IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol. NS-28, No. 6, December 1981

EVALUATION OF EMP FAILURE MODELS FOR DISCRETE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES *

R. W. Shoup, R. J. Hanson, and D. L. DurginBOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON Inc.

2340 Alamo Avenue SE, Suite 207Albuquerque, NM 87106

Abstract

Empirical models are often used in EMP assessmentsof electronic equipment. Two such sets of models pre-viously developed for prediction of EMP failure levelsof discrete silicon bipolar semiconductor devices areevaluated. The sample mean and standard deviation ofthe ratio of failure model calculated to experimentallymeasured damage constant for each model and device typeform the basis of the evaluation. The sample mean isused to evaluate the predictive accuracy of each model.The sample standard deviation is used to develop errorbounds and to evaluate the recommended hierarchy of useof each of the model sets. The computerized data baseSUPERSAP2 is the source of device numbers and experi-mental damage constants. Model input parameters aredevice electrical characteristics extracted fromSUPERSAP2, vendor catalogs, and D.A.T.A. books.

Introduction

The development of failure models for semiconduc-tor devices has been evolutionary over the past 15years, starting with the work of Dr. D. C. Wunsch.Wunsch developed a model which relates junction failurepower to transient pulse width for bipolar semiconduc-tor devices. Failure power and pulse width are relatedby a junction damage constant. Early experimental workconcentrated on the determination of damage constantsfor a wide range of semiconductor component types. Thedamage constant is in itself complex and is dependenton the details of device fabrication, such as junctionarea and geometry, as well as properties of the basicsemiconductor material, such as heat capacity and ther-mal resistance. As an experimental data base was de-veloped, Wunsch and others postulated and validatedempirical models that allowed the estimation of damageconstants using measured or published device parametersthat could be related directly to junction area, e.g.,junction capacitance and junction breakdown voltage.Since the experimental determination of the damage con-

stants for the thousands of devices used in militarysystems is not feasible, these analytical models are

used extensively as estimating tools in EMP assessmentand hardening programs. A detailed discussion of thesemodels and their utilization has been presented in manypublications, including the DNA EMP Handbook.1 As EMPsurvivability was required of more systems, it becameincreasingly important to understand and quantify theuncertainties or error bounds associated with both ex-

perimentally and theoretically determined component EMPdamage thresholds. The uncertainty associated with theoriginal models was evaluated by Durgin2 and initialerror bounds were defined. These 3o error bounds were

found to be quite wide (20-30 dB) and additional re-

search was initiated to improve the basic understandingof the correlation between EMP damage thresholds andcomponent physical and electrical characteristics.This work was performed by Alexander3 and resulted in a

new set of empirical relationships for use in determin-ing semiconductor junction damage parameters, includingfailure current, failure voltage, failure power, anddamage constant. The details of use of these relation-ships are presented in the AFWL EMP Assessment Hand-book.4

*This work was sponsored by the Defense Nuclear Agencyunder Contract No. DNA001-80-C0072.

In the study presented here, the uncertainties as-sociated with each of the AFWL Handbook models and theDNA Handbook models and the utility of each one wereanalyzed in order to evaluate the alternative approachesfor determining EMP damage thresholds of semiconductordevices. Specifically, the objectives of the studywere to: 1) determine the predictive accuracy of eachfailure model, 2) develop error factors for each one,and 3) evaluate the recommended hierarchy of use of themodel sets. An overview of the models evaluated, theapproach used to meet the objectives of the study, anda summary of the findings are presented in the follow-ing sections.

Failure Models

The failure models that were evaluated in thestudy are those for discrete silicon bipolar semicon-ductor transistors and diodes found in the AFWL EMP As-sessment Handbook4 and the DNA EMP Handbook.1 All ofthe models require, as input, one or more device junc-tion electrical characteristics and provide, as output,failure current, failure voltage, failure power, anddamage constant for the the given semiconductor junc-tion. The order in which the failure parameters arecalculated does vary between the model sets.

The AFWL Handbook models are presented in Table 1.For all junction types, the doping concentration is es-timated using the published minimum breakdown voltage.Relationships are then available from which to calcu-late the breakdown voltage at the critical failure tem-perature (VBDC), space charge resistivity (pSC)' bulkresistivity (Pblk), and failure current density, (JF).For each specific semiconductor junction type there areseveral relationships by which to estimate the junctionarea. Given the junction area and the parameters re-lated to doping concentration, several intermediatecalculations are performed, including the determinationof the failure current and voltage for a pulse width of100 ns. From this data, the failure voltage and cur-rent for any frequency or pulse width and the damageconstant can be determined. The information necessaryto manually calculate the failure threshold for any dis-crete device is presented in Table 1. The order ofpreference is that recommended by the AFWL EMP Assess-

ment Handbook. Since manual calculations of this typeare very time consuming, TI-59 calculator programs were

developed to determine the failure threshold parametersfor any desired frequency. These programs were used to

calculate the junction damage constants for the devicesincluded in the study data base.

The DNA EMP Handbook models are presented in Ta-

ble 2. These models allow use of a few device electri-cal parameters, such as thermal resistance, junctioncapacitance, and breakdown voltage to calculate a damageconstant directly. For transistors, the damage constant

is applicable to either the base-emitter junction or thebase-collector junction. For these devices, a knowledgeof the device structure is essential in order to know

which set of equations would apply to a given device.One set of equations is applicable to non-planar silicontransistors and the other set is applicable to mesa and

planar silicon transistors. The order of preference isthat recommended by the DNA EMP Handbook. The other

junction failure parameters, power, current, and voltagecan be calculated, if desired, by using the Wunsch modeland several auxiliary equations. These equations were

0018-9499/81/1200-4328$00.75© 1981 IEEE4328

not needed for the failure model study as damage con-stant was selected as the parameter with which to makestudy comparisons. The equations with which to calcu-

late failure power, current, and voltage given a calcu-lated or measured damage constant are presented in manypublications, including References 1 and 4.

TABLE 1NEWER VINTAGE SEMICONDUCTOR FAILURE MODELS

(AFWL EMP ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK)

-4p

-____________ AREA MODELS_--________ DIODE TRANSISTOR COLL -BASE TRANSISTOR EMITTER-BA

AREAs 8.1 x (I1 1116 AREA. 1.47MAX (2.3 x 1 y6 0.67 )t.05

IMAX a IZm VZ AREA (.04719 F089 OEB BEBOPREFERRED FRRE

FOR ZENER DIODES I OEa CREN( )0.5

FOR V ~0.5VREE

AREA. 0.458

Ust (2 x 6C00VgWo83 | AREA. 6.34 x 10(IMA()082ALTERNATE FOR VRDu IV M

COD CD (VRD )0.33 AREA a 2.72 x 1o3X(IH062FOR VRD *1V

AREA. 8.75 x 10-3IAREA 0.489(0ZJ-121 (2 x 10o6 Coc V 8B3 )0.58

2nd FOR VRCU IVALTERNATE THERMAL RESISTANCE AREA. 3.63 l0JA ).47 0I33

MEASURED WITH 1/8" LEAD CB RC RCFOR VRC IV

AREA. 1.13 x 10-2(2 x 10-6 C OcBVi31 )0.39 AREA. 1.19 3t 10r

3rd |AREA. 1.96( r1.32 F ORlV (eJC )|0.94ALTERNATE AE=19(JA FRVD V(i

COCBa CRC VRC )033FOR VRC# IV

4Ath_|ALTERNATE _ _ _ AREA-a 2.79 {("A ri.7J

ND a 4.49 x 1o18 (yBD )l1

12 -0.67VBDC ' 4.07 x 10 (ND)

PSC a 2.48 x 1025(No ) 1-80PBLK 3.61 x 10 (N rf0*81

11 0.88 DIODE AND TRANSISTOR~8.26 x 10-1 (N0)COLLECTOR BASE3. -11 0.88 TRANSISTOR3.8 x 10 (N0) EMITTER-BASE

RBLKa PBLK/AREA

RSC Psc /AREA

IF a JF * AREAl1oons

VF100ns VBDC 'FlOO. (RBI RSC )

Tp 1/2.4 f

IF T -9-12tlOOnsPloxlg-11

V'F * VDCB F (RBLK+RSC)'K ( IF - VF )(100 x 10-9)1/2

lOOns lOOns

4329

MODEL PARAMETERS FOR TABLE 1

C = COLLECTOR-BASE CAPACITANCE AT 1 VOLT REVERSEOCB BIAS (PICOFARADS)

COD = DIODE CAPACITANCE AT 1 VOLT REVERSE BIAS(PICOFARADS)

COEB = EMITTER-BASE CAPACITANCE AT 0.5 V REVERSEBIAS (PICOFARADS)

= DIODE REVERSE BIAS CAPACITANCE (PICOFARADS)

= EMITTER-BASE REVERSE BIAS CAPACITANCE(PICOFARADS)

CRC = COLLECTOR-BASE REVERSE BIAS CAPACITANCE(PICOFARADS)

= FREQUENCY (HERTZ)

= FAILURE CURRENT FOR A 100 NANOSECOND REC-TANGULAR PULSE (AMPS)

= MAXIMUM TRANSISTOR COLLECTOR CURRENT (AMPS)

= RATED MAXIMUM ZENER CURRENT (AMPS)

= FAILURE CURRENT DENSITY (AMP/CM2)

= WUNSCH DAMAGE CONSTANT (W.51/2)= LIGHT SIDE DOPING CONCENTRATION (ATOMS/CM3)

= RESISTANCE OF BULK SEMICONDUCTOR (OHMS)

= RESISTANCE ASSOCIATED WITH SPACE CHARGE INAN AVALANCHING JUNCTION (OHMS)

= RECTANGULAR PULSE WIDTH (SECONDS)

= RATED BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE OF COLLECTOR-BASEJUNCTION WITH EMITTER OPEN (VOLTS)

VBD = RATED BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE OF DIODE JUNCTION(VOLTS)

V = BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE AT THE CRITICAL TEMPERA-BDC TURE (VOLTS)

VBEBO = RATED BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE OF EMITTER-BASEJUNCTION (VOLTS)

= VOLTAGE AT WHICH CRC IS MEASURED (VOLTS)

= VOLTAGE AT WHICH CRD IS MEASURCD (VOLTS)

= VOLTAGE AT WHICH CRE IS MEASURED (VOLTS)

= RATED ZENER VOLTAGE (VOLTS)= SPACE CHARGE RESISTIVITY (Q-CM2)= BULK RESISTIVITY (Q-CM2)

= JUNCTION TO AMBIENT THERMAL RESISTANCE

(°C/W)= JUNCTION TO CASE THERMAL RESISTANCE ( C/W)

= JUNCTION TO LEAD THERMAL RESISTANCE ( C/W)

MODEL PARAMETERS FOR TABLE 2

C =Cob AND VBD = 'VCbo FOR TRANSISTORS

WHERE

Ci = COLLECTOR-BASE CAPACITANCE (PICOFARADS)

K = WUNSCH DAMAGE CONSTANT (W - s)

BD = RATED BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE OF COLLECTOR-BASE JUNC-TION WITH EMITTER OPEN (VOLTS)

0 = JUNCTION TO AMBIENT THERMAL RESISTANCE (0C/W)JA

O = JUNCTION TO CASE THERMAL RESISTANCE (°C/W)JCApproach

The study was conducted using the SUPERSAP2 ex-perimental file as the source of device numbers and de-vice damage constants; and using SUPERSAP2, vendorcatalogs, and D.A.T.A. books as the sources of deviceelectrical characteristics. The SUPERSAP2 data baseincludes the data from which the DNA Handbook modelswere derived. It also includes the subset of devicetypes that were tested to support development of theAFWL Handbook models. The component data base used inthe study consisted of those discrete silicon bipolartransistor and diode devices that had an experimentaldamage constant listed in SUPERSAP2. The resultingsample size was 151 diodes, 93 transistor emitter-basejunctions, and 25 transistor collector-base junctions.A damage constant was calculated for each junction, us-ing each model, provided the required electrical charac-teristics were available. Not all electrical parameterswere available for every device used in the study. Aratio of the predicted damage constant to the experi-mental damage constant was calculated for each junctionfor each model.

The sample mean and standard deviation of the dam-age constant ratio data were then computed for eachjunction (diode, transistor emitter-base, and transistorcollector-base), for each model, for each source of de-vice parameters, and for a data set generated from amixed source of device parameters. The damage constantratio data base generated using damage constants whichwere calculated with device parameters from a varietyof sources represents the largest data base in thestudy. It is the most general case and is thought to

be representative of an actual set of equipment thatcontains a large population of discrete semiconductordevices. The device set in the study and in electronicequipment consists of devices which vary in manufactur-er, type, and application. In both the study and in as-

sessments of actual equipment, the semiconductor damagethresholds are calculated using device parameters fromdifferent sources.

The sample mean and standard deviation of the dam-age constant ratio data were calculated using the ex-

pressions:Km

X = Ke

-N

X = - v xiNi=l

S [ NE (Xi - X)211i=1

Where X = Damage constant ratio

K = Calculated damage constantmm = Indicator of model used

K = Experimental damage constant

CRDCRE

F

IFlOOns

IMAX

IZM

iFK

N

RBLK

Rs'SC

Cp

'BCBO

VRCVRDVRE

Vz

pSCPBLK

JA

9JC0aJeJL

TABLE 2

OLDER VINTAGE SEMICONDUCTOR FAILURE MODELS(DNA EMP HANDBOOK)

CATEGORY I CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3GERMANIUM DIODES t NON PLANAR MESA A PLANAR

SILICON TRANSISTORS SIUCON TRANSISTORS

PREFERRED Ka 707 Sc K.1.S66 a l0o 2ST INSUFFICIENT ~ @s 5

ALTERNATE DATA Ka 4.97 U 10 CY,V0og Kw 2.X a 1o 'A'2ND K-4.11 a lo, ;A K-707 ,2

A-LTERNATEI

DAMAGE THRESHOLD EQUATIONS:PF' Kt; i/2-VI 0I) (V.02 4RsPF) 11/2

2R,VF = VsD + IF RS

(1)

(2)

(3)

4330

X = Sample mean

N = Number of semiconductor junctions

S = Standard deviation

The sample mean provides a measure of the relativepredictive accuracy of each model. If the mean is lessthan unity (O dB), the model prediction of junctiondamage will, on the average, be conservative. Thecloser mean is to unity, the better the model's pre-dictive accuracy will be, on the average. Model errorfactor is the 3o point or 3 times the standard devi-ation of the model damage constant ratio data. Themodel hierarchy was evaluated by comparing the standarddeviations or error factors associated with each model.

Results

The sample mean and standard deviation for thedamage constant ratios for each model are summarized bysemiconductor junction type and data source in Table 3.In many cases, the study was hampered by the lack ofdevice electrical characteristics with which to calcu-late damage constants for the components chosen for thestudy. This was true for both the old models (DNAHandbook) and the new models (AFWL Handbook). Theevaluation of the old models for transistors was fur-ther hampered by the lack of semiconductor structure

information. For these, only planar transistors wereconsidered in the study; and the DNA Handbook category3 models were used to calculate junction damage con-stants. Because of these limitations, the set of dam-age constant ratios for some cases was too small togenerate statistics. These are indicated in Table 3 bya dash.

Histograms of the damage constant ratios were de-veloped for each model using the larger set of ratioscalculated with device parameters from mixed sources.Each ratio was converted to dB using the expression:

KDamage Constant Ratio = 10 log K (4)

Ke

Representative histograms are presented in Figures 1through 6. The mean, the standard deviation, and theerror factor are summarized for each model in Table 4.

The results of the model use hierarchy evialuationare presented in Table 5. A hierarchy was developedbased on the standard deviation of the damage constantratios for each model. The preferred model is the onethat has the lowest standard deviation for each semi-conductor junction type. Table 5 presents a comparisonof the results of the Booz, Allen study with both theAFWL Handbook and the DNA Handbook recommended hierar-chies.

LE 3FAILURE MODEL STUDY STATISTICAL SUMMARY BY DATA SOURCE

DEVICE SET CATEGORY: DISCRETE BIPOLAR SILICON SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES. ALL X MFR TYPE APPL. OTHER

JUNCTION I > DATA SET 1 DATA SET 2 DATA SET 3 DATA SET 4 DATA SET 5TYPE MODEL N X S N X S N X S N X S N X S

IMAX 53 3.48 9.63 20 3.82 6.87 35 6.04 16.72 63 2.52 4.24 105 4.20 10.62

NEW COD 12 6.05 13.03 5 - - 0 - - 1 - - 17 4.43 11-12JL 5 - - 3 - - 3 - - 10 0.28 0.33 15 3.99 14.38

DIODE JAo 11 4.78 11.79 17 1.55 1.98 0 - - 23 0.96 1.08 42 2.19 6.19(151 Devices) CJ 32 13.75 57.29 8 1.19 1.06 9 3.43 6.55 E 37 12.52 53.34

|OLD |J 4 - - 5 - - 0 - - 101 0.005 0.003 16 0.33 1.04!JA 10 19.11 25.26 18 7.57 11.70 2 - - 23 6.17 9.72 42 46.50 236.5

C 8 3.04 2.27 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 8 3.04 2.27OEB

IMAX 47 2.53 3.55 34 3.45 3.69 66 2.33 3.16 38 3.29 3.90 74 2.79 3.60

TRANSISTOR NEW cOCB 63 4.30 10.98 23 1.79 2.26 60 2.95 2.44 55 3.17 5.12 76 3.16 5.42IEMITTER 6 15 1.60 1.95 26 1.96 2.17 17 2.15 5.24 56 3.39 5.91 63 2.95 5.20

BASE IA 38 1.48 1.79 32 10.69 33.54 621 1.77 1.73 57 1.66 1.83 78 4.78 21.7BASE ___JAI(93 Devices) ICJ 29 1.01 1.14 8 0.95 0.899 26 0.853 0.507 23 1.04 0.78 32 0.98 0.71| OL|JC10 0.796 0.794 10 0.684 0.431 4 - 23 1.09 1.21 25 1.11 1.1OLD JC 4_31_91_1 25__1 11

JA 18 0.932 0.725 16 11.88 23.01 27 0.996 0.842 26 1.14 1.03 33 1.10 0.98I I ZO 10 1.92 1.88 9 6.87 8.48 5 - - 18 4.03 4.94 20 4.17 4.90

IMAX 18 2.67 3.47 7 13.95 18.69 18 5.15 5.87 14 7.16 10.31 20 6.58 9.17TRANSISTOR I NEW |0JA 17 1.22 1.19 8 6.02 7.91 20 4.90 6.40 17 2.94 3.63 22 3.23 3.71

COLLECTOR O CB117 2.23 1.86 7 7.45 7.55 17 4.78 5.85 15 4.55 5.03 20 4.17 4.44BASE 0__ 784_ 0_ 68__-_-C 11 0.784 0.658 5 _ _ 10 1.61 2.95 9 1.90 2.64 12 1.54 2.35

(25 Devices) 8LDJC7 0.981 1.02 2 -I 9 1.29 1.03 11 1.23 0.96

0JA I 11 0.748 0.626 5 - I 11 5.81 17.12 10 1.35 1.39 1 121 1.15 1.35

NOTE: THE STATISTICS ARE FOR THE PARAMETER KM/KDATASET~MDATA SETDATA SETDATA SETDATA SETDATA SET

1 GENERATED2 GENERATED3 GENERATED4 GENERATED5 GENERATED

USING ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE SUPERSAP EXPERIMENTAL FILE.USING ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS FROM VENDOR CATALOGS OF LISTED MFR.USING ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS FROM D.A.T.A. BOOKS.USING ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS FROM VENDOR CATALOGS FOR OTHER THAN THE LISTED MFR.USING ELECTICAL CHARACTERISTICS FROM MIXED SOURCES.

4331

TABLE 4

FAILURE MODEL STATISTICAL SUMMARYJUNCTION MODEL STATISICS MODEL ERRORTYPE MODEL NdO FACTOR (dB)

105 0.389 7.04 21.12NEW COD 17 1.15 5.86 17.58

DIODE JL 15 -5.56 8.85 26.55(151 DEVICES) - JA 1 -2.00 6.17 18.51

37 2.20 6.70 20.10

OLD i 16 -18.82 10.01 30.03J& 42 4.79 8.74 26.22

CoE9 8 3.89 3.03 9.09

MAX 74 0.817 6.15 18.45

TRANSISTOR NEW COCB 76 1.82 5A5 16.35EMITTER eJ 63 0.916 .23 18.69BASE MJA 78 -0.322 6.40 19.20

(93 DEVICES) Cj 32 -1.62 1.77 14.31

OLD JC 25 -1.02 3.55 10.65A 33 -1.02 3.66 10.98

_ _ _ - 20 4.15 4.22 12.66

TRANSISTOR EW i- 20 4.8 5.65 16.95COLLECTOR 0JA 22 2.61 4.89 14.67

BASE COa 20 3.84 4.83 14.49(25 DEVICES) C 12 -1.81 615 18.45

OLD 1t 1.43 5.57 16.7112 -2.81 6.701 20.10

Conclusions

The predictive accuracy and error factor rangesfor each model set, old and new, are summarized inTable 6. From this data it can be seen that the newmodels offer a slight improvement in predictive accu-racy over the older ones for all junction types, exceptthe collector-base junction. It is also apparent fromthis data that both the old and new model sets containat least one model which will, on the average, provideconservative predictions. This is true for all cases,except the new model for transistor collector-basejunctions. Overall, the new models offer an improve-ment in predictive accuracy over the old models.

Based on the data in Table 6, it appears that theerror factors for the most recently developed models aretending to shift downward from the error factors associ-ated with the older vintage models. Overall, the errorfactors associated with the two sets of models fallwithin the same range with a slight improvement beingoffered by the new models.

Based on the results of the model hierarchy of useevaluation shown in Table 5 and the failure model sta-tistical summary shown in Table 4, there was good agree-ment in the study with the AFWL handbook model hierarchyfor the emitter-base and collector-base junctions andwith the DNA handbook model hierarchy for the emitter-base junction. Since for each junction, the standarddeviation falls within a 3 dB range for the new modelsand falls within a 4 dB range for the old models, thenmodel selection should be based on considerations otherthan location within a hierarchy, namely, availabilityof device electrical characteristics for each model.

TABLE 5

FAILURE MODEL HIERARCHY OF USE EVALUATIONREEEDIODE TRANSISTOR TRANSISTOR

PREFERREE 0100 ~~EMITTER I SE COLLECTOR- BASEUSE AFWL BAN- AFWL a BAN*x AFWL m MANu

_ _ANDBOOK STUDY HANDBOOK STUDY HANDBOOK STUDYMOST * COE3 CO 'Pic *Jc

0 JA MAXC_______ CAXX _ JA *JA. X, GJL X-siC oic COC AX

LEAST *JA JAPREFERRED DNA BA NK DNA BAN - DNA BAN"x

USE HANDBOOK STUDY HANDBOOK STUDY HANDBOOK STUDY6,..Nos

LEMST

NOTE: U BASED ON CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ASSOCIATED WITH CALCULATEDAND MEASURED JUNCTION AREAS FOR EACH MODEL.

- BASED ON STANDARD DEVIATION OF PARAMETER. KK . FOREACH MODEL.

TABLE 6

MODEL COMPARISON BY VINTAGE

JUNCTION MODEL PREDICTIVE (dB) ERROR FACTORJUN_________ VINTAGE ACCURACY RANGE RANGE(dB)DIODE OLD -18 to +5 20 to 31

NEW -6 to .2 17 to 27

TRANSISTOR OLD -2 to +5 10 to 15EMITTER-BASE NEW -1 to +4 _ 9 to 20

TRANSISTOR OLD -2 to +2 16 to 21COLLECTOR-BASE NEW +2 to +5 12 to 17

ALL OLD -18 to +5 10 to 31NEW -6 to +5 9 to 27

'jci

-i .-

The study has shown that the predictive accuracy ofthe AFWL handbook models is for the most part betterthan that of the DNA handbook models. It has been shownthat the error factors associated with the new modelsare slightly improved over those associated with theolder models. Based on these considerations and thefact that the newer model set offers more alternativeways of calculating junction damage thresholds, it isrecommended that the more recently developed AFWL hand-book models be used to calculate damage thresholds fordiscrete semiconductor devices.

FIGURE 1DIODE IMAX MODEL

z

Eaw'a.

JUNCTION: DIODEMODEL: IMAX

NMaOSX- 0.369 dBSs 7.04dB

KMAI(KE -d

4332

-iro I . I

I !,A I OJA I a

----a U.- E.- I

-4 -'

I.W.P-a I I L- -Jr. L - j%v-

---.1

IlJc I U IlJc0

I .i I lpr 1.c "JA-VIA

2I

FIGURE 2

DIODE eJA (NEW) MODEL

40 JUNCTIION: DIODE38 MOOEL:SJA (NEW)36 N. 4234 - .-2.0032 S- .173028

~26 -

24.22

~20O

a~~~~~~~~Kj 16-d

12 510 t

8 ~~~~~~~3 3

-21 -18-IS-12 -9-6 -3 03 6 912 15 1621

OSJA/KE-8

FIGURE 3DIODE 81A (OLD) MODEL

40 ' JUNCTION: DIODE38 MODEL: 9 (OLD)36 Nt. 4fA34 X- 4.73

FIGURE~~~~~X 4.

32 So 8.7430

26 I

11-261- l1 51

21.22-

~20-16

U.14 6 6

12104/

6 2 2 2

20 I-2-18 -15-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 1215S18 21

KOJA/KE -88

FIGURE ~4TRANSISTOR EMITTER-BASE IMAX MODEL

40 JUNCTION :EMITTER-3BASE38 MODEL: IMAX36 N.H 74,

32 -So61 88d30 -

2626-24-~~~~~~1

0 22-Uw20-

w 16U. 14 10 I 10 9

1210I 7

646-~~~~~

21IO-21 -18 -15-12 -9 -6-30 3 6 9 121516 21

KIMAX/KE - d86

FIGURE 5

TRANSISTOR EMITTER-BASE %CB (NEW) MODEL

/0383634323028

$ 26> 240 22w 20a 18ww 16U.

11412108642

JUNCTION: EMITTER- BASEI MODEL: CocsINEW)

Nu 76

1 21.X- 1.82 dB

II SoS 5.45de

8

2 2

16

IIIIIII

II

O, * *I I- I

-21 -18 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6

KCocB /KE - d8

4

9 12 15 18 21

FIGURE 6TRANSISTOR EMITTER-BASE Cj (OLD) MODEL

40 JUNCTIO:EMITTER-BASE38 112 MODEL: C3 (OLD)36 Nod32

34 i--~~~~I .1.88832 10 Su4.778830I2826214

u22w20 6

U.141210I86 2

2

-21'-18-1-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 9 1215 1821

Kci/KE_d89

References

1. Durgin, D. L. and Antinone, R. J., "Component EMPSensitivity and System Upset", DNA EMP Handbook,Chapter 13, DNA 2114H-2, September 1975.

2. Durgin, D. L., "Bounding EMP Damage Prediction Un-certainties", presented at the DNA EMP Seminar,Chicago, Illinois, May 1974.

3. Alexander, D. R., et al., Electronic Component Mod-eling and Testing Program, AFWL-TR-78-62, March1980.

4. Alexander, D. R., et al., EMP Assessment Handbook,AFWL-TR-78-60, April 1980.

4333

IIII11