IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 54, NO.
10, OCTOBER 2007
Extended One-Dimensional Analysis to
Effectively Derive Quantum Efficiency
of Various CMOS Photodiodes
Oscal T.-C. Chen, Member, IEEE, Wei-Jean Liu, Li-Kuo Dai, Ping-Kuo Weng, and Far-Wen Jih
Abstract—This paper proposes an extended 1-D analysis to
derive quantum efficiency of various commonly used CMOS pho-
todiodes. The theoretical model of the CMOS photodiode with
the n−/p−epitaxial/p + substrate (n−/p−epi/p + sub) struc-
ture is established from steady-state continuity equations, where
most existing boundary conditions are applied. In particular, the
minority carrier and current densities are continuous across the
interface between two layers with the same dopant type. Models of
the other commonly used CMOS photodiodes are also examined.
Three CMOS photodiodes with n−/p−substrate (n−/p−sub),
p+/n−/p−substrate (p+/n−/p−sub), and n−/p−epi/p + sub
structures are fabricated and characterized to validate the pro-
posed model. Additionally, the surface recombination velocity is
adequately determined by fitting the simulated quantum efficiency
to the measured value. The simulated quantum efficiency of the
proposed model for these three photodiodes is quite consistent with
the measured values, revealing the feasibility and effectiveness of
the proposed model in characterizing various CMOS photodiodes.
Index Terms—CMOS photodiode, quantum efficiency, surface
recombination velocity, 1-D analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE MARKET associated with CMOS image sensors has
grown rapidly in recent years owing to their high integra-
tion and low power dissipation [1], [2]. In the CMOS image
sensor, the quantum efficiency of CMOS photodiodes deter-
mines the efficiency of converting photons into electrons, which
is correlated with captured-image quality. Some works based on
1-D analytical approaches provide the means to calculate the
quantum efficiency and identify the effects of various physical
parameters on the quantum efficiency. For example, Van de
Wiele proposed an analytical method to photodiodes with field-
induced junctions and abrupt junctions [3]. Lee et al. developed
an improved 1-D analysis for the CMOS photodiode with a
Manuscript received January 19, 2007; revised July 18, 2007. This work was
supported in part by the National Science Council (NSC), Taiwan, R.O.C.,
under Project NSC 93-2215-E-194-002 and in part by Chung-Shan Insti-
tute of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C., under Project BV92G70P.
The review of this paper was arranged by Editor L. Lunardi.
O. T.-C. Chen and W.-J. Liu are with the Department of Electrical Engineer-
ing, National Chung Cheng University, Chia-Yi 621, Taiwan, R.O.C. (e-mail:
oscal@ee.ccu.edu.tw).
L.-K. Dai, P.-K. Weng, and F.-W. Jih are with the Electro-Optics Research
Division, Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology, Tao-Yuan 333,
Taiwan, R.O.C.
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.2007.904989
0018-9383/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE
2659
heavy-doping substrate and low-doping epitaxial layer [4]. The
1-D analysis focuses generally on a single photodiode and ne-
glects its lateral effects. When the feature size of process tech-
nology is scaled down, the crosstalk among pixels of an image
sensor and the lateral effects from photodiodes greatly affect
quantum efficiency. Hence, multidimensional analyses have
been proposed for investigating the crosstalk and lateral effects
in an image-sensor array. To extend the 1-D into multidimen-
sional analyses, the effects of the crosstalk and the fill factor on
the quantum efficiency of a pixel array must be well addressed.
Therefore, a multidimensional analysis requires an extra piece-
wise function to define an illuminated area and boundary con-
ditions of the steady state and ambipolar transport equations for
deriving the divergence of the distributions to acquire quantum
efficiency [5], [6].
Although analyses of multiple dimensions for an image-
sensor array are necessary, some characteristics of photodi-
odes are not well addressed in 1-D analyses. Additionally,
only a few analyses were developed that focus particularly
on CMOS photodiodes [3], [4], [7]. Accordingly, this paper
further derives an extended 1-D model in obtaining the quantum
efficiency of CMOS photodiodes. Equations for the CMOS
photodiode with an n−/p−epi/p + sub structure are derived
using the boundary conditions, which are applicable to CMOS
photodiodes with single or multiple p-n junctions. Further-
more, the derivation of the quantum efficiency of the com-
monly used CMOS photodiodes is described to demonstrate
the capability of the proposed method for modeling various
CMOS photodiodes. The CMOS photodiodes with n−/p−sub,
p+ /n−/p−sub, and n−/p−epi/p + sub structures are fabri-
cated and analyzed. The curve-fitting scheme is adopted to
derive a set of surface recombination velocities to reach the
least discrepancies between simulated and measured quantum
efficiency. The proposed 1-D analysis is fairly accurate and is
very suitable for most of the commonly used CMOS photodiode
structures.
II. MODEL DERIVATION OF PHOTODIODES
The structure of the photodiode with n−/p−epi/p + sub,
as shown in Fig. 1(a), is used in the derivation process. This
structure encompasses the following design features: surface of
the device, interface between two layers with different dopant
types, interface between two layers with the same dopant
type, and bottom of the device. Table I lists the symbols for
2660 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 54, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2007

Fig. 1. Simplified structures of the n−/p−epi/p + sub photodiode under (a) proposed boundary conditions and (b) conventional boundary conditions, where
the gray area is the space-charge region (the dimension of each layer in these two structures does not represent the actual dimension).

TABLE I
PHYSICAL PARAMETERS USED IN THE PROPOSED EQUATION DERIVATION

all physical parameters applied in the derivation process,
where Planck’s constant and the velocity of light are 6.626 ×
10−34 J · s and 2.998 × 108 m/s, respectively, and the empirical
absorption coefficient is referred from [8].
The commonly used 1-D analysis for quantum efficiency of
photodiodes derives the excess minority carrier density using
1-D steady-state continuity equations. The excess minority
carrier density is then converted into photocurrent density and
quantum efficiency. Since the p-n junction is normally operated
at a reverse-biased voltage, the electron–hole recombination
in the space-charge region due to the process of photonic
generation can be neglected. The variation of majority carriers
caused by incident light can be also ignored, indicating that a
low-injection condition applies. Additionally, the electric field
is negligible in the neutral region. Based on the aforementioned
assumptions, the 1-D steady-state continuity equations for n-
and p-type semiconductors are


Dp d2 pn (x)/dx2 + Gx − ((pn (x) − pn0 ) /τp ) = 0 (1)
and


Dn d2 np (x)/dx2 + Gx − ((np (x) − np0 ) /τn ) = 0 (2)
respectively. Equations (1) and (2) use boundary conditions
to derive solutions. According to the structure in Fig. 1(a),
four boundary conditions exist. In the following equations,
np−epi (x) and np−sub (x) are electron densities in p−epitaxial
and p+substrate, respectively, and np0−epi and np0−sub are
equilibrium electron densities in p−epitaxial and p+substrate,
respectively. The subscripts “n − epi” and “n − sub” refer to
CHEN et al.: EXTENDED ANALYSIS TO DERIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS CMOS PHOTODIODES 2661

the physical parameters of the minority carriers in p−epitaxial B. Quantum Efficiency of n−/p−epi/p + sub Photodiode
and p+substrate, respectively.
The steady-state continuity equations using the boundary
conditions in (3)–(8) are solved to yield the minority carrier
A. Boundary Conditions densities. To facilitate the excess minority carrier densities
solely excited by incident light, the photo-induced excess mi-
1) Surface of the Device: The current density of the inter- nority carrier densities must fulfill the computation of (9)–(11),
face between the SiO2 and Si substrate is utilized to derive a shown on the next page, where fn−epi (x), fn−sub (x), and σ are
boundary condition as follows: expressed as follows:
Jp (x = 0) = qDp (dpn (x)/dx) = q (pn (x) − pn0 ) Sp . (3)


fn−epi (x) = τn−epi G0 e−αx / L2n−epi α2 − 1 (12)
2) Interface Between Two Layers With Different Dopant


fn−sub (x) = τn−sub G0 e−αx / L2n−sub α2 − 1 (13)
Types: Generally, the dark current generated in the space-
   
charge region is negligible in comparison to the induced pho- Dn−epi x3 − x2 x4 − x3
tocurrent, and the parasitic access resistance is small enough σ= ch sh
Ln−epi Ln−epi Ln−sub
to be ignored. Hence, the boundary conditions at the interface    
between n− and p−epitaxial can be simplified as follows: Dn−sub x3 − x2 x4 − x3
+ sh ch . (14)
Ln−sub Ln−epi Ln−sub
pn (x = x1 ) = pn0 (4)
np−epi (x = x2 ) = np0−epi . (5) In the structure in Fig. 1(a), most of the excess minority carriers
recombine rapidly with the majority carriers in p+substrate
The width of the space-charge region is (x2 − x1 ) and is before reaching p−epitaxial because of heavy doping and thick
affected by the impurity doping concentrations of p- and n-type substrate. Hence, the current generated in p+substrate is negli-
semiconductors and the bias voltage across the p-n junction [9]. gible. Consequently, photocurrent densities generated by n- and
3) Interface Between Two Layers With the Same Dopant p-type semiconductors are (15) and (16), respectively, shown on
Type: In the high–low junction between p+substrate and the next page. Lastly, the photocurrent density inside the space-
p−epitaxial, minority carriers that diffuse from a low-doping charge region is determined as
layer to a high-doping layer due to the electric field resulting
from doping gradient can rapidly recombine with majority x3
carriers in the high-doping layer. This phenomenon is similar Jdrift = −q Gx dx = qφ0 (e−αx3 − e−αx2 ). (17)
to that in a p-n junction [4]. Hence, the excess minority car- x2
rier densities in p−epitaxial and p+substrate can be derived
from the boundary conditions like (4) and (5). However, such Consequently, the summation of (15)–(17) is the total pho-
a derivation enables the excess minority carrier densities in tocurrent density (JT T −photo = Jn−photo + Jp−photo + Jdrift )
p−epitaxial and p+substrate to depend only on the factors as- produced by the photodiode in Fig. 1(a). Under ambient tem-
sociated with p−epitaxial and p+substrate, respectively, which perature, the relationship between spectral response () and the
include process recipes and physical parameters. To address quantum efficiency (η) is represented by [9]
the mutual effects of p−epitaxial and p+substrate, this paper
assumes that the minority carrier density and current density
η = hc/qλ = 1.24/λ. (18)
across the real boundary at the interface between p−epitaxial
and p+substrate are continuous. Accordingly, the proposed
boundary conditions at the interface between p−epitaxial and
C. Analysis for the Proposed Boundary Condition
p+substrate are formulated as follows:
 The structure in Fig. 1(a) is replaced by that in Fig. 1(b) if the
Jn (x = x3 ) = − qDn−epi (dnp−epi (x)/dx) x=x3 interface between the p+substrate and p−epitaxial is treated
 as a p-n junction. Thus, the equations for np−epi (x)photo and
= − qDn−sub (dnp−sub (x)/dx) x=x3 (6)
np−sub (x)photo are given by (19) and (20), respectively, shown
np−epi (x = x3 ) = np−sub (x = x3 ). (7) on the next page, where fn−epi (0) and fn−sub (0) are defined in
(12) and (13), respectively. From (19) and (20), np−epi (x)photo
4) Bottom of the Device: Generally, the thickness of the and np−sub (x)photo depend only on the physical parameters
substrate in a CMOS photodiode is several hundred microm- of p−epitaxial and p+substrate, respectively. Under the pro-
eters. In considering heavy doping of p+substrate and the posed boundary condition, np−epi (x)photo and np−sub (x)photo ,
effect of absorption length, very few excess minority carriers which is represented by (10) and (11), respectively, depend on
are generated at the bottom of the device. Consequently, the the physical parameters of both p−epitaxial and p+substrate.
minority carrier density at the device bottom is treated as the Hence, the proposed analysis enables a designer to understand
minority carrier density during equilibrium, as in the following: clearly the mutual effects of these two layers.
The diffusion lengths, diffusion coefficients, and lifetime
np−sub (x = x4 ) ∼
= np0−sub . (8) of minority carriers refer to empirical data in [10]–[12]. The
2662 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 54, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2007


pn (x)photo = pn (x) − pn (x)G0 =0


τp G0 / L2p α2 − 1 (e−αx1 ((Dp /Lp )ch(x/Lp ) + Sp sh(x/Lp )) − (αDp + Sp )sh ((x − x1 )/Lp )) τp G0 e−αx
= − 2 2
Sp sh(x1 /Lp ) + (Dp /Lp )ch(x1 /Lp ) Lp α − 1
(9)

np−epi (x)photo = np−epi (x) − np−epi (x)G0 =0
        
fn−epi (x2 ) Dn−epi x3 − x x4 − x3 Dn−sub x3 − x x4 − x3
= ch sh + sh ch
σ Ln−epi Ln−epi Ln−sub Ln−sub Ln−epi Ln−sub
    
(fn−epi (x3 ) − fn−sub (x3 )) Dn−sub x − x2 x4 − x3
+ sh ch
σ Ln−sub Ln−epi Ln−sub
   
α x − x2 x4 − x3
+ (Dn−sub fn−sub (x3 ) −Dn−epi fn−epi (x3 )) sh sh
σ Ln−epi Ln−sub
  
fn−sub (x4 ) Dn−sub x − x2
+ sh − fn−epi (x) (10)
σ Ln−sub Ln−epi

np−sub (x)photo = np−sub (x) − np−sub (x)G0 =0
   
Dn−epi x4 − x x3 − x2
= sh fn−epi (x2 ) − (fn−epi (x3 ) − fn−sub (x3 )) ch
σLn−epi Ln−sub Ln−epi
    
α x3 − x2 x4 − x
+ (Dn−sub fn−sub (x3 ) − Dn−epi fn−epi (x3 )) sh sh
σ Ln−epi Ln−sub
        
fn−sub (x4 ) Dn−epi x3 − x2 x − x3 Dn−sub x3 − x2 x − x3
+ ch sh + sh ch − fn−sub (x)
σ Ln−epi Ln−epi Ln−sub σLn−sub Ln−epi Ln−sub
(11)


Jn−photo = qDp (dpn (x)photo /dx) x=x1
qDp τp G0 ((e−αx1 /Lp ) ((Dp /Lp )sh(x1 /Lp ) + Sp ch(x1 /Lp )) − (αDp + Sp )/Lp ) qDp τp G0 −αx1
= + 2 2 αe (15)
L2p α2 − 1 (Sp sh(x1 /Lp ) + (Dp /Lp )ch(x1 /Lp )) Lp α − 1

Jp−photo = − qDn−epi (dnp−epi (x)photo /dx) x=x2
        
−qDn−epi fn−epi (x2 ) Dn−epi x3 − x2 x4 − x3 Dn−sub x3 − x2 x4 − x3
= sh sh + ch ch
σ L2n−epi Ln−epi Ln−sub Ln−epi Ln−sub Ln−epi Ln−sub
  
qDn−epi (fn−epi (x3 ) − fn−sub (x3 )) Dn−sub x4 − x3
− ch
σ Ln−epi Ln−sub Ln−sub
  
αqDn−epi (Dn−sub fn−sub (x3 ) − Dn−epi fn−epi (x3 )) 1 x4 − x3
− sh
σ Ln−epi Ln−sub
qDn−epi Dn−sub fn−sub (x4 )
− + αqDn−epi fn−epi (x2 ) (16)
σLn−epi Ln−sub

x3 −x x3 −x2
fn−epi (0) e−αx3 sh x−x2
Ln−epi + e−αx2 sh Ln−epi − e−αx sh Ln−epi
np−epi (x)photo = (19)
sh ((x3 − x2 )/Ln−epi )
x5 −x x5 −x4
fn−sub (0) e−αx4 sh Ln−sub + e−αx5 sh x−x4
Ln−sub − e−αx sh Ln−sub
np−sub (x)photo = (20)
sh ((x5 − x4 )/Ln−sub )
CHEN et al.: EXTENDED ANALYSIS TO DERIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS CMOS PHOTODIODES
Fig. 2. Simulated excess minority carrier densities in p−epitaxial and
p+substrate using (10) and (11), respectively, under different incident-light
wavelengths.
software tool of Mathematica that is produced by Wolfram
Research Inc. is employed to simulate the equations [13].
Fig. 2 plots the simulated excess minority carrier densities at an
optical power of 1 W · cm−2 in p−epitaxial and p+substrate,
using (10) and (11), respectively. In p−epitaxial, the excess
minority carrier density increases and declines as the ab-
sorption length of the incident light is shorter and longer
than the thickness of the p−epitaxial layer, respectively. In
p+substrate, the excess minority carrier densities drop rapidly
and slowly with increasing depth below the device surface,
when the incident light has absorption lengths smaller and
greater than this depth, respectively. This phenomenon fulfills
the facts that the excess minority carrier density increases with
the absorption length of incident light that is close to the
thickness of the p−epitaxial layer, and the heavy doping in
p+substrate accelerates the recombination velocity for excess
minority carriers.
D. Commonly Used CMOS Photodiodes
Generally, the boundary conditions of various commonly
used photodiodes are included in the aforementioned four
boundary conditions. Fig. 3 depicts some commonly used
photodiodes in the present standard CMOS processes. The
derivation of quantum efficiency of CMOS photodiodes, as
shown in Fig. 3, is briefly sketched in the Appendix.
III. PROCESS RECIPES OF THREE
FABRICATED PHOTODIODES
In this paper, three CMOS photodiodes with n−/p−sub,
p+ /n−/p−sub, and n−/p−epi/p + sub are fabricated and an-
alyzed. The standard 0.5- and 0.6-µm CMOS technologies are
adopted in this paper. Fig. 4 displays the cross sections of these
three photodiodes where the surface and thickness are obtained
by buffer oxide etching and dual beams. The total thickness of
multiple SiO2 layers is about 3.0 µm, and each SiO2 layer is
around 0.4–0.6 µm thick. Additionally, a single Si3 N4 layer is
approximately 0.6 µm thick. The theoretical reflection coeffi-
cients can be calculated from the translation matrix associated
with each layer’s refractive index [14]. However, the influence
2663
of the interference effects upon the reflection coefficient is
usually significant for the devices with thin films on the surface
[4], [14]. Fig. 5 plots the measured reflection coefficients R(λ)
of the three photodiodes. The resolution of the light source
in measuring the reflection coefficient is set to 10 nm to
preserve coherence with the measurement setup for quantum
efficiency. In the bulk section, Scanning Electron Microscopy
is employed to determine the thickness of the p−epitaxial,
which is around 9.5 µm. Table II lists the recipes of these
three photodiodes.
IV. SIMULATION AND MEASUREMENT RESULTS
A. Simulation Results
The parameters of lifetime and diffusion coefficients for
minority carriers can be formulated according to doping con-
centration referred from empirical data [10]–[12]. In the sim-
ulations, the surface recombination velocities for n−/p−sub,
p+ /n−/p−sub, and n−/p−epi/p + sub are empirically set to
50, 1640, and 50 cm/s, respectively [15], [16]. Fig. 6 shows the
simulation results of the three photodiodes under the reflection
coefficients being omitted. From curves (I) and (II) in Fig. 6, the
quantum efficiency of the photodiode with n−/p−epi/p + sub
is much smaller than that of the n−/p−sub in a long wave-
length region. This difference is because the diffusion length of
the minority carriers in p-substrate is as high as several hundred
micrometers. Accordingly, most excess minority carriers in
the p-substrate region generate the induced photocurrent. In
p−epi/p + sub, most excess minority carriers are transferred
from p−epitaxial to p+substrate via drifting or diffusing. How-
ever, as the diffusion length of minority carriers in p+substrate
is only several micrometers, most excess minority carriers
in p+substrate are rapidly recombined. Hence, curve (II) in
Fig. 6 also depicts that quantum efficiency begins decaying
dramatically in the infrared region. For the p+ /n−/p−sub pho-
todiode, curve (III) reveals that the quantum efficiency of the
p+ /n−/p−sub photodiode is lower than that of the n−/p−sub
photodiode in the region of short wavelengths. The reason for
this phenomenon is that the excess minority carriers in the
device surface, which are excited by incident light with short
wavelengths, recombine rapidly, owing to heavy doping in the
p+ layer.
B. Comparison of Simulation and Measurement Results
Simulated and measured results of the three photodiodes
under zero-biased voltage are shown in Fig. 7, where the
transmittance (1 − R(λ)) is adopted. Different oscillations ex-
ist in the simulated quantum efficiency as compared to the
measured one. This phenomenon is caused mainly by the
interference effects [4], [14]. Root mean square errors (RMSEs)
between the simulated quantum efficiency at empirical sur-
face recombination velocities and measured quantum efficiency
are 0.0649 (6.49%), 0.0660 (6.60%), and 0.0465 (4.65%)
for the n−/p−sub, p+ /n−/p−sub, and n−/p−epi/p + sub
photodiodes, respectively. The discrepancy between simulated
and measured quantum efficiency of the n−/p−epi/p + sub
2664 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 54, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2007

Fig. 3. Five simplified CMOS photodiode structures with gray areas indicating space-charge regions (the dimension of each layer in these structures does not
represent the physical one). (a) n+ /p−/p−sub. (b) p+ /n−/p−epi/p + sub. (c) n−/p−sub. (d) p+ /n−/p−sub. (e) n+ /p−/p−epi/p + sub.

Fig. 4. Cross sections of the three CMOS photodiodes. (a) n−/p−sub. (b) p+ /n−/p−sub. (c) n−/p−epi/p + sub.

TABLE II
RECIPES OF THE THREE PHOTODIODES

Fig. 5. Measured reflection coefficients of the three photodiodes of n−/

p−sub, p+ /n−/p−sub, and n−/p−epi/p + sub.

photodiode is less than those of the n−/p−sub and p+ /

n−/p−sub photodiodes, which have a low-doped p−substrate
and heavily doped p+ , which are likely to result in large
estimation errors. The substrate noise in p−substrate may
affect the minority carrier transport. Additionally, in heavily
doped p+ , mobility of minority carriers can become multiple
of mobility of majority carriers, such that the diffusion length,
diffusion coefficient, and lifetime of minority carriers in p+
C. Curve-Fitting Technique for Deriving Surface
may be different substantially from the empirical values [17].
Recombination Velocities From Measured Quantum Efficiency
In the n−/p−epi/p + sub photodiode, since the substrate cur-
rent in the p+substrate layer can be neglected, the aforemen- Finally, the scheme for deriving the surface recombina-
tioned physical parameters in n− and p−epitaxial are estimated tion velocity by fitting the simulated and measured quan-
fairly accurately. tum efficiency is developed. Fig. 8 shows the comparison
CHEN et al.: EXTENDED ANALYSIS TO DERIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS CMOS PHOTODIODES
Fig. 6. Simulated quantum efficiency of n−/p−sub, p+ /n−/p−sub, and
n−/p−epi/p + sub photodiodes.
Fig. 7. Comparisons of simulated and measured quantum efficiency of
(a) n−/p−sub, (b) p+ /n−/p−sub, and (c) n−/p−epi/p + sub.
between the measured quantum efficiency, which is denoted
by dotted lines, and the simulated quantum efficiency at
different surface recombination velocities, which is denoted
by solid and dash lines, in which the solid lines are the
best matched ones. Fig. 9 depicts RMSEs between the sim-
ulated and measured quantum efficiency at different sur-
face recombination velocities. The recommended values for
n−/p−sub, p+ /n−/p−sub, and n−/p−epi/p−sub are ap-
proximately 1200, 6000, and 1400 cm/s, respectively. The
RMSEs between simulated and measured quantum efficiency
by using the recommended surface recombination velocities for
these three photodiodes are 0.0610 (6.10%), 0.0537 (5.37%),
and 0.0432 (4.32%). The proposed approach is essentially
2665
Fig. 8. Quantum efficiency at different surface recombination velocities of
(a) n−/p−sub, (b) p+ /n−/p−sub, and (c) n−/p−epi/p + sub.
Fig. 9. RMSEs between the simulated and measured quantum efficiency at
different surface recombination velocities.
to average over the interference oscillations. Accordingly,
the uncertainty in the surface recombination velocity is not
addressed here.
V. CONCLUSION
The proposed CMOS photodiode model that involves a
1-D analysis was successfully developed for commonly used
photodiodes. Uncertain factors associated with the minority
carriers and the surface recombination velocities are carefully
addressed to minimize discrepancies between simulated and
measured quantum efficiency. The proposed model is very
suited to characterizing various CMOS photodiodes in fairly
accurate performance.
2666 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 54, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2007


A PPENDIX
+ γsub sh(∆epi )ch(∆sub ))
The derivation of quantum efficiency of each photodiode 
   
in Fig. 3 is the same as that in Section II-B and, thus, is B[2] (x − x2 )
not illustrated here. The excess minority carrier densities from + γepi sh
δ Ln−p−
different boundary conditions in two sides of each layer can be
analyzed as follows. × (γepi sh(∆epi )sh(∆sub )

1) Since the structure in Fig. 3(a) is similar to that in + γsub ch(∆epi )ch(∆sub ))
Fig. 1(a), the excess minority carrier densities from the
structure in Fig. 3(a) can refer to (9)–(11).    
B[3] (x − x2 )
2) The structure of p−epi/p + sub in Fig. 3(b) is the same + sh (γepi ch(∆epi )sh(∆sub )
δ Ln−p−
as that in Fig. 1(a). Accordingly, the excess minority
carrier densities for np−epi (x)photo in p−epitaxial and + γsub sh(∆epi )ch(∆sub ))
    
np−sub (x)photo in p+substrate can be built by (10) and B[4] (x − x2 )
+ γepi γsub sh ch(∆sub )
(11), respectively, via x4 , x5 , and x6 , replacing x2 , x3 , δ Ln−p−
and x4 , respectively.     
B[5] (x − x2 )
3) For n− in Fig. 3(c) and n+ in Fig. 3(e), the excess + γepi sh sh(∆sub )
δ Ln−p−
minority carrier densities are the same as that in (9).    
For p+ in Fig. 3(b) and (d), the excess minority carrier B[6] (x − x2 )
+ γepi γsub sh − fn−p− (x)
densities can be also presented by (9), in which physical δ Ln−p−
parameters and process recipes of n− are replaced by the (A7)
corresponding ones of p+ . Moreover, (19) can interpret np−epi (x)photo
the excess minority carrier densities of n− in Fig. 3(b) = np−epi (x) − np−epi (x)|G0 =0
and (d), via replacing physical parameters and process     
recipes of p−epitaxial by the corresponding ones of n−. B[1] (x4 − x)
= γp− γepi ch sh(∆sub )
4) The excess minority carrier density of p-substrate in δ Ln−epi
  
Fig. 3(d) is the same as that in (20). Additionally, the (x4 − x)
+ γsub sh ch(∆sub )
excess minority carrier density of p-substrate in Fig. 3(c) Ln−epi
can be also presented by (20), via x2 and x3 , replacing x4     
B[2] (x4 − x)
and x5 , respectively. − γp− ch(∆p− ) γepi ch sh(∆sub )
δ Ln−epi
5) To deduce np−p− (x)photo , np−epi (x)photo , and   
np−sub (x)photo , as illustrated in Fig. 3(e), the following (x4 − x)
+ γsub sh ch(∆sub )
six boundary conditions are adopted: Ln−epi
    
B[3] (x4 − x)
np−p− (x = x2 ) = npo−p− (A1) + sh(∆p− ) γepi ch sh(∆sub )
δ Ln−epi
  
np−p− (x = x3 ) = np−epi (x = x3 ) (A2) (x4 − x)
+ γsub sh ch(∆sub )
Jn (x = x3 ) = −qDn−p− (dnp−p− (x)/dx)|x=x3 Ln−epi
    
= −qDn−epi (dnp−epi (x)/dx)|x=x3 (A3) B[4] (x − x3 )
+ γsub ch(∆sub ) γp− ch(∆p−)sh
np−epi (x = x4 ) = np−sub (x = x4 ) (A4) δ Ln−epi
 
Jn (x = x4 ) = −qDn−epi (dnp−epi (x)/dx)|x=x4 (x − x3 )
+ γepi sh(∆p− )ch
= −qDn−sub (dnp−sub (x)/dx)|x=x4 (A5) Ln−epi
    
np−sub (x = x5 ) = npo−sub . (A6) B[5] (x − x3 )
+ sh(∆sub ) γp− ch(∆p− )sh
δ Ln−epi
 
The excess minority carrier densities in p−, p−epitaxial, (x − x3 )
and p+substrate, as shown in Fig. 3(e), are formulated in + γepi sh(∆p− )ch
Ln−epi
(A7)–(A9).     
B[6] (x − x3 )
+ γsub γp− ch(∆p− )sh
δ Ln−epi
np−p− (x)photo  
(x − x3 )
= np−p− (x) − np−p− (x)|G0 =0 + γepi sh(∆p− )ch
    Ln−epi
B[1] (x3 − x)
= γepi sh − fn−epi (x) (A8)
δ Ln−p−
np−sub (x)photo
× (γepi sh(∆epi )sh(∆sub )
+ γsub ch(∆epi )ch(∆sub )) + γp− = np−sub (x) − np−sub (x)|G0 =0
   
(x3 − x) (B[1] − B[2]ch(∆p− ))
× ch × (γepi ch(∆epi )sh(∆sub ) = −fn−sub (x) +
Ln−p− δ
CHEN et al.: EXTENDED ANALYSIS TO DERIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS CMOS PHOTODIODES 2667

 
(x5 − x) R EFERENCES
× γp− γepi sh
Ln−sub [1] A. El Gamal and H. Eltoukhy, “CMOS image sensors,” IEEE Circuits
    Devices Mag., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 6–20, May/Jun. 2005.
B[3] (x5 − x) [2] E. R. Fossum, “CMOS image sensors: Electronic camera-on-a-chip,”
+ γepi sh(∆p− )sh
δ Ln−sub ) IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 1689–1698, 1997.
    [3] F. Van de Wiele, “Photodiode quantum efficiency,” in Solid State Imaging.
B[4] (x5 − x) Gronigen, The Netherlands: Noordhoff, 1976, pp. 47–90.
− γepi sh
δ Ln−sub [4] J. S. Lee, R. I. Hornsey, and D. Renshaw, “Analyses of CMOS photo-
diodes (I)—Quantum efficiency,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 50,
× (γepi sh(∆p− )sh(∆epi ) + γp− ch(∆p− )ch(∆epi ))) no. 5, pp. 1233–1238, May 2003.
   
B[5] (x5 − x) [5] J. S. Lee, R. I. Hornsey, and D. Renshaw, “Analyses of CMOS photodi-
+ sh odes (II)—Lateral photoresponse,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 50,
δ Ln−sub ) no. 5, pp. 1239–1245, May 2003.
[6] D. Levy, S. E. Schacham, and I. Kidron, “Three dimensional analytical
× (γp− ch(∆p− )sh(∆epi ) + γepi sh(∆p− )ch(∆epi )))
    simulation of self- and cross-responsivities of photovoltaic detector ar-
B[6] (x − x4 ) rays,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. ED-34, no. 10, pp. 2059–2070,
+ γepi sh Oct. 1987.
δ Ln−sub [7] W. J. Liu, O. T.-C. Chen, L. K. Dai, P. K. Weng, K. H. Huang, and
× (γepi sh(∆p− )sh(∆epi ) + γp− ch(∆p− )ch(∆epi )) F.-W. Jih, “A CMOS photodiode model,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop
  Behavioral Modeling Simulation, 2001, pp. 102–105.
(x − x4 ) [8] D. K. Schroder, Semiconductor Material and Device Characterization.
+ γsub ch (γp− ch(∆p− )sh(∆epi ) New York: Wiley, 1998.
Ln−sub
 [9] S. M. Sze, Physics of Semiconductor Devices. New York: Wiley, 1980.
[10] L. Passari and E. Susi, “Recombination mechanisms and doping density
+ γepi sh(∆p− )ch(∆epi )) . (A9) in silicon,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 3935–3937, Jul. 1983.
[11] W. E. Beadle, J. C. C. Tsai, and R. D. Plummer, “Physical properties,”
in Quick Reference Manual for Silicon Integrated Circuit Technology.
Here, δ, B[1], B[2], B[3], B[4], B[5], and B[6] in (A7)–(A9) New York: Wiley, 1985, pp. 2-42–2-43.
are expressed as follows: [12] S. E. Swirhun, Y. H. Kwark, and R. M. Swanson, “Measurement of elec-
tron lifetime, electron mobility and band-gap narrowing in heavy doped
2 p-type silicon,” in IEDM Tech. Dig., 1986, vol. 32, pp. 24–27.
δ = γepi sh(∆p− )sh(∆epi )sh(∆sub )
[13] [Online]. Available: http://www.wolfram.com/
+ γp− γepi ch(∆p− )ch(∆epi )sh(∆sub ) [14] E. Hecht, “Interference,” in Optics. San Francisco, CA: Addison-
Wesley, 2002, ch. 9, pp. 385–438.
+ γp− γsub ch(∆p− )sh(∆epi )ch(∆sub ) [15] R. R. King, R. A. Sinton, and R. M. Swanson, “Studies of diffused
phosphorus emitters: Saturation current, surface recombination velocity,
+ γepi γsub sh(∆p− )ch(∆epi )ch(∆sub ) (A10) and quantum efficiency,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 37, no. 2,
pp. 365–371, Feb. 1990.
B[1] = fn−p− (x2 ) (A11) [16] R. R. King and R. M. Swanson, “Studies of diffused boron emitters:
B[2] = fn−p− (x3 ) − fn−epi (x3 ) (A12) Saturation current, bandgap narrowing, and surface recombination ve-
locity,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1399–1409,
B[3] = αDn−epi fn−epi (x3 ) − αDn−p− fn−p− (x3 ) (A13) Jun. 1991.
[17] H. S. Bennett, “Hole and electron mobilities in heavily doped silicon:
B[4] = fn−epi (x4 ) − fn−sub (x4 ) (A14) Comparison of theory and experiment,” Solid State Electron., vol. 26,
no. 12, pp. 1157–1166, 1983.
B[5] = α (Dn−sub fn−sub (x4 ) − Dn−epi fn−epi (x4 )) (A15)
B[6] = fn−sub (x5 ). (A16)

In the above equations, fn−epi (x) and fn−sub (x) are presented
in (12) and (13), respectively. Additionally, fn−p− (x), γp− ,
γepi , γsub , ∆p− , ∆epi , and ∆sub are represented by the follow-
ing equations:
Oscal T.-C. Chen (S’89–M’94) was born in
Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1965. He received the B.S. degree
(τn−p− G0 e−αx )
fn−p− (x) =
2  (A17) in electrical engineering from the National Taiwan
Ln−p− α2 − 1 University, Taipei, Taiwan, in 1987, the M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Uni-
Dn−p− versity of Southern California, Los Angeles, in 1990
γp− = (A18) and 1994, respectively.
Ln−p−
From 1994 to 1995, he was with the Computer
Dn−epi Processor Architecture Department, Computer Com-
γepi = (A19) munication and Research Laboratories, Industrial
Ln−epi Technology Research Institute, serving as System
Dn−sub Design Engineer, Project Leader, and Section Chief. From September 1995 to
γsub = (A20) August 2003, he was an Associate Professor with the Department of Electrical
Ln−sub Engineering, National Chung Cheng University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan, where since
(x3 − x2 ) August 2003, he has been a Professor. His research interests include photoelec-
∆p− = (A21) tronics, very large-scale integration (VLSI) systems, multimedia computing,
Ln−p− and communication systems.
(x4 − x3 ) Dr. Chen has been an Associate Editor of the IEEE Circuits and Devices
∆epi = (A22) Magazine since August 2003. He is a founding member of the Multimedia
Ln−epi Systems and Applications Technical Committee of the IEEE Circuits and
Systems Society. He participates in the Technical Program Committee of many
(x5 − x4 ) IEEE international conferences and symposiums. He was the corecipient of the
∆sub = . (A23)
Ln−sub Best Paper Award of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VLSI SYSTEMS in 1995.
2668
Wei-Jean Liu received the B.S. and M.S. degrees
from the Department of Electrical Engineering,
National Chung Cheng University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan,
R.O.C., in 1998 and 2000, respectively, where he is
currently working toward the Ph.D. degree.
His research interests include optoelectronics,
device modeling, and CMOS image sensor.
Li-Kuo Dai received the Ph.D. degree in elec-
trooptical engineering from the National Chiao-Tung
University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1991.
He is currently a System Integration Engineer with
Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology,
Tao-Yuan, Taiwan. He has been conducting research
in the CMOS imager field since 1997. His current
research interests are in infrared image sensor and
sensor-imager application.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 54, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2007
Ping-Kuo Weng received the B.S. degree in nuclear
engineering from the National Tsing Hua University,
Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1985 and the Ph.D.
degree from the Institute of Electro-Optical Engi-
neering, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu,
in 1992.
Since then, he has been with the Solid-State
Devices Section, Chung-Shan Institute of Science
and Technology, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan. His current re-
search interests include CMOS-image-sensor de-
sign, camera for medical imaging system, and
system-on-chip architecture.
Far-Wen Jih was born in Taiwan, R.O.C., on
February 25, 1961. He received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees from the Department of Electronics Engi-
neering and Institute of Electronics, National Chiao-
Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, in 1983 and 1985,
respectively.
He is currently a Manager of a Renewable Energy
Project in Chung-Shang Institute of Science and
Technology, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan. His research inter-
ests include infrared detectors, CMOS image sensor
and solar cells.