Support Options

Submit a Support Ticket

Home Questions and Answers Schred V2: Simulating n-type substrates and...

Questions and Answers

0 Like

Lachlan Black

Schred V2: Simulating n-type substrates and Vfb determination

Using the compiled Schred V2 code and supplied sample input files I am able to successfully model structures with a uniformly doped p-type Si substrate. I assume that to model an n-type substrate I need to change the sign of the parameter “Na”, which specifies the doping concentration. However, when I do this, I receive NaN values in the output “cv.dat” file for the capacitance in strong accumulation. The rest of the C-V curve looks alright. Am I doing something wrong here, or is this a bug in the code? Also, is there an easy way to determine the value of the flatband voltage from the simulation output? At the moment the best option I can see is to interpolate the values of fi_sc vs Vg to zero in the “av_dist.dat” file, but this is not precise.

Report abuse

1 Responses

  1. 0 Like 0 Dislike

    Gokula Kannan

    The SCHRED V2.0 solves the schrodinger wave equation(SWE) only for the electrons, so the code supports only p-type substrate. The previous version of SCHRED I guess supports the hole SWE as well. The boundary conditions are defined at the start of the gate and the end of the substrate, where we force the potential (voltage) – Dirichlet boundary conditions. So, unfortunately there is no way of forcing fi_sc to zero to find the exact value of Vfb. So i suggest you take smaller steps of Vg once you determine the range at which fi_sc approaches zero, and you should get a much accurate plot of fi_Sc Vs Vg. That should be give you a reasonably accurate value of fi_sc. Hope that helps!


    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to answer the question., a resource for nanoscience and nanotechnology, is supported by the National Science Foundation and other funding agencies. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.