Modeling and Simulation of the Threshold

Voltage of Double Gate and Cylindrical Gate

Strained-Si/SiGe MOSFETs

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the degree of
Bachelor of Technology

by
Tarun Vir Singh
2003EE10347

Under the supervision of

Dr. M. Jagadesh Kumar

Department of Electrical Engineering,

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
May, 2007
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Modeling and Simulation of the Threshold

Voltage of Double Gate and Cylindrical Gate Strained-Si/SiGe MOSFETs” being

submitted by Tarun Vir Singh to the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, for the award

of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Electrical Engineering Department is a bona

fide work carried out by him under my supervision and guidance. The research reports

and the results presented in this thesis have not been submitted in parts or in full to any

other University or Institute for the award of any other degree or diploma.

Date: 30-05-2007 Dr. M. Jagadesh Kumar

Place: IIT Delhi Professor
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
New Delhi - 110016

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. M. Jagadesh Kumar for his

invaluable guidance and advice during every stage of this endeavor. I am greatly indebted

to him for his continuing encouragement and support without which, it would not have

been possible for me to complete this undertaking successfully. His insightful comments

and suggestions have continually helped me to improve my understanding.

I also wish to express my sincere thanks and acknowledgements to all those who directly

or indirectly assisted me in completion of this work.

Tarun Vir Singh

 ABSTRACT

We have demonstrated for the first time, the effect of quantum confinement of

carriers on the threshold voltage of strained-silicon (s-Si) nanoscale MOSFETs. Using

results from quantum theory and two-dimensional simulation, we show that strain-

induced threshold voltage roll-off in s-Si nanoscale MOSFETs can be overcome by

decreasing s-Si layer thickness. Based on our simulation study, we provide an

optimization between threshold voltage, strain and s-Si layer thickness.

A new analytical model for the threshold voltage (Vth) of fully depleted vertical

surrounding gate strained-Si/SiGe MOSFETs is developed by solving the 2-D Poisson

equation. Our model includes the effects of strain (Ge mole fraction in SiGe pillar), short-

channel length, pillar diameter, strained silicon thin film thickness, pillar doping, gate

work function and other device parameters. The model correctly predicts a decrease in

threshold voltage with increasing strain in the strained-silicon (s-Si) layer, i.e. with

increasing Ge concentration in the SiGe pillar. The results obtained using our analytical

model are verified using two-dimensional device simulations.

In order to obtain a more accurate threshold voltage model for the vertical

surrounding gate strained-Si/SiGe MOSFETs, we have tried to relax certain assumptions

made during developing the model. In particular, we have tried to include the electron

charge term in the Poisson equation. Although, we could not succeed in our ultimate goal

of deriving an accurate, compact threshold voltage model, the analysis provided a useful

insight into the issues involved in threshold voltage modeling of such devices.

We have demonstrated for the first time, the effect of strain on the conduction

path in cylindrical, strained-silicon (s-Si) MOSFETs. Using two-dimensional simulation,

4
we show that for low values of strain, the current flows in the middle of the cylindrical,

i.e. in the SiGe pillar and not in the s-Si layer at the surface. Only for large values of

strain does the current flow through the s-Si layer enabling the mobility enhancement of

carriers. Based on our simulation study, we provide the minimum amount of strain

necessary in a device for the current to flow through the s-Si layer.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE………………………………………………………………………......2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………..….3
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………..….4
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………..….6
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………......8
LIST OF FIGURES………..………………………………………………………….….9

CHAPTER 1……………………………………………………………………………11
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Advantages of Strained-Silicon MOSFETs……………………………...…..11
1.2 Advantages of Double and Cylindrical Gate MOSFETs………………….....11
1.3 Recent Research Relevant to the Problem……………….…………………..11
1.4 Objectives of the Thesis………………………………………………….…..12
1.5 Thesis Organization……………………………………………………..…...12

CHAPTER 2……………………………………………………………………….....…14
THRESHOLD VOLTAGE OPTIMIZATION IN STRAINED-SILICON MOSFETS
USING QUANTUM CONFINEMENT EFFECT
2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….….14
2.2 Effect of Quantum Confinement on the Bandgap of Strained-Silicon………15
2.3 Quantum Confinement Simulations……………………………………....….17
2.4 Results and Discussion……………………………………………………....19
2.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………..….23

CHAPTER 3………………………………………………………………….…………24
COMPACT THRESHOLD VOLTAGE MODEL OF VERTICAL SURROUNDING
GATE STRAINED-SILICON/SiGe MOSFETS
3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..24
3.2 Effect of Strain………………………………………………………….……25
3.3 Simplifying Assumptions……………………………………...…….….…...27
3.4 Threshold Voltage Model…………………………………………….…...…29

6
 3.5 Results and Discussion………………………………………………....…...34
3.6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..38

CHAPTER 4……………………………………………………………………………40
THRESHOLD VOLTAGE MODELING OF VERTICAL SURROUNDING GATE
STRAINED-SILICON/SiGe MOSFETS WITH CARRIER CHARGE TERM
INCLUDED IN THE POISSON EQUATION
4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….…40
4.2 Approach 1………………………………………………………………...…40
4.3 Approach 2……………………………………………………………….…..42
4.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...……44

CHAPTER 5……………………………………………………………………………45
EFFECT OF STRAIN ON THE CONDUCTION PATH IN CYLINDRICAL
STRAINED-SILICON MOSFETS
5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….…45
5.2 Effect of Strain……………………………………………….…………...…46
5.3 Minimum Required Strain……………………………………………….…..48
5.4 Results and Discussion..………………………………………………..……50
5.5 Conclusions………………………………………………………………….52

CHAPTER 6………………………………………………………………………...…..53
CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………………...…53
SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK…………………………………………………………55
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………..……...….56
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..60

7
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Device parameters used for the simulation of the s-Si MOSFETs. 17
Device parameters used in the model and the simulation of the
3.1 33
vertical, surrounding gate s-Si/SiGe MOSFETs.
Device parameters used for the simulation of the cylindrical s-Si
5.1 50
MOSFETs.

8
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 Cross-sectional view of the strained-Si on SGOI MOSFET. 15

Energy band diagram of the structure in Fig. 2.1 (along the middle
2.2 16
of the device in the Y-direction)
Electron concentration profile along the middle of the device in the
2.3 19
Y-direction.
Electron concentration profile along the middle of the strained-
2.4 20
Silicon layer in the X-direction.
Variation of the threshold voltage with strained-Si film thicknesses
2.5 21
for different values of strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film).
Variation of the threshold voltage with strain x (Ge content in the
2.6 22
SiGe film) for different strained-Si film thicknesses.
The relation between strain x and strained-Si film thickness t s − Si for
2.7 23
constant threshold voltages.
Cross-sectional view of the strained-Si vertical surrounding gate
3.1 27
MOSFET.
Electron concentration profile along the channel for three different
3.2 34
values of the gate voltage.
Variation of the threshold voltage with channel length for different
3.3 35
values of strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film).
Variation of the threshold voltage with strained-Si film thicknesses
3.4 36
for different values of strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film).
Variation of the threshold voltage with SiGe pillar radius for
3.5 37
different values of strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film).
Variation of the threshold voltage with strain x (Ge content in the
3.6 38
SiGe film) for different channel lengths.
Cross-sectional view of the strained-Si vertical surrounding gate
5.1 47
MOSFET.

9
 Energy band diagram of the structure in Fig.5.1 (in the radial
5.2 direction, from the centre of the pillar to the surface) for different 47
values of strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film).
Electron concentration profile in the radial direction (from the centre
5.3 48
of the pillar to the surface).
Electron concentration profile in the radial direction at the threshold
5.4 49
point. The amount of strain here is the minimum required strain.
5.5 Variation of minimum required strain with SiGe pillar radius 50
Variation of minimum required strain with strained-Si film thickness
5.6 51
t s − Si

10
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Advantages of Strained-Silicon MOSFETs

Strained-silicon MOSFETs are gaining popularity due to enhanced mobility and high

field velocity [1-3]. Strained-silicon on insulator (SSOI) MOSFETs combine the carrier

transport advantages of s-Si with reduced parasitic capacitance and increased scalability

of SOI MOSFETs [4, 5].

1.2 Advantages of Cylindrical Gate MOSFETs

Scaling down of devices is one of the key methods of enhancing the transistor switching

speed. But device length scaling beyond 100 nm has been seriously impeded by the

increasing short channel effects (SCEs). Several structures have been proposed to

overcome SCEs, with double gate (DG) and cylindrical surround gate MOSFETs being

the most promising concepts [1 - 4]. For an equivalent silicon and gate oxide thickness,

cylindrical MOSFETs can be scaled to 35% shorter channel lengths than DG-MOSFETs

for the same SCEs [5 ]. Cylindrical MOSFETs offer additional advantages of improved

subthreshold slope, higher packing densities, variable pillar doping (along the channel).

11
1.3 Motivation for Present Research

A major concern with s-Si MOSFETs is the decrease in the threshold voltage as strain

increases [6, 7, 8] due to the decrease in the bandgap of s-Si with strain [9]. In this paper,

we show that this effect can be reversed by decreasing the thickness of the s-Si layer,

which increases the effective bandgap due to quantum confinement.

To incorporate the advantages of both strain and cylindrical MOSFETs, s-Si surround

gate MOSFETs have recently been proposed [9, 10] and have been experimentally

demonstrated [11]. These structures, however, are not yet well investigated. In this paper,

we develop, for the first time, an analytical threshold voltage model by solving two

coupled 2D Poisson equations in s-Si and SiGe and analyze the dependence of the

threshold voltage Vth on various device parameters.

1.4 Objectives of the Thesis

The main objectives of this thesis are twofold:

1 To demonstrate that the threshold voltage roll-off due to strain in s-Si/SiGe

MOSFETs can be overcome by decreasing the thickness of the s-Si layer to the

quantum regime.

2 To develop an accurate, compact threshold voltage model for vertical, surrounding

gate s-Si/SiGe MOSFETs, and to verify the results using two dimensional device

simulations.

1.5 Thesis Organization

The dissertation is divided into six chapters and its outline is described as given below.

12
Chapter I: Introduction

Fundamental concepts related to strained-silicon MOSFETs, cylindrical gate MOSFETs,

previous work, objectives and organization of the thesis.

Chapter II: Threshold Voltage Optimization in Strained-Silicon MOSFETs using

Quantum Confinement Effect

This chapter demonstrates that the decrease in the threshold voltage of s-Si MOSFETs

with strain can be minimized by decreasing the s-Si layer thickness.

Chapter III: Compact Threshold Voltage Model of Nanoscale, Fully Depleted,

Vertical Surrounding Gate Strained-Si/SiGe MOSFETs

An analytical model for the threshold voltage (Vth) of Nanoscale, Fully Depleted,

Vertical Surrounding Gate Strained-Si/SiGe MOSFETs is developed by solving the 2-D

Poisson equation. The results obtained using our analytical model are verified using two-

dimensional device simulations.

Chapter IV: Threshold Voltage Modeling of Vertical, Surrounding Gate s-Si/SiGe

MOSFETs with Carrier Charge Term Included in the Poisson Equation

This chapter illustrates some of our attempts to enhance the accuracy of the threshold

voltage model developed in chapter III, by relaxing some of the assumptions made in the

potential derivation.

Chapter V: Conclusions

13
Chapter 2

Threshold Voltage Optimization in Strained-

Silicon MOSFETs using Quantum Confinement
Effect

2.1 Introduction

Strained-silicon MOSFETs are gaining popularity due to enhanced mobility and

high field velocity [1-3]. Strained-silicon on insulator (SSOI) MOSFETs combine the

carrier transport advantages of s-Si with reduced parasitic capacitance and increased

scalability of SOI MOSFETs [4, 5].

A major concern with s-Si MOSFETs is the decrease in the threshold voltage as

strain increases [6, 7, 8] due to the decrease in the bandgap of s-Si with strain [9]. In this

paper, we show that this effect can be reversed by decreasing the thickness of the s-Si

layer, which increases the effective bandgap due to quantum confinement.

Although quantum confinement effects are well known [10], to the best of our

knowledge its impact on optimizing the threshold voltage of s-Si MOSFETs has not been

studied so far. Using two-dimensional simulation, we demonstrate in this study that the

decrease in the threshold voltage of s-Si MOSFETs with strain can be minimized by

decreasing the s-Si layer thickness. We show that any specified threshold voltage can be

obtained for different combinations of strain and s-Si layer thickness.

14
2.2 Effect of Quantum Confinement on the Bandgap of s-Si

The s-Si SOI MOSFET structure used in the present study and its associated energy band

diagram in the middle if the channel are shown in Fig. 2.1 and Fig. 2.2 respectively.

Gate
Gate Oxide
n+ s-Si ts-Si n+
Source Drain
SiGe

Y
X
Buried Oxide

Substrate

Fig. 2.1: Cross-sectional view of the strained-Si on SGOI MOSFET.

The s-Si layer forms a quantum well between the two potential barriers formed by the

gate oxide and the SiGe layer. The confinement of electrons into a very thin region

increases the energy gap between allowed energy levels. The difference between energy

levels becomes large enough and they can no longer be considered continuous.

15
 SiO2 s-Si SiGe
q=2

q=1
Ec
Eg/ Eg
Ev
q=1

q=2

ΔE g = E g′ − E g

Fig. 2.2: Energy band diagram of the structure in Fig. 2.1 (along the middle of the device
in the Y-direction)

The first energy level in the conduction band is above EC, while the first energy level in

the valence band is below EV. This leads to an increase in the energy bandgap [10]. The

increase in the bandgap for s-Si can be modeled as:

η2 π 2
ΔE g = (2.1)
2mr t s2− Si

1 1 1
where = +
mr me m h

me and mh are the effective masses of the electron and hole respectively, t s − Si is the s-Si

h
layer thickness. Using η = and substituting h = 6.63 × 10 −34 J .s in (1), we get
2π

75
ΔE g = meV (2.2)
mrr t s2− Si

16
 mr
where mrr =
m0

and m0 is the mass of electron in free space

Strain-induced decrease in the bandgap of silicon is given by [9]:

ΔE g = −0.4 x (2.3)

where x is the mole fraction of Ge in SiGe. Hence, the overall change in the bandgap of

silicon is given by

⎛ 0.075 ⎞
ΔE g = ⎜⎜ 2
− 0.4 x ⎟⎟eV (2.4)
⎝ mrr t s − Si ⎠

Thus, bandgap increases with decreasing t s − Si and decreases with increasing strain. These

two opposing effects can be used to optimize the threshold voltage of s-Si MOSFETs,

since the threshold voltage is positively related to the bandgap E g .

2.3 Quantum Confinement Simulations

To verify the above theoretical predictions, the 2-D device simulator ATLAS [11] was

used to simulate the structure shown in Fig.1. The parameters used in our simulation are

given in Table 2.1.

17
 Table 2.1: Device parameters used in the simulation

Parameter Value
Ge mole fraction of SiGe substrate, x 0 – 0.4 (0 – 40%)
Strained-Silicon film thickness, ts-Si 2-7 nm
Channel Length, L 50 nm, 100 nm
Source/Drain doping, ND 1019 cm-3
Doping in SiGe layers, NA 1016 cm-3
Doping in s-Si layer, NA 1016 cm-3
Drain bias, VDS 0.05 Volts (50 mV)
Gate Oxide Thickness, t ox 2.0 nm
Work function of gate material, φM 4.8 eV

To incorporate the effects of quantum confinement, we have used the self-

consistent coupled Schrödinger-Poisson model [12] in which the Schrödinger and

Poisson’s equations are solved alternately. Once the Schrödinger equation is solved, the

calculated carrier concentration is substituted into the charge part of Poisson’s equation.

The potential derived from the solution of the Poisson’s equation is substituted back into

Schrödinger equation. This solution process (alternating between Schrödinger and

Poisson equations) continues until convergence and a self-consistent solution to both

equations is reached. The electron concentration calculated using the above process is

shown in Fig. 2.3 along the Y-direction in the middle of the device. We notice that the

inversion layer charge is confined to the s-Si layer. To estimate the threshold voltage, we

have used the electron concentration profile along the X-direction plotted at the peak of

electron concentration shown in Fig. 2.3. Threshold voltage is defined as the value of

gate voltage at which the minimum of this concentration profile becomes equal to the

background doping concentration N A forming a conducting path.

18
 1017
Electron Concentration (cm-3) s-Si SiGe
1016
ts-Si = 5 nm L = 100 nm
VDS = 50 mV
VGS = 0.28 V
1015 x = 0.2

1014

1013

1012
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance (nm)
Fig. 2.3: Electron concentration profile along the middle of the device in the Y-direction.

2.4 Results and Discussion

Fig. 2.4 shows the electron concentration profile from source to drain in the centre of s-Si

layer along X-direction, for s-Si layer thicknesses of 2 nm and 7 nm with a Ge mole

fraction x = 0.4 . The lower electron concentration in the 2 nm s-Si layer device is due to

its higher bandgap caused by quantum confinement effects. This device therefore requires

a higher gate voltage for increasing its carrier concentration to a value high enough for

conduction to take place, thereby increasing its threshold voltage. Therefore, a reduction

in the threshold voltage due to increased Ge mole fraction can be compensated by

decreasing the s-Si layer thickness.

19
 1020
L = 100 nm
1019 Source VDS = 50 mV Drain

Electron Concentration (cm-3)

VGS = 0.2 V
x = 0.4
1018

1017 ts-Si = 7 nm

1016

1015 ts-Si = 2 nm

1014

1013
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Position along the Channel (nm)

Fig. 2.4: Electron concentration profile along the middle of the strained-Silicon layer in
the X-direction.

Fig. 2.5 shows the variation in the threshold voltage of the device as a function of

s-Si layer thickness for various values of strain (Ge mole fraction in SiGe) and for two

different channel lengths. The threshold voltage increases as t s − Si decreases as indicated

by equation (4) both for strained-silicon as well as strain free silicon channel. We notice

from Fig. 5 that even for the largest Ge mole fraction ( x = 0.4 ), s-Si MOSFETs with

reasonable threshold voltages can be realized if the thickness of the s-Si layer is reduced

to 2 nm.

20
 L = 100nm
x=0 L = 50nm
0.5
Threshold Voltage (volts) VDS = 50 mV

0.4
x = 0.2

0.3

0.2
x = 0.4

0.1

0
2 3 4 5 6 7
s-Si Layer Thickness (nm)

Fig. 2.5: Variation of the threshold voltage with strained-Si film thicknesses for
different values of strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film).

Fig. 2.6 shows the variation in the threshold voltage of the device as a function of

strain for various values of s-Si layer thickness and channel length. The threshold voltage

decreases linearly as strain increases. Threshold voltage roll-off can also be observed as

channel length decreases from 100 nm to 50 nm. Threshold voltage roll-off with

increasing strain and decreasing channel length can both be overcome by decreasing t s − Si .

21
 0.6
L = 100nm
L = 50nm
0.5 ts-Si = 2 nm VDS = 50 mV
Threshold Voltage (volts)

0.4

0.3
ts-Si = 4 nm
0.2

0.1 ts-Si = 7 nm

0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Strain (%Ge)
Fig. 2.6: Variation of the threshold voltage with strain x (Ge content in the SiGe
film) for different strained-Si film thicknesses.

For two different channel lengths, Fig. 7 shows the various combinations of Ge

mole fraction x and s-Si film thickness t s − Si that results in a particular constant threshold

voltage. We can, therefore, clearly see that the benefits of strained-silicon using higher

Ge mole fraction can still be retained while keeping the threshold voltage reasonably

large if the strained-silicon film thickness is reduced to values below 3 nm.

22
 0.45
0.4 L = 100 nm
0.35 L = 50 nm
Strain (%Ge)

VDS = 50 mV
0.3
0.25 VT = 0.3 V
0.2
0.15
VT = 0.4 V
0.1
0.05
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
s-Si Layer Thickness (nm)

Fig. 2.7: The relation between strain x and strained-Si film thickness t s − Si for constant
threshold voltages.

2.5 Conclusions

For the first time, we have examined the effect of s-Si layer thickness on the

threshold voltage of strained-silicon MOSFETs using simulation. We have shown that by

reducing the s-Si layer thickness to the quantum mechanical regime, the effective

bandgap of s-Si can be increased counter balancing the reduction in threshold voltage due

to increased strain. This, therefore, permits the designer to realize nanoscale strained-

silicon MOSFETs with good gate control while allowing a higher Ge mole fraction for

increased strain and hence a better device performance.

23
Chapter 3

Compact Threshold Voltage Model of Nanoscale,

Fully Depleted, Vertical Surrounding Gate
Strained-Si/SiGe MOSFETs

3.1 Introduction

Scaling down of devices is one of the key methods of enhancing the transistor switching

speed. But device length scaling beyond 100 nm has been seriously impeded by the

increasing short channel effects (SCEs). Several structures have been proposed to

overcome SCEs, with double gate (DG) and cylindrical surround gate MOSFETs being

the most promising concepts [13 - 16]. For an equivalent silicon and gate oxide thickness,

cylindrical MOSFETs can be scaled to 35% shorter channel lengths than DG-MOSFETs

for the same SCEs [17]. Cylindrical MOSFETs offer additional advantages of improved

subthreshold slope, higher packing densities, variable pillar doping (along the channel).

The second main factor controlling transistor switching speed is the carrier

velocity (or mobility). Strained-Si has been used in recent years to improve carrier

transport properties i.e. mobility and high field velocity [18 - 20].

To incorporate the advantages of both, strained-Si surround gate MOSFETs have

recently been proposed [21, 22] and have been experimentally demonstrated [23]. These

structures, however, are not yet well investigated. In this paper, we develop, for the first

time, an analytical threshold voltage model by solving two coupled 2D Poisson equations

in s-Si and SiGe and analyze the dependence of the threshold voltage Vth on various

device parameters. The accuracy of the proposed model is verified using two dimensional

24
simulations [11]. We also demonstrate that Vth is not significantly affected by pillar

diameter, thereby allowing higher drive current (large effective W/L ratio) without Vth

roll off.

3.2 Effect of Strain

A silicon thin film grown pseudomorphically over a relaxed Si1-xGex substrate

experiences biaxial strain leading to changes in band structure [21,24]. Due to strain, the

electron affinity of silicon increases and the bandgap decreases. Also the effective mass

of carriers decreases. The effect of strain on Si band structure can be modeled as

[21,24,25]
3/ 2
⎛ N ⎞ ⎛ m* ⎞
(ΔEC ) s − Si = 0.57 x , (ΔEg ) s − Si = 0.4 x , VT ln⎜⎜ V , Si ⎟⎟ = VT ln⎜⎜ *h , Si ⎟⎟ ≈ 0.075 x (3.1)
⎝ NV , s − Si ⎠ ⎝ mh, s − Si ⎠

where x is the Ge mole fraction in Si1-xGex substrate, (ΔEC ) s − Si is the decrease in electron

affinity of silicon due to strain, (ΔEg ) s − Si is the decrease in bandgap of silicon due to

strain, VT is the thermal voltage, NV , Si and NV , s − Si are the density of states in the valence

band in normal and strained silicon respectively, mh*, Si and mh*, s − Si are the hole density of

states (DOS) effective masses in normal and strained silicon, respectively. The band

structure parameters for relaxed Si1-xGex substrate can also be estimated as [12,25]:

(ΔEg ) SiGe = 0.467 x , NV , SiGe = ( 0.6 x + 1.04(1 − x) ) × 1019 cm −3 , ε SiGe = 11.8 + 4.2 x (3.2)

where (ΔEg ) SiGe is the decrease in bandgap of Si1-xGex from that of Si, NV , SiGe is the

density of states in the valence band in relaxed Si1-xGex, and ε SiGe is the permittivity of

Si1-xGex.

25
 The flat-band voltage of a MOSFET modified due to strain can be written as [24]

(VFB , f ) s − Si = (VFB , f ) Si + ΔVFB , f (3.3)

where

− (ΔEC ) s − Si (ΔEg ) s − Si ⎛ N ⎞
(VFB , f ) Si = φM − φSi , ΔVFB , f = + − VT ln⎜⎜ V , Si ⎟⎟ ,
q q ⎝ NV , s − Si ⎠

χ Si Eg , Si ⎛ NA ⎞
φSi = + + φF , Si , φF , Si = VT ln⎜⎜ ⎟.
⎟
q 2q n
⎝ i , Si ⎠

In the above relations, φM is the gate work function, φSi is the unstrained Si work

function, φF , Si is the Fermi potential in unstrained Si, χ Si is the electron affinity in

unstrained Si, Eg , Si is the bandgap in unstrained Si, q is the electronic charge, NA is the

body doping concentration and ni , Si is the intrinsic carrier concentration in unstrained Si.

The built-in voltage across the source-body and drain-body junctions in the strained-Si

thin film is also affected by strain as [24]

Vbi , s − Si = Vbi , Si + ( ΔVbi ) s − Si (3.4)

Eg , Si − (ΔEg ) s − Si ⎛ N ⎞
where Vbi , Si = + φF , Si , (ΔVbi ) s − Si = + VT ln⎜⎜ V , Si ⎟⎟ .
2q q ⎝ NV , s − Si ⎠

The built-in voltage across the source-body and drain-body junctions in the relaxed Si1-

xGex substrate can be written as [24]

Vbi , SiGe = Vbi , Si + ( ΔVbi ) SiGe (3.5)

Eg , Si −(ΔEg ) SiGe ⎛ N ⎞
where Vbi , Si = + φF , Si , (ΔVbi ) SiGe = + VT ln ⎜ V , Si ⎟ .
2q q ⎜N ⎟
⎝ V , SiGe ⎠

26
3.3 Simplifying Assumptions

A schematic view of a fully depleted cylindrical surround gate strained MOSFET is

shown in Fig. 3.1. The co-ordinate system consists of a radial direction r and a vertical

direction z as shown in the figure. The symmetry of the structure ensures that the

potential and hence the electric field have no variation in the θ direction. Thus a two-

dimensional analysis is sufficient.

n+ Source
SiGe
s-Si s-Si
z
r L

R1
R2

r=0
n+ Drain
Fig. 3.1: Cross-sectional view of the strained-Si vertical surrounding gate MOSFET.

To make an analytical solution possible and to get a closed form expression for Vth , the

following simplifying assumptions are made:

1) The threshold voltage is calculated by considering the potential at r = R2 . However,

the validity of the model needs to be checked by considering the potential at r = 0 and R1

2) Electron charge in the Poisson equation is neglected.

27
3) A parabolic potential is assumed in the radial direction in both SiGe and s-Si [26]. This

is a justified assumption since a uniform charge distribution leads to a linear electric field

and a parabolic potential. However, this assumption may not always be valid at the

channel ends, especially under strain, due to charge injection from source/drain.

4) The centre potential φC (along r = 0 in Fig. 3.1) is determined using 1-D Poisson

equation as follows:-

The 1-D Poisson equation in the radial direction with ε 1 = ε SiGe ≈ ε Si can be written as:

d 2φ qN A
= (3.6)
dr 2 ε1

The Poisson equation is solved using the following boundary conditions:

1) The electric field in the centre of the SiGe pillar ( r = 0 in Fig. 3.1) is zero by

symmetry.

dφ
=0 (3.7)
dr r =0

2) The potential at the surface of the cylinder ( r = R2 in Fig. 1) is φ s

φ 2 ( R2 ) = φ s (3.8)

Solving for φ , we get the centre potential φC as

2
qN A R2
φC = φ s −
2ε 1

The above analysis is valid only near the middle of the device or for long channel

devices.

28
3.4 Threshold Voltage Model

The 2-D Poisson equation in the strained silicon thin-film and the SiGe pillar, before the

onset of strong inversion can be written as:

1 ∂ ⎛ ∂φ (r , z ) ⎞ ∂ 2φ (r , z ) qN A
⎜r ⎟+ = (3.9)
r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠ ∂z 2 ε Si

Assuming a parabolic potential distribution in the radial direction, φ in SiGe pillar as well

as the s-Si thin film can be written as:

φ1 (r , z ) = c11 ( z ) + c12 ( z )r + c13 ( z )r 2 for 0 ≤ r ≤ R1 , 0 ≤ z ≤ L (SiGe pillar) (3.10)

φ 2 (r , z ) = c 21 ( z ) + c 22 ( z )r + c 23 ( z )r 2 for R1 ≤ r ≤ R2 , 0 ≤ z ≤ L (s-Si film) (3.11)

where the coefficients cij (z ) are functions of z only.

The Poisson equation in SiGe pillar and s-Si film is solved using the following boundary

conditions:

1) The electric field in the centre of the SiGe pillar ( r = 0 in Fig. 1) is zero by symmetry.

∂φ1
=0 (3.12)
∂r r =0

2) The potential along the centre line ( r = 0 in Fig. 1) is φC

φ1 (0, z ) = φC (3.13)

3) The electric flux at the SiGe/s-Si interface is continuous.

∂φ1 ∂φ 2
ε1 = ε2 (3.14)
∂r r = R1 ∂r r = R1

4) Potential at the interface of strained-Si thin film and SiGe substrate is continuous.

φ1 ( R1 , z ) = φ 2 ( R1 , z ) (3.15)

29
5) The surface potential φ s (z ) is a function of z only.

φ 2 ( R2 , z ) = φ s ( z ) (3.16)

6) The electric flux at the gate-oxide/strained-Si film interface is continuous

∂φ 2
ε2 = C ox (VGS − VFB − φ s ) (3.17)
∂r r=R2

ε ox
where C ox =
t ox
R2 ln(1 + )
R2

Using the boundary conditions (3.12) – (3.17), we get

qN A ⎡ R2 R1 ⎤ C ox ε
2 2 2
R1
⎢ + − ⎥+ (VGS − VFB − φ s )[ R2 − R1 (1 − 2 )]
2 ⎣ ε2 ε1 ε2 ⎦ ε2 2ε 1
c 23 =
ε
( R2 − R1 )[ R2 − R1 (1 − 2 )]
ε1

C ox
c 22 = (VGS − VFB − φ s ) − 2 R2 c 23
ε2

C ox R2
c 21 = φ s − (VGS − VFB − φ s ) + R2 c 23
2

ε2

Substituting the values of c 21 ( z ) , c 22 ( z ) , and c 23 ( z ) in (3.11), we obtain the expression

for φ 2 (r , z ) . Then, substituting φ 2 (r , z ) in (3.9) and putting r = R2 , we obtain:

d 2φ S ( z )
2
− k 2φ S ( z ) = β (3.18)
dz

where

30
 ⎡
2C ox ⎛ ε 2 ⎞⎤
⎢ R2 − R1 ⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟⎥
C ε 2 R2
⎣ ⎝ 2ε 1 ⎠⎦
k 2 = 0x +
ε 2 R2 ⎡ ⎞⎤
(R2 − R1 )⎢ R2 − R1 ⎜⎜1 − ε 2 ⎟⎟⎥
⎛
⎣ ⎝ ε 1 ⎠⎦

⎡R 2 R 2 R 2 ⎤
qN A ⎢ 2 + 1 − 1 ⎥
β =− ⎣ ε2 ε1 ε2 ⎦
− k 2 (VGS − V FB )
⎡ ⎤
(R2 − R1 )⎢ R2 − R1 ⎜⎜1 − ε 2 ⎟⎟⎥
⎛ ⎞
⎣ ⎝ ε 1 ⎠⎦

The above equation (3.18) is a simple second-order non-homogenous differential

equation with constant coefficients. It is solved using the following boundary conditions

for the surface potential:-

1) The surface potential at the source end is

φ 2 ( R2 ,0) = φ s (0) = Vbi ,s − Si (3.19)

2) The surface potential at the drain end is

φ 2 ( R2 , L) = φ s (L ) = Vbi , s − Si + VDS (3.20)

Solving for φ s ( z ) , we get

β
φ s ( z ) = Ae kz + Be − kz − (3.21)
k2

where

β ⎞
⎜Vbi , s − Si + 2 ⎟(1 − e ) + VDS
⎛ − kL

A= ⎝
k ⎠
2 sinh (kL )

β ⎞ − kL
⎜Vbi , s − Si + 2 ⎟(e − 1) − VDS
⎛
B=⎝
k ⎠
2 sinh (kL )

The minimum surface potential can be determined from (3.21) by putting

31
 dφ s ( z )
=0
dz

The minimum surface potential is

β
φ s min = 2 AB −
k2

In conventional MOSFETs, the threshold voltage is defined as the value of the gate

voltage at which φ s ,min = 2φ F , Si where φ F ,Si is the difference between the extrinsic Fermi

level in the bulk region and the intrinsic Fermi level. For the strained-Si MOSFETs, the

condition for threshold is modified as [24]:

φs , min = 2φF , Si + Δφs − Si = φth (3.22)

− (ΔEg ) s − Si ⎛ N ⎞
where Δφs − Si = + VT ln⎜⎜ V , Si ⎟⎟ .
q ⎝ NV , s − Si ⎠

Hence we can determine the value of threshold voltage by substituting (3.21) into (3.22)

and solving for VGS , as

− Vφ 1 + Vφ21 − 4ξVφ 2
Vth = (3.23)
2ξ

where

ξ = 2(cosh (kL ) − 1) − sinh 2 (kL )

{
Vφ 1 = 2 d sinh 2 kL − (cosh kL − 1)(2c + V DS ) }
Vφ 2 = 2c(cosh kL − 1)(c + VDS ) − VDS − (d sinh kL )
2 2

32
 ⎡R 2 R 2 R 2 ⎤
qN A ⎢ 2 + 1 − 1 ⎥
c= ⎣ ε2 ε1 ε2 ⎦
+ V FB , s − Si + Vbi , s − Si
⎡ ⎛ ε 2 ⎞⎤
(R2 − R1 )⎢ R2 − R1 ⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟⎥ + k 2

⎣ ⎝ ε 1 ⎠⎦

d = c − Vbi , s − Si + φth

To verify the proposed analytical model, the 2-D device simulator ATLAS [16] was used

to simulate the threshold voltage for various device parameters and compared with the

values predicted by the model. We notice that the inversion layer charge is confined to

the s-Si layer. To estimate the threshold voltage, we have used the electron concentration

profile along the X-direction plotted at the peak of electron concentration shown in Fig.

3.2. Threshold voltage is defined as the value of gate voltage at which the minimum of

this concentration profile becomes equal to the background doping concentration N A

forming a conducting path. The parameters used in our simulation are given in Table 1.

Table 3.1: Device parameters used in the simulation

Parameter Value
Ge mole fraction of SiGe substrate, x 0 – 0.4 (0 – 40%)
Strained-Silicon film thickness, ts-Si 2-12 nm
SiGe pillar radius (R2) 15-50 nm
Channel Length, L 30-120 nm
Source/Drain doping, ND 1019 cm-3
Doping in SiGe layers, NA 1016 cm-3
Doping in s-Si layer, NA 1016 cm-3
Drain bias, VDS 0.05 Volts (50 mV)
Gate Oxide Thickness, t ox 2.0 nm
Work function of gate material, φM 4.8 eV

33
 1019 • • VGS = 0.25 V
× × VGS = 0 .41 V

1018 ×
•× * * VGS = 0 .50 V
•×
*• ×*
× •*
* • ו •× ×
Electron Conc. (/cm3)
1017 * × • •
• • • •× *
× • • • • • • • × *
* × ×
× × *
× ×
○ ○ *○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ × ○
× ×○ ×○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○* ○ ○
1016 * *
* Background *
1015 *Doping *
* *
* *
1014 *
* *
* * *
* *

1013

1012
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Distance across Device (in Microns)
Fig. 3.2: Electron concentration profile along the channel for three different values of the
gate voltage.

3.5 Results and Discussion

Fig. 3.3 shows the variation of threshold voltage Vth with channel length for

different values of Ge mole fraction x in the SiGe pillar. It is observed that short channel

effects become prevalent below 50 nm channel length are marked by the sharp decrease

in Vth value. This can be explained on the basis of charge sharing from source and drain

which becomes significant for such short channel lengths. Also, the threshold voltage is

34
lower for higher strain for the same channel length. The Vth values from the analytical

model are in close proximity with the simulation results, except for very short channel

lengths. This is because at very short channel lengths, charge carried by electrons

becomes significant and must be accounted for in the Poisson equation.

Model R1 = 20 nm
0.5 Atlas R2 = 25 nm

0.45
x=0
0.4
Threshold Voltage (volts)

0.35

0.3 x = 0.2

0.25

0.2
x = 0.4
0.15

0.1
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Channel Length (nm)

Fig. 3.3: Variation of the threshold voltage with channel length for different values of
strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film).

The variation of threshold with the thickness of the strained-Si thin film is plotted

in Fig. 3.4. As can be seen from the figure, there is no discernible change in threshold

voltage with change in strained-Si film thickness from 2 nm -12 nm. This suggests that

one can allow small variations and tolerances in the fabrication process without affecting

35
the Vth too much. The discrepancy between the Vth values from the analytical model and

from the simulation results is quite small but it increases as the strain increases. This is

because the bandgap of SiGe decreases as Ge content increases. Hence, electron injection

from source/drain into the channel increases making the charge carried by electrons

significant, which we do not account for in the Poisson equation.

Model L = 50 nm
Atlas R1 = 20 nm
0.5
0.45 x=0
Threshold Voltage (volts)

0.4
0.35
x = 0.2
0.3
0.25
x = 0.4
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
s-Si Film Thickness (nm)

Fig. 3.4: Variation of the threshold voltage with strained-Si film thicknesses for different
values of strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film).

Fig. 3.5 shows the variation of threshold voltage Vth with SiGe pillar radius,

t SiGe (= R2 − R1 ) for different values of Ge mole fraction x in the SiGe pillar. It is

observed that Vth shows negligible variation with pillar radius. Thus, unlike single and

36
double gate MOSFETs, pillar diameter can be increased to achieve higher drive currents

without threshold voltage roll-off. This result is in accordance with experimental results

as reported in [23].

L = 50 nm
Model
R2 – R1 = 5 nm
0.5 Atlas

0.45 x=0
0.4
Threshold Voltage (volts)

0.35 x = 0.2
0.3
0.25
x = 0.4
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
SiGe Pillar Radius (nm)

Fig. 3.5: Variation of the threshold voltage with SiGe pillar radius for different values of
strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film).

Fig. 3.6 shows the variation of threshold voltage with change in strain i.e. Ge

mole fraction of SiGe substrate, for channel lengths of 80 nm and 30 nm. The threshold

voltage obtained from the model tracks the simulation values very well for relatively

large channel lengths. It is evident that there is a significant fall in threshold voltage with

37
increasing strain, and the decrease in Vth is almost linear. The threshold voltage decreases

with increasing Ge content x because of decrease in flat-band voltage (equation (3.3)),

decrease in source-body/drain-body built-in potential barrier (equation (3.4)), and earlier

onset of inversion due to decrease in φth (equation (3.22)). Also, it can be seen from the

figure that Vth for L=80 nm is noticeably greater than that for L=30 nm, indicating the

on-set of the short-channel effects.

0.5
Model R1 = 20 nm
0.45
Atlas R2 = 25 nm
Threshold Voltage (volts)

0.4

0.35
L = 80 nm
0.3

0.25

0.2
L = 30 nm
0.15

0.1

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Equivalent Ge Content Strain, x

Fig. 3.6: Variation of the threshold voltage with strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film) for
different channel lengths.

38
3.6 Conclusion

For the first time, we have examined the effect of various device parameters like

strain (Ge mole fraction in SiGe pillar), channel length, strained silicon thin film

thickness, and the pillar radius on the threshold voltage of nanoscale strained-Si/SiGe

surrounding gate MOSFETs by developing an analytical model. The 2-D Poisson

equation is solved in the strained-Si thin film using appropriate boundary conditions. The

model results are compared with accurate two-dimensional simulations. The calculated

values of the threshold voltage obtained from the proposed model agree well with the

simulated results except for very small channel lengths and very large values of strain.

This discrepancy is due to the simplifying assumptions made in the analysis in order to

obtain a compact threshold voltage model. There is a significant drop in threshold voltage

with increasing Ge content of the relaxed SiGe pillar and decreasing channel length. The

increase in strain, i.e. Ge content, enhances the performance of MOSFETs in terms of

transconductance and speed because of an increase in the carrier mobility. However, as

demonstrated by our results, there are undesirable side effects with increasing Ge content

such as a roll-off in Vth which may affect the device characteristics and performance

significantly. Our compact model accurately predicts the threshold voltage over a large

range of device parameters. Our model is a first step in the accurate modeling of

nanoscale, fully depleted, vertical surrounding gate s-Si/SiGe MOSFETs. It can be

improved upon by relaxing the assumptions made, by including the charge carried by

electrons in the Poisson equation (this has already been done for unstrained surround gate

MOSFETs [27]).

39
Chapter 4

Threshold Voltage Modeling of Vertical,

Surrounding Gate s-Si/SiGe MOSFETs with
Carrier Charge Term Included in the Poisson
Equation

4.1 Introduction

Vertical, surrounding gate s-Si/SiGe MOSFETs are becoming increasingly popular due to

several of their advantage mentioned in chapter 3. But so far, very little work has been

done on the analytical modeling of this device. In chapter 3, we have developed, for the

first time, a simplified compact threshold voltage model. This derivation was made

possible by making some simplifying assumptions. In particular, we neglected the charge

carried by electrons in the Poisson equation. In this chapter, we have made attempts at

relaxing this assumption and still obtaining a compact threshold voltage model. Although

we did not achieve total success in our endeavor, but the attempts provide a useful insight

into the issues involved in modeling this complex device.

4.2 Approach 1

The structure of the device is shown in Fig. 3.1. The 2-D Poisson equation in the strained

silicon thin-film and the SiGe pillar, before the onset of strong inversion can be written

as:

40
 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂φ (r , z ) ⎞ ∂ 2φ (r , z ) q
⎜r ⎟+ = (n + N A ) (4.1)
r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠ ∂z 2
ε Si

with the electron charge term included, which is given by

n = ni e φ / VT (4.2)

The solution to (4.1) for unstrained cylindrical MOSFETs is given by [27]:

φ ( z, r ) = φ 0 ( z ) + f1 ( z ) f 2 (r ) (4.3)

where φ0 ( z ) and f1 ( z ) are known functions of z only, f 2 (r ) is a known function of

r only. f 2 (r ) is given by

f 2 (r ) = c1 I 0 (γ r ) + c 2 K 0 (γ r ) (4.4)

where γ is a known constant, c1 and c 2 are constants to be determined from boundary

conditions, I 0 and K 0 are zeroth order modified Bessel functions of the first and second

kind respectively. We assume the general solution given by equation (4.3) to be

applicable in the SiGe pillar as well as the s-Si layer. This is a justified assumption since

the solution given by equation (4.3) is valid independent of the range of values taken by

r . Thus,

for 0 ≤ r ≤ R1 , 0 ≤ z ≤ L (SiGe pillar)

φ SiGe (r , z ) = φ1 ( z ) + f1 ( z ){c1 I 0 (γ r ) + c 2 K 0 (γ r )} (4.5)

for R1 ≤ r ≤ R2 , 0 ≤ z ≤ L (s-Si film)

φ s − Si (r , z ) = φ1 ( z ) + f1 ( z ){c3 I 0 (γ r ) + c 4 K 0 (γ r )} (4.6)

The Poisson equation (4.1) is solved using the following boundary conditions:

1) The electric field in the centre of the SiGe pillar ( r = 0 in Fig. 1) is zero by symmetry.

41
 ∂φ1
=0 (4.7)
∂r r =0

This boundary condition is already satisfied by the assumed solution.

2) Potential at the interface of strained-Si thin film and SiGe substrate is continuous.

φ SiGe ( R1 , z ) = φ s − Si ( R1 , z ) (4.8)

3) The electric flux at the SiGe/s-Si interface is continuous.

∂φ SiGe ∂φ s − Si
ε1 = ε2 (4.9)
∂r r = R1 ∂r r = R1

4) The electric flux at the gate-oxide/strained-Si film interface is continuous

∂φ s − Si
ε2 = C ox (VGS − VFB − φ s − Si ( R2 , z )) (4.10)
∂r r=R 2

5) K 0 ( x) → ∞ as x → 0 . This forces c 2 to be equal to zero,

c2 = 0 (4.11)

since the potential at r = 0 cannot be infinite.

Using the boundary conditions (4.7) – (4.11), we can determine the constants c1 , c3 , and

c 4 .On doing so, it is found that ci are functions of z , which is not allowed by equations

(4.3) and (4.4). Hence, the ongoing analysis is not a valid one.

4.3 Approach 2

In order to simplify the problem, a one-dimensional analysis of the device is done instead

of a two-dimensional analysis. The potential φ is assumed to be a function of r only. This

assumption is valid near the middle of the device and for long channel devices. The 1-D

42
Poisson equation in the strained silicon thin-film and the SiGe pillar, before the onset of

strong inversion can be written as:

d 2φ 1 dφ q
+ = (n + N A ) (4.12)
dr 2
r dr ε Si

with the electron charge term included, which is given by

n = ni e φ / VT (4.13)

Equation (4.12) is a second order, non-linear ODE having two independent solutions.

Unfortunately, there is no standard method to solve even this simplified ODE. One

solution to equation (4.12) is given by [28]:

2kT
φ = A− ln( Br 2 + 1) (4.14)
q

where A and B unknown constants. This solution is not the most general solution to

equation (4.12) since it already satisfies the following boundary condition:

dφ
=0 (4.15)
dr r =0

This boundary condition is satisfied by the potential in the SiGe pillar but not by the

potential in the s-Si layer. Hence, there must exist another independent solution to

equation (4.12), which will give the potential in the s-Si layer. After a tedious analysis,

we did manage to reach to a solution of equation (4.12), but it turned out to be the same

as given by equation (4.14). Hence, the model for the potential in the s-Si layer is still

undetermined.

43
4.4 Conclusion

In this chapter, we have attempted to enhance the accuracy of the threshold voltage

model of surrounding gate s-Si/SiGe devices, developed in chapter 3, by relaxing certain

assumptions made earlier. In particular, we have included the electron charge term in the

Poisson equation. Although, we could not succeed in our ultimate goal of deriving an

accurate, compact threshold voltage model, the analysis provided a useful insight into the

issues involved in threshold voltage modeling of such devices.

44
Chapter 5

Effect of Strain on the Conduction Path in

Cylindrical Strained-Silicon MOSFETs

5.1 Introduction

Scaling down of devices is one of the key methods of enhancing the transistor switching

speed. But device length scaling beyond 100 nm has been seriously impeded by the

increasing short channel effects (SCEs). Several structures have been proposed to

overcome SCEs, with double gate (DG) and cylindrical surround gate MOSFETs being

the most promising concepts [13 - 16]. For an equivalent silicon and gate oxide thickness,

cylindrical MOSFETs can be scaled to 35% shorter channel lengths than DG-MOSFETs

for the same SCEs [17]. Cylindrical MOSFETs offer additional advantages of improved

subthreshold slope, higher packing densities, variable pillar doping (along the channel).

The second main factor controlling transistor switching speed is the carrier

velocity (or mobility). Strained-Si has been used in recent years to improve carrier

transport properties i.e. mobility and high field velocity [18 - 20].

To incorporate the advantages of both, strained-Si surround gate MOSFETs have

recently been proposed [21, 22] and have been experimentally demonstrated [23].

However, as we demonstrate in this paper, the amount of strain in such devices must be

large enough to obtain the strain-induced advantages. This is because of an important

difference between lateral and cylindrical MOSFETs. In the former, the current flows

near the surface of the device whereas in the latter (as shown in this paper), the current

45
flows in the centre of the device i.e. in the middle of the pillar. As demonstrated in this

paper, the current can be made to flow at the surface of the pillar through the s-Si layer

provided the amount of strain in the s-Si layer is large enough. Using two-dimensional

simulation, we estimate the minimum amount of strain necessary for the current to flow

through the s-Si layer. We show that the minimum strain required increases as the pillar

diameter increases but is independent of the s-Si layer thickness.

5.2 Effect of Strain

A silicon thin film grown pseudomorphically over a relaxed Si1-xGex substrate

experiences biaxial strain leading to changes in band structure [21,24]. Due to strain, the

electron affinity of silicon increases and the bandgap decreases. The effect of strain on Si

band structure can be modeled as [21,24,25]

(ΔEC ) s − Si = 0.57 x (1)

(ΔEg ) s − Si = 0.4 x (2)

where x is the Ge mole fraction in Si1-xGex pillar, (ΔEC ) s − Si is the decrease in electron

affinity of silicon due to strain, and (ΔEg ) s − Si is the decrease in bandgap of silicon due to

strain. A schematic view of a fully depleted cylindrical surround gate strained MOSFET

is shown in Fig. 5.1. The associated energy band diagram from the centre of the pillar to

its surface is shown in Fig. 5.2 for different values of strain. With increasing strain, the

larger electron affinity leads to electron injection from the SiGe pillar into the s-Si layer

and the lower bandgap leads to larger pumping of electrons from the valence band to the

conduction band. Hence, more current flows through the s-Si layer as strain is increased.

46
 n+ Source
SiGe
s-Si s-Si
z
r L

R1
R2

r=0
n+ Drain
Fig. 5.1: Cross-sectional view of the strained-Si vertical surrounding gate MOSFET.

x=0
x = 0.1
SiGe s-Si SiO2 x = 0.2

EC

EV

Fig. 5.2: Energy band diagram of the structure in Fig. 5.1 (in the radial direction) for
different values of strain x (Ge content in the SiGe film).

47
 Fig. 5.3 depicts the electron concentration across the device from the centre of the

pillar to its surface for different values of strain. For low values of strain, the majority of

the current flows through the SiGe pillar, whereas for high values of strain, the current

flow shifts to the s-Si layer.

1018
s-Si
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

SiGe
Electron Concentration (cm-3)

L = 100 nm
1017 VG = 0.3 V
Background x = 0.3
Doping
1016
x = 0.2

1015

1014
x=0

1013
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from the centre (nm)
Fig. 5.3: Electron concentration profile in the radial direction (from the centre of the
pillar to the surface).

5.3 Minimum Required Strain

To determine the minimum amount of strain required to make the current flow through

the s-Si layer, the 2-D device simulator ATLAS [11] was used to simulate the electron

48
concentration profile across the device. The definition used for the minimum required

strain is as follows: the amount of strain such that when the peak electron concentration

in the s-Si layer equals the background doping, the electron concentration in the centre of

the pillar must be 10 times smaller than the background doping. In other words, at the

threshold point of the device, the peak electron concentration in the SiGe pillar must be

10 times smaller than the peak electron concentration in the s-Si layer. This condition is

depicted in Fig. 5.4

1018
s-Si
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

SiGe
Electron Concentration (cm-3)

L = 100 nm
17
10 VG = 0.1 V
Background
x = 0.36
Doping
1016

Minimum required
15
10 strain = 0.36

1014

1013
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from the centre (nm)
Fig. 5.4: Electron concentration profile in the radial direction at the threshold point. The
amount of strain here is the minimum required strain.

49
The parameters used in our simulation are given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Device parameters used in the simulation

Parameter Value
Channel Length, L 100 nm
SiGe pillar radius (R1) 30-80 nm
Strained-Silicon film thickness, ts-Si 5-20 nm
Source/Drain doping, ND 1019 cm-3
Doping in SiGe layers, NA 1016 cm-3
Doping in s-Si layer, NA 1016 cm-3
Drain bias, VDS 0.05 Volts (50 mV)
Gate Oxide Thickness, t ox 2.0 nm
Work function of gate material, φM 4.8 eV

5.4 Results and Discussion

Fig. 5.5 shows the variation of minimum required strain, x with the SiGe pillar

radius. It is observed that the amount of strain necessary to make the current flow through

the s-Si layer increases as the pillar radius increases.

0.4
Minimum Required Ge Content Strain, x

0.35 L = 100 nm
ts-Si = 10 nm
0.3

0.25
0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
SiGe Pillar Radius (nm)

Fig. 5.5: Variation of minimum required strain with SiGe pillar radius

50
This happens because for larger radii, much more electrons must be transferred from the

thick pillar to the s-Si layer. Thus, thick cylindrical s-Si MOSFETs must employ a large

amount of strain.

Fig. 5.6 shows the variation of minimum required strain, x with s-Si film

thickness, t s − Si for different values of SiGe pillar radius. It is observed that minimum

required strain is essentially independent of t s − Si for the range from 5 nm to 20 nm.

0.4
L = 100 nm
0.35
Minimum Required Ge Content Strain, x

Pillar radius = 80 nm
0.3

0.25

0.2
Pillar radius = 50 nm
0.15

0.1 Pillar radius = 30 nm

0.05

0
5 10 15 20
s-Si Film Thickness (nm)

Fig. 5.6: Variation of minimum required strain with strained-Si film thickness t s − Si

51
5.5 Conclusions

For the first time, we have examined the effect of strain on the conduction path in

cylindrical strained-silicon MOSFETs using 2-D simulation. We have shown that in order

to be effective, the amount of strain in cylindrical s-Si MOSFETs must be above a certain

minimum value. Only then will the current flow occur through the s-Si layer, enabling the

mobility enhancement to take place.

52
Chapter 6

Conclusions
The work presented in this thesis can be divided into two categories, namely, (1)

Threshold voltage optimization in Strained-Silicon MOSFETs using quantum

confinement effect, and (2) Modeling and simulation of the threshold voltage of vertical,

surrounding gate s-Si/SiGe MOSFETs.

In chapter 2 of the thesis, we have examined the effect of s-Si layer thickness on

the threshold voltage of strained-silicon MOSFETs using simulation. We have shown that

by reducing the s-Si layer thickness to the quantum mechanical regime, the effective

bandgap of s-Si can be increased counter balancing the reduction in threshold voltage due

to increased strain. This, therefore, permits the designer to realize nanoscale strained-

silicon MOSFETs with good gate control while allowing a higher Ge mole fraction for

increased strain and hence a better device performance.

In chapter 3, we have examined the effect of various device parameters like strain

(Ge mole fraction in SiGe pillar), channel length, strained silicon thin film thickness, and

the pillar radius on the threshold voltage of nanoscale strained-Si/SiGe surrounding gate

MOSFETs by developing an analytical model. The 2-D Poisson equation is solved in the

strained-Si thin film using appropriate boundary conditions. The model results are

compared with accurate two-dimensional simulations. The calculated values of the

threshold voltage obtained from the proposed model agree well with the simulated results

except for very small channel lengths and very large values of strain. There is a

53
significant drop in threshold voltage with increasing Ge content of the relaxed SiGe pillar

and decreasing channel length. The increase in strain, i.e. Ge content, enhances the

performance of MOSFETs in terms of transconductance and speed because of an increase

in the carrier mobility. However, as demonstrated by our results, there are undesirable

side effects with increasing Ge content such as a roll-off in Vth which may affect the

device characteristics and performance significantly. Our compact model accurately

predicts the threshold voltage over a large range of device parameters.

In chapter 4, we have attempted to enhance the accuracy of the threshold voltage

model developed in chapter 4, by including the electron charge term in the Poisson

equation. Though, we could not succeed in our ultimate goal of deriving an accurate,

compact threshold voltage model, the analysis provided a useful insight into the issues

involved in threshold voltage modeling of such devices.

In chapter 5, we have examined the effect of strain on the conduction path in

cylindrical s-Si MOSFETs. We have shown that for small values of strain, the channel is

formed in the middle of the device in the SiGe pillar. For larger values of strain, the

channel shifts to the s-Si layer at the surface. We have also shown that as the pillar

diameter increases, the amount of strain necessary to shift the currrent flow to the surface

increases.

54
Scope for Future Work

Several possible extensions could be attempted as ongoing research work. Some

specific recommendations based on the present work are as follows:

1 The structures studied in this thesis can be fabricated. Experimental results can be

compared to those provided here.

2 Accurate threshold voltage models for vertical, surrounding gate s-Si/SiGe MOSFETs

may be derived by the inclusion of the carrier charge term in the Poisson equation.

Publications from this work:

1. Tarun Vir Singh and M. Jagadesh Kumar, "Effect of Ge Mole

Fraction on the Formation of Conduction Path in Cylindrical

Strained-Silicon-on-SiGe MOSFETs," Superlattices and

Microstructures, Vol.44, Issue 1, pp. 79-85, July 2008.

2. M. Jagadesh Kumar and Tarun Vir Singh, "Quantum Confinement

Effects in Strained Silicon MOSFETs," International Journal of

Nanoscience, Vol.7, pp.81 - 84, April & June 2008. (World

Scientific Publishing Company)

55
 APPENDIX A

# Simulation of quantum confinement effects

# L = 100 nm, x = 0.2, t s − Si = 2 nm

go atlas
#
mesh space.mult=1.0
# Specify the mesh
x.mesh loc=0.00 spac=0.002
x.mesh loc=0.2 spac=0.002
#
y.mesh loc=0.000 spac=0.0001
y.mesh loc=0.004 spac=0.0001
y.mesh loc=0.0045 spac=0.002
y.mesh loc=0.032 spac=0.002
y.mesh loc=0.0325 spac=0.02
y.mesh loc=0.232 spac=0.02

# Specify the regions

region num=1 material=Air
region num=2 x.min=0 x.max=.200 y.min=.132 y.max=.232 material=Silicon
region num=3 x.min=0 x.max=.200 y.min=.032 y.max=.132 material=SiO2
region num=4 x.min=.050 x.max=.150 y.min=.004 y.max=.032 material=SiGe
x.comp=0.2
region num=5 x.min=.050 x.max=.150 y.min=.002 y.max=.004 material=Silicon
region num=6 x.min=0 x.max=.050 y.min=.002 y.max=.032 material=Silicon
region num=7 x.min=.150 x.max=.200 y.min=.002 y.max=.032 material=Silicon
region num=8 x.min=.045 x.max=.155 y.min=0 y.max=.002 material=SiO2

# Specify the electrodes

electrode name=source number=1 x.min=0 x.max=.045 y.min=.002 y.max=.002
electrode name=drain number=2 x.min=.155 x.max=.200 y.min=.002 y.max=.002
electrode name=gate number=3 x.min=.045 x.max=.155 y.min=0 y.max=0

# Specify the contacts

contact name=gate workfunction=4.8
contact name=drain neutral
contact name=source neutral

# Specify the doping concentrations and type

doping uniform conc=1e16 p.type regions=2

56
doping uniform conc=1e16 p.type regions=4
doping uniform conc=1e16 p.type regions=5
doping uniform conc=1e19 n.type regions=6
doping uniform conc=1e19 n.type regions=7

# Define material properties for strained silicon

material region=5 affinity=4.284 eg300=1.00
mobility region=5 mumaxn.cvt=2409

method carriers=0

# Use the models for including quantum confinement effects

models schro eigens=10 ox.schro qy.min=0.002 qy.max=0.004 num.direct=3 fixed.fermi

method Newton

# Specify the parameters to be included in the output file

output ex.field ey.field con.band val.band qfn qfp flowlines band.param band.temp
j.electron

solve init

solve vdrain=0.05 vgate=0.56

save outf=elec1.str

solve vdrain=0.05 vgate=0.58

save outf=elec2.str

solve vdrain=0.05 vgate=0.6

save outf=elec3.str

57
 APPENDIX B

# Simulation of cylindrical s-Si MOSFETs

# L = 50 nm, R1 = 50 nm,R2 = 60 nm, x = 0.2

go atlas
#
mesh cylindrical space.mult=1.0
#
x.mesh loc=0 spac=0.002
x.mesh loc=0.05 spac=0.002
x.mesh loc=0.051 spac=0.001
x.mesh loc=0.06 spac=0.001
x.mesh loc=0.0602 spac=0.0002
x.mesh loc=0.062 spac=0.0002
#
y.mesh loc=0 spac=0.001
y.mesh loc=0.07 spac=0.001

#
region num=1 material=Air
region num=2 x.min=0 x.max=.06 y.min=0 y.max=.01 material=Silicon
region num=3 x.min=0 x.max=.06 y.min=.06 y.max=.07 material=Silicon
region num=4 x.min=0 x.max=.05 y.min=.01 y.max=.06 material=SiGe x.comp=0.2
region num=5 x.min=.05 x.max=.06 y.min=.01 y.max=.06 material=Silicon
region num=6 x.min=.06 x.max=.062 y.min=.01 y.max=.06 material=SiO2

electrode name=source number=1 x.min=0 x.max=.06 y.min=0 y.max=0

electrode name=drain number=2 x.min=0 x.max=.06 y.min=.07 y.max=.07
electrode name=gate number=3 x.min=.062 x.max=.062 y.min=.01 y.max=.06

#
contact name=gate workfunction=4.8
contact name=drain neutral
contact name=source neutral

doping uniform conc=1e19 n.type regions=2

doping uniform conc=1e19 n.type regions=3
doping uniform conc=1e16 p.type regions=4
doping uniform conc=1e16 p.type regions=5

58
material region=5 affinity=4.284 eg300=1.00
mobility region=5 mumaxn.cvt=2409

# regrid doping ratio=3.00 logarithm max.level=1 smooth.k=4

save outfile=sim.str
tonyplot sim.str

models cvt srh print

method newton
output ex.field ey.field con.band val.band qfn qfp

solve init

solve vdrain=0.05 vgate=0.2

save outf=elec1.str

solve vdrain=0.05 vgate=0.3

save outf=elec2.str

solve vdrain=0.05 vgate=0.4

save outf=elec3.str

59
 References

[1] J. Welser, J. L. Hoyt, and J. F. Gibbons, “Electron mobility enhancement in strained-Si

N-type metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors,” IEEE Electron Device Lett.,

vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 100–102, Mar. 1994.

[2] K. Rim, J. Chu, H. Chen, K. A. Jenkins, T. Kanarsky, K. Lee, A. Mocuta, H. Zhu, R.

Roy, J. Newbury, J. Ott, K. Petrarca, P. Mooney, D. Lacey, S. Koester, K. Chan, D.

Boyd, M. Ieong, and H. Wong, “Characteristics and device design of sub-100 nm

strained Si N- and PMOSFETs,” VLSI Symp. Tech . Dig., Jun. 2002, pp. 98–99.

[3] K. Rim, S. Koester, M. Hargrove, J. Chu, P. M. Mooney, J. Ott, T. Kanarsky, P.

Ronsheim,M. Ieong, A. Grill, and J.-S. P.Wong, “Strained Si NMOSFET’s for high

performance CMOS technology,” VLSI Symp. Tech. Dig., Jun. 2001, pp. 59–60.

[4] S. Takagi, T. Mizuno, N. Sugiyama, T. Tezuka, and A. Kurobe, “Strained-Si-on-

insulator (strained-SOI) MOSFETs—Concept, structures and device characteristics,”

IEICE Trans. Electron., vol. E84C, no. 8, pp. 1043–1050, Aug. 2001.

[5] T. Numata, T. Mizuno, T. Tezuka, J. Koga, and S. Takagi, “Control of threshold-voltage

and short-channel effects in ultrathin strained-SOI CMOS devices,” IEEE Trans.

Electron Devices, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1780–1786, Aug. 2005.

[6] V. Venkataraman, S. Nawal, and M. J. Kumar, “Compact Analytical Threshold-Voltage

Model of Nanoscale Fully Depleted Strained-Si on Silicon–Germanium-on-Insulator

(SGOI) MOSFETs,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 554–562, Mar.

2007.

[7] M. J. Kumar, V. Venkataraman, and S. Nawal, “Impact of Strain or Ge content on the

Threshold Voltage of Nanoscale Strained-Si/SiGe Bulk MOSFETs,” to appear in IEEE

60
 Trans. on Device and Materials Reliability, vol.7, Mar. 2007.

[8] M. J. Kumar, V. Venkataraman, and S. Nawal, “A Simple Analytical Threshold Voltage

Model of Nanoscale Fully Depleted Single-Layer Strained-Silicon-on-Insulator (SSOI)

MOSFETs,” IEEE Trans. on Electron Devices, vol.53, no. 10, pp.2500-2506, Oct. 2006.

[9] J. S. Lim, S. E. Thompson, and J. G. Fossum, “Comparison of threshold voltage

shifts for uniaxial and biaxial tensile-stressed n-MOSFETs,” IEEE

Electron Device Lett., vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 731–733, Nov. 2004.

[10] B.E.A. Saleh and M.C. Teich, “Fundamentals of Photonics,” John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

(1991), Ch.-15.

[11] ATLAS, Silvaco International, Santa Clara, CA.

[12] ATLAS Users Manual, Silvaco International, Santa Clara, CA.

[13] H. Takato, K. Sunouchi, N. Okabe, A. Nitayama, K. Hieda, F. Horiguchi, and F.

Masuoka, “Impact of surrounding gate transistor (SGT) for ultra-high-density LSI’s”,

IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 38, pp. 573–578, Mar. 1991.

[14] S. L. Jang and S. S. Liu, “An analytical surrounding gate MOSFET model”, Solid-State

Electronics, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 721–726, 1998.

[15] G.V. Reddy and M. J. Kumar, “A new dual-material double-gate (DMDG) nanoscale

SOI MOSFET– two-dimensional analytical modeling and simulation,” IEEE Trans. on

Nanotechnology, Vol.4, pp.260 – 268, March 2005.

[16] C. P. Auth and J. D. Plummer, “Scaling theory for cylindrical, fully-depleted,

surrounding-gate MOSFET’s,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 18, pp. 74-76, Feb.

1997.

[17] S.-H. Oh, D. Monroe and J. M. Hergenrother, “Analytic description of short-channel

61
 effects in fully-depleted double-gate and cylindrical, surrounding-gate MOSFETs,” IEEE

Electron Device Lett., vol. 21, pp. 445-447, Sep. 2000

[18] T. Vogelsang and K. R. Hofmann, “Electron Mobilities and High-Field Drift Velocities

in Strained Silicon on Silicon-Germanium Substrates,” 50th Annual Device Research

Conf. Dig., pp. 34-35, June 1992.

[19] J. Welser, J. L. Hoyt, and J. F. Gibbons, “Electron Mobility Enhancement in Strained-Si

N-Type Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistors,” IEEE Electron Device

Letters, vol. 15, pp.100-102, March 1994.

[20] K. Rim, S. Koester, M. Hargrove, J. Chu, P. M. Mooney, J. Ott, T. Kanarsky, P.

Ronsheim, M. Ieong, A. Grill, and J. –S. P. Wong, “Strained Si NMOSFET’s for high

performance CMOS technology,” Symp. VLSI Tech. Dig., pp. 59–60, June 2001.

[21] J. S. Lim, S. E. Thompson, and J. G. Fossum, “Comparison of threshold voltage

shifts for uniaxial and biaxial tensile-stressed n-MOSFETs,” IEEE Electron Device Lett.,

vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 731–733, Nov. 2004.

[22] X. Wang, D. L. Kencke, K. C. Liu, A. F. Tasch, L. F. Register, and S. K. Banerjee,

“Electron Transport Properties in Novel Orthorhombically-strained Silicon Material

Explored by the Monte Carlo Method”, International Conference on Simulation of

Semiconductor Processes and Devices, 2000, pp. 70-73, 6-8 Sept. 2000.

[23] J. W. Lee and Y. Lit, “Silicon-Germanium Structure in Surrounding-Gate Strained

Silicon Nanowire FETs”, 10th International Workshop on Computational Electronics,

2004, pp 161-162.

[24] W. Zhang and J. G. Fossum, “On the threshold voltage of strained-Si–Si1-xGex

MOSFETs,” IEEE Trans. on Electron Devices, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 263-268, February

62
 2005.

[25] T. Numata, T. Mizuno, T. Tezuka, J. Koga, and S. Takagi, “Control of Threshold-

Voltage and Short-Channel Effects in Ultrathin Strained-SOI CMOS Devices,” IEEE

Trans. on Electron Devices, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1780-1786, August 2005.

[26] K. K. Young, “Short-channel effect in fully depleted SOI-MOSFETs,” IEEE Trans.

Electron Devices, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 399-402, Feb. 1989.

[27] H. A. Elhamid , B. Iniguez , D. Jimenezb, J. Roig ,J. Pallare`s , L. F. Marsal , “Two-

dimensional analytical threshold voltage roll-off and subthreshold swing models for

undoped cylindrical gate all around MOSFET,” Solid State Electronics, vol. 50, no. 5,

pp. 805-812, May 2006.

[28] D. Jiménez, J. J. Sáenz, B. Iñíguez, J. Suñé, L. F.Marsal, and J. Pallarès, “Modeling of

nanoscale gate-all-around MOSFETs,” IEEE Electron Device Lett., vol. 25, pp. 314–316,

May 2004.

63