List of Figures

• 2.1. Part of the Periodic Table showing the elements involved in the formation of semiconductors: The elements considered in MINIMOS-NT are highlighted by red background.
• 3.1. Temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity: Comparison between experimental data and the model for Si, Ge, and GaP
• 3.2. Temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity: Comparison between experimental data and the model for InP, GaAs, and InAs
• 3.3. Material composition dependence of the thermal conductivity: Comparison between experimental data and the model for SiGe and InGaAs
• 3.4. Material composition dependence of the thermal conductivity: Comparison between experimental data and the model for InAsP and AlGaAs
• 3.5. Temperature dependence of the specific heat: Comparison between experimental data and the model for Si and Ge
• 3.6. Temperature dependence of the specific heat: Comparison between experimental data and the model for GaAs and AlAs
• 3.7. Temperature dependence of the specific heat: Comparison between experimental data and the model for SiO$_2$
• 3.8. Comparison of different models for the temperature dependence of the bandgap in Si
• 3.9. Comparison of different models for the temperature dependence of the bandgap in GaAs
• 3.10. Comparison of different models for the temperature dependence of the bandgap in InP
• 3.11. Material composition dependence of the $\Gamma$, ${\mathrm{L}}$, and $\mathrm {X}$-bandgaps in Si$_{1-x}$Ge$_x$ at 300 K
• 3.12. Material composition dependence of the $\Gamma$, ${\mathrm{L}}$, and $\mathrm {X}$-bandgaps in Al$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As at 300 K
• 3.13. Temperature dependence of the bandgap in Al$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As with Al content as a parameter
• 3.14. Material composition dependence of the $\Gamma$, ${\mathrm{L}}$, and $\mathrm {X}$-bandgaps in In$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As at 300 K
• 3.15. Temperature dependence of the bandgap in In$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As with In content as a parameter
• 3.16. Material composition dependence of the $\Gamma$, ${\mathrm{L}}$, and $\mathrm {X}$-bandgaps in In$_x$Al$_{1-x}$As at 300 K
• 3.17. Material composition dependence of the $\Gamma$, ${\mathrm{L}}$, and $\mathrm {X}$-bandgaps in GaAs$_{1-x}$P$_x$ at 300 K
• 3.18. Material composition dependence of the $\Gamma$, ${\mathrm{L}}$, and $\mathrm {X}$-bandgaps in Ga$_x$In$_{1-x}$P at 300 K
• 3.19. Temperature dependence of the bandgap in Ga$_x$In$_{1-x}$P with Ga content as a parameter
• 3.20. Bandgaps of all semiconductor materials modeled in MINIMOS-NT: Reference energies for IV group and III-V group materials are the mid gaps of Si and GaAs, respectively, placed at 0 eV.
• 3.21. Comparison with models used in other device simulators
• 3.22. Influence of the dopant material on BGN in n-Si
• 3.23. Temperature dependence of the bandgap narrowing in n-Si
• 3.24. Temperature dependence of the bandgap narrowing in n-GaAs
• 3.25. Influence of the dopant material and material composition in p-Si and p-SiGe
• 3.26. Ge-content dependence in p-SiGe compared to experimental data
• 3.27. BGN in GaAs compared to experimental data
• 3.28. BGN for various n-type binary compounds
• 3.29. Relative masses of electrons and holes in AlGaAs as a function of the material composition
• 3.30. Relative masses of electrons and holes in InAlAs as a function of the material composition
• 3.31. Relative masses of electrons and holes in InGaP as a function of the material composition
• 3.32. Relative masses of electrons and holes in InGaAs as a function of the material composition
• 3.33. Hole mobility vs. doping concentration at 300 K: Comparison between the model and experimental data
• 3.34. Majority mobility in P-, As- and Sb-doped silicon at 300 K: Comparison between MC simulation data and experimental data
• 3.35. Minority mobility in B-doped silicon as a function of concentration: MC simulation data at different temperatures
• 3.36. Comparison of the analytical model and MC data for electron mobility in Si at 300 K
• 3.37. Comparison of the analytical model and MC data for electron mobility in InP at 300 K
• 3.38. Comparison of the analytical model and MC data for electron mobility in GaAs at 300 K
• 3.39. Energy relaxation time as a function of electron temperature: Results from the direct and indirect method for GaAs
• 3.40. Energy relaxation time as a function of electron temperature: Comparison of the model and MC data for Si at several lattice temperatures
• 3.41. Energy relaxation time as a function of electron temperature: Comparison of the model and MC data for Ge
• 3.42. Energy relaxation time as a function of electron temperature: Comparison of the model and MC data GaAs at several lattice temperatures
• 3.43. Energy relaxation time as a function of electron temperature for different Al contents in AlGaAs at room temperature
• 3.44. Energy relaxation time as a function of electron temperature for different In contents in InGaAs at room temperature
• 4.1. Simulated HBT test structure
• 4.2. Current gain vs. collector current
• 4.3. Cutoff frequency vs. collector current
• 4.4. Gummel plots at ${ \mathrm {V_{CE}}}$ = 2 V for Mod. 1 and Mod. 2
• 4.5. Current gain versus collector current for Mod. 1 and Mod. 2
• 4.6. The HBT structure and electron temperature distribution in the device: Simulation results at V$_\mathrm {BE}$ = 0.87 V and V$_\mathrm {CE}$ = 1 V
• 4.7. CML ring oscillator circuit
• 4.8. Comparison of DD vs. HD transient response
• 4.9. Simulated device structure of five SiGe HBTs
• 4.10. Forward Gummel plots at V$_\mathrm {BC}$ = 0 V: Study of different effects in a Si$_{0.84}$Ge$_{0.16}$ HBT
• 4.11. Forward Gummel plots at V$_\mathrm {BC}$ = 0 V: Comparison between simulation and measurement for different material contents
• 4.12. Boron profile in the base region: Comparison between specification and SIMS data
• 4.13. Simulated device structure of AlGaAs/GaAs HBT
• 4.14. Simulated device structure of InGaP/GaAs HBT
• 4.15. Forward Gummel plots at V $_{\mathrm {CB}}$ = 0 V for Dev. 1: Comparison with measurement data at 296 K
• 4.16. Forward Gummel plots at V$_\mathrm {CB}$ = 0 V for Dev. 2: Comparison with measurement data at 296 K and 376 K
• 4.17. Forward Gummel plots at V $_{\mathrm {CB}}$ = 0 V for Dev. 4: Comparison with measurement data
• 4.18. Reverse Gummel plots at V $_{\mathrm {CB}}$ = 0 V for Dev. 4: Comparison with measurement data at 293 K and 373 K
• 4.19. Output characteristics for Dev. 3: Simulation with and without self-heating compared to measurement data
• 4.20. Intrinsic device temperature vs. V $_{\mathrm {CE}}$ for Dev. 3
• 4.21. Electron temperature distribution [K] at V$_\mathrm {CE}$ = V$_\mathrm {BE}$ = 1.6 V
• 4.22. Lattice temperature distribution [K] at V$_\mathrm {CE}$ = 6.0 V and V$_\mathrm {BE}$ = 1.45 V: A substrate thermal contact with $R_{\mathrm{T}}$=400 K/W is added.
• 4.23. T-like eight-element small-signal HBT equivalent circuit used for S-parameter calculation
• 4.24. S-parameters in a combined Smith chart (S$_{11}$ and S$_{22}$) and a polar graph (S$_{21}$ and S$_{12}$) from 0 to 20 GHz at V$_\mathrm {CE}$ = 3 V, I$_\mathrm {C}$ = 22 mA: Simulation (solid lines) vs. experiment (dashed lines)
• 4.25. S-parameters in a combined Smith chart (S$_{11}$ and S$_{22}$) and a polar graph (S$_{21}$ and S$_{12}$) from 0 to 20 GHz at V$_\mathrm {CE}$ = 3 V, I$_\mathrm {C}$ = 22 mA: Simulation (solid lines) vs. experiment (dashed lines)
• 4.26. Cutoff frequencies vs. base width
• 4.27. Cutoff frequencies vs. ambient temperature
• 4.28. Hole current density [A/cm$^2$]: Leakage path near the Si$_3$N$_4$ interface occurring in the presence of negative charges
• 4.29. Dependence of I $_{\mathrm {B}}$ on the InGaP ledge thickness compared to measurement
• 4.30. Electron current density [A/cm$^2$] at V $_{\mathrm {BE}}$=1.2V: Simulation without surface charges
• 4.31. Electron and hole distribution in the ledge: Simulation without surface charges
• 4.32. Dependence of I $_{\mathrm {B}}$ on the negative charge density at the ledge/nitride interface with d = 40 nm: A charge density of $10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ is sufficient to get good fit to the measurements
• 4.33. Electron current density [A/cm$^2$] at V $_{\mathrm {BE}}$=1.2V: Simulation with a surface charge density of $10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$
• 4.34. Electron and hole distribution in the ledge: Simulation with a surface charge density of $10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$
• 4.35. Forward Gummel plots at V $_{\mathrm {CB}}$ = 0 V: Comparison between measurement (symbols) and simulation (lines) before (filled) and after (open) HBT aging.
• 4.36. Electron current density [A/cm$^2$] at V $_{\mathrm {BE}}$=1.2V: Simulation with a surface charge density of $4.10^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$
• 4.37. Electron and hole distribution in the ledge: Simulation with a surface charge density of $4.10^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$
• 4.38. Electron current density [A/cm$^2$]: Simulation of emitter contact detachment
• 4.39. Electron current density [A/cm$^2$] at V$_\mathrm {BE}$=1.2 V: Simulation without surface charges
• 4.40. Electron current density [A/cm$^2$] at V$_\mathrm {BE}$=1.2 V: Simulation with surface charge density of $10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$
• 4.41. Device structure and net doping profile (absolute value)
• 4.42. Electron current density at V $_{\mathrm {BE}}$ = 1.5 V
• 4.43. Measured and simulated forward Gummel plot at V$_\mathrm {BC}$ = 0 V at 300 K
• 4.44. Current gain vs. collector current
• 4.45. Simulation with SH (solid lines) and without SH (dashed lines) compared to measurement data (symbols)