|
The Designer's Guide Community Forum
https://designers-guide.org/forum/YaBB.pl Modeling >> Semiconductor Devices >> Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not area? https://designers-guide.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1169478500 Message started by Alm on Jan 22nd, 2007, 7:08am |
|
Title: Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not area? Post by Alm on Jan 22nd, 2007, 7:08am Hi, The gate overlap capacitances CGSO and CGDO are defined per unit width. However the cap CGBO is deined per unit length? As length changes the the gate-bulk cap will obviously be affected. But will it not be affected by width as well? When calculating CGBOeff we use CGBO * Leff, but not W. Why? Regards, Alm P. |
|
Title: Re: Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not ar Post by Croaker on Jan 23rd, 2007, 6:33pm CGBO is the cap formed by the poly outside the active that extends onto the field region. So no, the width of the MOSFET isn't related to this capacitance. If you draw a MOSFET layout this should make sense. Typically this cap is small relative to the gate-to-channel cap because the field oxide is thick compared to gate oxide. |
|
Title: Re: Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not ar Post by Alm on Jan 26th, 2007, 6:18am Yes, that explanation helped a lot. But there is some component of Cgb that depends on the width. For example for a simple CS amplifier I find the folowing values: Op. Regn Width Cgb Sat 70u 2.262 f Sat 140u 4.3978 f Sat 210u 6.5337 f cutoff 210u 135.8588 f There is another interesting thing I noted: Vgs Op Regn Width Cgb 0.8 V Sat 210 u 38.99 f 0.5 V Sat 210 u 6.5337 f i.e. as Vgs increases Cgb decreases. Why does this happen? Regards, Alm P. |
|
Title: Re: Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not ar Post by Croaker on Jan 28th, 2007, 12:54pm You are right. It depends on the mode of operation. Basically, there are two capacitors in series between the gate and bulk. One is the oxide capacitance (Cox), and the other is the capacitance of the depletion region under the oxide (Cd). In depletion and weak inversion, Cd and Cox are similar in value. As the channel becomes more inverted Cd grows (a tiny change in the surface voltage makes a big change in the depletion charge) until Cox is pretty much the gate capacitance you see. * The gate-to-bulk cap is no longer important because of a shielding effect; the depletion charge doesn't change much...all changes in charge are due to inversion and come from the source and drain. The only gate-to-bulk cap left that you see is the poly over field one. In case my rambling made no sense: In weak inversion Cgb = Cox*Cd/(Cox+Cd) + Cgb_field In strong inversion Cgb = Cgb_field For the change with width, the shielding effect is not perfect. The depletion charge may change a little, and so Cd, which is width dependent plays a small part. Cd=W*L*esi/tdep |
|
Title: Re: Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not ar Post by ywguo on Jan 28th, 2007, 7:05pm Hi, Marc, Your comments are very good. But Alm said that Quote:
Why the Cgb is larger at Vgs=0.8V than that at Vgs=0.5V? Thanks Yawei |
|
Title: Re: Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not ar Post by Croaker on Jan 29th, 2007, 7:08am I noted that too. It contradicts what he said and contradicts what I understand, so I assumed it was just a typo on his part. :o Quote:
The above is correct, but his numbers got mixed up. |
|
Title: Re: Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not ar Post by Alm on Jan 30th, 2007, 6:04pm Hi, I don't think it is a typo. Here is my spice file. *circuit CS amp m1 2 3 0 0 nmos w=70u l=1.6u rd 1 2 500 rs 3 5 1 vb 5 4 0.5 vbac 4 0 ac 0.03 0 .include model3 .op .end I varied w to 140 and 210 and vb to 0.8 and 1.5 to report the earlier results. here is the model file .MODEL nmos NMOS ( LEVEL = 3 + TOX = 3.21E-8 NSUB = 1.481713E15 GAMMA = 0.7819712 + PHI = 0.7 VTO = 0.6375544 DELTA = 0.8987787 + UO = 800 ETA = 9.999885E-4 THETA = 0.0689157 + KP = 7.038973E-5 VMAX = 3.383919E5 KAPPA = 1.8146864 + RSH = 0.047758 NFS = 6.04175E11 TPG = 1 + XJ = 3E-7 LD = 1.192306E-11 WD = 6.837626E-7 + CGDO = 1.64E-10 CGSO = 1.64E-10 CGBO = 1E-10 + CJ = 2.845126E-4 PB = 0.8911576 MJ = 0.5 + CJSW = 1.264309E-10 MJSW = 0.05 ) |
|
Title: Re: Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not ar Post by Croaker on Jan 31st, 2007, 4:32am Well, these statements seem to contradict each other. Is it a typo or not? Quote:
For now I'll assume it's not a typo and mention that what I said is true under higher frequency gate voltages. If it's a low frequency, the series cap combination is at Cox below threshold and starts dropping until around threshold it grows again until it reaches Cox. This should be covered in any devices book in the chapter about MOSFETs. |
|
Title: Re: Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not ar Post by Alm on Jan 31st, 2007, 6:13am Croaker, Thanks for your patience. It was indeed a typo. Probably too much of hurry on my part. Apologize about that. I think I understand your earlier expression that a small change in surface voltage makes a large change in depletion charge, which is why when vgs = 0.8V the cap reduces. Thanks again. -Alm |
|
Title: Re: Why is CGBO defined per unit length and not ar Post by Croaker on Jan 31st, 2007, 8:00am Yes, the depletion cap becomes huge and thus when it is in series it doesn't matter much. |
|
The Designer's Guide Community Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.2.2! YaBB © 2000-2008. All Rights Reserved. |