4.5 Article

Design and Measurement of Ring-Gate Single Photon Avalanche Diode With Low Dark Count Rate

期刊

IEEE PHOTONICS JOURNAL
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JPHOT.2020.2993654

关键词

Silicon nanophotonics; photodetectors; sensors

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61827812]
  2. Hunan Science and Technology Department Huxiang High-level Talent Gathering Project [2019RS1037]
  3. Hunan Province Scientific and Technological Breakthrough of Strategic Emerging Industries and Transformation Projects [2019GK4016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single photon avalanche diodes (SPAD) based on avalanche effect have been widely used in the detection of extremely weak light signals. Conventional SPAD devices manufactured with silicon-based CMOS technology have a high dark count rate (DCR), making it difficult to accurately detect single photon signals. This paper proposes a low dark count rate ring-gate SPAD (RG-SPAD) to solve above problems, and compares RG-SPAD with conventional SPAD (C-SPAD) and conventional dummy-gate SPAD (CDG-SPAD). Slivaco-Technology Computer Aided Design (TCAD) performs two-dimensional simulation of the device to verify the basic principles of SPAD. Three types of SPAD device are manufactured by standard BCD process. The passive quenching circuit is built to obtain the DCR of SPAD devices. The avalanche breakdown voltages of C-SPAD, CDG-SPAD and RG-SPAD are 11.55 V, 11.85 V and 11.4 V respectively. In order to test the dark count rate of SPAD devices, an over-bias voltage of 1 V was applied to three types of SPAD device under the same size condition (temperature: 22 degrees C). The DCR of RG-SPAD (186 Hz) with ring-gate structure is significantly lower than CDG-SPAD (378 Hz) with conventional dummy-gate structure and C-SPAD (498 Hz) with conventional structure. When the room temperature dropped to 18 degrees C, RG-SPAD still maintained the lowest DCR (148 Hz) among three types of device structure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据