1

Analytical Model Progress

Andr Sopczak
Lakhdar Dehimi,Salim Aoulmit
and Khaled Bekhouche
2
OUTLINE

Introduction

Updated analytical model for CP-CCD

Comparison with full simulations

Effect of edges (suggestions)

Conclusion
3
Introduction

Models:
Hardy model

with assumption
Where
t
emit
is the total emission time from the previous packet=tw
t
join
is the time during which the charges can join their parent packet
e c

( )
e emit
t e join
t
s
t
e e
n
N
CTI

2
Improved Hardy model : include capture time
( )( )
e emit
t e join
t
c sh
t
s
t
e e e
n
N
CTI

1 2
tsh is the shift time, that is the time spend under each node
4
Updated CTI Analytical Model
The fraction of filled traps (r
f
):
s
f
c e
f
c
f f
r r r
dt
dr

1
1
( ) ( )
c
s
s c
s
f f
t
r t r

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|
exp 0
( ) ( ) { 0
f f
s
t
r t r
N
N
CTI
t
f
f
N
n
r
Where
n
f
is the density of filled traps
N
t
is the density of traps
5
Diagram of the consecutive transfer stages
One pixel
0
t
1
t
2
time
A
B
Node 1 Node 2
C
r
f
(0)
r
f1A
r
f1B
r
f2B
r
f2C
Space
t
1
Joining
6
Model for CP-CCD (2-phase)
r
f1A
is the fraction of filled trap under node1 during time t
1
(when
signal packet is present).
( ) ( )
c
s
s
t
c
s
f
r t
A f
r

+
,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|
1
exp 0
1 1
( ) ( )

,
`

.
|

e
A f B f
t
t r t r

2
1 1 2 1
exp
r
f1B
is the fraction of filled trap under node1 during time t
2
(when
signal packet is present under the second node).
(1)
(2)
7
( ) ( )
c
s
s c
s
f B f
t
r t r

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

2
2 2
exp 0
( ) ( )

,
`

.
|

e
B f C f
t
t r t r

1
2 2 1 2
exp
r
f2B
is the fraction of filled trap under node2 during time t
2
(when signal
packet is present).
r
f2C
is the fraction of filled trap under node2 during time t
1
(when signal
packet is present under the first node of the next pixel).
(3)
(4)
8
So the CTI is the sum of the CTI under each node
2 1
CTI CTI CTI +
( ) ( ) ( ) { 0 2
1 2 2 1 f C f B f
s
t
r t r t r
n
N
CTI +
r
f
(0) is defined by considering the fact that initially all taps
are filled and emit during the waiting time and then:
( )

,
`

.
|

e
w
f
t
r

exp 0
(5)
(6)
(7)
9
From equations 1 to 7 we obtain
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

'

'

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

+

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

+

,
`

.
|

'

'

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|
+ + +

e s
e s
c
s
e
w
t t
t t
t
e
t
s
t
e
t
s
t
s
n
t
N
CTI

1 2
2 1
exp exp 1
exp exp 1
exp 2
1 2
exp
2 1
exp
10
Case of t
1
=t
2
=t
]
]
]
]
]
]

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

+

+
e
w
t
e
t
e s
t
s
t
e
s
e c
t
s
n
t
N
CTI

exp exp
1 1
exp 1
exp 1
2 1
exp 1 2
11
Comparison with Full Simulations
Comparison of AM, Updated, Full simulations Glasgow and Lancaster for the 0.17 eV trap
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Temperature(K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


ImpAM
UpdatedAM
Full SimGlasgow
Full SimLancaster
0.17eV
50MHz
1e12/cm
3
Occ=1%
12
Comparison of AM, Updated, Full simulations Glasgow and Lancaster for the 0.44 eV trap
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Temperature(K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


ImpAM
UpdatedAM
Full SimGlasgow
Full SimLancaster
0.44eV
50MHz
1e12cm
-3
Occ=1%
13
Frequency effect using Updated Model
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Temperature(K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


50MHz
25MHz
15MHz
10MHz
0.17eV
1e12cm
-3
Occ=1%
14
Frequency effect with Full Simulation (Dima)
120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Temperature(K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


50MHz
25MHz
15MHz
10MHz
0.17eV
1e12cm
-3
Occ=1%
15
Comparison Updated Model with Full
Simulation (Dima) for 0.17 eV at 10 MHz
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Temperature(K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


UpdatedAM
Full Sim
0.17eV
10MHz
1e12cm
-3
Occ=1%
16
Comparison Updated Model with Full
Simulation (Dima) for 0.17 eV at 15 MHz
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Temperature(K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


UpdatedAM
Full Sim
0.17eV
15MHz
1e12cm
-3
Occ=1%
17
Comparison Updated Model with Full
Simulation (Dima) for 0.17 eV at 25 MHz
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Temperature(K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


UpdatedAM
Full Sim
0.17eV
25MHz
1e12cm
-3
Occ=1%
18
Comparison Updated Model with Full
Simulation (Dima) for 0.17 eV at 50 MHz
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Temperature(K)
C
T
I

(
%
)


UpdatedAM
Full Sim
0.17eV
50MHz
1e12cm
-3
Occ=1%
19
Edges Effect
Substrate
x
n p
w
p 0
-w
n
-x
t1
E
C
E
V
E
Fi
-x
t2
V
2
V
1
E
f
E
t1
E
t2
E
t1,2
are the trap energy levels,
E
C
and E
V
are respectively the conduction and the valence band,
E
f
and E
Fi
are respectively Fermi level and intrinsic Fermi level,
w
n
and w
p
are the edges of the depletion region,
x
t1,2
are the intersection points of Fermi level with trap energy level.
1 m
Gate
I
n
s
u
l
a
t
o
r
20

X
t
is not the same for both traps (0.17,
0.44 eV) depending on the energy level.

Volume is then calculated by means of X

t

for each trap.
21
Conclusion

Updated model is a systematic

development from Hardy original model.

Updated model agrees better with Full

Simulation.

As the frequency is increasing the fast

and full simulation agree better.

Volume of the ionised traps depends on

trap level (Effect of volume change
understudy).
22
Next: List of systematic uncertainties
Doping profile,
Clock voltage (form and amplitude), we suggest to
use a rectangular or square signal,