Geometry dependent tunnel FET performance - Dilemma of electrostatics vs. quantum confinement

Device Research Conference - Conference Digest, DRC

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 17-18

  Lu, Yeqing ^a,b   Seabaugh, A ^a,b   Fay, P ^a,b   Koester, S J ^c   Laux, S E ^d   Haensch, T W ^d   Koswatta, S O ^b,d  

^a University of Notre Dame   (United States)

^b Midwest Institute for Nanoelectronics Discovery (MIND)   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^d IBM T J WATSON RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL CALCULATION; COMPETING EFFECTS; CURRENT INJECTION EFFICIENCY; DEVICE STRUCTURES; DIFFERENT GEOMETRY; DOUBLE-GATE; ELECTROSTATIC CONTROL; ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS; GEOMETRICAL CONFINEMENT; INAS; LATERAL CONFINEMENT; LOGIC APPLICATIONS; POWER DISSIPATION; QUANTUM CONFINEMENT EFFECTS; QUANTUM TRANSPORT SIMULATIONS; TIGHT BINDING MODEL; TUNNEL FET; TUNNELING FIELD-EFFECT TRANSISTORS; ULTRATHIN BODY;

DISSOCIATION; ELECTROSTATICS; FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTORS; GALERKIN METHODS; GALLIUM ALLOYS; INDIUM ARSENIDE; NANOWIRES; QUANTUM CONFINEMENT; QUANTUM ELECTRONICS;

QUANTUM CHEMISTRY;

EID: 77957565269     PISSN: 15483770     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/DRC.2010.5551905     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (11)

1. J. Knoch and J. Appenzeller, Phys. Stat. Sol. (a), v.205, n.4, pp.679, 2008.
2. A. S. Verhulst, et al., ECS Trans., v.25, n.7, pp.455, 2009.
3. S. O. Koswatta, et al, IEEE TED, v.56, n.3, pp.456, 2009.
4. M. Luisier and G. Klimeck, IEEE EDL, v.30, n.6, pp.602, 2009.
5. Y. M. Niquet, et al., Phys. Rev. B, v.73, 165319, 2006.
6. D. F. Frank, et al., IEEE EDL, v.19, n.10, pp.385, 1998.
7. S-H. Oh, et al, IEEE EDL, v.21, n.9, pp.445, 2000.
8. S. O. Koswatta and M. Luisier, unpublished.
9. S. E. Laux, Int. Workshop Comp. Electron. (IWCE), 2009.
10. M. Luisier and G. Klimeck, IEDM, pp.913, 2009.
11. S. O. Koswatta, et al, IEDM, pp.909, 2009.