1998 Sixth International Workshop on Computational Electronics. Extended Abstracts (Cat. No.98EX116)
DOI: 10.1109/iwce.1998.742721
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficient methods for Hall factor and transport coefficient evaluation for electrons and holes in Si and SiGe based on a full-band structure

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The NMOS MAGFET had a sensing channel area of 2 × 0.13 m × 30 m while the PMOS MAGFET had a sensing channel area of 2 × 0.13 m × 150 m. This choice of channel areas is based on the greater than 3 times variation between the hole and electron mobilities [22] specially in a deep nanometric CMOS process, as well as the significant difference between the threshold voltages (e.g., V THN = 0.07 V and V THP = −0.2 V for the 130 nm IBM CMOS process) unlike the assumption of |V THN | = |V THP | in [11]. In addition, as discussed in the previous section, NMAGFET and PMAGFET sensitivities are dependent on the Hall carrier mobilities ( HN and HP ) and not just the carrier mobilities ( N and P ) with the Hall factor for electron being almost twice that of hole [15]. Comparative performance verification of the CDMAGFET in relation to the NMAGFET and the CCMAGFET, rather than the optimization of the CDMAGFET geometry for simultaneous pull-up and pulldown current match (risetime and falltime match) and maximum magnetic sensitivity [22], is the main objective in these simulations.…”
Section: Cdmagfet Spice Model and Simulationmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The NMOS MAGFET had a sensing channel area of 2 × 0.13 m × 30 m while the PMOS MAGFET had a sensing channel area of 2 × 0.13 m × 150 m. This choice of channel areas is based on the greater than 3 times variation between the hole and electron mobilities [22] specially in a deep nanometric CMOS process, as well as the significant difference between the threshold voltages (e.g., V THN = 0.07 V and V THP = −0.2 V for the 130 nm IBM CMOS process) unlike the assumption of |V THN | = |V THP | in [11]. In addition, as discussed in the previous section, NMAGFET and PMAGFET sensitivities are dependent on the Hall carrier mobilities ( HN and HP ) and not just the carrier mobilities ( N and P ) with the Hall factor for electron being almost twice that of hole [15]. Comparative performance verification of the CDMAGFET in relation to the NMAGFET and the CCMAGFET, rather than the optimization of the CDMAGFET geometry for simultaneous pull-up and pulldown current match (risetime and falltime match) and maximum magnetic sensitivity [22], is the main objective in these simulations.…”
Section: Cdmagfet Spice Model and Simulationmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The sensitivities S RN and S RP are in general dependent on the electron and hole Hall carrier mobilities ( HN and HP , respectively) and not just the carrier mobilities ( N and P ). The Hall mobility, H is the product of the carrier mobility and the Hall factor r H [14] with electrons having higher Hall factor than holes by almost two times [15]. An extended expression for modeling Hall mobility can be expressed by [16]:…”
Section: Magfet Fundamentals and Proposed Complementary Differential mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Equation (4.21) is more general than the formula given in [7] and reduces to the formula given in [10] in special cases. In the case of unstrained bulk silicon, e.g., because of the symmetries of the crystal, (4.18) takes the form…”
Section: Hall Factor When a Constant Voltage Is Applied Between A Anmentioning
confidence: 99%