Enhanced Short-Circuit Robustness of 1.2 kV Split Gate Silicon Carbide Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistors for High-Frequency Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are several points that could be improved:

1. In the abstract part, there is no info about the motivation on this study. Also it would be more attracting to add potential application about this study in abstract.

2. It's better to find a way to label more clearly, in Fig.3 the Eox,max is a bit hard to read.

3. In line 133& 134, 151 &152, the unit of Ron,sp is mΩ∙cm–2, and in every where else its mΩ∙cm2. Is it a typo? Please unify the unit for better understanding.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for dedicating your time to reviewing this manuscript.

Responses to each comment and corresponding revisions can be found in the "3. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors" section of this attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are some comments on the technical content in the paper titled "Enhanced Short-Circuit Robustness of 1.2 kV Split Gate SiC MOSFETs for High-Frequency Applications" by Shin et al: 

1.       The paper uses TCAD simulations for device analysis but could benefit from a clearer explanation of the simulation setup details.

2.        The study is simulation-based. Including experimental validation (or citing some relevant experimental results) of the simulated results would significantly enhance the credibility of the proposed design enhancements.

 

3.        The paper would benefit from a discussion on the long-term reliability of the PSG-MOSFET, considering factors like gate oxide integrity over extended operating periods, led by the P-shielded structure.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Line 18: "The SC robustness of PSG-MOSFETs, with an identical specific on-resistance (Ron,sp) as the SG-MOSFET, was investigated...", should replace the “as” with “to”

2. Line 15: "...was compared to that of the SG-MOSFET to analyze the relationship..." should be considered to be replaced as "was compared to that of the SG-MOSFET" to "was compared with SG-MOSFET".

 

3. Remove the an in Line 24: "SiC devices offer a low specific on-resistance (Ron,sp), an superior blocking capability..."

Author Response

Thank you for dedicating your time to reviewing this manuscript.

Responses to each comment and corresponding revisions can be found in the "3. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors" section and "4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language" section of this attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors study MOSFET gates designed to enhance the short-circuit withstanding time. They propose a special design to expand the depletion region under both blocking mode and short-circuit conditions. The authors show the reduction of the maximum electric field in the gate oxide. The manuscript could interest a future reader but needs some revisions before its acceptance. The authors introduce the JFET region in the abstract without a word of explanation. As far as I understand, the research is based on numerical simulations. Therefore, I recommend the authors present a detailed description of The Shockley-Read-Hall recombination model, the Auger recombination model, the 95 Okuto-Crowell avalanche model, and the incomplete ionization model, which they just briefly mention on page 3. Considering the possible application of their design in practice, the authors have to suggest possible experiments to verify their results in the Conclusions section.

I can recommend accepting the manuscript after proper revisions.

Author Response

Thank you for dedicating your time to reviewing this manuscript.

Responses to each comment and corresponding revisions can be found in the "3. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors" section of this attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1."This reduced Eox,max of the PSG-MOSFET is due to the dispersion of the electric field..." Please explain how the P-shielding region disperses the electric field, along with supplementary simulation results or references to substantiate this assertion.

 

2. "Finally, the SCWT was defined as the gate pulse duration at which the drain current surges..." Elucidate the rationale behind selecting the specific definition of SCWT and examine how this parameter corresponds with practical applications or testing benchmarks.

 

3. "As the NJFET increases, the Ron,sp decreases due to the expansion of the current path..." Examine the trade-offs of optimizing NJFET and WP for various application scenarios. Offer insights on how to balance these parameters effectively.

 

4. "PSG-MOSFETs demonstrate enhanced SC robustness compared to the SG-MOSFET with identical Ron,sp." Offer a more comprehensive understanding of the reasons behind the enhanced SC robustness of PSG-MOSFETs and explore how this advancement can be utilized in real-world applications.

 

5. "PSG-MOSFETs rapidly saturate drain current (ID,sat) at higher VDS compared to the SG-MOSFET." Examine the influence of the observed ID  and sat behavior on the performance of the PSG-MOSFET in high-power or high-frequency applications.

 

Author Response

Thank you for dedicating your time to reviewing this manuscript.

Responses to each comment and corresponding revisions can be found in the "3. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors" section of this attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx