No contacts found error, while contacts exists and assigned properly

electricalcontact
device
#1

While doing a charge simulation of a simple rectangular structure of Si with Al contacts on both sides and assigned as contacts in the electrical conditions UI, and the simulation region contain part of the contacts inside, the following error is received:

“No contacts were found in the simulation region”

Please note it is a 3D simulation.

Attached is a screenshot.


Thanks for the help.

DEVICE's CHARGE solver error: "No contacts were found in the simulation region"
#2

Hi. Do you have the right mesh order on the rectangles? I can see that you also have a rectangle for air. If the contacts overlap with some other geometry then check if the mesh order is forcing the other material to occupy the volume of the metal contacts. To learn about mesh orders please see this page (mesh order DEVICE).

1 Like
#4

Dear Anyone Who Can Help,

Attempting to simulate a p-i-n diode in the newest Device (Version 7.3.1882, Release 2019a r4) I’ve incurred a new problem. The CHARGE solver exits with the complaint that “no contacts were found in the simulation region” when I had meant for there to be.

Attached is a screenshot.

I have double-checked my meshing order and the contact metal as well as the semiconductor device regions are at level 2. There is a block around the device of SiO2 at mesh level 3 whose purpose was to later study surface SRH recombination. Have I implemented the contacts’ boundary conditions incorrectly? The functions are new from the last time I was able to get this working, because the ‘addbc’ command has been replaced with ‘addvoltagebc’ so that my new .lsf file includes this:

addvoltagebc;
set(‘name’,‘cathode’);
set(‘bc mode’,‘steady state’);
set(‘sweep type’,‘single’);
set(‘voltage’,0.0); # grounding the cathode
set(‘surface type’,‘solid’);
set(‘solid’,‘cathode’);

and a similar block for the anode. Two hypotheses I have include:

  1. There is a need to tell the solver to “force ohmic” on some surface boundary condition. This was present in the previous implementation but not this one.
  2. The addvoltagebc command needs to be issued separately while the groupscope() is in CHARGE and HEAT or else only one of the two models will find the boundary conditions to be defined.

Please feel free to respond if anyone has any helpful hints. Thanks.

Best regards,
Parthi
16%20PM

#5

Hi,

Can you provide the simulation file to have a look at your simulation setup?

#6

1300_DHJ_2019.03.13.ldev (6.1 MB)

#7

Hi parthi,

Your second hypothesis is correct. You need to define boundary conditions for HEAT and CHARGE solver separately but right now you don’t have any BCs defined under the CHARGE solver.