Of course I changed “mu_n” and “mu_p”,but this is not the main reason, because I can run the programme normally without changing the three parameters NC300 NV300 EG300, as shown below:

That said, I could run silicon carbide with silicon parameters, but that’s certainly not right.

I can guarantee that these three parameters are accurate for the silicon carbide I am using, and I would like to ask what I should do to solve this problem, whether I should replace Jn’s equation or what I should do

For each sweep, the simulations may not run through all of the biases before failing. If those biases are of critical importance, you may need to experiment with your mesh, or bias ramp settings to see if you can get the simulations to proceed further. Reducing the minimum step may get the simulation to proceed further.

Thanks for sharing, I’m one of them, that’s why I can guarantee that the parameters I’m using are accurate.I’m really sorry I read your share but I didn’t find where the key points are.

I tried to increase the mesh density and found that it still didn’t improve, the accuracy issue should have been solved by your three sentences as well

So now I don’t know what the problem is, which leads to an increasing error as the number of iterations increases.

I have tried a number of methods including adding models etc and found that nothing works, the error always starts at 18e so I suspect the problem is not in the lack of models.

I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the programme for me in your spare time.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions, that’s where I’m at so far, bjt_dd_0.msh can be generated by running bjt_dd22 (if that’s not right).

Please note that I tightened rel_error and loosened abs_error. Not that the rel_error=1e-14 is the smallest it can go since the circuit is calculated in double precision. I will work on making a smaller rel_error possible