Skip to main content

Differences Between Quantum-Mechanical Capacitance-Voltage Simulators

  • Conference paper
Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices 2001

Abstract

We present an extensive benchmarking comparison of an ensemble of the most advanced quantum-mechanical (QM) capacitance-voltage (CV) simulators available. Quantitative differences in the accumulation capacitance of p-channel and n-channel devices as large as 20% are found in a systematic comparison. Some of the underlying physics and models that lead to the observed differences are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C.A. Richter, A. Hefner, and E.M. Vogel, IEEE Electron Device Letters 22, pp. 35-37 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  2. www-devices.eecs.berkeley.edu/=kjyang/gmcv/index.html.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Lake, et al., J. Appl. Phys. 81 7845-7869, 1997. D.K. Blanks, et al., Proc. IEEE 24th Int. Sym. on Compound Semiconductors (IEEE, New York, 1998) pp. 639-642.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J.R. Hauser and K. Ahmed, in Characterization and Metrology for ULSI Technology Seiler, et al., eds. (AIP, Woodbury, NY 1998) pp. 235-239, 1998. and W.K. Henson, et al., IEEE Electron Device Lett. 20, 179-181, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  5. W-K Shih, et al., UTQUANT 2.0 User's Guide. Austin, TX: Univ. Texas, Oct. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  6. SCHRED was obtained from PUNCH, the Purdue University Network Computing Hubs; http://punch.ecn.purdue.edu

  7. S.-H. Lo, D.A. Buchanan, and Y. Taur, IBM J. Res and Devp. 43, 327-337 (1'999).

    Google Scholar 

  8. E.M. Vogel and C.A. Richter, unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A minimum mesh of the silicon lattice constant (0.271547 nm) is most physically realistic and gives consistent results for NEMO.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Mudanai, et al., IEEE Electron Device Letters 22, pp. 145-147 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Wien

About this paper

Cite this paper

Richterz, C.A., Vogel, E.M., Hodge, A.M., Hefner, A.R. (2001). Differences Between Quantum-Mechanical Capacitance-Voltage Simulators. In: Tsoukalas, D., Tsamis, C. (eds) Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices 2001. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6244-6_77

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6244-6_77

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-7278-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-6244-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics