1082

IEEE TRA,WSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. ED-24, NO. 8, AUGUST 1977

Finite-Element Methods in Semiconductor Device Simulation

JOHN J. BARNES, MEMBER, IEEE, AND ELONALD J. LOMAX, SENIOR MEMBER, IEEE

Abstract-Application of the finite-element method for COII

tinuous time-dependent media to two-dimensional Semiconductor
device simulation is described. It is shown that this method guanantees exact conservation of current both locally and at the device
terminals. Finite-element forms ofPoisson's equation and the
electron and hole current continuity equations are derived. INplementation of second order (linear triangular elements) an9
fourth order (Hermite bicubic elements) methods is discussed.

rithm is used, the netstorage required could be less than

required for a finite-difference solution of comparable
accuracy.
In the following sections, first the finite-element equations which arise from the semiconductor deviceequations
are derived and itis then shown that these equations
exactly preserve the property of conservationof current both
locally and at thedevice terminals. Theimplementation
is discussedof 1)linear triangular elements and 2) Hermite
bicubic elements. For detailed discussion of results obtained by this method Barnes and
Lomax [7] and Barnes
[8] should be consulted.For details of the finite-element
method itself, see Strang and Fix [22], Zienkiewicz [l],
Oden 121, Cook [23], Bathe andWilson [24],and Segerlind
~51.

I. INTRODUCTION
LTHOUGHthefinite-elementmethodhas
found
extensive use inseveralbranches
of engineerin,;
111-[3] and in electromagnetic field problems [4], it is on1;q
comparatively recently that semiconductor device simu-.
lation has been carried out by this method [5]-[12]. Ex:tensive two-dimensional device simulation has been car-.
ried out by the finite difference method [13]-[20] which
has undergone considerable refinement. Thus, while su.
11. THEFINITE-ELEMENT
EQUATIONS
FOR
periority over the finite-differencemethodcannot
bs
SEMICONDUCTOR
DEVICES
claimed a t this early stage, the finite-element method does
A. Semiconductor Device Equations
have some advantages.It is the objective of this paperto
The equations used to model semiconductor devices are
describe the applicationof the method todevice simulaPoisson's
equation and the hole and electron continuity
tion. The authors have simulated microwave field effect,
equations
together withseveral auxiliary equations:
transistors and diodes [5]-[8] with the method, but this
Main
Equations:
paper is deliberately writtenin a broader context since th %
finite-element approach hasgeneral application to twoV (cVV) = q ( n - p - N d )
(1)
(and even three-) dimensional device modeling.
The main advantagesof the finite-element method ar,:
that conservation laws(e.g., current conservation) ar,?
exactly satisfied even by coarseapproximations, it is e a r ?
to treatirregular geometries, the computational mesh c m
be graded to be fine in regions of rapid change, local meilk
Auxiliary Equations:
refinement [21] is easier to implement than in finite-dif.
ference methods, and higher order approximations arl?
E = -VV
(4)
morereadily constructed. Disadvantagesinclude the
Jp = d P 5 p - DpVP)
(5)
greater degree of programming complexity and thelarger
bandwidth of the resulting matrix equations if higher orde r
3, = -q(n&, - D n V n ) .
(6)
approximations and nonuniform meshes are indeed used,
The larger is the bandwidth, the greater are thecomputer The quantitiesin (1)through (6) are defined as
storagerequirementsand processing costsduring thl?
V
the voltage
matrix solution phase of the problem. However,the greater
q A the electron charge
bandwidth is offset by the need for fewer equations wher~
t e the semiconductor permittivity
a strategically placed nonuniform mesh and/or
higher
p 4 the hole concentration
order approximations are used.
If a matrix orderingalgaln A the electron concentration
Nd
the doping density (positive for donors,
Manuscript received November 5,1976; revised February 1,1977. T h s
negative for acceptors)
work was supported by the Air Force Systems Command, Rome PLs
t
time
Development Center under Contract F30603-74-C-0012 and in parttly
the National Science Foundation under Grants GK-37581 and EN(:
Jp,Jn
P the hole and electron current densities
75-12833.
G
the carriergeneration rate
J. J. Barnes is with American Microsystems, Inc., Santa Clara, C 4
95051.
2
A the electric field intensity
R. J. Lomax is with the ElectronPhysics Laboratory, Department of
Dp,D,
the hole and electrondiffusion coefficients
Electrical and Computer Engineering,The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI 48109.
Ljp,Ljn
the hole and electron drift velocities.

AND

BARNES

1083

SEMXCONDUCTOR
SIMULATION
DEVICE

The diffusion coefficients and driftvelocities are electric on triangular elements. Most subsequent statements apply
field dependent andso the equations are nonlinear. Tab-directly or with only minor extensionto more general elular values oranalytical approximations of these terms are ements.
used which are identical to those appearing
in the finiteIn thiscase, a setof N nodal pointscovers the region 3,
difference literature [7],[13]-[20]. The generation-reand thenodes are joined to form a triangulated mesh. For
combination term which is also nonlinear may be ap- simplicity the boundaryIwill betaken tobe polygonal so
proximated by its thermal equilibriumvalue (Shockley- that the triangulation can cover Q exactly. The shape
Itead-Hall theory) [27], but no simulation which includes functions are defined
so that atnode (xi,yi)
this term hasbeen carried outby the authors.

B. Finite-Element Equations

In addition, $j(x,y) is nonzero only in the elements imIn order toproceed it is necessary to introduce acom- mediately surrounding node
j , and in particular, i f j is not
,N] on r, 4 j ( x , y ) = 0 on I?.Thus the approximations to
plete finite set of shape functions {&(x,y):i = 1,2,
V ,p ,
which are describedbelow. These functions form abasis and n are
for the function space in which the finite element approximation is defined. For practical reasons, a two dimensional device geometry is considered so that uniformity is assumed in the third( 2 ) direction. The finite-elemenl; equations are derivedfrom (1)-(3) by multiplying
them by & and integratingover the region 3 occupied by
N
nh(x,y,t) = C n j ( t ) $ j ( x , y ) .
(12)
the device. This is equivalent to making the residual (left
j= 1
minus right-hand sideof the equation) orthogonal to the
set of functions rather than making the residual
zero a t a Because of (11)it follows that V i ( t ) Vh(xi,yi,t).
finite setof points as in finite-difference methods. In the The boundary conditions tobe considered here are 1)
V,p , and n are specified oncontacts and so Vj(t),p j ( t ) and
case of (1)this gives
nj ( t) are known for nodes lying on contacts and2) V V fi
= 0, Jp ii = 0 and
ii = 0 on parts of Ilying between
contacts (insulating boundaries). It is convenient here, but
not essential in programming,to number first
all nodes not
The resultof applying thedivergence theorem to(7) is
lying on contacts as1through M , where M < N. The remaining nodes, M 1through N therefore lie oncontacts.
The finite-element equations are obtained
by substituting
(12) into (8) and (9), inserting the boundary conditions,
,M,
and allowing i to take on the values 1,2,

..-

an.

where fi is the normal tor, the boundaryof 3. The corresponding equation, derived from (2) by a similar procedure, is

Here and elsewhere corresponding

equations exist for
electrons which will not be given explictly. Obvious extension of the notation (replacingp by n ) will be used.
Since the set ( + i ) forms a basis for the finite-element
space with elementsof characteristic size h , any function
u h ( x , y , t ) approximating a function u ( x , y , t ) can be expanded in terms of the shape functions as

c&OVh. ri d l

The integrals over I? vanish becauseof the boundaryconditions for the following reasons. If i is a nodewhich isnot
on l7, & ( x , y ) = 0 on r and the left-handsides of (13) and
(14) are zero. If i lies on I (and therefore between contacts
since 1 2 i 5 M ) , boundary conditions 2) imply that the
left-hand sides of (13) and(14) are zero.
C. Conservution of Current

The hole current associated with contactnode i,

where the u j ( t ) are the (time-dependent)coefficients of 5 i 2 N will be defined by
the expansionwhich whendetermined will define thesolution. To avoid excessively complicated notation, discussion will be mainly in terms of linear shape functions

+1

1084

TRANSACTIONS
IEEE

VOL. ED-24, NO.

8,

AUGUST

1977

provided currentsand charges are

with 1:; defined similarly,and theinduced chargeassoci-. by-elementbasis
ated with contact node i as defined by
evaluated from (15) and (16) but with integration over the
element rather than Q . Indeed (13) and (14) may be inQ; = [ ~ V 4 i V V h q & ( n h - p h - N d ) ] dS. (16) terpreted as stating that the charge
net and currentof interior nodes is zero. Note that this result
does not require
[These definitions are motivatedby (13) and (14) and in that thederivatives of the shape functionspossess interthe limit of infinitesimal element size can be shown to yield element continuity.
the correct contact currents and charges on contacts.]
When (14) and (15) are summed over all values of i (I D. Solution Method
through M and M + 1through N , respectively) the result
For boundary conditionsit is assumed that thecarrier
is
concentrations are equalto theequilibrium majority and
minority carrier densities on contacts
and that their normalderivativesare zero oninsulatingboundaries. As
mentioned above the voltages are assumedto be specified
on contacts (contact potentialsmust be included) and the
normal electricfield and density gradients are
zero on.insulating
boundaries.
The
initial
conditions
which
have
From the definition of the 4i and (12) it follows that
been found most successful are to assign the bulk equiN
Oi = 1.
(181 librium majority and minority carrier densities,and zero
potential everywhere except at contacts. These conditions
i= 1
The contacthole current I i c is defined as the sum over all are not fundamental to the method, so others could be
nodes i which lie on the contact c of terms of type (15). substituted if desired.
Although a full nonlinear solution by Newton-Raphson
Thus from (17) when (18) is used,
iteration hasbeen carried out in some cases [7], [8], an alternative iterative methodis initially to calculate V from
(1)using the known values of p and n at thebeginning of
contacts
the time step, then to
use the newly calculated V to comEquation (19) is also satisfied by the exact solution (Le,> pute E and hence determine C p , d,, D,, and D , in (2).
the same equationwithout the superscript h is valid). Thus These values are used in (2) and (3) throughout the time
exact conservation of hole current is obtained. SimilarlJ step and therefore the
effect is to make (2) and (3) linear
the electron current is conserved. In turn (16) implies in p and n except for the generation terms. The generation
conservation of charge and when (16) is differentiated with terms can be evaluated from the values of p and n at the
respect to t, dQ!/dt may be interpreted as the displacc,~ beginning of the step and incorporated in the inhomoment current which is also conserved by a similar argu- geneous term (i.e., the right-hand side) of the resulting
ment:
equation. The voltage V can now be recomputed and the
process is repeated at thenext timestep until converged
a
solution is obtained or for the desired number of steps. For
steady-state solutions the time derivative termsin (2) and
contacts
(3) can be omitted.

contacts

ON ELECTRON
DEVICES,

E. Final Form of the Equations

In computer solution by the finite-element method there
are basically four stages.
1) Read in (or generate internally) material properties,
C (Ikc + I i c + Ijisp c) = 0
(21 3
nodal positions and element connectivities.
all
contacts
2) Assemble the equations (13) and (14), normally on
i.e., the total currentis conserved at thecontacts when the an elementby element basis.
3) Solve the resulting linear equations.
definitions for current given above are used.In computN?r
4) Repeat 2 and 3 iteratively for nonlinear and/or time
implementation care must be exercised to use the same
time discretization schemein these expressionsas is used dependent problems.
in the time advancement scheme discussed later
[see (2 2)
For efficiency the assembly of the equation at stage 2 is
done elementby element rather than node by node. As a
through (24)l.
It is easily verified that theabove analysis can also lle result contributions are addedto thefinal equationsfrom
carried through with the integration over Q replaced Ily the nodes of each element rather than thewhole equation
integration over a single element and with the summation being set up atonce. These contributions will be considover contacts replaced by summation over all periphenal ered in detail.
nodes of the element. This has the important interpreta- 1 ) Poissons Equation:First consider (13) assumingp
tion that the total current is conserved on an elemer;.t- and n are known. When (12) is inserted in (13) and Nd is

When (19), (20) and the corresponding electron current

are added the result
is

AND

BARNES

1085

LOMAX: SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE SIMULATION

at thevth time step. Thislinearizes the equations within

a time step[a]. The parameter8 determines the degree
of
implicitness and affects the stability, although the time
integration will always be first order.The time derivative
term in (30) ensures that the method is always implicit
even when8 = 0. The use of 8 = l/2 therefore improves stability without further computationaldisadvantages. A fully
implicit (6 = 1) and thus nonlinear calculation in which
[ K p ] and p h were evaluated at timeu
1 was also made
using Newton-Raphson techniques at thecost of considand
erably more complexity, since the Jacobian mustbe derived and evaluated. For steady-state solution to problems
where the initial guess was far from the solution, this
methodconverged in fewer iterationsthantheother
It is convenient to express(22) in matrix notation as
method with 6 = yZ.
[ K V p q [ M ] ( r i h- p h j q ) = 0.
(25)
Equations (25) and (30) were solved by standard techniques
for solution of simultaneous linear equations inIn (25) Ph, ph, and rih represent thesolution vectors, and
cluding
iterative (e.g., successive over-relaxation) and dithe matrices [ K V ]and l[M]have terms which are the sum
of the contributionsK$)M $ which maybe expressed like rect methods making useof sparsity and bandedness.A
(23) and (24) but with integration just over the element Cle. sophisticated sparse matrix code [28] was used for the fully
The most convenient way to compute these terms is to implicit calculation. Fewer convergence problems were
evaluate allpossible combinations of i and j for each ele- experienced whendirect methodswere used.
The contact currents are computed
using the following
ment e in succession [l].The contributions to the final
expressions for hole and displacement currents (electron
coefficients are then accumulated.
2) CarrierConcentrations: Now consider the hole current was derived similarly). In these expressions summation over i extends to all
nodes belonging to contactc
continuity equation (14). The resulting equation after
and subscriptv refers to the time step,
insertion of (12) is
expressed in similar form the resultis

where Mijis given by (24)

and

If only the total current is needed, (31), (32), and the

electron current expression may be added, in which case
the terms involving Mij and F t , drop out.

111. SPECIFIC SHAPE FUNCTIONS

A . Linear Triangular Elements
The time derivatives are treated by finite-difference
methods since finite-element methods
in time can introduce undesirable coupling betweenpast and futureleading
to nonphysicalbehavior of the solution[22, pp. 243-2441.
Since this does not differ in principle from previous finite-difference approaches [26]; detailed discussion will
not be given.A possible approach which has beenfollowed
is to use a forward time difference yielding the scheme
(where v now implies the time step):
-h

-h

"+'At-"

q[M']

- [K?](BIj5+1+ (1- 6)pk)= p;.

(30)

In (30), [K?]and $5 are evaluated in termsof quantities

The accuracy of the resultsis determined in part by the

shape functionschosen. Linear shape functionson triangular elements and Hermite bicubic shape functions on
square and rectangular elements have been usedby the
authors. For linear elements
on triangles the shape functions within a particular element are
of the form
$ ~ ( x , Y )= (ai

+ b i +~ ciy)/2A
(33)

where A is the area of the triangle and ai,bi,ci are constants

(different for each element) determined by the conditions
(11). The complete shapefunction $i is thus apyramid-like
function with apexa t node i when all adjacent elements
are included [l].The gradientof q5i is constant within an

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. ED-24, NO. 8, AUGUST

1086

1977

element andgiven by
O& = ( b i / 2 A , ~ i / 2 A ) .

(34)

Since the electric field and carrier concentrationgradien ts

involve O@ithey will be constant within an element.
Tlhe
assumption that thecarrier velocities and diffusion coefficients only depend on electric field makes them constant
too. The netresult of this is that (27) can be written

where Qe refers to a single elementand the summationi s

over the elementse ( ; )which include node i (since j must
also appear there are two elements which have the line
joining nodes i and j common). Analytical evaluation of
these terms canbe carried out by the use of the identil y,
which can be evaluatedby elementary means,

$jq5,q5$ dS = 2 A
e

(I

l!m!n!
m n

+ + + a)! .

Fig. 1. Voltage distribution of a GaAs MESFET using linear elements.

(VGS= 0 V, VDS= 0.5 V, and No = 4 X l O I 5 cm-3).

(216)

Use of this in (35)yields

Similarly, the integrals in (23) and (24) can be evaluated

analytically as can (28) under special conditionswhen G
depends linearly onp and n (e.g., G = -(p - ~ o ) / Twht!re
pa is the equilibrium density and 7 the lifetime). The
currents, (32) and (32),involve precisely similar coelficients andso can alsobe evaluated.
For boundary conditions, voltages and carrier densities
are specified on contacts.The zero normal derivatives on
intervening insulators do nothave to be specifiedexp1icjI;ly
but appear automatically as natural boundary conditions in the finite-element method. Physically this can be
interpreted as their being no surface change or norrlal
current component there.
An example of results obtained with linear elements
is
shown in Figs. 1 and 2 in which the voltage and electron
concentrationdistributionsareshown
for a G;ilAs
MESFET simulation (see [8]for more detailed discussion
of results). In this example 800 nodes were used. The
computational mesh was graded so that elements were
smaller in regions of greatest change of n and V . The
greatest change occurs under the gate in the depletion
region of the Schottky-barrier gate contact. The grid shown
is forplotting purposes and was generated by interpolafion
from the computationalmesh as required by the plotl ing
routine. The computational mesh satisfied the restrictions
on stability andconvergence described in theappendix.

B. Hermite Bicubic Elements

which preserve slope continuitya t interfaces are considerably more complicated. One of the most convenient is
the Hermite bicubic element. An additional gain from this
element is the improved orderof approximation withthe
result that fewer larger elements are expected to be needed.
(Stability requirements may prevent complete exploitation
of this feature however;see Appendix.) For the Hermite
bicubic shape functionsthe elements must be rectangular.
The shapefunctions areexpressed in the form of products
of the Hermitecubic polynomials in x and y , respectively.
The two independent polynomials are shown in Fig. 3 and
defined over [-h,h]by

Even though local and global current continuity is ensured by the finite-element method,when linear elem.w!nts
and
are used the current density and electric field are not
continuous a t interfacesbetweenelements.
Elements

$ j c i . ( ~=
)

(/X

uj(X)

- Xjl - h ) ( 2 1 ~-

= (X

-X~)(IX

+h)

-h)2.

(38)
(39)

1087

BARNES AND LOMAX: SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE SIMULATION

lY
( a ) FUNCTION 9

( b ) FUNCTION

05

Fig. 3. Cubic shape functions $ and w on the interval

x,-1

5x 5

xj+l.

The expansion of a function uh(x,y,t)in terms of the shape

functions isgiven within an element by

Fig. 4. Voltage distribution for a GaAs MESFET using Hermite bicubic

elements. (Vcs = 0 V, VDS= 0.5 V, and No = 5 X 1015 ern+).

with similar definitions for the hole and electron densities.

N must be replaced by 4.N in all equations and

in addition
the numbering M 1through 4 N now applies to variables

on which boundary conditions are imposed. These are

function values and tangential derivatives a t contacts,
normalderivatives and x-y derivatives a t insulating
boundaries between contacts. With these changes
the
following equations remain valid (7) through (lo), (12)
through (14), and (22) .through (30). In addition, if & is
replaced by 4 4 i - 3 -= +i(x)+i(y), then (ll),(15) through (21)
(31), and (32) are valid. More details may be found in

larity mentioned abovecan be seen at thegate endof the

drain contact. These results only
are regarded as preliminary; detailed comparison with the linear elements has not
yet been made.
Restrictions on time step andmesh spacing for stability
in the finite-element method are similar to those for finite-difference methods (see Appendix) although the bicubic elements have not been
yet explored fully from this
viewpoint.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The finite-element methodcan be applied successfully

to semiconductor device simulation despite the nonlinearity of the governing equations. A detailed derivation has
been given of the finite-element equationswhich are derived from Poissons equation and theelectron and hole
current continuity equations.Advantages of the method
includeexactpreservation
of conservationproperties
PI.
This approximation gives expressions for derivatives which is particularly valuable if circuit interaction studies
which are continuous at element interfaces. Because of the are contemplated,easy adaptability to irregular geometries
higher order of approximation, larger elements can be used and relativelystraightforward local mesh refinement
than in the linearcase. However, at theedges of contacts, techniques [21].
the ex.act solution has discontinuous gradients and logaThe implementation for linear triangular elements and
rithmic singularities. To model this singularity of the so- Hermite bicubic elements hasbeen discussed. The linear
lution, mesh refinement
[21] must be carried out if the full approximation, while simplest, does notpossess interelepotential accuracy of the bicubic shape functionsis to be ment continuityof current density and electric
field (exachieved. Equations (28) and (29) must be integrated nu- cept in the limit of infinitesimally small mesh) although
merically for the bicubic case, e.g., by 9-point Gaussian the fluxes of these quantities areconserved globally and
quadrature. For convenience (23) and (24) can be inte- over each element. The Hermite bicubic approximation,
grated the sameway.
on the other hand, does have these properties and
is
Fig. 4shows a plotof the voltage distribution computed probably the simplest approximation which does, but it
with the bicubic shape functions for a device which is forces continuity of current andelectric field at theedges
similar to thatof Fig. 1. Sixty-six nodes (11X 6 ) were used of contacts where the model has a discontinuity. Other
on a uniform square
mesh. Each element is divided into 16 elements can be used, and more than
one type of element
subregions for plotting purposes. The effect of the singu- can be used in the sameproblem [12]. The programming

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. ED-24, NO. 8, AUGUST 1977

1088

details for the finite-element method aremore invo1vlt:d

than for finite-difference calculations. Some
informaticm
may be found in standardreferences [l],[23]-[25].
It is not the intention here to claim superiority to linite-difference methodsbut to present the approachtinas
additional techniquewhich can have advantagesin speci~lic
applications including those with irregular boundaries and
where local mesh refinement is necessary. In otherfielhis
of engineering finite-element methods have found vel-y
extensive and effective usage. The authorshave applicd
the technique to simulate MESFETs and important
alpplications also exist inthe simulation of other integrated
circuit device structures and discrete semiconductor3-d
vices. This paperserves as aguide for the use of the methcld
in such studies.

a restriction

for the linear element.The cubic element will apparently

permit asomewhat larger value of R,. An attempt has been
made to remove this instability by adaptation of the
method proposed by Scharfetter and Gummel in onedimension [27] with some success[ 2 9 ] .
The time step must not
exceed approximately twice the
dielectric relaxation time
A
7=-

(A51

4PNd
otherwise a spatial oscillation of the density may occur
related to the time
lag between solving Poissons equation
and
the
continuity
equation,This restriction does not seem
APPENDIX
A final limitation on
to presentin fully implicit schemes.
STABILITY AND CONVERGENCE
the time step for physically meaningful transient calculations or when purely explicit terms appear due to the
Because the equations are nonlinear and the boundary
nonlinearities
is that the time step A t must be small
conditions have singularities, the stability and convergence
enough
so
that
the Courant number does not
exceed
properties are complex. This discussion is therefore largely
unity:
qualitative and based on computational experience. E3y
carrying through a detailed analysisfollowing the work of
v At
cB-51.
Fix [ 2 6 ] ,the following convergenceestimates can be made
h when the generation termG is absent and boundary conThe above restrictions arisefor similar reasonsand do
ditions are sufficiently smooth:
not differ basically from corresponding restrictions
of finite-difference methods [30], [31].

+ ( V - Vh)2] dS}

= 0 (hK-l)

(A:1)

REFERENCES

[I] 0. C. Zienkiewicz, The Finite Element Method in Engineering

Science. London: McGraw-Hill. 1971.
[2] J . T. Oden, Finite Elements of Nonlinear Continua, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1972.
[3] G. 0. Stone, High-order finite elements for inhomogeneousacoustic
(p -ph)2
= 0 (hK-l) (A:?)
guiding structures, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol.
MTT-21, pp.538-542, Aug. 1973.
with a similar expression to ( A 2 )for nh(x,y,t). In( A l ) arid [4] A. Konrad and P. Silvester, Scalar finite-element program package
for two-dimensional field problems, IEEE Trans. Microwave
(A2), h represents the characteristic dimension
of the c ITheory Tech., vol. MTT-19, pp. 952-954, Dec. 1971.
ements andK = 2 for linear elements,K = 4 for cubice l - [5] J. J. Barnes and R. J. Lomax, Two-dimensional finite element
simulation of semiconductor devices, Electron. Lett., vol. 10, pp.
ements. However, the presence of singularities of the 61341-343, Aug. 8,1974.
lution at theedge of the contacts require
mesh refinement [6] J. J. Barnes andR. J. Lomax, Transient two-dimensional simulation of submicrometer gate-length M.E.S.F.E.T.,$lectron. Lett.,
to be carried out in these
regions if these singularities a:e
V O ~ .11, pp. 519-521, Oct. 16, 1975.
not toreduce the accuracy everywhere [22, p. 2571.
[7] J. J. Barnes and R.J. Lomax, Finite-element simulation of GaAs
For numerical stability various criteria must be.met.
A
MESFETs with laterid doping profiles and submicron gates, IEEE
Trans. Electron Devices, vol. ED-23, pp. 1042-1048, Sept. 1976.
measure of the mesh spacing necessary for meaningfd
[8] J. J. Barnes, A two-dimensionalsimulation of MESFETs,
physical results is the extrinsicDebye length
Technical ReportNo. RADC-TR-76-153, Rome Ail Development
Center, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York, VY, May 1976.
[9] P. Calzolari, S. Graffi, and G. Pierini, Finite-difference and finite-element methods for the semiconductor flow equations, in
Proc. Int. Symp. Finite Element
Methods in Flow Problems, UAH
The temperature T , which does not appear explicitly n
Press, Huntsville, AL, 1974.
any of the previous equations can be interpreted by a.3- [lo] E. M. Buturla and P. E. Cottrell, Two-dimensional finite-element
analysis of semiconductor steady-state transport equations, in
suming the validity of the Einstein relationat low fields,
Proc. Int. Conf. ComputerMethodsinNonlinear
Mechanics,
k T / q = a l p , where p is the carrier mobility. At high fields
Austin, TX, pp. 512-530, Sept. 1974.
the criterion is less clear but it is also likely to be le8,s [ll] P. E. Cottrell and E. M. Buturla, Steadystate analysis of field effect
transistors via the finite element method,in Int. EEectron Devices
stringent since p decreases.
Meeting Tech. Digest (Washington, DC), pp. 51-54, Dec. 1975.
To avoid overshoot leading to negative densities, the cd1 [12] G. D. Hachtel, M. Mack, and R. R. OBrien, Semiconductor device
Reynolds number R, must not betoo large. This leadsLO
analysis via finite elements, in Conference Record, Eighth Asilo-

AND

BARNES

LOMAX: SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE SIMULATION

mar Conferenceon Circuits, Systems and Computers (Pacific

Grove, CA), pp.332-338, Dec. 1974.
[13] D. P. Kennedy and R. R. OBrien, Computer aided two-dimensional
analysis of the junction field effect transistor, IBMJ . Research
and Develop., vol. 14, pp. 95-116, Mar. 1970.
[14] J. W. Slotboom, Computer-aidedtwo dimensional analysis of bipolar transistors, IEEE Trans. ElectronDeuices, vol. ED-20, pp.
669-679, Aug. 1973.
[15] H. H. Heimeier, A two-dimensional numerical analysis of a silicon
n-p-n transistor, IEEE Trans. Electron Deuices, vol. ED-20, pp.
708-714, Aug. 1973.
[16] A. W. Weider, 0. Manck, and W. L. Engl, Two-dimensional analysis
of a monolithicPNP transistor,in Int. ElectronDevices Meeting
Tech. Digest (Washington, DC), pp. 414-417, Dec. 1974.
[17] 0.Manck and W. L. Ehgl, Two dimensional computer simulation
for switching a bipolartransistor out of saturation, IEEE Trans.
Electron Deuices, vol. ED-22, pp. 339-347, June 1975.
[18] B. Himsworth, Two-dimensionalanalysis of gallium arsenide
junction field-effect transistors with long and short channels,
Solid-state Electron., vol. 15, pp. 1353-1361, Dec. 1972.
[19] M. Reiser, A two-dimensional numerical FET model for dc, ac and
large-signal analysis, IEEE Trans. ElectronDeuices, vol. ED-20,
pp. 35-45, Jan. 1973.
[20] K. Yamaguchi and H.Kodera, Drain conductanceof junction gate
FETs in the hotelectron range, IEEE Trans. Electron Deuices,
vol. ED-23, pp.545-553, June 1976.
[21] R. J. Lomax, Preservation of the conservation properties of the

1089

finite-element method under local mesh refinement, to be published in Comp. Meth. App. Mech. Eng.
[22] G. Strang and G. J. Fix, An Analysis of the FiniteElement Method.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
[23] R. D. Cook, Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis.
New York Wiley, 1974.
[24] K. 3. Bathe andE. L. Wilson, Numerical Methodsin FiniteElement
Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976.
[25] L. J. Segerlind, AppliedFiniteElement Analysis. New Y o r k
Wiley, 1976.
[26] G. J. Fix, Finite Element Models for Ocean Circulation, SIAM
J . Appl. Math., vol. 29, pp. 371-387, Nov. 1975.
[27] D. L. Scharfetter and H. K. Gummel, Large-signal analysis of a
silicon read diode oscillator, IEEE Trans. Electron Deuices, vol.
ED-16, pp. 64-77, Jan. 1969.
[28] D. A. Calahan, P. G. Buning, and W. N. Joy, Vectorized general
sparsity algorithms with backing store, SEL ReportNo. 96, Systems Engineering Laboratory, The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Jan. 1977.
[29] R. J. Lomax, Transverse effects in avalanche transit-time devices,
Final Reporton NSF GrantNo. GK-37581, Electron Physics Laboratory, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Aug. 1975.
[30] P. J. Roache, Computational Fluid Dynamics. Albuquerque, NM:
Hermosa Publishers, 1972.
[31] M. Reiser, On the stability of finite-difference schemes in transient
semiconductor problems, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 2,
pp. 65-68, Jan. 1973.