1998
DOI: 10.1109/16.726656
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Polarity dependent gate tunneling currents in dual-gate CMOSFETs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 112 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The electron ͑from the gate͒ and hole ͑from the substrate͒ tunneling currents are measured with the source and drain physically tied to ground and the gate negatively biased. [15][16][17] In a Ge device, I S/D is lower and the portion of I SUB in I G is larger than that in the Si device due to ͑1͒ HfO 2 dielectric with larger equivalent oxide thickness; and ͑2͒ TiN metal electrode with free electrons. The hole and electron tunneling currents are measured using a Keithley 4200 dc characterization system.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The electron ͑from the gate͒ and hole ͑from the substrate͒ tunneling currents are measured with the source and drain physically tied to ground and the gate negatively biased. [15][16][17] In a Ge device, I S/D is lower and the portion of I SUB in I G is larger than that in the Si device due to ͑1͒ HfO 2 dielectric with larger equivalent oxide thickness; and ͑2͒ TiN metal electrode with free electrons. The hole and electron tunneling currents are measured using a Keithley 4200 dc characterization system.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, I g current under off-state bias conditions can be reduced for the LTP device. In this case, direct hole tunneling from the inversion layer to the p þ poly-Si gate that is measured as the source-drain current (I sd ) by the carrier separation method 11) is almost the same by taking into account the slight difference in V fb between both devices as shown in Fig. 11.…”
Section: Device Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Indeed, much less is known about the physical basis for m ox values widely ranging from 0:3m 0 to 0:86m 0 (where m 0 is the free electron mass). [7][8][9][10][11] For example, while p þ polygate pMOSFETs are measured in the inversion mode, there are two different inferences that explain the experimental data of Fowler-Nordheim (FN) tunneling by tuning both m ox and b . 9,10) The ambiguous inferences derived from the calculation of FN tunneling are closely related to the use of both m ox and b .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[7][8][9][10][11] For example, while p þ polygate pMOSFETs are measured in the inversion mode, there are two different inferences that explain the experimental data of Fowler-Nordheim (FN) tunneling by tuning both m ox and b . 9,10) The ambiguous inferences derived from the calculation of FN tunneling are closely related to the use of both m ox and b . In order to avoid the uncertainty of determining I-V fitting parameters, electron transport properties should be clarified using the quantum yield (QY) of impact ionization in silicon.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%