Devais

© All Rights Reserved

6 views

Jurnal Devais

Devais

© All Rights Reserved

- 2n5179
- Thermal Analysis of a Linear Voltage Regulator
- Transistor
- Basic Electronics Engineering
- Csc 2073
- BC846.pdf
- sem3.pdf
- Datasheet
- L 1 Introduction
- Peralatan Aktif Gelombang Mikro
- Power BJT
- Nte 6407
- E02 Ohm_s Law.pdf
- bc337.pdf
- Themal Management of Solid State Relays
- 2N3905
- Infineon IKW50N60T DS v02 06 En
- FDD5614P
- 20150727 Wong n
- 2N2894

You are on page 1of 8

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 61, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2014

Between Emitter Fingers of Bipolar Transistors

Steffen Lehmann, Yves Zimmermann, Andreas Pawlak, and Michael Schrter, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract A strategy for compact modeling the static thermal

coupling between the emitter fingers of SiGe heterojunction

bipolar transistors (SiGe-HBTs) is described. An extraction

methodology that includes the nonlinear temperature dependence

of the thermal conductivity is introduced and applied to suitable

test structures. The experimental results are used for calibrating

a 3-D numerical solution of the equation for heat conduction

based on a Greens function approach. The latter can then be

employed for generating thermal coupling networks for arbitrary

transistor configurations.

Index Terms Self-heating, SiGe-HBT modeling, temperaturedependent thermal conductivity, thermal coupling.

I. I NTRODUCTION

circuits using a given bipolar transistor technology,

typically a large emitter window area is required. This can

be achieved by increasing the emitter width or length at the

expense of a decreased power-handling capability per unit

area because of self-heating [1]. Because for a width increase

the transistor performance typically degrades, often multiple

emitters or transistors with small emitter width in parallel are

used. Although the temperatures and performance degradation using such devices are reduced compared with a single transistor solution, thermal interaction still exist between

the emitter fingers. This thermal interaction can be further

reduced by emitter ballasting resistors, limiting the emitter

length [2], or increasing the finger distance. Unfortunately,

all of these options also degrade the electrical device performance. Therefore, a compromise between the emitter geometry and acceptable thermal interaction of the emitter fingers

has to be found. Such an optimization requires a method to

predict the temperature distribution within multi-emitter finger

transistors, in particular also for varying emitter geometry.

Time consuming and computationally expensive numerical

Date of current version October 20, 2014. This work was supported in

part by the Cluster for Application and Technology Research in Europe

on NanoElectronics, Bundesministerium fr Bildung und Forschung, through

the RF2THz Project, and in part by the European Union within the FP7

Programme through the DOTSEVEN Project. The review of this paper was

arranged by Editor G. Niu.

S. Lehmann, Y. Zimmermann, and A. Pawlak are with the Chair

for Electron Devices and Integrated Circuits, Technische Universitt

Dresden, Dresden 01069, Germany (e-mail: steffen.lehmann@tu-dresden.de;

yves.zimmermann@tu-dresden.de; andreas.pawlak@tu-dresden.de).

M. Schrter is with the Chair for Electron Devices and Integrated

Circuits, Technische Universitt Dresden, Dresden 01069, Germany, and

also with the Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering,

University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA (e-mail:

mschroter@ieee.org).

Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available

online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TED.2014.2359994

with measurements [3], [4] even if a lot of layout details

are considered and reasonable thermal conductivity values are

used. For practical purposes, the large number of unknowns

being required for numerical simulations rather suggests a

simplification of the simulation approach but with a calibration

toward experimental results for the given process technology.

In this sense, a methodology based on measurements and an

empirical polynomial fit for the finger spacing dependence of

the coupling has been presented in [5]. The latter methodology

relies on additional thermal imaging equipment to determine

the coupling and its accuracy is limited by the resolution of

thermal imaging. Although in [6] and [7] thermal coupling

coefficients have been determined based on purely electrical

data, an adjustable scaling approach to characterize different

than measured structures is not being presented. To overcome

these issues, here a methodology based on a simple test

structure, electrical dc measurements only, and a calibrated

fast solution of the heat transport equation is proposed. This

approach allows for generating thermal networks for various

emitter geometries and is applied to SiGe-HBTs of a standard

BiCMOS-technology [8] that is suitable for state-of-the-art

circuit design [9], [10].

II. M ODELING A PPROACH

In [11] and [12], static thermal coupling was already studied, whereas [13] describes the basic approach for compact

modeling also applied in this paper. An alternative approach

using a resistive network is presented in [14], whereas in [15],

only a single equivalent thermal resistance is determined,

which shows a small-signal solution for an SOI technology.

Most aforementioned approaches rely on externally accessible

thermal nodes in the electrical device model for realizing a

thermal subcircuit. The circuit topology accounting for static

self-heating and thermal coupling employed in this paper is

shown in Fig. 1 for a transistor with two emitter fingers.

For multiple emitter finger configurations or emitter finger

segmentation [2], [13], the subcircuit shown in Fig. 1 can

easily be extended by additional voltage-controlled voltage

sources. As indicated, the total temperature rise of one finger

comprises a contribution from its own self-heating together

with the attenuated temperature increase due to the coupled

self-heating of the adjacent finger represented by a respective

voltage-controlled voltage source. The combined temperature

increase over ambient at each emitter finger can then be

written as

T1 = rth1 (TE1 )Pdis1 + c12rth2 (TE2 )Pdis2

(1)

(2)

0018-9383 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.

See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

LEHMANN et al.: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STATIC THERMAL COUPLING BETWEEN EMITTER FINGERS

3677

nodes Tn1 and Tn2 , the temperature increases T1 and T2 over Tamb can

be obtained.

resistance for the corresponding emitter finger. The indices for

the coupling factors cSH indicate the heating emitter finger H

and affected sensing emitter finger S. The total temperature

for emitter finger N

TEN = Tamb + TN

(3)

increase TN . In contrast to [13], (1) is implicit with respect

to T since the thermal resistances dependence on the

temperature needs to be considered for advanced HBTs as will

be presented subsequently. Consideration of the temperature

dependence of the thermal resistance for the emitter finger N

(see [16]) with respect to a nominal temperature Tnom can be

achieved by implementation of

TEN rth

(4)

rthN = rth0N

Tnom

within the subcircuit, e.g., as Verilog-A model.

III. PARAMETER E XTRACTION M ETHODS

The generation of the thermal subcircuit path for, e.g.,

the single emitter finger 1 requires the determination of the

parameter values for the thermal resistance rth1 , the technology

specific temperature exponent rth valid for all rth and of the

coupling factors c1N for all contributing emitter fingers N.

The extraction of the thermal resistance is based on the

idea of simultaneous extraction of parasitic emitter and thermal

resistances [17] and has been adapted in [18] and applied here

together with HICUM [19]. Test results for extracted rth values

from compact model simulations of different transistor sizes

yield a range of confidence of 2% for values averaged over

the collector current range used for the extraction. In contrast

to the recommended bias range in [18], in the range considered

for the extraction test a lower extraction accuracy is achieved

for the emitter resistance (<11%) and particularly its weak

temperature dependence.

To extract coupling factors, test structures with two or more

emitter fingers are required. If the emitter fingers allow for

separate biasing, one emitter finger H can be operated at high

power dissipation Pdis,H and self-heating, whereas another

finger S will be operated at low power dissipation Pdis,S for

sensing the impact of thermal coupling. Knowing the thermal

resistances rth,H and rth,S for each of the emitter fingers,

the corresponding self-heating at the fingers can be derived.

Fig. 2. (a) Cross section of five-finger test structure with equal distance

between adjacent emitter fingers and symmetrically connected emitter fingers.

One common base and one common collector contact is used. (b) Complete

thermal subcircuit of the five-finger structure.

At the sensing emitter finger, a temperature sensitive parameter (TSP) of its electrical characteristics is used to determine

the total temperature increase TS at this location. This allows

calculating the coupling factor of finger H toward finger S

cSH =

.

rth,H (TE,H )Pdis,H

(5)

Note, that neither the temperature dependence of the thermal resistances nor the self-heating at the sensing finger is

neglected. This method is designated in the following as heatsense method. In contrast to the linearized VBE sensitivity

used in [6] and [7], this paper employs the emitter current

as TSP. For calibration purposes, the temperature dependence

of the emitter current in forward-gummel biasing has to be

determined and modeled. For the low to medium current range,

a simplified transfer current formulation

VBE

(6)

IE = IES exp

mVT

and a well-known temperature dependence formulation for the

saturation current IES derived from the temperature dependence of the intrinsic carrier density and mobility

TE

VGB TE

IES = IES0

exp

1

(7)

T0

VT T0

are applied. The temperature TE is here the finger temperature

(3) and is considered for the calculation of the thermal

voltage VT and saturation current IES . The saturation current

at nominal temperature IES0 , nonideality factor m, temperature

coefficient , and bandgap voltage VGB are extracted for each

relevant emitter finger or finger combination (in case of shorted

emitter fingers).

A suitable test structure with five emitter fingers is shown

in Fig. 2(a). Each finger is laid out in CBEBC configuration although one common base and one common collector

3678

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 61, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2014

contact pad is used for all fingers. The emitters can be connected separately or, as indicated in the figure, symmetrically

(comparable with [14]). While the latter option saves the space

for two emitter pads on the wafer, it also may be useful if low

thermal coupling is expected, since the according temperature

increase at least can be doubled and allows a more sensitive

determination of coupling factors. In contrast, not all coupling

factors, e.g., c15 , of the thermal subcircuit in Fig. 2(b) can

be extracted for the symmetrically connected test structure

using the heat-sense method. Therefore, an extraction approach

designated as rth -ratio method in the following is applied and

the heat-sense method is slightly adapted, too. The following

assumptions are made for the extraction due to the absence of

any deep trench isolation (DTI).

1) All fingers have the same thermal resistance (which has

been verified in [20])

rth1 (TE ) = rth2 (TE ) = = rth (TE ).

(8)

single emitter finger and its temperature dependence

is considered. The same is assumed for the collector

resistance rCx since for each emitter finger, a similar

symmetrical double contact configuration for the collector is realized.

3) For symmetrically connected emitter fingers, the power

dissipation for the emitter fingers 1 and 5 is the same

Pdis,1 = Pdis,5 =

with

Pdis,Ea

2

(9)

Pdis,Ea

IE,Ea

VCEa (rE + rCx )

IE,Ea .

2

(10)

2 and 4 are the same

Pdis,Eb

(11)

Pdis,2 = Pdis,4 =

2

with

IE,Eb

IE,Eb .

(12)

Pdis,Eb VCEb (rE + rCx )

2

The thermal resistance rth3 for the third (single) finger is

determined first, followed by the equivalent thermal resistance

rth,Ea for the combined fingers 1 and 5, which is defined by

rth,Ea

TEa

=

.

Pdis,Ea

(13)

temperature increases at emitter fingers 1 and 5 must be

identical reading

TEa = rth (TE1 )Pdis,1 + c15rth (TE5 )Pdis,5

= rth (TE1 )Pdis,5 + c51rth (TE5 )Pdis,1 .

(14)

the fingers thermal resistances, (9) and (14) can be inserted

into (13), and rearranging toward the coupling factors yields

c15 = c51 =

2rth,Ea

1.

rth

(15)

for extraction, the method is designated as rth -ratio method.

The method can be applied to determine the coupling factors

c42 and c24 , too. Using the equivalent thermal resistance rth,Eb

for the combined fingers 2 and 4, the respective coupling

factors can be written as

2rth,Eb

1.

(16)

c42 = c24 =

rth

Since both coupling factors should be identical to c13 and c53 ,

heating Ec (finger 3) and sensing Ea (fingers 1 and 5) represent

an alternative for the extraction using the heat-sense method,

too. To extract other coupling factors, e.g., c32 or c52 , usually

two emitter fingers are used as heat source and the coupled

temperature is determined at the other finger(s). For example,

to determine the coupling of the emitter fingers 2 and 4 toward

finger 3, increasing VBEb generates high-power dissipation

and thus self-heating primarily at the fingers 2 and 4 while

operating finger 3 in the low-injection current range with

constant VBEc . The observed increase in emitter current IEc

measured for finger 3 is then caused by the temperature

increase at finger 3

TEc = rth (TEc )Pdis,Ec + c32rth (TEb )

Pdis,Eb

2

Pdis,Eb

.

(17)

2

The first term at the right-hand side of (17) considers the

self-heating of finger 3, whereas the coupled contributions of

the fingers 2 and 4 are represented by the two last terms.

Although often the temperature increase at the sensing device

due to its own power dissipation is neglected, here the selfheating is considered to keep the extraction method applicable

also for medium sensing currents. In contrast, the usually

very low thermally coupled heat fraction of emitter finger 3

toward fingers 2 and 4 is neglected here. Considering the test

structures symmetry, (17) can be rewritten as

+ c34rth (TEb )

(18)

calculated rearranging (18) to

c32 = c34 =

.

rth (TEb )Pdis,Eb

(19)

the corresponding saturation current IES0 is fine-calibrated to

fit the characteristic in a region with negligible self-heating.

Then, (6) and (7) are solved consistently for TEc based on

the measured IEc . To consider the temperature dependence of

the thermal resistance at fingers 2 and 4 in the denominator

of (19), the thermal coupling between these two fingers needs

to be considered by numerically solving the implicit equation

for the total temperature increase at fingers 2 and 4

Tamb + TEb rth Pdis,Eb

(1 + c24 ) (20)

TEb = rth0

Tnom

2

from which the heating term in (19) can be identified as

rth (TEb )Pdis,Eb =

2TEb

.

(1 + c24 )

(21)

LEHMANN et al.: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STATIC THERMAL COUPLING BETWEEN EMITTER FINGERS

TABLE I

E XTRACTION S EQUENCE AND D EPENDENCES FOR C OUPLING FACTORS

U SING THE S YMMETRICALLY C ONNECTED F IVE -F INGER T RANSISTOR

3679

TABLE II

E XTRACTION R ESULTS FOR THE T HERMAL R ESISTANCES

AND

the emitter fingers 1 and 5 toward finger 3 if the voltage VBEa

instead of VBEb is increased toward high-injection currents.

The coupling factors can be determined then by solving

c31 = c35 =

.

rth (TEa )Pdis,Ea

(22)

fingers 1 and 4, a measurement with constant VBEa in the

low-injection current range and increasing VBEb can be used.

Then, the temperature increase at the emitter finger 1 reads

Pdis,Ea

Pdis,Eb

+c12rth2 (TEb )

2

2

Pdis,Eb

Pdis,Ea

+c15rth5 (TEa )

.

(23)

+c14rth4 (TEb )

2

2

The coupling factor c12 between two directly adjacent emitter

fingers is assumed to be equal to the previously extracted c32 .

Thus, the coupling factors between fingers 1 and 4 and

fingers 5 and 2 can be calculated using the rearranged equation

TEa = rth1 (TEa )

c14 = c52 =

c32 .

rth (TEb )Pdis,Eb

(24)

denominator are determined with the previously explained

heat-sense method. Table I shows the extraction sequence for

the symmetrically connected five-finger transistor based on the

discussed extraction methods.

IV. M EASUREMENT R ESULTS

Test structures with four different emitter finger lengths

consisting of five single or three double emitter fingers were

manufactured in a SiGe-HBT process [8] and measured. On a

first test chip, the shortest test structure was realized in the

symmetrical connection scheme [Fig. 2(a)]. Later on, three

longer test structures were also fabricated with single and

double emitter fingers separately contacted.

Table II shows determined thermal resistances and coupling

factors of the extraction. For each structure, its acronym,

number of single or double fingers, and emitter window size

are indicated. The bold values are results of the rth -ratio

method, which was applied to all structures except SML. For

example, the spacing between the double emitter fingers of

LNG2 and between two adjacent single emitter fingers of

LNG are the same, which allows to determine c12 by the

Fig. 3.

Coupling factor extraction for the symmetrically connected test

structure MIN with increasing VBEb = Vh to heat finger 2 and 4 at

VCB = [0.5, 1.0, 1.5] V and VBEc = [0.7, 0.725, 0.75, 0.775, 0.8] V for the

sensing currents IEc at Tamb = 300 K. (a) Forward gummel characteristic of

heating current IEb (dashed lines) and sensing emitter current IEc (solid lines).

(b) Reextracted saturation currents (dashed lines), sensed emitter currents

IEc (symbols), and emitter current IEc modeled using saturation current and

temperature increase (solid lines). (c) Temperature increase at the heating

fingers (dashed lines) and at the sensing fingers (solid lines). (d) Coupling

factor for all measurements (solid lines) and averaged value (dashed line)

determined within the range indicated by dotted lines.

rth -ratio method. Note, the extracted values for the double

finger transistors are parameters per double finger.

A coupling factor extraction by the heat-sense method

is shown in detail in Fig. 3 for measurements of the test

structure with the shortest finger length. For this example, the

fingers 2 and 4 are heated simultaneously and the temperature

increase at the enclosed emitter finger 3 is sensed. To get an

idea of the bias dependence of the method, four VBC voltages

are applied generating different ranges of power dissipation

at the heating fingers as well as five VBEc values generating

different levels of power dissipation at the sensing finger. The

resulting sense currents IEc are indicated by the solid lines in

the forward gummel characteristics of the heating fingers in

Fig. 3(a). Fig. 3(b) presents the measured and modeled sense

3680

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 61, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2014

TABLE III

S IMULATION E XPERIMENTS FOR THE LNG S TRUCTURE

Fig. 4. Dependence of the coupling factor c12 on the power dissipation with

VCB = [0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0] V and VBE,1 = [0.64, 0.66, 0.68, 0.70] V for

the sensing currents IE,1 at T = 300 K. Sudden decrease of a few curves

for transistor LNG 20 mW power dissipation is caused by oscillation issues

being observed with the heating currents.

Fig. 6. Thermal resistance of one emitter finger versus the device temperature TE simulated with GFM for Tamb = [300400] K and P dis =

[0.1, 1.3, 2.5, 3.7, 4.9, 6.1] mW/m2 . Inset: normalized coupling factors

derived from experiment 1 for the applied power dissipation range.

Fig. 5. Extraction results for the devices with single emitter fingers (solid

lines) and the devices with double emitter fingers (dashed lines) shown in

Table II. (a) Determined thermal resistances (circles) and compact model

results using (4) (lines). (b) Determined coupling factors using heat-sense

method (circles) and rth -ratio method (stars).

surface and with planar heat sources and sensors of the size

of the emitter area is used. In addition, sensor domains allow

for additional coupling factor determination versus distance.

The thermal resistances are determined by

rth =

From these characteristics, the temperature increase [Fig. 3(c)]

is calculated. The observed coupling factor in Fig. 3(d) shows

negligible dependence on the voltage Vh = VBEb in the

determination range, indicated by the dotted lines.

The determined coupling factors of the separately connected

test structures (Fig. 4) show a slight decrease (1.5%) with

the power dissipation, which is consistent with the behavior

obtained in [7]. Nevertheless, for the modeling of thermal

coupling, this minor impact is neglected in this paper also due

to the aforementioned achievable accuracy for the extraction

of the thermal resistances and respective coupling factors.

An overview on the extracted thermal resistances and spatial

dependence of the extracted coupling factors is given in

Fig. 5. As expected, an increasing coupling for decreasing

distance and increasing emitter finger length is observed. The

higher values obtained for the coupling factors using the

rth -ratio method will be explained by the simulation results

in Section V.

V. S IMULATION R ESULTS

To interpret the data obtained from measurements, a numerical solution of the heat conduction equation based on the

Greens function method (GFM) [21], [22] is used. The

GFM solution applied here is only valid for a homogeneous

region but is capable of capturing the nonlinearity introduced

by the temperature-dependent thermal conductivity.

The transistor structure has been strongly simplified for the

simulations. A semi-infinite silicon body with an adiabatic

Tmean

Pdis,A

(25)

source area Pdis,A and the average temperature increase in

the sensing area Tmean . A set of simulation experiments is

performed to investigate the nonlinear behavior of the thermal

coupling (Table III). These experiments are performed with

the LNG structure applying P dis of up to 6 mW/m2 per

finger, since particularly the LNG structure shows significantly higher thermal coupling using the rth -ratio method.

Experiment 1 allows to determine the thermal resistance per

finger and all coupling factors depicted for the equivalent

thermal subcircuit in Fig. 2(b) considering the test structures

symmetry and superposition principle. Due to the temperature

dependence of the thermal conductivity, not only the thermal

resistance, but also the coupling factors are expected to behave

nonlinearly with respect to temperature and power dissipation.

This nonlinear nature also limits the applicability of the superposition principle for modeling, which is shown by comparing

the experiments 5 and 6 to the superimposed results of the

experiments 24.

Results of experiment 1 in Fig. 6 show that the impact of the

ambient temperature on one hand and of the self-heating on the

thermal resistance on the other hand needs to be distinguished.

A temperature increase reduces the thermal conductivity of

silicon. Thus, for increasing the ambient temperature, a higher

equivalent thermal resistance can be expected. Furthermore,

the thermal conductivity is reduced primarily at and around

the heat source due to additional local temperature increase

caused by self-heating. This causes a secondary increase of

the thermal resistance. The thermal resistance is modeled by

LEHMANN et al.: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STATIC THERMAL COUPLING BETWEEN EMITTER FINGERS

3681

middle of the emitter fingers (z-direction) while dissipating 6 mW/m2 per

active emitter finger. Comparison of the superimposed experiments 2, 3, and 4

(dashed lines) with the temperature distributions of experiment 5 and 6 (solid

lines). The finger width wE0 = 0.44 m for fingers 2, 3, and 4 is indicated

by the vertical dotted lines.

Fig. 8.

Thermal resistance of one single emitter finger versus device

temperature. Results of the initially used (squares) and adapted heat conductivity model (crosses) for the GFM are compared with compact model

results determined from measurements (circles). Simulated power dissipation density per emitter area is similar to that of the measurements P dis

[0.16] mW/m2 .

including already the ambient temperature and self-heating,

and will give a single characteristic in Fig. 6. In contrast,

the rth (TE ) characteristics of the GFM simulation show a

dispersion with respect to Pdis . A first approach for modeling this dispersion could be a linearized solution of the

temperature dependence as presented in [23]. Since the thermal

resistances extracted from measurements did not show a clear

dispersion trend, (4) was applied for the analysis. The possible

reasons for the absence of dispersion are limitations of the

power density and relatively low thermal resistances for the

technology investigated here, which may not be valid anymore

for future technology nodes [24].

The inset in Fig. 6 shows the coupling factors normalized

to its maximum derived from experiment 1. For all coupling

factors, a decrease of 5% for the applied range of power

dissipation is determined, which can be explainedsimilarly

as for the thermal resistanceby the temperature dependence

of the thermal conductivity. The behavior could be modeled

by a linear function. But, considering the small impact on the

total device temperature and accuracy limits of the extraction

procedure from measurements it may be neglected for compact

modeling. A more serious issue is observed with experiments 5 and 6 shown in Fig. 7. The impact of locally increased

temperature and thus decreased thermal conductivity leads to

higher temperatures than those of the linearly superimposed

experiments 2 to 4. This means: 1) the superposition principle

so far assumed for compact modeling should be carefully

revisited for each technology and 2) in case of using more

than one heating finger, the extraction methods are expected

to overestimate the coupling factors. The latter can be proven

by the comparison of the coupling factors determined by the

heat-sense method against those determined by the rth -ratio

method [Fig. 5(b)].

TABLE IV

Using a temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity

for silicon derived from literature [20], [25], the simulated

thermal resistances from GFM tends to result in too small

There may be various causes for the deviationsan overview

on a simulation study with a box integration method [20] is

given in Table IV. Additional impact can be due to inaccuracies of the thermal conductivities of the different materials

(poly-/mono-Si with doping dependence, SiO2 , SiGe, silicide,

and so on) and by metallization and contact heat flow [26].

Therefore, an obvious first attempt to adapt the GFM simulations to the measurements will be the determination of

an effective thermal conductivity model for the bulk material

to match the measured thermal resistances. To keep a low

number of parameters being required for the adaptation of

the simulations to the measurements, the metallization path

is not considered. The initially used conductivity models for

Si, SiO2 , and SiGe of [20] cover a wide temperature range

(T = [4500] K) and were adapted to experimental results

found in the literature, e.g., [25]. To match the measured data,

a simplified model

a1

(26)

=

(T /K)b1

is adjusted for Si with a1 = 65 W/(cmK) and b1 = 0.7

[Fig. 9(a)]. The thermal conductivity for that model at 300 K is

20% lower than the initially used one (see [25]) and a lower

temperature dependence is obtained. This may be reasonable since the realistic structure includes also SiO2 -domains,

3682

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 61, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2014

thermal conductivity model used for GFM. Solid line: adapted conductivity

model. Dashed-dotted line: conductivity model of [25]. (b) Comparison of

coupling factors determined with heat-sense method (circles) and values

determined with calibrated GFM (crosses) at Tamb = 300 K.

Fig. 10. Measured collector current densities of the five finger transistor

LNG (triangles, AE0 = 5 0.44 27.8 m2 ) and a single finger transistor

with similar emitter dimensions (circles, AE0 = 1 0.44 27.8 m2 )

at VBE = [0.83, 0.85] V compared with simulations (solid lines). For the

LNG transistor, the respective thermal network is considered.

which have a two orders of magnitude lower thermal conductivity. The thermal resistances can be reproduced within a 5%

error range over device temperature and power dissipation density except for the smallest transistor structure MIN (12%),

which was also manufactured with another wafer run.

As shown in Fig. 9(b) for the coupling factors determined

with the calibrated GFM, a good agreement with the measured

values can be obtained. The deviations of the symmetrically

connected test structure MIN can be explained by the nonlinear

effects and their resulting dependencies during the extraction.

In Fig. 10, the impact of the thermal coupling on the

transistor behavior is shown by measured and modeled output current densities for a single finger and a five finger

transistor (LNG). Since for both devices the emitter finger

sizes are equal, the same electrical compact model is used for

each single finger. For the five finger transistor, the thermal

subcircuit as shown in Fig. 2(b) is used for modeling the

thermal coupling. The resulting higher finger temperatures

generate a significantly higher current density, particularly at

higher power densities. This behavior is also confirmed by

comparison with the measurements.

VII. C ONCLUSION

This paper describes in detail a methodology to determine

thermal coupling between emitter fingers of bipolar transistors

from measurements of test structures. In contrast to the often

current is employed as TSP and the self-heating of the sensor

emitter fingers is considered. The presented novel rth -ratio

method can already be performed if a single-finger and a

double-finger transistor are available although a five-finger

transistor connected separately or symmetrically allows the

more convenient determination. Issues resulting from using the

latter test structure being symmetrically contacted as presented

in [14] were discussed. Extracted thermal resistances and

coupling factors for different emitter finger distances and

finger lengths are presented. The results are discussed by

means of a calculation method based on the Greens function

for a simplified transistor structure. The thermal conductivitys

temperature dependence is considered and its impact on the

thermal coupling has been shown.

The GFM was calibrated with experimentally determined

thermal resistances. The coupling factors obtained using the

calibrated GFM show a good agreement with the measured

coupling factor results. This holds also for comparisons

of electrical transistor characteristics. It is shown that a

GFM-based calculation method can be calibrated with a set

of suitable test structures and with the presented extraction

methodology. The method can be used to calculate self-heating

for other geometries, numbers and locations of emitter fingers

and transistors, and allows the geometry scalable generation of self-heating networks within seconds (in contrast to,

e.g., 3-D FEM methods [3]). The complete methodology is

expected to be also applicable to other calculation methods

(see [14], [15]), architectures (DTI [28]), transistor types

(FET, HEMT), and material systems (InP-HBTs).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank G. Fischer from IHP,

Frankfurt, Germany, for providing the test structures and

F. Utermhlen for the simulation support.

R EFERENCES

[1] G.-B. Gao, M.-Z. Wang, X. Gui, and H. Morkoc, Thermal design

studies of high-power heterojunction bipolar transistors, IEEE Trans.

Electron Devices, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 854863, May 1989.

[2] J.-S. Rieh, D. Greenberg, Q. Liu, A. Joseph, G. Freeman, and

D. Ahlgren, Structure optimization of trench-isolated SiGe HBTs for

simultaneous improvements in thermal and electrical performances,

IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 27442752,

Dec. 2005.

[3] V. dAlessandro et al., Impact of layout and technology parameters

on the thermal resistance of SiGe:C HBTs, in Proc. Bipolar/BiCMOS

Circuits Technol. Meeting, Oct. 2010, pp. 137140.

[4] L. La Spina, V. dAlessandro, S. Russo, and L. K. Nanver, Thermal

design of multifinger bipolar transistors, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,

vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 17891800, Aug. 2010.

[5] J. M. Andrews, C. M. Grens, and J. D. Cressler, Compact modeling

of mutual thermal coupling for the optimal design of SiGe HBT power

amplifiers, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 15291532,

Jul. 2009.

[6] N. Nenadovic et al., Extraction and modeling of self-heating and mutual

thermal coupling impedance of bipolar transistors, IEEE J. Solid-State

Circuits, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 17641772, Oct. 2004.

[7] M. Weiss, A. K. Sahoo, C. Maneux, S. Fregonese, and T. Zimmer,

Mutual thermal coupling in SiGe:C HBTs, in Proc. Symp. Microelectron. Technol. Devices, Sep. 2013, pp. 14.

[8] D. Knoll et al., A flexible, low-cost, high performance SiGe:C BiCMOS

process with a one-mask HBT module, in Proc. Int. Electron Devices

Meeting, Dec. 2002, pp. 783786.

LEHMANN et al.: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STATIC THERMAL COUPLING BETWEEN EMITTER FINGERS

and communication systems developed within Cool Silicon cluster

project, in Proc. SBMO/IEEE MTT-S Int. Microw. Optoelectron. Conf.,

Aug. 2013, pp. 12.

[10] D. Fritsche, R. Wolf, and F. Ellinger, Analysis and design of a stacked

power amplifier with very high bandwidth, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory

Techn., vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 32233231, Oct. 2012.

[11] P. Baureis, Electrothermal modeling of multi-emitter heterojunctionbipolar-transistors (HBTs), in Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop Integr. Nonlinear

Microw. Millimeterwave Circuits, Oct. 1994, pp. 145148.

[12] W. Liu, Thermal coupling in 2-finger heterojunction bipolar transistors,

IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 10331038, Jun. 1995.

[13] D. Walkey, T. Smy, R. Dickson, J. Brodsky, D. Zweidinger, and R. Fox,

Equivalent circuit modeling of static substrate thermal coupling using

VCVS representation, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 37, no. 9,

pp. 11981206, Sep. 2002.

[14] H. Beckrich-Ros, S. Ortolland, D. Pache, D. Cli, D. Gloria, and

T. Zimmer, A nodal model dedicated to self-heating and thermal

coupling simulations, IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf., vol. 21, no. 2,

pp. 132139, May 2008.

[15] A. Darwish, H. Hung, A. Bayba, and K. El-Kinawi, Accurate calculation of junction temperature of HBTs, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory

Techn., vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 652659, Mar. 2011.

[16] J. C. J. Paasschens, S. Harmsma, and R. van der Toorn, Dependence

of thermal resistance on ambient and actual temperature, in Proc.

Bipolar/BiCMOS Circuits Technol. Meeting, 2004, pp. 9699.

[17] H. Tran, M. Schroter, D. Walkey, D. Marchesan, and T. Smy, Simultaneous extraction of thermal and emitter series resistances in bipolar

transistors, in Proc. Bipolar/BiCMOS Circuits Technol. Meeting, 1997,

pp. 170173.

[18] A. Pawlak, S. Lehmann, and M. Schroter, A simple and accurate method

for extracting the emitter and thermal resistance of BJTs and HBTs,

in Proc. IEEE Bipolar/BiCMOS Circuits Technol. Meeting, 2014,

pp. 175178.

[19] M. Schrter and A. Chakravorty, Compact Hierarchical Bipolar Transistor Modeling With HICUM. Singapore: World Scientific, 2010.

[20] F. Utermhlen, Analysis and modeling of self-heating in integrated

heterojunction bipolar transistors, Dipl.-Ing. (MSEE) thesis, Chair

Electron Devices Integr. Circuits, Technische Univ. Dresden, Dresden,

Germany, 2011.

[21] M. N. Ozisik, Heat Conduction, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Wiley,

1993.

[22] Y. Zimmermann, Modeling of spatially distributed and sizing effects in

high-performance bipolar transistors, Dipl.-Ing. (MSEE) thesis, Chair

Electron Devices Integr. Circuits, Technische Univ. Dresden, Dresden,

Germany, 2004.

[23] D. J. Walkey, T. J. Smy, T. W. MacElwee, and M. Maliepaard, Linear

models for temperature and power dependence of thermal resistance in

Si, InP and GaAs substrate devices, in Proc. 7th Annu. IEEE Symp.

Semiconductor Thermal Meas. Manage., 2001, pp. 228232.

[24] M. Schroter et al., Physical and electrical performance limits of highspeed SiGeC HBTsPart I: Vertical scaling, IEEE Trans. Electron

Devices, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 36873696, Nov. 2011.

3683

Devices. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag, 2004.

[26] D. Walkey, D. Celo, and T. Smy, A simplified model for the effect of

interfinger metal on maximum temperature rise in a multifinger bipolar

transistor, IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circuits Syst.,

vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1525, Jan. 2003.

[27] R. Pritchard, Electrical Characteristics of Transistors. New York, NY,

USA: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

[28] K. E. Moebus, Y. Zimmermann, G. Wedel, and M. Schroter, Thermal

modeling of BOX/DTI enclosed power devices with Greens function

approach, in Proc. IEEE Semiconductor Conf. Dresden, Sep. 2011,

pp. 14.

the Technische Universitt Dresden (TUD) working on parameter extraction

for SiGe HBTs. He is currently working on experimental characterization and

compact modeling of devices for large-signal applications, with focus on SiGe

HBT technologies.

the Technische Universitt Dresden (TUD). He is currently working on

electro-thermal modeling and simulation methods as well as on parasitic and

passive device modeling for integrated circuit design.

the Technische Universitt Dresden (TUD), Dresden, Germany, modeling

SiGe-Heterojunction Transistors for mm-Wave applications using the HICUM

compact model.

He is currently at TUD, where he is working on the modeling of physical

effects of very advanced SiGe-HBTs and the extension of the compact model

formulations, as well as on the characterization of integrated bipolar devices.

the Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany, in 1988. From 1993 to 1996 and

20092011 he worked for Nortel, Rockwell, Conexant, and RFNano in

various engineering and management positions. Since 1999 he has been a

full Professor and Head of the Chair for Electron Devices and Integrated

Circuits at the TU Dresden, Germany.

- 2n5179Uploaded byNaul Nbn
- Thermal Analysis of a Linear Voltage RegulatorUploaded byIonela
- TransistorUploaded byjinuel
- Basic Electronics EngineeringUploaded bychutiya
- Csc 2073Uploaded byMoises Martinez
- BC846.pdfUploaded byjhonathan
- sem3.pdfUploaded byBURTON
- DatasheetUploaded byMohammed Hesham
- L 1 IntroductionUploaded byMuhd Naim
- Peralatan Aktif Gelombang MikroUploaded byjustme29
- Power BJTUploaded bySamay Goenka
- Nte 6407Uploaded byeeindustrial
- E02 Ohm_s Law.pdfUploaded byTidal Surges
- bc337.pdfUploaded bygerluccioni
- Themal Management of Solid State RelaysUploaded bysudarshan
- 2N3905Uploaded byfozk
- Infineon IKW50N60T DS v02 06 EnUploaded byBasil Mathew
- FDD5614PUploaded bySoultechLove
- 20150727 Wong nUploaded byRaja Sekhar
- 2N2894Uploaded byusmancheema81
- Nte 2349Uploaded bySaem Bach
- 2SC5809 E DisconUploaded byVicente Antonio
- datasheet diacUploaded byOrlandoTobon
- notes.docUploaded bymspalem
- PHE13007Uploaded byAshok Choudhary
- BJT vs FETUploaded byMuhammad Awais Sultani
- week_5_heat_transfer_lecture.pdfUploaded byhahaha
- 2P9_0911Uploaded byni60
- Multi Dimension SteadytachaUploaded byWafi Baliem
- CT CalculationUploaded byTheresia Andina

- Design Audio Amplifier.pdfUploaded byHoi Mun
- crown-amcron-macrotech-ma1200-ma1201-amplifier-schematic-service-manual.pdfUploaded byOlger Quintero Tapia
- Mechatronics Final Project Group BUploaded byChrisVanLoon
- ZXCT1009Uploaded byDomingo Arroyo
- Pressure SensorUploaded byguitarguru31
- PSIM User ManualUploaded byJose Luis Rocha Marquez
- Physics for Engineers - Fall 2015_Saman Shahid_3Uploaded byNumair Imran
- 2n4400.pdfUploaded bycarlos16702014
- Circuit i Kz ManualUploaded bytaconi23
- bf421Uploaded byAurelian Zaharescu
- CE Out XticsUploaded byDenis Odhiambo
- UPTU Power Electronics NotesUploaded byZiya
- Electronics Circuit Lab ManualUploaded byVignesh Sundaram
- Electronic Devices and CircuitUploaded bySyed muhammad zaidi
- sbea001Uploaded byfirstbook1
- bjtbiasUploaded byRamesh Gande
- transistor.pdfUploaded byAlexHidayat
- TIDU355AUploaded byRene
- syllUploaded bySmridh Sethi
- A Subthreshold MOSFET Bandgap Reference With Ultra Low Power Supply VoltageUploaded byManasa Upadhyaya
- Electronics CircuitUploaded bySuresh Rajiv
- 325 lab 7 reportUploaded byapi-241454978
- BC847BS SOT-363 1FUploaded bykumbrov
- intro_EMGUploaded byblueeeali
- R09-2-1-ECEUploaded bySriteja Rst
- bjtsUploaded bySujeet Haldkar
- Distance Sensor DT60Uploaded bySyarief Khosim
- Power Electronics Unit1Uploaded byashish_rewa
- 02-TRANSISTORUploaded byRpya Yarp
- 301Lab4Uploaded bydkishore