Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Is it possible in a conventional case? For lower VDS up to =0.15V (along with VDS=0.15,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.8,1V) is giving somewhat acceptable results whereas VDS=0.05V (for the same device) doesn't provide suitable results. Maybe because of the convergence problem during execution. Kindly share yours's viewpoints.
I never use the Slater Koster Model, so I can only provide limited suggestion. As the other comment had pointed out, you may need to increase vector_a and vector_b to reduce interaction between neighboring cells. I also don't see any calculation regarding the device hamiltonian, so it is hard to tell whether convergence happens.
Also , It is taking long time to simulate the device which is unusual. It is stuck at Execution 1 for long time.Dear experts,
Good morning, I have attached my script for a GAA device structure ।
Just for your kind information -I have used a poison solver: Conjugate gradient
Top and button -Neuman boundary conditions
Front and back -periodic
Side by side(Left and Right) -Dirichlet
Slater koster model ।
I have doped using -The miscellaneous section -Doping just above the spatial region of the current version of the software।
It does not provide suitable IV Analyzer Results such as -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S143484112030892X
Thank you once again।
Enclosed is unexpected behavior with conventional IV Analyzer procedures. Valuable input would be highly appreciated
Dear experts,
Good morning, I have attached my script for a GAA device structure ।
Just for your kind information -I have used a poison solver: Conjugate gradient
Top and button -Neuman boundary conditions
Front and back -periodic
Side by side(Left and Right) -Dirichlet
Slater koster model ।
I have doped using -The miscellaneous section -Doping just above the spatial region of the current version of the software।
It does not provide suitable IV Analyzer Results such as -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S143484112030892X
Thank you once again।
I don't think that reproducing my old results is very useful for you. If I recall correctly, the strong shift, which you can see in the figure I attached in the other post, was mainly an artefact of the lack of compensation charges.
If I were you, I would look for another reference and model that other reference using the now available AtomicCompensationCharges.
I have gone through this(With .py file) but have not been able to replicate the provided result. It is - Undoped for both the Channel region and the source and drain Region. I am enclosing the "N-I-N" doping profile with a similar kind of device structure.
I probably forgot to add the part with the doping in the script I had attached.
Back in the days, the AtomicCompensationCharge approach was not available. I therefore only used the charge-Keyword in the calculator-object. The lack of any compensation charges was probably the reason for the observed behavior back in 2014.
