Ideality factor - schotkky diode

  • Thread starter Thread starter hananl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diode
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the ideality factor (n) of Schottky diodes, specifically the equation used to describe the current through a diode and how to derive the expression for n. Participants explore the implications of non-ideality in diode behavior and the empirical nature of the ideality factor.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note the standard diode equation I=I0exp(qvb/nkt-1) and the ideality factor n, which is typically 1 for ideal diodes and ranges between 1-2 for non-ideal diodes.
  • One participant suggests that n is an empirical correction factor added to account for second-order effects in diode behavior, often determined experimentally through curve fitting.
  • Another participant expresses a need to derive the equation for n, specifically the relation n=1+kt/(2*q*phi), for a lab report, indicating uncertainty about how to approach this derivation.
  • A later reply discusses the derivation of the ideal diode equation based on quasi-Fermi energies and suggests that the introduction of n is a way to account for inaccuracies in the model.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the possibility of "proving" the equation experimentally, emphasizing that fitting the equation to data is the primary goal rather than deriving it from first principles.
  • One participant proposes a guess that the equation for n might stem from assumptions about recombination currents and the energy of electron-hole pairs, though they acknowledge uncertainty in their reasoning.
  • Another participant provides a detailed explanation of how to approach the current density equation for Schottky diodes, suggesting a method to arrive at the expression for n through logarithmic manipulation and Taylor series expansion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the derivation and interpretation of the ideality factor. While some acknowledge the empirical nature of n, others question the assumptions underlying its derivation and the validity of the proposed equations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the empirical nature of the ideality factor and its dependence on various factors such as material properties and experimental conditions. There is also mention of unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions in deriving the equation for n.

hananl
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hi,
everywhere I look for the equation describing the current of a diode, I get
I=I0exp(qvb/nkt-1)

n=1 for ideal case. for non-ideal diode you got values between 1-2.

in order to calculate n you have the equation: n=1+kt/(2*q*phi)
(phi=contact barrier height)

anyone knows how to derive this equation for n?

thanks.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter4/ch4_4.htm

See section 4.4.4.

n is just something that is added there because we recognize the equations we use to model a pn junction (see everything before section 4.4.4) are not perfect, there are important second order effects. Adding a fudge factor is an easy way to increase the accuracy of the model. Of course you don't have to do that. There are equations to express the additional effects, but engineers rarely need that kind of accuracy so we don't bother.

AFAIK, n is always found experimentally via curve fitting and it is usually pretty close to one. The diodes I am using now, for example, have n=1.08. BJTs wired as diodes can have n quite small, say less than 1.01. Diodes inside ASICs typically have larger n's due to dimensions and smaller currents.
 
Last edited:
Hi,
I know that there are deviations from the ideal model, also I undestand why (due to generation-recombination currents). So I can understand why for certain materil its n value is bigger(smaller) than another semiconductor.
But I DO need to know how get this equation. infact I need to prove it since I am making a lab report, and need to show this relation but don't know how to approch it.
thanks.
 
Well, section 4.4.2 in the above link derives the ideal equation based on quasi-fermi energies (see section 2.11.5). Then just say this equation I derived is missing second order effects so I am slapping in a constant factor in the exponential to account for it.

I am not sure how you are supposed to "prove" it (especially when we know it's wrong) via experiment since the whole point is to fit the equation to the data not vice versa. Maybe solve for one diode and then use it to predict the current of a set of diodes?

Proofs are for math class, not engineering. :)
 
Last edited:
I also understand non-ideality factors to be empirical corrections. You can look in Henisch, Semiconductor Contacts (1984) for a discussion relating to Schottky barriers. He discusses tunneling and other effects, and gives numerous references for further reading.
Edit: He is careful to point out that it is purely empirical in nature.
 
es1,
It seems resonable to add a constant, so I don't understand how I was told that:
n=1+kt/(2*q*phi) ... ?
 
I am not sure either.

My guess is it's based on the assumption that the error is exclusively based on the recombination current which is dominated by the electron-hole pairs with the minimum amount of energy necessary to recombine. The barrier height is q(phi-vb) so if they meet in the middle the energy is half that. So then the left side of the equation becomes I multiplied by some error term which is portional to e^(-(phi-vb)/2Vt). Then make an assumption about I for a given vb and solve for n.

Just a guess based on reverse engineering your equation for n. Also, I didn't plug it in so the math might not work out in the end.
 
Last edited:
Hi,
I let it go, but anyhow, if you are interested:
take the term for Js, the current for schottky diode:
http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter3/ch3_4.htm section 3.4.1 the first equation. we would like to have something like
J=J'*exp(qvb/kt-1)
However, if we take J' as the part in section 3.4.1 that's only before the exp, that's not good, since we have a depndace on Va (the voltage we apply on the jucntion) and we would like to have J'=const. so that's where n came from. we assum Va<<phi. also we use : x^0.5=exp^(0.5lnx)
we assume j'=the whole part before the exp, excluding the Va. using this ln "trick", and presenting ln with a taylor seriouse, my instructor told me, than eventually you get n=1+kt/(2q*phi). than you'll have: J=J'exp(qvb/nkt -1).

thanks es1.

Hananl
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K