Numerical Modeling of the Electrostatic Field in

Metal-Insulator-Metal Structures
Emilia-Simona Malureanu and Daniel Ioan

Mihail-Iulian Andrei

Electrical Engineering Faculty

Numerical Methods Lab.
Politehnica University of Buchareast
Email: simona@lmn.pub.ro
daniel@lmn.pub.ro

Special Electric Machines Dept.

Icpe, Bucharest
E-mail:iulianandrei.messico@icpe.ro

AbstractThe accurate data about electric field on the metalinsulator interface is essential for a series of phenomena, such as
electric breakdown, corona discharges, or electron emission. As
the size of the structures used in electronics industry goes towards
nanaoscopic scale, the sharp edge electrostatic effect in these
structures becomes more predominant and a correct estimation of
the electric field intensity value implies using combined numerical
and analytical methods.

I.

I NTRODUCTION

The accurate data about electric field on the metalinsulator interface is essential for a series of phenomena,
such as electric breakdown, corona discharges, or quantum
tunneling [1], [2].
This paper proposes to analyse the electric field intensity in structures with nanoscopic dimensions, considering an
Al SiO2 Al test structure, specially designed and realised
by silicon planar technology, for experimental study of field
electron emission.
By modeling the test structure, the electrostatic field was
computed with the finite element method, using Comsol program . In the paper is presented the detailed geometrical model,
as well as the solved equations and their boundary conditions.
The influence of exact shape and surface smoothness are
analysed, considering the sharp corner effect in estimating the
value of the electric field in Al SiO2 Al test structures
and the results are validated, by comparison with those analytically obtained. The electrostatic sharp corner effect imply the
appearance of high intensity electric fields in the vecinity of
charged electrodes with sharp corners and edges. The electric
fiels intensity in the appex of the emiting electrode is in inverse
ratio to its bending radius. Modeling this effect is necessary
in studying the Corona phenomenon, in integrated circuits, as
determining the precision of the electrostatic forces in MEMS
devices [3] or studying the electro-migration in integrated
circuits [4].
The precise modeling of this effect with the finite element
method implies using an extremely fine mesh around the edges
and corners with considerable consumption of computational
resources as memory and time. As the bending radius decreases, the necessary of computational resources increases.
If a geometrical model with sharp edges is adopted, with
a zero bending radius, then a coarse mesh can be used in

order to determine the electric field intensity. This type of

model is imprecise in the vecinity of the edge, but accurate
enough in the rest of the computational domain, where the
electric field does not depend on the edges bending radius.
This is a global correct model but locally imprecise. In order
to overcome this disadvantage and reduce the computing effort
without dimishing the numerical result accuracy, Kraehenbuhl
et al. [5] propose using the sharp edge model for determining
the global electric field and then, in the vecinity of the
rounded edges, the field is determined by solving a local
field problem. Hagedorn and Hall [6] propose a method based
on the conformal mapping for determining the electric field
intensity in a sharp corners and edges geometry.
II.

C ONCEPTUAL MODEL

The considered Al SiO2 Al test structures can be seen

in Figures (1). The geometrical parameters of the test structure
are in Table (I).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Parameter
Electrode length
Electrode width
Thickness (gAl )
Electrodes appex
SiO2 layer thickness (gSiO2 )
SiO2 layer width
Electrodes voltage

Test structure
4.5m
3m
0.4m
r = 1.5m
1.5m
93.7nm
20V

TABLE I: Geometric parameters

(a) Optical microscope view.

(b) Electronic microscope

(SEM) view.

Fig. 1: Al SiO2 Al test structures

1) Modelling hypotheses:

The emission electrode and half of the SiO2 dielectric

layer are modeled.

A voltage of 10 V is applied to the emission electrode

considering the simmetry plane as reference plane
with a null conventional potential.

The test structure is geometrically modeled in three

ways:
1) A horizontal 2D model, neglecting the electric
field variation perpendicularly to the Silicon
plaquette, and the surface of the electrode is
approximated by cylindrical one.
2) A vertical 2D model, where the plane of
the problem goes through the appex of the
electrode and is perpendicular to the Silicon
plaquette. This model shall be used to study
the edge effect at the electrode surface.
3) A 3D model, limited by electrodes and an
open boundary.

The two metallic electrodes are considered to be good

conductors (equipotential), and the Silicon oxide is
considered to be a dielectric.

The dielectric is considered to be homogenous, linear,

anisotropic and uncharged.

Since the magnetic field distribution does not influence the conduction phenomenon in MIM structures, and considering the constant applied voltage, Maxwells equations are defined considering the
electro-quasistatic (EQS) regime.

In the EQS regime, the dielectrics with conduction

losses have, at first, an electric field distribution
defined by the electrostatics equations. In transitory
regime, which lasts for a few time constants with a
/ magnitude order, the charge relaxates, and the
electric field will distribute according to stationary
electrokinetics equations.

As a consequence, the electric field distribution, after

applying the excitation voltage, is governed, in the
case of dielectrics with insignificant losses (as SiO2 ),
by the electrostatic regime equations.

Actually, in homogenous media, as in SiO2 dielectric

domain, the electrokinetic and electrostatic potential
have the same spatial distribution, statisfying the
Laplace equations that do not imply the material
constants. The solution will exclusively depend on
the form of the computational domain and on the
boundary conditions: Dirichlet on the surface of the
electrodes and Neumann in rest. As a consequence, as
long as there is not a transitory regime, it is sufficient
to determine the initial electric field distribution form
the electrostatic regime solution.

The electric field is considered as constant, so that it

satisfies the electrostatic regime hypotheses.
III.

Gauss law
= qD ,
divD = .

Electrostatic potential theorem:

I
E dl = 0,

rotE = 0,
E = gradV.

(2)

D(E) relationship
D = E.

(1)

(3)

Electrostatic equilibrium condition with

Econd = 0

(4)

inside the electric conductors.

Consequently, the electrostatic potential in the homogeneous
and uncharged computational domain is a solution of the
Laplace equation:
V = 0.
(5)
It satisfies the Dirichlet boundary conditions V = 10V on the
electrode, V = 0 on the symmetry plane and on Si surface,
and zero Neumann boundary conditions on the rest.
IV.

A NALYTIC APPROACH

The analytic approch of the 2D problem is based on

conformal, which is a transformation w = f (z) that preserves
local angles. A complex analytic function is conformal at
any point where it has a nonzero derivative. Conversely,
any conformal mapping of a complex variable which has
continuous partial derivatives is analytic. Conformal mapping
is extremely important in complex analysis, as well as in many
areas of physics and engineering.
The rounded edge of the emission electrode in the considered Al SiO2 Al test structure can be described by the
2D electrostatic field problem, in an unbounded domain
[5] as presented in Figure 2.

Fig. 2: Analytic model of the emission electrode [5].

The rounded corner has a zero Dirichlet boundary condition
and the potential has following asimptotic behavior:

M ATHEMATICAL MODEL

The equations of the electrostatic regime are:

lim (v (r , ) S(r , )) = 0,

(6)

where S(r, ) = r sin(), with = 2/3 [5].

1
2
3
4
5
6

An approach based on conformal transformation will allow

determining an increasing factor for the electric field intensity
on the electrode surface [6], [4]
Emax
1.04
=
,
1/3
E0
(rrac /d)

Parameter
d
b
c
r
a
V0

Value
47 nm
4.5m
1.5m
1.5m
3m
10V

TABLE II: Electrode dimensions

(7)

where Emax is the maximum value of the electric field intensity in the considered test structure, E0 = U/d is the electric
field, considered as an uniform one, d is the distance between
electrodes, rrac is the bending radius of the electrodes edge
(transition radius) according to Fig. 6.
V.

N UMERIC APPROACH

A. 2D top view
The geometry of electrodes depicted in Fig. 3 and 4 is
considered. The approximate Al electrode is eliminated form
the computational domain since inside this the electrostatic
field is zero. Fig. 3 indicates the computational domain, its
shape and its dimensions, with values according to Tabel II,
and the boundary conditions.

Fig. 5: Electric field distribution.

3) Postprocessing: The main purpose of the 2D horizontal

modelling was to determine the value of the electric field
intensity when neglecting the the sharp edge electrostatic
effect.
4) Conclusions: As we expected, the field is maximum in
the electrode appex. Its value is 214 MV/m as can be seen in
Fig. 5.
B. 2D side view
Fig. 3: 2D mathematical model.

The geometry form Fig.6 is considered. The dimensions of

the computational domain are accoording to Table IV.

Fig. 4: 2D parallel-plane model.

Fig. 6: 2D geometric model. Lateral view.

1) Preprocessing: Material properties

From COMSOL material library SiO2 was chosen as the
entire computational domain, where the electrostatic field is
determined.
2) Solving: The computational domain has a triangular
mesh that generates 227.941 degrees of freedom by discretizing Laplace equation with finite elements method. The problem
was solved in 10 seconds.

The boundary conditions are according to Fig. 7:

with blue: V = 10V ;

with red: V = 0;

in rest: dV /dn = 0.

Transition radius [m]

125 106
0.001
0.00358
0.00616
0.00874
0.01132
0.01389
0.01647
0.01905
0.02163
0.02421
0.02679
0.02937
0.03195
0.03453
0.03711
0.03968
0.04226
0.04484
0.04742
0.05

Fig. 7: Boundary conditions and materials in 2D vertical

geometry.

1) Preprocessing: Material properties

From COMSOL material library air, SiO2 and Al were
chosen according to Fig. 7.

E [V /m](analytic)
1.5971 109
7.986 108
5.22 108
4.356 108
3.877 108
3.55 108
3.322 108
3.139 108
2.99 108
2.866 108
2.76 108
2.66 108
2.588 108
2.517 108
2.452 108
2.394 108
2.341 108
2.2929 108
2.2481 108
2.206 108
2.167 108

E [V /m](numeric)
1.03461 109
8.593 108
5.305 108
4.467 108
4.009 108
3.716 108
3.505 108
3.345 108
3.220 108
3.118 108
3.034 108
2.963 108
2.903 108
2.851 108
2.805 108
2.765 108
2.729 108
2.698 108
2.669 108
2.643 108
2.620 108

TABLE III: Analytical and numerical values of the electric

field intensity (E) for various values of the transition radius
(rrac ).

2) Solving: For the rrac = 0 geometry, the computational

domain has a triangular mesh that generates 110.350 degrees
of freedom while for rrac = 0.05, the computational domain
has a triangular mesh that generates 132.002 degrees of
freedom, by discretizing the electrostatic field equation with
finite elements method.
The problem was solved in 3s using 1GB.
3) Postprocessing: The main purpose of the 2D vertical
modelling was the study of the influence of the sharp edge
electrostatic effect on the value of the electric field intensity
and comparing the numerical results to the analytical ones
obtained by conformal mapping method [6], [4].
Table III contains the analytical (determined according to
7) and numerical values of the maximum electric field intensity
(E) for different values of the transition radius (rrac ).
The maximum value that the electric field intensity can
have in the considered test structures is analytically determined
considering the transition radius equal to the Al atomic radius
rrac = rAl = 125 1012 m.

Fig. 8: Electric field intensity (E) variation depending the

transition radius (rrac ).

(8)

gAl
gSiO2
r
d
rf

Also, for the numeric computation, the transition radius is

rrac = 125 1012 m 0
In Fig. 8, one can see the variation of the electric field
depending on the transition radius, considering the values from
Table III.

0.4m
1.5m
1.5m
93nm
0.63m

TABLE IV: Geometric parameters for 3D model.

C. 3D model

on the Silicon wafer: V = 0;

Considering the geometry from Fig. 9 and 10, the dimensions of the computational domain are according to Table IV.
Fig. 10 describes the emission electrode geometry for two
different values of the transition radius (rrac ).

on the simmetry plane between the electrodes: V = 0;

in rest: zero Neumann boundary conditions: dV /dn =

0.

The boundary conditions are defined as follows (Fig. 11):

on the boundary of the electrode: V = 10V

1) Numeric model: The presented model was analysed in

COMSOL Multiphysics 4.3b, which uses the finite elements
method [7], [8].

(a) Computational domain.

(a) 3D geometric model with rrac 0.

(b) Emission electrode.

Fig. 9: 3D geometric model.

2) Preprocessing: Material properties

From the COMSOL material library air, SiO2 and Al were
chosen according to Fig.12.

(b) 3D geometric model with rrac =

10nm.

3) Solving: For the rrac = 0 geometry, the computational

domain has a a tetrahedral mesh that generates 26.849.967
degrees of freedom by discretizing Laplace equation with finite
elements method. The problem was solved in 2457 using
36.93GB.

Fig. 10: Transition radius.

For the rrac = 10nm geometry, the computational domain

has a tetrahedral mesh that generates 23.055.956 degrees of
freedom by discretizing Laplace equation with finite elements
method. The problem was solved in 2057 using 32.62GB.
4) Postprocessing: The main purpose of the 3D modelling
was the study of the influence of the sharp edge electrostatic
effect on the value of the electric field intensity.
5) Conclusions: The maximum value of the electric field
intensity was computed depending on the transition radius.
This value appears punctual in the transition zone. For rrac
0, the maximum value of the electric field intensity is Emax =
9.3414e8V /m1 . For rrac = 10nm, the maximum value of the
electric field intensity is Emax = 5.6553e8V /m2 . The electric
field distribution for the two values of the transition radius
can be seen in Fig. 13. One can conclude that as the transition
1 This value is found using a COMSOL 4.3b function that allows finding
the point of maximum electric field intensity in the considered volume.
2 This value is found using a COMSOL 4.3b function that allows finding
the point of maximum electric field intensity in the considered volume.

Fig. 11: Boundary conditions for 3D model.

radius is decreasing, the value of the electric field intensity is

increasing.

VI.

C ONCLUSION

This papers presents a study of the electric field in MIM

structures with a thickness of the dielectric layer within the
nanometric range. The study shows that at this size, the electric
field can not be determined exactly by applying the classic
formula E = U/d, thus considering the uniformity of the
electric field. Within the nanometric range, the sharp edge
electrostatic effect becomes predominant. The correct estimation of the electric field distribution required a combination
of numerical and analytical methods. We used in this respect
Finite Element Method and Conformal transforms, in order to
improve the accuracy next to electrode edges.

Fig. 12: 3D model materials.

The importance of considering the sharp edge electrostatic

effect is obvious when comparing the maximum value of the
electric field intensity E = 2.149 108 V /m obtained in the 2D
horizontal model, considering an uniform electric field (E =
U/d) to the maximum values obtained in the 3D, Emax =
9.3414 108 V /m, and 2D vertical model, Emax = 1.03461
109 V /m, computed by considering the sharp edge effect.
Comparing the analytical and numerical field values, one
can conclude that the they are relatively close, excepting for
rrac 0, where the analytic values tends to infinity. However
it should be mentioned that the numerical value depends very
much on the mesh, once increasing the number of elements,
the value of the maximum electric field intensity also increases.
This is why, the maximum field is better estimated with the
analytical methods, when the exact value of the curvature
radius is well known.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

(a) Electric field distribution for rrac 0.

The authors would like to thank National Institute for Research and Development in Microtechnologies -IMT Bucharest
for the helpful collaboration about this work. Also, this work
has been supported by Advanced Tools and Methodologies
for the Multiphysics Modelling and Simulation of RF MEMS
Switches, TOMEMs (PN-II-PT-PCCA-2011-3) and High Performance Computing Knowledge for nano-Electronic Design
Automation FP6/ToK4nEDA European Project.
R EFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

(b) Electric field distribution for rrac =

10nm.

Fig. 13: Electric field distribution in 3D model.

[6]
[7]
[8]

N.Gaillard and et al., In situ electric field simulation in metal-insulatormetal capacitors, Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 89, p. 133506, 2006.
K. Wang and et al., Numerical modeling of electrostatic discharge generators, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 45,
pp. 258271, 2003.
S. D. Hannot, D. J. Rixen, and V. Rochus, Rounding the corners in an
electromechanical FEM model, Int. Conf. on Computational Methods for
Coupled Problems in Science and Engineering. COUPLED PROBLEMS,
2007.
K. Weide-Zaage, The Finite Element Analysis of Weak Spots in
Interconnects and Packages, Finite Element Analysis-New Trends and
Developments, vol. Cap17, p. 398, 2012.
L.Kraehenbuhl and et al., Numerical treatment of rounded and sharp
corners in the modeling of 2d electrostatic fields, Journal of Microwaves,
Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications, vol. 10, pp. 6681,
2011.
F.Hagedorn and P. Hall, Right-angle bends in thin film conductors,
Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 34, pp. 128133, 1963.
I. Munteanu, G. Ciuprina, and F. Tomescu, Modelarea numerica a
campului electromagnetic prin programe scilab. Printech, 2000.
COMSOL Multiphysics, http://www.comsol.com/.