2007
DOI: 10.1063/1.2431443
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of interfacial roughness on tunneling conductance and extracted barrier parameters

Abstract: The net tunneling conductance of metal-insulator-metal tunnel junctions is studied using a distribution of barrier thicknesses consistent with interfacial roughness typical of state-of-the-art tunnel junctions. Moderate amounts of roughness cause the conductance to resemble that of much thinner and taller barriers. Fitting numerically generated conductance data that include roughness with models that assume a single-thickness barrier leads to erroneous results for both the barrier height and width. Rules of th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
58
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a consequence, electron tunneling would be significantly influenced, causing G(T) to increase exponentially with increasing T. (In the opposite limit of T → 0, G becomes constant, i.e., recovering the elastic tunneling behavior, due to the gradually vanishing V T with T.) Previously, the FITC model has been applied to explain the G(T) behavior observed in a good number of conductor-dielectric composite systems (granular films) 16,17,[23][24][25] and nanowire contacts. 16,17 Surprisingly, although the interfacial roughness must be very common in artificially fabricated MIM tunnel junctions, 11,12,21,22,26 the possible manifestation of the FITC process through hot spots in the oxide layer has never been reported in the literature.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As a consequence, electron tunneling would be significantly influenced, causing G(T) to increase exponentially with increasing T. (In the opposite limit of T → 0, G becomes constant, i.e., recovering the elastic tunneling behavior, due to the gradually vanishing V T with T.) Previously, the FITC model has been applied to explain the G(T) behavior observed in a good number of conductor-dielectric composite systems (granular films) 16,17,[23][24][25] and nanowire contacts. 16,17 Surprisingly, although the interfacial roughness must be very common in artificially fabricated MIM tunnel junctions, 11,12,21,22,26 the possible manifestation of the FITC process through hot spots in the oxide layer has never been reported in the literature.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9,10 The key reason to explain these large variations in the MIM quality can be ascribed to the common formation of junction-barrier interfacial roughness. 11,12 Because the electron transmission probability increases exponentially with decreasing barrier width, the presence of any notable interfacial roughness thus can significantly affect the overall junction transport properties.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, fits of the potential barrier model to experimental data often lead to unphysically small values if one follows this interpretation. Various arguments like interface roughness 10 or image potential 4 have been suggested to correct for this underestimation, but perhaps the most important one -the principal difference in the energetic spectrum of the real insulator and the vacuum gap -received less attention 3,26 .…”
Section: Atomic Sp Model Of the Insulatormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clearly, having a large set of parameters, it is no surprise that the simple barrier model can be fitted to the experimental current-voltage characteristics well [6][7][8][9] , but at the same time, it rises questions about the relevance of the model itself. 10,11 For example, the inclusion of the image potential can have a significant effect on the effective barrier width, but its presence depends on the time scales of the tunneling electrons and the interface plasmons in the metal 12,13 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has also been shown theoretically that the net tunneling conductance of metal−insulator−metal junctions is quite sensitive to moderate amounts of surface roughness, which led to an apparent barrier that is thinner than the mean of the real barrier thickness distribution. 63 In addition, it is interesting to note that substrate roughness affects not only the electric transport properties of organic monolayers but also other important physicochemical properties, such as the apparent pK a of acid-terminated SAMs. 27 Unlike the CV measurements, the SFG spectra of Figure 6 for SAMs on the different substrates are quite similar.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%