-
In the actual HBM test, it is found that the ESD test results of various power MOSFET devices show asymmetry between forward and reverse withstand voltages, while the ESD process does not distinguish between positive and negative directions. Large differences in forward and reverse withstand voltages are unacceptable for power MOSFETs or as ESD protection devices. The problem of its causing device failure is particularly pronounced. In this paper, by establishing the analytical model of gate to source capacitance of SGT-MOSFET, VUMOSFET and VDMOS under the forward and reverse voltages, we comparatively analyze the reasons for the asymmetry of the forward and reverse withstand voltages and their different ratios of the three kinds of power MOSFET, which provides a theoretical basis for the testing of the device's ESD and the analysis of its reliability. It is found that the ESD forward and reverse withstand voltage asymmetry phenomenon of different power MOSFET structures is related to the variation of gate to source capacitance caused by the reverse-type layer. When a forward voltage is applied between the gate and source, the device gate to source capacitance consists of the oxide layer capacitance around the gate in parallel; when a reverse voltage is applied, the gate to source capacitance consists of the virtual gate to drain capacitance in series with the inverse layer capacitance and then in parallel with the other oxide layer capacitance around the gate. This results in a decrease in the gate to source capacitance at the reverse voltage, making the device reverse withstand voltage greater than the forward withstand voltage. The difference in the ratio of ESD reverse withstand voltage to forward withstand voltage for different devices is related to the change in the capacitance of the inverse layer in the gate to source capacitor under reverse voltage caused by the difference in device structure.
-
[1] Jung D Y, Park K S, Kim S I, Kwon S, Cho D H, Jang H G, Lim J W 2023 ETRI Journal. 45(3) 543-550
[2] Mai X C, Chen S L, Chen H W, Lee Y M 2023 Electronics. 12(13) 2803
[3] Yan Y, Lan W, Chen Y, Yang D, Zhou Y, Zhu Z, Liou J J 2022 Advanced Electronic Materials. 8(2) 2100886
[4] Anderson N T, Lockledge S P 2022 ASM International. 329-332
[5] Smallwood J M 2023 Journal of Electrostatics. 103817
[6] Ker M D, Pommerenke D 2022 Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility. 64(6) 1783-1784
[7] Yang L, Yang C, Tu Y, Wang X, Wang Q 2021 IEEE Access. 9 33512-33521
[8] Ji Q, Luo A, Liu Q, Wan B 2023 International Conference on Optoelectronic Information and Functional Materials. 2023 12781 p497-505
[9] Gimenez S P, Galembeck E H S 2023 ECS Transactions. 111(1) 161
[10] Ajay 2021 Silicon. 13(5) 1325-1329.
[11] Hong S Z, Chen S L, Chen H W, Lee Y M 2021 IEEE. Electr. Device. L. 42(10) 1512-1515
[12] Lai J Y, Chen S L, Liu Z W, Chen H W, Chen H H, Lee Y M 2022 Sensors & Materials. 34
[13] Zhu Z, Yang Z, Fan X, W Fan 2021 Crystals. 11(2) 128
[14] Luo X, Xu J, Xu X, Luo H, Dai Z 2022 International EOS/ESD Symposium on Design and System. 2022 p1-4
[15] Arosio M, Boffino C, Morini S, Dirk Priefert, Oezguer Albayrak, Viktor Boguszewicz, Andrea Baschirotto 2021 IEEE. T. Electron. Dev. 68(6) 2848-2854
[16] Su L, Wang C L, Yang W H, Liang X G, Zhang C 2023 Acta Phys. Sin. 72(14) 148501 (in Chinese)苏乐,王彩琳,杨武华,梁晓刚,张超 2023 物理学报. 72(14) 148501
[17] Xi J, Wang J, Lu J, Chen J, Xin Y, Li Z, Tu C, Shen Z J 2018 Microelectron. Reliab. 88-90 593
[18] Su L, Wang C L, Yang W H, Zhang C 2023 Microelectron. Reliab. 143 114950
[19] Tian Y, Yang Z, Xu Z, Liu S, Sun W F, Shi L, Zhu Y, Ye P, Zhou J 2018 Superlattice. Microst. 116 151
[20] Su L, Wang C L, Yang W H, An J 2022 Microelectron. Reliab. 139 114822
[21] Sun J, Zheng Z, Zhang L, Chen K J 2022 IEEE 34th International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices and ICs. 2022 p73-76
Metrics
- Abstract views: 151
- PDF Downloads: 3
- Cited By: 0
下载:
