Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Disclaimer
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Electrostatic Discharge Characterization Methods
- 3 Process Technology Impact
- 4 Design of Electrostatic Discharge Protection Devices
- 5 High-Current Electrostatic Discharge Behavior
- 6 Advanced Input/Output Electrostatic Design
- 7 Ultra-Large-Scale Integration CMOS Technologies
- 8 Electrostatic Discharge Basics of Aluminum Gallium Nitride/Gallium Nitride High-Electron Mobility Transistors
- 9 Basics of 1D/2D Materials, Thin Film Transistors and Their Electrostatic Discharge Failures
- 10 Challenges in Novel Packaging Technologies
- Glossary
- Index
- References
3 - Process Technology Impact
Published online by Cambridge University Press: aN Invalid Date NaN
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Disclaimer
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Electrostatic Discharge Characterization Methods
- 3 Process Technology Impact
- 4 Design of Electrostatic Discharge Protection Devices
- 5 High-Current Electrostatic Discharge Behavior
- 6 Advanced Input/Output Electrostatic Design
- 7 Ultra-Large-Scale Integration CMOS Technologies
- 8 Electrostatic Discharge Basics of Aluminum Gallium Nitride/Gallium Nitride High-Electron Mobility Transistors
- 9 Basics of 1D/2D Materials, Thin Film Transistors and Their Electrostatic Discharge Failures
- 10 Challenges in Novel Packaging Technologies
- Glossary
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter explores the intricate relationship between semiconductor process technologies and the electrostatic discharge (ESD) robustness of integrated circuits. It focuses on the second breakdown current (It2), a critical parameter in evaluating ESD tolerance, and how it is influenced by both process and layout variables. The discussion begins with the parasitic npn bipolar triggering in n-channel MOS (NMOS) devices and progresses through the effects of scaling, including junction depth, lightly doped drain (LDD) structures, silicided diffusions, substrate doping, and gate oxide thickness. Key layout elements such as channel length, finger width, and contact spacing are analyzed for their impact on thermal runaway and current crowding. The role of gate and substrate biasing in optimizing ESD resilience is highlighted, particularly in advanced scaled and silicided technologies. Process-induced variations and their implications for design margins are also addressed. The chapter concludes by discussing ESD performance trends across technology nodes down to 32 nm and introduces future challenges posed by FinFETs and emerging nanoscale and 3D architectures.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- High Current ESDPhysics and Design, pp. 60 - 85Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
[1] Krieger, G.. The dynamics of electrostatic discharge prior to bipolar action related snapback. In EOS/ESD Symposium Proceedings, pages 136–144, 1989.Google Scholar
[2] Amerasekera, A., Gupta, V., Vasanth, K., and Ramaswamy, S.. Analysis of snapback behavior on the ESD capability of sub-0.20/spl mu/m NMOS. In 1999 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium Proceedings. 37th Annual (Cat. No.99CH36296), pages 159–166, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Amerasekera, A., Duvvury, C., Reddy, V., and Rodder, M.. Substrate triggering and salicide effects on ESD performance and protection circuit design in deep submicron CMOS processes. In Proceedings of International Electron Devices Meeting, pages 547–550, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Gupta, V., Amerasekera, A., Ramaswamy, S., and Tsao, A.. ESD-related process effects in mixed-voltage sub-0.5/spl mu/m technologies. In Electrical Overstress/Electrostatic Discharge Symposium Proceedings. 1998 (Cat. No.98TH8347), pages 161–169, 1998.Google Scholar
[5] Amerasekera, A., McNeil, V., and Rodder, M.. Correlating drain junction scaling, salicide thickness, and lateral NPN behavior, with the ESD/EOS performance of a 0.25/spl mu/m CMOS process. In International Electron Devices Meeting. Technical Digest, pages 893–896, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Hu, C.. Lucky-electron model of channel hot electron emission. In 1979 International Electron Devices Meeting, pages 22–25, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Takeda, E., Nakagome, Y., Kume, H., and Asai, S.. New hot-carrier injection and device degradation in submicron MOSFETS. IEE Proceedings I (Solid-State and Electron Devices), 130:144–150, 1983.Google Scholar
[8] Shabde, S. N., Simmons, G., Baluni, A., and Back, D.. Snapback induced gate dielectric breakdown in graded junction MOS structures. In 22nd International Reliability Physics Symposium, pages 165–168, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Duvvury, C., Rountree, R. N., Stiegler, H. J., Polgreen, T., and Corum, D.. ESD phenomena in graded junction devices. In 27th Annual Proceedings, International Reliability Physics Symposium, pages 71–76, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Scott, D.. A lumped element model for simulation of ESD failures in silicided devices. In 1986 EOS/ESD Symposium Proceeding, volume 8, pages 41–47, 1986.Google Scholar
[11] Boselli, G., Rodriguez, J., Duvvury, C., Reddy, V., Chidambaram, P. R., and Hornung, B.. Technology scaling effects on the ESD design parameters in sub-100 nm CMOS transistors. In IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting 2003, pages 21.1.1–21.1.4, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Amerasekera, A. and Duvvury, C.. The impact of technology scaling on ESD robustness and protection circuit design. IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology: Part A, 18(2):314–320, 1995.Google Scholar
[13] Duvvury, C., McPhee, R. A., Baglee, D. A., and Rountree, R. N.. ESD protection reliability in 1 μm CMOS technologies. In 24th International Reliability Physics Symposium, pages 199–205, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Keppens, B., Mergens, M. P. J., Armer, J., Jozwiak, P. C., Taylor, G., Mohn, R., Trinh, C. S., Russ, C. C., Verhaege, K. G., and De Ranter, F.. Active-area-segmentation (AAS) technique for compact, ESD robust, fully silicided NMOS design. In 2003 Electrical Overstress/Electrostatic Discharge Symposium, pages 1–9, 2003.Google Scholar
[15]hun, J.-H., Liu, Y., Duvvury, C., and Dutton, R. W.. Implementation of temperature dependent contact resistance model for the analysis of deep submicron devices under ESD. In IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting 2003, pages 21.2.1–21.2.4, 2003.Google Scholar
[16] Oh, K.-H., Duvvury, C., Banerjee, K., and Dutton, R. W.. Impact of gate-to-contact spacing on ESD performance of salicided deep submicron NMOS transistors. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 49(12):2183–2192, 2002.Google Scholar
[17] Chen, J. Z., Amerasekera, E. A., and Duvvury, C.. Design methodology and optimization of gate-driven NMOS ESD protection circuits in submicron CMOS processes. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 45(12):2448–2456, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Duvvury, C., Amerasekera, A., Joyner, K., Ramaswamy, S., and Young, S.. ESD design for deep submicron SOI technology [NMOS transistor]. In 1996 Symposium on VLSI Technology. Digest of Technical Papers, pages 194–195, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Bock, K., Keppens, B., De Heyn, V., Groeseneken, G., Ching, L. Y., and Naem, A.. Influence of gate length on ESD-performance for deep sub micron CMOS technology. In Electrical Overstress/Electrostatic Discharge Symposium Proceedings. 1999 (IEEE Cat. No.99TH8396), pages 95–104, 1999.Google Scholar
[20] Oh, K.-H., Duvvury, C., Banerjee, K., and Dutton, R. W.. Analysis of gate-bias-induced heating effects in deep-submicron ESD protection designs. IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability, 2(2):36–42, 2002.Google Scholar
[21] Lu, J., Duvvury, C., Gossner, H., and Banerjee, K.. Impact of strain engineering and channel orientation on the ESD performance of nanometer scale CMOS devices. In 2009 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), pages 1–4, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22] Voldman, S. H. and Gross, V. P.. Scaling, optimization and design considerations of electrostatic discharge protection circuits in CMOS technology. Journal of Electrostatics, 33(3):327–356, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Griffoni, A., Thijs, S., Russ, C., Tremouilles, D., Scholz, M., Linten, D., Collaert, N., Rooyackers, R., Duvvury, C., Gossner, H., Meneghesso, G., and Groeseneken, G.. Impact of strain on ESD robustness of FinFET devices. In 2008 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting, pages 1–4, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24] Gossner, H., Russ, C., Siegelin, F., Schneider, J., Schruefer, K., Schulz, T., Duvvury, C., Rinn Cleavelin, C., and Xiong, W.. Unique ESD failure mechanism in a MUGFET technology. In 2006 International Electron Devices Meeting, pages 1–4, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features.
We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is
not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions,
please contact
accessibility@cambridge.org.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.