A Non-Parabolic Six Moments Model for the Simulation of Sub-100 nm Semiconductor Devices
Macroscopic transport models derived from Boltzmann’s equation by using the method of moments are often used to efficiently evaluate the electrical behavior of semiconductor devices. The most commonly used model is the drift-diffusion model which comprises the first two moments of Boltzmann’s equation. In this model the carrier gas is assumed to be in equilibrium with the lattice, an assumption severely violated in submicron semiconductor devices. Hydrodynamic and energy-transport models have therefore been proposed to overcome this limitation. However, these extended models have never been widely accepted as a viable substitute, because for small devices they often do not deliver the expected improved accuracy. Here we present a non-parabolic six moments model which predicts considerably more accurate currents than the energy-transport model down to gate-lengths as small as 40 nm.
Keywordsdevice simulation Boltzmann’s equation moments method macroscopic transport models energy-transport model six moments model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 6.C. Jacoboni and P. Lugli, The Monte Carlo Method for Semiconductor Device Simulation (Springer Wien, New York, 1989).Google Scholar
- 7.C. Jungemann and B. Meinerzhagen, Hierarchical Device Simulation: The Monte-Carlo Perspective (Springer Wien, New York, 2003).Google Scholar
- 8.T. Grasser et al., “Reformulation of macroscopic transport models based on the moments of the scattering integral,” in Proc. Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices (2003) p. 63.Google Scholar
- 9.C. Levermore, “Moment closure hierarchies for kinetic theories,” J. Stat. Phys., 83(1), 1021 (1996).Google Scholar
- 11.E. Wang et al., “Application of cumulant expansion to the modeling of non-local effects in semiconductor devices,” in Proc. Intl. Workshop on Computational Electronics (1998) p. 234.Google Scholar
- 12.H. Grad, “On the kinetic theory of rarified gases,” Comm. Pure and Appl. Math., 2, 311 (1949).Google Scholar