Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Jagadesh Kumar and Sukhendu Deb Roy, "A New High Breakdown Voltage Lateral
Schottky Collector Bipolar Transistor on SOI: Design and Analysis," IEEE Trans. on
Electron Devices, Vol.52, pp.2496-2501, November 2005
1
Author for correspondence
Abstract: Using two-dimensional process and device simulation, we present for the first
time, a new high breakdown voltage two-zone base extended buried oxide (BOX) lateral
Schottky Collector Bipolar Transistor (SCBT) on SOI with a breakdown voltage as high as 12
times that of the conventional lateral Schottky collector bipolar transistor. We have explained
the new design features of the proposed Schottky collector structure and the reasons for its
suitable in the design of the new generation scaled high voltage Schottky collector bipolar
2
1. Introduction
The concept of Schottky Barrier Collector Transistor (SBCT) has been introduced by
G. A. May [2] so as to minimize the collector storage time, suppress the minority carrier
reverse injection into the base and reduce collector series resistance. Since then the SBCTs
have been a subject of intense investigations for their practical applications in high speed
switching and non-saturating logic circuits or in class-D amplifier stages, and a number of
references [3-18] show adequate treatment on their practical design and implementation both
for small and large dimension devices. However, all these designs were based on vertical
current concept and did not become popular due to the difficulties in integrating them in a
The other class of Schottky collector bipolar transistors recently proposed by Kumar et
al [19-24] is the lateral Schottky Collector Bipolar Transistor (SCBT) on SOI technology.
Their simulation results show that lateral SCBTs have promising applications in high speed
analog and mixed signal circuit designs and especially in nonsaturating VLSI logic circuits on
collector bipolar transistors is their extremely low collector breakdown voltage (VCE ≤ 3 V).
This is because of the presence of an accumulated or depleted space-charge region over a very
small region [1], which produces a high electric field at the Schottky collector-base interface.
In addition, due to the field induced barrier lowering effect and the image force [1],
nonsaturating reverse leakage current becomes large to cause their premature breakdown.
In this paper, using two-dimensional simulation, we demonstrate for the first time that
by applying a combination of a two-zone base region and an extended buried oxide (BOX) in
a lateral Schottky collector bipolar transistor, the collector breakdown voltage can be
3
enhanced by as large as 12 times that of a conventional lateral Schottky collector bipolar
transistor. The proposed, two-zone base region has a high doped base at the emitter side and a
low doped base at the collector Schottky metal side. The doping level of the low doped base is
chosen such that in the absence of an externally applied bias it gets completely depleted. This
reduces the electric field at the metal-base interface, thereby improving the breakdown
voltage. However, breakdown voltage is still limited by the high electric field at the Schottky
below the two-zone base to support the high electric field resulting in a significant
In the following sections, we have explained the proposed device structure, its
possible fabrication procedure and the reasons for its significantly improved breakdown
performance.
The Fig. 1 shows the schematic cross-section of a conventional SCBT, a Two-zone base
SCBT (TSCBT), and a Two-zone base Extended BOX SCBT (TESCBT) structures. The
process steps for realizing the conventional SCBT in the two-dimensional process simulator
ATHENA [25] are similar to those proposed in [19]. In the case of TSCBT structure, a two-
step base implantation process can be used using an additional mask to generate the high
doped and low doped two-zone base region. For obtaining the TESCBT, the process steps are
exactly the same as above except that the starting wafer has the extended BOX, which is
obtained on the handling wafer prior to the wafer bonding or layer transfer process. For all the
structures, an optimized 1.0 μm thick field oxide over the two-zone base is used to facilitate
4
spreading of electric field lines. In addition, the collector Schottky metal electrode on the field
oxide is extended from the collector-base interface and optimized to act as the metal plate
field termination. The doping profiles for the conventional and TSCBT structures obtained by
ATHENA using the above process are shown in Fig. 2. The doping profile for the TESCBT is
The above structures created in the process simulator ATHENA are imported to the two-
dimensional device simulator ATLAS [26] for evaluating their electrical characteristics. The
various models activated in the simulations are Fermi-Dirac distribution for carrier statistics,
Klaassen’s unified mobility model for dopant-dependent low-field mobility, analytical field
dependent mobility for high electric field, Slotboom model for bandgap narrowing,
Selberherr’s ionization rate model for impact ionization and Shockley-Read-Hall (SRH) and
Klaassen Auger recombination models for minority carrier recombination lifetime. The SRH
5.0×1016 cm-3 and for all other concentrations recombination lifetimes are calculated using
Roulston’s equation [27]. For simulating the Schottky junction properties, standard
thermionic emission model is invoked and the image force barrier lowering effect parameter
is included. For a better comparison of the breakdown voltage, the common emitter peak
current gain of all the three structures is chosen to be identical (~30) by an appropriate choice
of the emitter and base dopings as shown in Fig. 2. For each structure, the collector-emitter
breakdown voltage (BVCEO) is calculated at the collector current of 1.0x10-6 Aμm-1. The
Gummel plots and current gain curves for the above structures are compared at VCE=1 V in
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively. The device dimensions and appropriate model parameters used
5
3. Results and Discussion
The output characteristics of the TSCBT and TESCBT are compared with that of the
conventional lateral SCBT in Fig. 5. Clearly, in the case of TSCBT, the breakdown voltage
increases to 13.2 V when compared with that of the conventional SCBT whose breakdown
voltage is 2.3 V. This is an improvement of about 5.7 times. However, the TESCBT exhibits a
breakdown voltage of 28.4 V, which is about 12 times that of the conventional SCBT. This is
not reported so far in literature. This enhancement in breakdown voltage can be understood by
observing the potential contours and the corresponding electric field line crowding for all the
In the case of the conventional SCBT, we notice from Fig. 6(a) that the potential contours
crowd at the base-metal junction. This makes the electric field reach its critical value at the
junction of this device at a lower collector-base reverse bias as shown in Fig. 6(b) resulting in
an early breakdown voltage at 2.3 V. In the case of TSCBT, we observe from Fig. 7(a) that
the potential counters are more uniformly distributed at the collector base-metal junction
because of the lightly doped part of the two-base region. As a result, the critical electric field
is reached at a higher collector-base reverse bias as shown in Fig. 7(b) leading to a higher
breakdown voltage of 13.2 V. However, the potential contours of the TSCBT are still
crowded in the BOX under the base-metal junction. If these potential contours can be more
uniformly distributed, one would expect a further improvement in the collector breakdown
voltage of the SCBT. This is achieved in the TESCBT structure in which the BOX thickness
is extended under the low doped base and metal collector regions. It is clear from Fig. 8(a)
that the potential contours are now more uniformly distributed not only at the base-metal
6
junction but also in the oxide regions. This makes it possible to apply a large collector-base
reverse bias before the critical electric field is reached as shown in Fig. 8(b) resulting in a
breakdown voltage of about 28.4 V for the TESCBT. This improvement in breakdown voltage
is more than two times that of the TSCBT and as high as 12 times that of the conventional
lateral SCBT.
Fig. 9(a) shows the effect of Schottky Metal Extension (SME) on the breakdown voltages
of the TSCBT and TESCBT. We observe that the SME distributes the peak electric field away
from the Schottky metal-base interface. However, it is not as effective as the low doped
depleted base region and the contribution to the improvement in the breakdown voltage by
using SME alone is about 5% and 12% respectively for the TSCBT and TESCBT structures.
Fig. 9(b) shows the effect of increasing the thickness of the extended BOX on the
breakdown voltage. It shows that the breakdown voltage increases with the increase in
extended BOX thickness and finally saturates to a constant value when the BOX thickness is
about 1.8 μm below the bottom silicon-BOX interface. This is expected when both the
components of the electric field are responsible in the avalanche process and hence increasing
the extended BOX thickness beyond a certain thickness does not improve the breakdown
voltage.
4. Conclusions
breakdown voltage for a Schottky collector bipolar transistor not reported so far in literature.
Our proposed structure has a low doped base at the collector side and a high doped base at the
emitter side and also an extended buried oxide below the Schottky metal-base region. We
7
have demonstrated that the above design allows significant improvement in collector
breakdown voltage, which is about 12 times higher when compared with the conventional thin
film lateral Schottky Collector Bipolar Transistor on SOI. We have explained the
improvement in breakdown voltage as due to the spreading of the electric field away from the
Schottky collector metal-base interface into the depleted low doped base and suppression of
vertical breakdown at the Schottky metal-buried oxide interface by the extended buried oxide.
Our proposed structure is expected to have wide applications in the design of high
voltage, high speed Schottky collector lateral bipolar transistors on SOI for the new
generation analog circuits such as the low power RF amplifiers, current and voltage precision
8
References
[01] S. M. Sze, Physics of the Semiconductor devices (2nd Edition) Wiley-Interscience, New
York (1981).
[03] S. C. Blackstone and R. P. Mertens, “Schottky collector I/SUP 2/L,“ IEEE Journal of
Solid-State Circuits, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 270-275, 1977.
[04] F. W. Hewlett, “A compact efficient Schottky collector transistor switch, “ IEEE Journal
of Solid-State Circuits,” Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 801-806, 1979.
[06] S. Hall, L. J. Cornell, W. Eccleston, and J. S. Roberts, “Direct coupled logic using an
integrated, emitter-down, Schottky collector, heterojunction bipolar transistor with a
MESFET load,” Proceedings of the IEE Colloquium on Heterojunction and Quantum
Well Devices: Physics, Engineering and Applications, pp. 19/1 - 19/3, 1988.
9
[13] U. Bhattacharya, M. J. Mondry, G. Hurtz, J. Guthrie, M. J. W. Rodwell, T. Liu, C.
Nguyen, and D. Rensch, “100 GHz transferred-substrate Schottky-collector
heterojunction bipolar transistor,” Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference
on Indium Phosphide and Related Materials, pp.145-148, 1996.
[19] M. J. Kumar and D. V. Rao, "A new lateral PNM Schottky collector bipolar transistor on
SOI for nonsaturating VLSI logic design," IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, Vol.
49, No. 6, pp. 1070-1072, 2002.
[20] M. J. Kumar and C. L. Reddy, “2D-simulation and analysis of lateral SiC N-emitter
SiGe P-base Schottky metal-collector (NPM) HBT on SOI,” Microelectronics
Reliability, Vol. 43, No. 7, pp. 1145-11, 2003.
[21] M. J. Kumar, and D. V. Rao, “A New Lateral SiGe-Base PNM Schottky Collector
Bipolar Transistor on SOI for Non-saturating VLSI Logic Design,” Proceedings of the
16th International Conference on VLSI Design, New Delhi, pp. 489 - 492, 2003.
[22] M. J. Kumar and C. L. Reddy, “A new dual-bandgap SiC-on-Si p-emitter, SiGe n-base,
lateral Schottky metal-collector (PNM) HBT on SOI with reduced collector-emitter
offset voltage,” Conference on Convergent Technologies for Asia-Pacific Region,
TENCON 2003, Vol. 1, pp. 493- 495, 2003.
10
[23] M. J. Kumar, and D. V. Rao, “Proposal and design of a new SiC-emitter lateral NPM
Schottky collector bipolar transistor on SOI for VLSI applications,” IEE Proceedings on
Circuits, Devices and Systems, Vol. 151, No. 1, pp. 63 – 67, 2004.
[25] Athena User’s Manual. Santa Clara, CA: Silvaco International, 2000.
[26] Atlas User’s Manual. Santa Clara, CA: Silvaco International, 2000.
[28] J. A. Appels and H. M. J. Vaes, “High voltage thin layer devices,” IEDM Technology.
Digest, pp. 238–241, 1979.
[29] E. Arnold, “Silicon-on-insulator devices for high voltage and power IC applications,”
Journal of Electrochemical Society, Vol. 141, No. 7, pp. 1983–1988, 1994.
[30] J. Kim, S. Matsumoto, T. Sakai, and T. Yachi, “Breakdown voltage improvement for
thin-film SOI power MOSFETS by buried oxide step structure” IEEE Electron Device
Letters, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp.148-150, 1994.
[31] V. M. C. Chen and J. C. S. Woo, “A low thermal budget, fully self-aligned lateral BJT
on thin film SOI substrate for low power BiCMOS applications,” Symposium on VLSI
Technology, Digest of Technical Papers, pp. 133-134, 1995.
11
Figure captions
Fig. 1: (a) Schematic cross-section of the conventional SCBT, (b) Two-zone base SCBT
Fig. 2. Doping profiles of the TSCBT compared with that of the conventional SCBT.
Fig. 3. Gummel plots of the TESCBT compared with that of the conventional SCBT.
Fig. 4. Collector current versus current gain of the TESCBT compared with that of the
conventional SCBT.
Fig. 5. Common-emitter I-V characteristics of the TESCBT compared with that of the TSCBT
Fig. 6. (a) Potential contours and (b) the lateral electric field distribution for the conventional
SCBT.
Fig. 7. (a) Potential contours and (b) the lateral electric field distribution for the TSCBT:
Fig. 8. (a) Potential contours and (b) the lateral electric field distribution for the TESCBT:
tExtended BOX =1.8μm and Schottky Metal Extension (SME) length=1.5 μm.
Fig. 9(a). Breakdown voltage versus Schottky Metal Extension (SME) length on the field
oxide for the TSCBT and TESCBT structures: tBOX=0.2 μm and tExtended BOX =1.8 μm
Fig. 9(b). Breakdown voltage versus extended BOX thickness to show the effect of extended
BOX thickness on the breakdown voltage of the TESCBT: Schottky Metal Extension (SME)
length=1.5 μm.
12
Table -1. Device parameters
Parameters Conventional SCBT TSCBT TESCBT
SOI thickness 0.2 μm 0.2 μm 0.2 μm
Buried Oxide (BOX)
0.2 μm 0.2 μm 2.0 μm
thickness
Emitter length 4.0 μm 4.0 μm 4.0 μm
Emitter doping level 5.0×1019 cm-3 5.0×1019 cm-3 5.0×1019 cm-3
Peak base Base one doping = 3.0×1017 cm-3
1.0×1018 cm-3
doping Level Base two doping = 1.0×1016 cm-3
Base one width ~ 1.0 μm
Base width 0.6 μm
Base two width ~ 2.0 μm
Substrate doping level 1.0×1015 cm-3 1.0×1015 cm-3 1.0×1015 cm-3
Field oxide Thickness 1.0 μm 1.0 μm 1.0 μm
13
E B C
N+ P
buried oxide
(a)
P-substrate
E B C
Field
oxide
N+ P P-
(b)
buried oxide
P-substrate
E B C
Field
oxide
N+ P P-
(c)
buried oxide
Extended
BOX
P-substrate
Fig. 1
14
20 +
10 N
tSi= 0.2 μm
Net doping [ cm ]
19
10 tBOX= 0.2 μm
-3
18 P
10
17
10
TSCBT
-
16 Conventional SCBT P
10
Schottky
15
metal-base
10 interface
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Transistor length [ μm ]
Fig. 2
15
-2
10 TSCBT
-4 Conventional SCBT
10
φM= 3.34 eV
-6
10 VCB= 1 V IB
IB, IC [ Aμm ]
IC
-1
tSi= 0.2 μm
-8
10 tBOX= 0.2 μm
-10
10
-12
10
-14
10
-16
10
-18
10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Base-emitter voltage, VBE [ V ]
Fig. 3
16
30
φM= 3.34 eV
VCB= 1 V
25 tSi= 0.2 μm
Current gain [ β ]
tBOX= 0.2 μm
20
TSCBT
15 Conventional SCBT
10
Fig. 4
17
1.8 TESCBT
TSCBT
1.6 Conventional SCBT
1.4 φM= 3.34 eV
IC [ x10 Aμm ]
-1
tSi= 0.2 μm
1.2 tBOX= 0.2 μm
IB increment
1.0 5 nAμm
-1
-6
0.8
0.6
0.4 IB=10.0 nAμm
-1
0.2
IB=0
0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Collector-emitter voltage, VCE [ V ]
Fig. 5
18
Conventional SCBT
-1.3 -1.3
Vertical length [ µm ]
-0.3 N+ P M
-0.3
BOX
0.1 0.1
VCE=2.3 V
VCE=0 V
0.4 VCE increment @ 0.25 V 0.4
depletion edge
1.0 P-substrate
1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Lateral length [ µm ]
Fig. 6(a)
19
20 Conventional SCBT
10 +
-1
19 tSi=0.2μm
10
Net doping [ cm ]
tBOX=0.2μm 2.5
-3
5
18
10 P
2.0
17
10 1.5
16
10 1.0
15 Schottky 0.5
10 metal-base
interface
14
10 0.0
4.6 3.6 2.6 1.6 0.6 0
Distance from metal-base interface [ μm ]
Fig. 6(b)
20
-1.5 TSCBT -1.5
-1.3 -1.3
Vertical length [ µm ]
Field
oxide
-0.3 N+ P P- M -0.3
BOX
0.1 0.1
VCE=13.2 V
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Lateral length [ µm ]
Fig. 7(a)
21
20 +
10 N TSCBT 3.0
VCE=13.2 V
-1
VCE increment @ 2.5 V 2.5
tBOX=0.2 μm
Net doping [ cm ]
19
10
-3
Schottky
metal-base interface
2.0
5
18
10 P
1.5
17
10
VCE=2.5 V
-
1.0
16 P
10 0.5
15
10 0.0
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Distance from metal-base interface [ μm ]
Fig. 7(b)
22
-1.5 TESCBT -1.5
-1.3 -1.3
Vertical length [ µm ]
Field
oxide
-0.3 N+ P P- M
-0.3
0.1 BOX 0.1
depletion edge
Extended BOX
VCE=28.4 V
1.9 VCE increment @ 2.0 V 1.9
VCE=0 V
P-substrate
3.0 3.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Lateral length [ µm ]
Fig. 8(a)
23
20 + TESCBT
2.5
10 N
-1
tSi=0.2 μm metal-base
tBOX=0.2 μm 2.0
Net doping [ cm ]
19
10 interface
-3
5
VCE increment @ 5 V
10
18 VCE=28.4 V 1.5
P
17
10 1.0
-
16 P
10 0.5
15
10 VCE=5 V 0.0
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Distance from metal-base interface [ μm ]
Fig. 8(b)
24
29
13.3 TESCBT
Breakdown voltage [ V ]
Breakdown voltage [ V ]
TSCBT
13.2 28
13.1
27
13.0
12.9
26
12.8
12.7 25
12.6
24
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Schottky metal extension length [ μm ]
Fig. 9(a)
25
30
Breakdown voltage, BVCEO [ V ]
TESCBT
28
tSi=0.2 μm
26 tBOX=0.2 μm
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Extended BOX thickness [ μm ]
Fig. 9(b)
26