dose is very high (41014
cm2
). Any excessive thermal
budget would cause the boron’s out-diffusion to become un-predictable. Therefore, the
thermal budget needs to be precisely controlled in this case. In addition, the detailed
thermal budget design should be based on experimental trials and extensive process
simulations.
4.1.2 Calibration of the Diffusion Model
The process simulation tool used in this thesis is Tsuprem4. The simulation model needs
to be calibrated based on experimental SIMS data. By adjusting the diffusion and
segregation coefficients for specific dopants in Tsuprem4, we can fit the simulation
doping profile to the experimental SIMS data very well. This procedure is essential in
improving the accuracy of process simulation. The parameters which were modified to fit
52
the actual boron diffusion profile are listed in Table 4.1; and the simulation results before
and after model calibration comparing to the SIMS data for the boron implantation are
illustrated in Fig. 4.3. The original diffusion model for phosphorus is already good
enough to fit the actual SIMS data as shown in Fig. 4.4, therefore nothing is changed for
phosphorus.
Table 4.1 Parameters Modified for Boron Diffusion Model Calibration.
Depth (um)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Bo
ron
Co
nce
ntr
ation
(a
tom
s/c
m3)
1e+14
1e+15
1e+16
1e+17
1e+18
1e+19
SIMS
Simulation data before model calibrarion
SImulation data after model calibrarion
Fig. 4.3 Boron implantation SIMS and simulation data (before and after calibration).
Parameter Calibrated Value Definition
DIX.0 2108 (µm
2/min)
The pre-exponential constant for diffusion with
neutral interstitials
DIX.E 2.98 (µm2/min)
The activation energy for diffusion with neutral
interstitials
SEG.0 1.13103
The pre-exponential factor for segregation at
Si/SiO2 interface
SEG.E 0.96 The activation energy for segregation at Si/SiO2
interface
53
Depth (um)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Ph
osp
hu
rus C
on
ce
ntr
atio
n (
ato
ms/c
m3)
1e+14
1e+15
1e+16
1e+17
SIMS
Simulation
Fig. 4.4 Phosphorus implantation SIMS and simulation data (The model is accurate
without calibration).
In practice, the diffusion model should be calibrated based on different dose conditions
(i.e., in the order of 11012
cm2
, 11013
cm2
or 11014
cm2
) to ensure the accuracy.
4.1.3 Simulation Results
Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 list all the detailed implantation conditions and the key device
dimension parameters for one of the optimized device designs. The target here is to
design an EDMOS with breakdown voltage higher than 65V and threshold voltage is
around 1.3V. At the same time, the Ron,sp should be minimized and the expansion regime
is suppressed as much as possible.
‘Q’ in the last column indicates quad implant. A quad implant is done by dividing the
desired dose into four equal portions, and then repositioning the wafer between each
implantation segment (rotate by 90o every time). This could alleviate the shadowing
effects resulting from implantation with large tilt angles. It also features giving the
symmetry of the zero tilt implant without the associated axial channeling [33].
54
Table 4.2 Ion Implant Conditions of the designed EDMOS.
Table 4.3 Key Dimensions of the designed EDMOS.
unit Ldrift Lg Lbody Lac Lfp
(µm)
Fig. 4.5 Ids vs. Vds curves for different Vgs conditions.
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
Vgs=2V
Vgs=4V
Vgs=6V
Process Dopant Dose (cm2
) Energy (keV) Tilt/Rotation Angle (o)
PBL Boron
n-drift Phosphorus
NDE Phosphorus
NBD Phosphorus
p-body Boron
PBE Boron
HV_NLDD Arsenic
LV_NLDD Phosphorus
N+ source/drain Arsenic
p+ contact BF2
55
Fig. 4.5 to Fig. 4.8 shows the simulation results for the proposed design using Tsuprem4
and Medici. It can be seen that the threshold voltage is 1.3V (Fig. 4.6), and the
breakdown voltage is 72V (Fig. 4.8). The breakdown location is in the bulk, as shown in
Fig. 4.9, the peak E-field upon breakdown is at the junction of the n-drift and PBL. The
Ron,sp is calculated from Fig. 4.7: The on state current is 3.8104
A/µm at Vds = 0.5V and
Vgs = 5V, the area is 5.1µm 1µm (In the 2-D simulation the width of the device is
always 1µm and the length measured from the center of the body contact to the center of
the drain contact is equal to 5.1µm). The simulated Ron,sp is calculated to be 67mΩmm2.
Fig. 4.6 Ids vs. Vgs curve with Vds =0.1V.
Fig. 4.7 Ids vs. Vds curve for Vgs =5V.
Vds=0.1V
Vgs (V)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ids (
A/
m)
0
2e-6
4e-6
6e-6
8e-6
1e-5
Vgs=5V
Vds (V)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Ids (
A/
m)
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
56
Fig. 4.8 Ids vs. Vds curve with Vgs =0V.
Fig. 4.9 Electric field contour plot upon breakdown at Vds = 72V.
Vgs=0V
Vds (V)
0 20 40 60 80
Ids (
A/
m)
1e-16
1e-15
1e-14
1e-13
1e-12
1e-11
1e-10
1e-9
1e-8
1e-7
1e-6
1e-5
1e-4
Breakdown
Location
57
4.2 Experimental Results and Discussion
The experiment data for the simulated design will be presented in Section 4.2.1. The
effect of varying the Ldrift will be demonstrated in Section 4.2.2. Finally, Section 4.2.3
will describe the impact of variation of selected implant doses on the expansion effect.
4.2.1 Threshold Voltage and IV Characteristics
Fig. 4.10 to Fig. 4.12 shows the output characteristics of the fabricated EDMOS with Ldrift
= 2.3µm. The comparison between the measured device performance data and the
simulation results are summarized in Table 4. 4.
Fig. 4.10 Measured Ids vs. Vgs curve.
Fig. 4.11 Measured Ids vs. Vds characteristic with Vgs varied from 2V to 6V.
Vgs increases
58
Fig. 4.12 Measured breakdown voltage with Vgs =0V.
Table 4.4 Key Device Performance Parameters Comparison.
Vth (V) (V) Ron,sp ( )
Simulation 1.3 72 67
Experiment 2 75 54.8
From Table 4.4, it can be seen that the experimentally obtained breakdown voltage is
comparable to the simulation result. However, the threshold voltage is still too high. It is
suspected that the excessive out-diffusion of the PBE implant dopants maybe the main
cause for this discrepancy. During the model calibration, only SIMS data for relative
lower implantation dose are available. Therefore, the SIMS calibration may not be
suitable for heavy implant dose condition. One possible solution is to add a Vth
adjustment implantation step to reduce Vth.
The measured Ron,sp value is lower than the simulated data. This is mainly due to the
layout configuration implemented as shown in Fig. 4.13. In this experiment, the finger
length (or gate channel width) is 40µm and single finger structure is used. The half pitch
size is reduced by putting source and drain contact in an alternating arrangement.
Therefore, the effective device area is reduced. Another reason that may cause higher
simulated resistance is the inaccurate diffusion model for the heavy boron implant dose
condition, which would make it difficult to properly predict the actual IV characteristics.
59
Fig. 4.13 Layout design for the proposed EDMOS.
The IV characteristics up until the breakdown voltage for different Vgs conditions are as
shown in Fig. 4.14. It can be observed that there is no sign of the expansion regime till
Vgs = 5.5V. When Vgs = 6V, a slight hump appears as Vds exceeds 30V. The starting point
of the expansion regime is in agreement with the simulation results shown in Fig. 4.5.
However, the experimental result is much better than the simulation results regarding the
expansion regime suppression due to self-heating. This effect is not modelled in the
simulation.
60
(a) (b)
Fig. 4.14 Ids vs. Vds curves with (a) Ldrift = 2µm and (b) Ldrift = 2.3µm.
4.2.2 Effect of Ldrift Variations
The Ldrift length is varied in the experiment without changing any other device
dimensions and process conditions. Some of the electrical measurement results, including
the breakdown voltage, Ron,sp, Vth as well as the IV characteristics are as shown in Fig.
4.15 to Fig. 4.17.
Breakdown Voltage & Ron,sp vs Ldrift length
Ldrift Length (m)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Bre
akd
ow
n V
olta
ge
(V
)
40
50
60
70
80
90R
on
, sp
(mm
m2)
30
40
50
60
70
80
Breadkown Voltage
Ron,sp
Fig. 4.15 Measured breakdown voltage and Ron,sp vs. Ldrift variation.
61
Ldrift Length (m)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Th
resh
old
Vo
lta
ge
(V
)
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
Fig. 4.16 Measure threshold voltage vs. Ldrift variation.
Fig. 4.17 Ids vs. Vds with Vgs = 5.5V as Ldrift is varied.
The breakdown voltage and Ron,sp are found to decrease as Ldrift is reduced. The decrease
of breakdown voltage with Ldrift follows a rate of 20V/µm. This is in agreement with the
simulation results in Section 3.2. Other than this, the threshold voltage and the control of
the expansion effect almost hold the same when Ldrift is scaled. Since the design target is
only 65V for the breakdown voltage, smaller Ldrift length could be used to achieve smaller
Ron,sp. In this case, Ldrift = 2µm could be selected, with = 70V and Ron,sp of only
48mΩmm2, while there is no expansion regime till Vgs = 5.5V.
62
4.2.3 Effect of Implant Dose Variations
Fig. 4.18 Ids vs. Vds curves for varying PBE implant dose.
Fig. 4.19 Ids vs. Vds curves for varying n-drift dose and NDE dose.
The effect of dose variations for key implantation steps were verified experimentally. As
shown in Fig. 4.18, the increase in PBE dose would result in better suppression of the
expansion effect due to the decrease in the base-emitter resistance of the parasitic BJT, as
predicted by simulation in Section 2.1. In this design, the PBE dose must be at least
4 1014
cm-2
to completely eliminate expansion regime up to Vgs = 5.5V. However, when
the PBE dose is increased, the current drive is decreased due to the increased Vth.
Fig. 4.19 shows that if either n-drift or NDE dose is increased, the expansion effect could
also be alleviated, this is because of the increase in the n-type dopants concentration
improves the charge balance in this case and the peak electric field at the drain edge is
reduced. Therefore the impact ionization effect is suppressed.
63
4.4 Summary
This chapter provides the fabrication process flow, as well as the simulated electrical
characteristics for the optimized low side EDMOS.
The optimized design for the low side EDMOS is verified experimentally. A 70V
EDMOS with Ron,sp of 48 and no expansion effect until Vgs = 5.5V is
successfully fabricated. However, the threshold voltage is higher than expected due to the
excessive boron out-diffusion. This could be solved by adding a Vth adjustment
implantation step.
The effect of Ldrift variation and dose variation for key implantation steps are also verified
by experiment. The measured results are in good agreement with the simulation.
64
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Future Work
In this thesis, the origin of the expansion effect in the HV EDMOS is investigated, and
effective ways to suppress the expansion effect are introduced and experimentally
verified. In this chapter, a brief summary of the thesis and suggestions for future work are
presented.
5.1 Conclusions
The expansion effect, which refers to the sudden increase of the drain current at high Vds
and Vgs conditions in a EDMOS, is originated from the parasitic BJT structure turning on
due to impact ionization effect. There are several effective ways to suppress the
expansion effect. These include inserting a p-body enhancement (PBE) layer under the
source/body contact; implement the n-drift enhanced (NDE) layer in the drift region and
the n-buffered drain layer (NDB) around the drain contact. The PBE layer is the most
effective way since it could greatly suppress the parasitic BJT structure; followed by the
NDE layer which is also very effective in suppressing the expansion regime as well as in
decreasing Ron,sp. The effect of the NBD layer may not be very obvious but it is effective
in decreasing the electric field around the LOCOS bird’s beak beside the drain region.
The expansion effect would greatly degrade the SOA of the device and may cause
breakdown at lower than expected drain voltage. Therefore, for a proper EDMOS device
design, the expansion effect should be minimized. At the same time, the traditional
requirements such as breakdown voltage and Ron,sp should also be optimized. A double
implanted RESURF structure can be used for the drift region design to achieve the best
trade-off between breakdown voltage and Ron,sp; as well as to ensure bulk breakdown to
avoid reliability issues. In addition, the p-body region design is very important for
supressing the expansion regime. The effects of varying various key device dimensions
should also be taken into consideration to achieve desired device performance.
65
The design procedures for the proposed EDMOS with suppressed expansion regime are
summarized in Table 5.1 below.
Table 5.1 Design Procedures for EDMOS with Expansion Regime Suppression.
The designed process flow for this EDMOS is highly compatible with the conventional
CMOS technology. In this experiment, the low side EDMOS was successfully fabricated
with a 0.35µm process flow. A breakdown voltage of 70V, Ron,sp of 48mΩmm2 and no
expansion effect until Vgs is greater than 5.5 V are observed. Fig. 5.1 compares the results
for this work with some previous published EDMOS structures. It can be seen that the
obtained Ron,sp and BV are very competitive for below 100V applications. Furthermore,
Design Steps Purpose
1 Construct the basic EDMOS structure
2 Insert and optimize PBE layer Eliminate snapback and suppress
parasitic BJT
3 Insert and optimize PBL under n-drift layer
to make double RESURF structure
Achieve bulk breakdown as well
as the best trade-off between
Ron,sp and BV
4 Insert and optimize NDE layer Reduce Ron,sp and suppress the
expansion effect
5 Insert and optimize NBD layer
Reduce the E-field under bird’s
beak of LOCOS and alleviate
expansion effect
6 NLDD / p-body / PBE layer optimization
Achieve proper Vth , and the best
trade-off between on-state
current and suppression of the
parasitic BTJ
7 Device dimensions tuning ( Ldrift, Lac, Lbody ) Device optimization and
sensitivity check
8 Thermal budget design
Avoid unpredictable dopants
redistribution such as the
excessive boron out-diffusion of
the PBE layer
9 Design iteration and optimization Further refinements
66
when compared to the previous work, the proposed design has much better control on the
expansion effect.
Breakdown Voltage (V)
10 100
Ro
n,s
p (
mm
m2)
1
10
100
1000
10000
Previous EDMOS
This work
Si-limit
Fig. 5.1 Ron,sp vs. BV curves for this work and other recently published results [14, 34-37].
5.2 Future Work
Future work may take advantage of new structures or new layout configurations to
further optimize the low side device with suppressed expansion effect at higher Vgs
conditions. New techniques could be explored to achieve better trade-of between the PBE
implantation and the desired threshold voltage. In addition, proper modeling of the boron
diffusion with heavy dose and the self-heating effect could also be taken into
consideration to enable more aggressive fine-tuning of the process.
With the successful design and process development of the low side device, the design of
a high side device that can be integrated onto the same chip could be carried out for
future work. Instead of developing a whole new set of masks and process conditions for a
high side p-channel EDMOS, a floating source high side n-channel EDMOS could share
most of the masks and process conditions with the low side n-EDMOS. This reduces the
process complexity and provides more cost saving. The proposed high side device
67
structure is as shown in Fig. 5.2. Based on the experimental results of the low side device,
the characteristics for the complementary high side device should be very promising.
Fig. 5.2 Proposed high side EDMOS structure.
68
Reference
[1] B. J. Baliga, "Trends in power semiconductor devices," Electron Devices, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 43, pp. 1717-1731, 1996.
[2] M. Abouelatta-Ebrahim, C. Gontrand, and A. Zekry, "Design of complementary LDMOS in
0.35 μ m BiCMOS technology for smart integration," EPJ Applied Physics, vol. 57, // 2012.
[3] A. Yoo, "Design, Implementation, Modeling, and Optimization of Next Generation Low-
Voltage Power MOSFETs," PhD, University of Toronto, 2010.
[4] A. W. Ludikhuize, "Kirk effect limitations in high voltage IC's," in Power Semiconductor
Devices and ICs. ISPSD '94. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on, 1994, pp.
249-252.
[5] S. Reggiani, E. Gnani, A. Gnudi, G. Baccarani, M. Denison, S. Pendharkar, et al.,
"Investigation on saturation effects in the rugged LDMOS transistor," in Power
Semiconductor Devices & IC's. ISPSD 2009. 21st International Symposium on, pp. 208-
211.
[6] J. Lee, "Design and Optimization of Power MOSFET Output Stage for High-Frequency
Integrated DC-DC Converters," University of Toronto, 2012.
[7] J. M. Park, "Novel Power Devices for Smart Power Applications," Vienna University of
Technology, 2004.
[8] Y. S. Chauhan, "Compact Modeling of High Voltage MOSFETs," Indian Institute of
Technology Kanpur, 2007.
[9] J. A. Appels and H. M. J. Vaes, "High voltage thin layer devices (RESURF devices)," in
Electron Devices Meeting, 1979 Internationa, pp. 238-241.
[10] P. L. Hower and S. Pendharkar, "Short and long-term safe operating area considerations
in LDMOS transistors," in Reliability Physics Symposium. Proceedings. 43rd Annual. 2005
IEEE International, pp. 545-550.
[11] H. Chenming, "Optimum doping profile for minimum ohmic resistance and high-
breakdown voltage," Electron Devices, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 26, pp. 243-244, 1979.
[12] Z. Hossain, M. Imam, J. Fulton, M. Tanaka, and Ieee, "Double-resurf 700V n-channel
LDMOS with best-in-class on-resistance," Proceedings of the 14th International
Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices & Ics, pp. 137-140, 2000.
69
[13] M. H. Kim, J. J. Kim, Y. S. Choi, C. K. Jeon, S. L. Kim, H. S. Kang, et al., "A Low On-
Resistance 700V Charge Balanced LDMOS with Intersected WELL Structure," in Solid-
State Device Research Conference, 2002. Proceeding of the 32nd European, pp. 367-370.
[14] S. Pendharkar, R. Pan, T. Tamura, B. Todd, and T. Efland, "7 to 30V state-of-art power
device implementation in 0.25 μm LBC7 BiCMOS-DMOS process technology," in
Power Semiconductor Devices and ICs, 2004. Proceedings. ISPSD '04. The 16th
International Symposium on, pp. 419-422.
[15] D. Riccardi, A. Causio, I. Filippi, A. Paleari, L. V. A. Pregnolato, P. Galbiati, et al., "BCD8
from 7V to 70V: a new 0.18µm Technology Platform to Address the Evolution of
Applications towards Smart Power ICs with High Logic Contents," in Power
Semiconductor Devices and IC's, 2007. ISPSD '07. 19th International Symposium on, pp.
73-76.
[16] H. Wang, "Power MOSFETs with Enhanced Electrical Characteristics," Thesis (PhD ),
University of Toronto, 2009.
[17] W. Yao, G. Gildenblat, C. C. McAndrew, and A. Cassagnes, "Compact Model of Impact
Ionization in LDMOS Transistors," Ieee Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 59, pp.
1863-1869, Jul 2012.
[18] A. C. T. Aarts and W. J. Kloosterman, "Compact modeling of high-voltage LDMOS devices
including quasi-saturation," Electron Devices, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 53, pp. 897-902,
2006.
[19] J. Lin, P. L. Hower, and Ieee, "Two-carrier current saturation in a lateral dmos,"
Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices & Ics,
pp. 89-91, 2006.
[20] Z. L. Sun, W. F. Sun, and L. X. Shi, "Modeling Kirk effect of RESURF LDMOS," Solid-State
Electronics, vol. 49, pp. 1896-1899, Dec 2005.
[21] S. Voinigescu, High Frequency ICs: Cambridge University Press 2013.
[22] W. Lei, W. Jun, G. Chao, H. Jian, P. Li, L. Wenjun, et al., "Physical Description of Quasi-
Saturation and Impact-Ionization Effects in High-Voltage Drain-Extended MOSFETs,"
Electron Devices, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 56, pp. 492-498, 2009.
[23] T. Sakuda, N. Sadachika, Y. Oritsuki, M. Yokomichi, M. Miyake, T. Kajiwara, et al., "Effect
of Impact-Ionization-Generated Holes on the Breakdown Mechanism in LDMOS
70
Devices," in International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and
Devices, San Diego, CA, 2009, pp. 214-217.
[24] S. Reggiani, G. Baccarani, E. Gnani, A. Gnudi, M. Denison, S. Pendharkar, et al.,
"Explanation of the Rugged LDMOS Behavior by Means of Numerical Analysis," Ieee
Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 56, pp. 2811-2818, Nov 2009.
[25] C. C. Cheng, H. L. Chou, F. Y. Chu, R. S. Liou, Y. C. Lin, K. M. Wu, et al., "Investigation of
Parasitic BJT Turn-on Enhanced Two-Stage Drain Saturation Current in High-Voltage
NLDMOS," in IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices and
ICs (ISPSD), San Diego, CA, 2011, pp. 208-210.
[26] S. Reggiani, E. Gnani, A. Gnudi, G. Baccarani, M. Denison, S. Pendharkar, et al.,
"Investigation on saturation effects in the rugged LDMOS transistor," in 21st
International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices & ICs, Barcelona, SPAIN, 2009,
pp. 208-211.
[27] P. Hower, J. Lin, S. Pendharkar, B. Hu, J. Arch, J. Smith, et al., "A rugged LDMOS for LBC5
technology," Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Power Semiconductor
Devices & Ics, pp. 327-330, 2005.
[28] D. R. Disney, A. K. Paul, M. Darwish, R. Basecki, V. Rumennik, and Ieej, "A new 800V
lateral MOSFET with dual conduction paths," Ispsd'01: Proceedings of the 13th
International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices & Ics, pp. 399-402, 2001.
[29] H. S. Wasisto, G. Sheu, S. M. Yang, R. O. Sihombing, Y. F. Guo, S. H. Tu, et al., "A Novel
800V Multiple RESURF LDMOS Utilizing Linear P-top Rings," in IEEE Region 10
Conference on TENCON 2010, Fukuoka, JAPAN, pp. 75-79.
[30] M. Imam, Z. Hossain, M. Quddus, J. Adams, C. Hoggatt, T. Ishiguro, et al., "Design and
optimization of double-RESURF high-voltage lateral devices for a manufacturable
process," Electron Devices, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 50, pp. 1697-1700, 2003.
[31] K. Kwang-Young, P. Il-Yong, C. Yong-Keon, Y. Chul-Jin, M. Ju-Hyoung, P. Kyung-Min, et al.,
"BD180LV - 0.18µm BCD technology with best-in-class LDMOS from 7V to 30V," in Power
Semiconductor Devices & IC's (ISPSD), 2010 22nd International Symposium on, pp. 71-74.
[32] J. P. Phipps and K. Gauen, "New insights affect power MOSFET ruggedness," in Applied
Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, 1988. APEC '88. Conference Proceedings.
Third Annual IEEE, pp. 290-298.
71
[33] "Best methods and practice for minimizing beam angle variations on Axcelis ion
Implanters," vol. part number 9511157, ed: Axcelis Technologies, February 2003.
[34] V. Khemka, V. Parthasarathy, R. Zhu, A. Bose, and T. Roggenbauer, "Floating RESURF
(FRESURF) LDMOSFET devices with breakthrough BV" in Power Semiconductor Devices
and ICs, 2004. Proceedings. ISPSD '04. The 16th International Symposium on, pp. 415-
418.
[35] R. Zhu, V. Khemka, A. Bose, and T. Roggenbauer, "Stepped-Drift LDMOSFET: A Novel
Drift Region Engineered Device for Advanced Smart Power Technologies," in Power
Semiconductor Devices and IC's. ISPSD 2006. IEEE International Symposium on, pp. 1-4.
[36] R. Zhu, V. Parthasarathy, V. Khemka, A. Bose, and T. Roggenbauer, "Implementation of
high-side, high-voltage RESURF LDMOS in a sub-half micron smart power technology," in
Power Semiconductor Devices and ICs, 2001. ISPSD '01. Proceedings of the 13th
International Symposium on, pp. 403-406.
[37] H. Wang, A. Yoo, H. P. E. Xu, W. T. Ng, K. Fukumoto, A. Ishikawa, et al., "A floating
RESURF EDMOS with enhanced ruggedness and safe operating area," in IEEE
International Conference on Electron Devices and Solid-State Circuits, Tainan, TAIWAN,
2007, pp. 279-282.
top related