Analysis of High-Failure Mechanism Based on Gate-Controlled Device for Electro-Static Discharge Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As semiconductor process continues to advance, the miniaturization of feature sizes places higher demands on high-failure electro-static discharge (ESD) applications. This article explores the connection between the physical structure of a device-level silicon controlled rectifier (SCR) and high-failure ESD characteristics. The gate-controlled silicon controlled rectifier (GCSCR) based on the gate control effect is fabricated using the$0.18~\mu \text{m}$standard bipolar complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor double-diffused-metal-oxide-semiconductor (BCD) process. The ESD characteristics of the device are analyzed by technology computer aided design (TCAD) simulation and equivalent circuits. The transmission line pulse (TLP) is used to test the performance of the device. The results show that when the gate length is$4~\mu \text{m}$, the failure current of the device is only 1.56A. When the gate length is$1~\mu \text{m}$, the trigger voltage and the holding voltage of the device are 24.4V and 21.1V respectively, and the failure current is 34.94A. According to the test results of the above devices, it can be concluded that the current release mode of GCSCR with different gate sizes significantly affects the ESD characteristics of the device.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".