arXiv:cond-mat/0211069v1 [cond-mat.

mes-hall] 4 Nov 2002

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

Scattering in nanotransistors: A numerical

study

Alexei Svizhenko and M. P. Anantram

NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop: 229-1, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000.
February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

Abstract
We numerically study the influence of scattering along the channel and extension regions of dual gate
nano-MOSFETs. It is found that the reduction in drain current due to scattering in the right half of the
channel is comparable to the reduction in drain current due to scattering in the left half of the channel,
when the channel length is comparable to the scattering length. As the channel length becomes much
larger than the scattering length, scattering in the drain-end is less detrimental to the drive current than
scattering near the source-end of the channel. We find that even for a MOSFET with a 25 nm channel
length, scattering is important throughout the channel. Finally, we show that for nano-MOSFETs the
extension regions cannot be modeled as simple series resistances.

Submitted to IEEE Transaction in Electron Devices on Electron Device 02/04/02; Resubmitted on

10/04/02.

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

I. Introduction
The Dual Gate MOSFET [1], [2] (DG MOSFET) is an important candidate for future
nanoscale devices because of the larger on-current and better scaling properties it offers
compared to bulk MOSFETs. There have been a number of recent efforts to build and
model these devices [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The resistance of a DG MOSFET (Fig. 1) can
be qualitatively thought of as arising in four regions, Extension regions near the source
(Ex-s) and drain (Ex-d), Channel (Ch), and Contacts. It is believed that the resistance
of the contacts and extension regions are extrinsic series resistances [9], while the channel
resistance is intrinsic to the MOSFET. For a given doping distribution, both electrostatics
and scattering play a role in determining the drive current. Electrostatics dictates that the
total carrier density in the channel is approximately Cox (VG VS ) as discussed in references
[9], [10], [11]. The role of scattering in our opinion is less well understood. A detailed
understanding of the influence of scattering on the drive current would help us better
understand the physics and design of nanotransistors as they approach ballistic transport.
The role of scattering is however not straight forward to determine without computation
because scattering tends to change the carrier and current densities in the channel, both
spatially and energetically. Further the physics of this redistribution depends sensitively
on the channel and scattering lengths as will be demonstrated in this paper.
The aim of this paper is to study the exact influence of scattering at different spatial
locations along the channel (from source-end to drain-end) by numerical simulation. We
consider an n-MOSFET, where carriers in the drive current are electrons. This paper is
restricted to the influence of electron-phonon scattering, which is a very important scattering mechanism in devices with undoped channels, with interface roughness scattering
also being important. Also, electron-phonon scattering is a more effective than ionized
impurity scattering in back-scattering of carriers at room temperature. Reference [12] has
recently pointed out that electron-electron and plasmon scattering may be important in
degrading nanotransistor characteristics. Electron-electron scattering in the drain side will
lead to carriers having an energy larger than the source injection barrier. The resulting
small tail of hot carriers [13] will be reflected back into the source-end, there by causing
an increase in the source injection barrier and a corresponding decrease in drain current.

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

Calculating the size of this effect is beyond the scope of our current work. Over all, both
electron-electron and electron-plasmon scattering mechanisms will further decrease the
scattering length, and deserve more attention.
II. Approach
The approach used draws upon our earlier work in modeling MOSFETs by solving the
non-equilibrium Greens function and Poissons equations [14]. The transport equations
solved are [14], [15], [16]:
[E H(~r1 )] Gr (~r1 , ~r2 , E)

d~r r (~r1 , ~r, E)Gr (~r, ~r2 , E) = (~r1 ~r2 )

[E H(~r1 )] G< (~r1 , ~r2 , E)

d~r r (~r1 , ~r, E)G< (~r, ~r2 , E) =

Z

[E H(~r1 )] G> (~r1 , ~r2 , E)

(1)

d~r < (~r1 , ~r, E)Ga (~r, ~r2 , E) (2)

d~r r (~r1 , ~r, E)G> (~r, ~r2 , E) =

where Ga is the advanced Greens function. H(~r) =

d~r > (~r1 , ~r, E)Ga (~r, ~r2 , E), (3)

1 d2
mx dx2

1 d
d
+ m1y dy
2 + m dz 2 , is the Hamiltoz

nian within the anisotropic effective mass approximation. The influence of the semi-infinite
regions of the source (S) and drain (D), and scattering mechanisms (electron-phonon) are
included via the self-energy terms , where r, <, >. The self-energy due to phonons
is included within the self-consistent Born approximation [17]. Elastic acoustic phonon
scattering and g-type intervalley scattering with phonon energies of 12, 19 and 62 meV
are included. It is also verified that f-type (19, 47 and 59 meV phonon) intervalley scattering did not significantly change our results and conclusions. This can be rationalized by
noting that f-type intervalley scattering processes involve subbands with energies higher
than the lowest subband. All scattering with phonons were included in the approximation
of isotropic scattering using the deformation potentials in reference [18]. To demonstrate
the effect of larger scattering rates, we artificially increase all deformation potentials by
a multiplicative factor as indicated later in the text. The transport equations solved are
effectively one dimensional for each subband that arises due to quantization in the xdirection of Fig. 1 [5], [6]. The electrostatics is however treated in two dimensions (x-y
plane of Fig. 1). Further, while scattering couples electrons in different subbands, only
February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

the first subband is important for the biases considered in this paper [19].
III. Results: Where is scattering important?
Three devices were simulated with the following parameters:
Device A (This device is very similar to the Purdue dual gate MOSFET [20].): channel
length (lCh ) = 10 nm, length of the source (lExs) and drain (lExd ) extension regions,
lExs = lExd = 15 nm, channel thickness (TCh ) = 1.5 nm, oxide thickness = 1.5 nm,
gate work function (W.F.) = 4.25 eV, doping in the extension regions = 1 E+20 cm3 , no
doping in the channel, drain Voltage (VD ) = gate Voltage (VG ) = 0.6 V, dielectric constant
of the oxide (ox )=3.9.
Device B: Same as Device A, except that lCh = 25 nm, VG = 0.56 V.
Device C: Same as Device A, except that ox = 20 and W.F. of gate = 4.3417 eV. Device
C has a higher dielectric constant for the gate oxide and almost no DIBL when compared
to Device A. Gate length is equal to the channel length for all three devices.
To elucidate the role of scattering in different spatial regions, the drain current is plotted
as a function of the right boundary of scattering (YRScatt ). Scattering is included only
from the source-end (-20 nm) to YRScatt in Fig. 3 (Device A). The ballistic current is 1.92
A/m, the value at YRScatt = 20 nm. The channel extends from -5 nm to +5 nm. The
main points of this figure are:
(i) The decrease in current from the ballistic value due to scattering in the source
extension, channel and drain extension regions are 11.5%, 15.5% and 4% respectively.
These values point to the well appreciated result that either reducing the length or flaring
the source extension region will make a nanotransistor significantly more ballistic.
(ii) The decrease in drain current due to scattering over the entire channel is important.
That is, scattering in the right half of the channel (0 nm to 5nm) is almost as important
as scattering in the left half of the channel (-5 nm to 0 nm). This is in spite of the
energetic redistribution of electrons in the channel to states with kinetic energy in the
transport direction that is below Eb . Fig. 3 also shows Eb as a function of YRScatt . The
decrease of Eb for 20 nm < YRScatt < 4 nm is due to the potential drop in the source
extension region arising from the increasing series resistance. The location of the source
injection barrier (Yb) is -4 nm. For YRScatt > Yb , Eb exhibits the opposite behavior in
February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

that it increases with YRScatt . This is because reflection of electrons to the right (left)
of Yb increases (decreases) the electron density in the channel. However, as electrostatics
demands that the charge in the gate should be approximately Cox (VG VS ), Eb floats to
higher energies. This increase in Eb contributes significantly to the decrease in the drain
current due to scattering in the right half of channel (0 nm to 5 nm).
(iii) The drain current continues to decrease significantly due to scattering in the drain
extension region. A very important question is if this decrease is simply a series resistance
effect. From the inset of Fig. 3, we see that Device A has an appreciable DIBL (Drain
Induced Barrier Lowering). We address this issue in the next section.
We now present results for device B, whose channel length is two and a half times larger
than device A. The scattering times are nearly the same for the two devices. As a result
of the larger channel length, the probability for the carrier to energetically relax is larger.
Here, we find that scattering in the left (-12.5 nm to 0 nm) and right (0 nm to 12.5 nm) half
of the channel reduces the drain current by 32% and 15% respectively from the ballistic
value, and the over all ballisticity (ratio of Current with scattering to Ballistic current)
is 53% (dashed line of Fig. 4). Again, this points to the importance of scattering in the
drain-end. The scattering rates in the simulations were then increased by nearly a factor
of five by simply increasing the values of the deformation potential quoted in reference [18]

by a factor of 5. The ballisticity of this device is now 38%, and the current decreases
by 60% and 12% of the ballistic value due to scattering in the left and right halves of the
channel respectively (solid line of Fig. 4). It is also apparent from Fig. 4 that the effect
of scattering on drain current becomes smaller as YRScatt approaches the drain-end (12.5
nm).
IV. Discussion and Conclusions
We showed above that scattering at all locations in the channel is important in determining the drain current of nanoscale MOSFETs. Scattering in the right half of the channel is
almost as important as scattering in the left half of the channel for devices when the channel length is comparable to the scattering length. Device A is an example of such a device.


The scattering time (

h/2|Im rphonon |) at an energy of Eb + 26 meV is approximately
50 fs and 24 fs (femto second) in the source and drain-ends respectively. These times are
February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

comparable to the semiclassical transit time (Table I). Device A has a ballisticity of 85%
and 69% when scattering is present only in the channel and everywhere respectively. The
scattering length of this device (11 nm) is comparable to the channel length (see Table
I). The importance of scattering in the right half of the channel is also seen for Device B
(dashed line of Fig. 4) which has the same scattering length as Device A. The potential
in the right half of the channel is below Eb 2kT . Yet scattering in the right half of the
channel contributes to a significant fraction of the decrease in drive current. When the
channel length is comparable to the scattering length, the current carrying electrons are
peaked in energy above Eb in the right half of the channel (Fig. 5 (a)). Then, scattering
causes reflection of electrons towards the source. This is the first reason for the reduction
in drain current. The second reason is that this reflected stream of electrons leads to an
increase in the channel electron density (classical MOSFET electrostatics). As the charge
in the channel should be approximately Cox (VG VS ), the source injection barrier Eb floats
to higher energies to compensate for the reflected electrons [11]. The increase in Eb leads
to a further decrease in drain current due to scattering in the right half of the channel.
Increasing the scattering rate of Device B by a factor of five (solid line of Fig. 4) changes
this picture significantly. The channel length is 25 nm and the scattering length at Eb + 26
meV is approximately 2.2 nm (Table I). Multiple scattering events now lead to an energy
redistribution of current that is peaked well below the source injection barrier in the right
half of the channel (Fig. 5 (b)). Thus, explaining the diminished influence of scattering
in the right half of the channel [20], [21]. The influence of the diminishing effect of
scattering in the drain-end for Device B with the larger scattering rate is also seen in Fig.
6. Increasing scattering YRScatt from -2.5 nm to 2.5 nm causes a large increase in the
source injection barrier height but increasing YRScatt to 7.5 nm causes very little further
increase. It is also interesting that in the absence of scattering, the potential profile in the
channel tends to flatten reflecting a ballistic channel, while scattering makes the drop in
potential (or E1 ) along the channel more ohmic / linear.
Finally, we ask the question if scattering in the extension regions is a simple series
resistance or not. To answer this question we consider the case where the channel is
ballistic. Such a situation will arise in devices where the channel length is smaller than

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

the scattering length or in future novel devices where the channel is engineered to be
ballistic. We consider two devices, Device A which has DIBL and Device C which has
almost no DIBL (inset of Fig. 5). When scattering is introduced only in the source
extension region of length 15 nm, devices A and C are 63% and 50% ballistic, respectively.
In contrast, scattering in a 15 nm long drain extension region makes devices A and C, 75%
and 82% ballistic, respectively. The five times larger scattering rate referred to above is
used in the calculations. Fig. 5 shows the decrease in drain current with YRScatt . The
striking point of Fig. 5 is the super-linear decrease of drain current. The ID (VD ) curves
(DIBL in the inset of Fig. 5) predict a significantly smaller decrease in drain current with
increase in YRScatt . That is, the decrease in drain current is much larger than obtained
from the simple series resistance picture [9],
scatt
noscatt
scatt
ID
= ID
(VD ID
RD ) ,

(4)

scatt
noscatt
where ID
and ID
are the drain currents calculated with and without scattering in

the drain extension regions, and RD is the series resistance due to the drain extension
region [9]. The physics of the large reduction in drain current for the smaller values of
YRScatt is essentially that of scattering in the channel shown in Fig. 5: As the channel is
ballistic, the current and electron densities are peaked at energies between the Eb and the
source Fermi energy, in the drain extension region. Scattering in the drain extension region
causes reflection of electrons towards the source-end, above Eb . As a result, Eb increases
so as to keep the electron density in the channel fixed at Cox (VG VS ). The drain current
decreases dramatically as a result of the increase in Eb . Specifically, if the carriers are
not relaxed upon exiting the channel, as would be the case for nano-transistors, the drain
extension region cannot be modeled by a simple series resistance. That is, Eq. (4) fails
for nano-transistors where the channel length is smaller than the scattering length. The
effect of the drain extension region in causing a reduction in drain current would be small
in the following cases:
(i) The channel is much longer than the scattering length such that the carriers exiting
the channel at the drain-end are energetically relaxed. Then, the modeling of the drain
extension region as a simple series resistance would be appropriate. This is seen in the
right end of Fig. 7, where upon sufficient relaxation of electrons, the decrease in current
February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

with increase in YRScatt becomes comparable to that seen in the ID (VD ) plot.
(ii) When the channel length is shorter than the scattering length, but the drain extension region is also made much smaller than the scattering length, or the drain extension
region is rapidly flared out. In the second of these cases, the probability of a scattered
electron returning to the source-end will be small due to the larger number of modes available in the drain extension region. We agree that this argument neglects the role of the
Miller effect in device design.
In conclusion, we find that the potential profile, and both the channel and scattering
length scales play a role in determining the relative importance of scattering at different
locations along the channel of a nanotransistor. In devices with the channel length comparable to the scattering length, the role of scattering in the drain-end (right half of the
channel) is comparable to the role of scattering in the source-end (left half of the channel),
in reducing the drain current (Fig. 3 and dashed line of Fig. 4). When the channel length
is much larger than the scattering length, then scattering in the source-end becomes much
more important than scattering in the drain-end (solid line of Fig. 4). In this case, we
stress that it is the energetic redistribution of carriers due to scattering in the source-end
that makes scattering in the drain-end relatively less detrimental to the drain current. In
the limit of a ballistic channel, for nanotransistors, we show that scattering in the drain
extension region cannot in principle be modeled as a simple series resistance.
Useful discussions with B. Biegel, T. R. Govindan, M. P. Samanta (NASA Ames) and
M. S. Lundstrom (Purdue University) are acknowledged.

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

10

References
[1]

R.-H. Yan, A. Ourmazd, K. F. Lee, D. Y. Jeon, C. S. Rafferty and M. R. Pinto, Scaling the Si metal-oxidesemiconductor field-effect transistor into the 0.1 m regime using vertical doping engineering. Appl. Phys.
Lett. 59, 3315-3317 (1991).

[2]

D. J. Frank, S. E. Laux and M. Fischetti, Monte Carlo Simulation of a 30 nm Dual-Gate MOSFET: How
Short Can Si Go?, IEDM Technical Digest, p. 553-556 (1992)

[3]

Y. Taur, D. A. Buchanan, W. Chen, D. J. Frank, K. E. Ismail, S-H. Lo, G. A. Sai-Halasz, R. G. Viswanathan,

H-J. C. Wann, S. J. Wind and H-S. Wong, CMOS scaling into the nanometer regime, Proc. of the IEEE 85,
486-504 (1997).

[4]

H.-S. P. Wong, K. K. Chan, Y. Taur, Self-aligned (top and bottom) double-gate MOSFET with a 25 nm
thick silicon channel, IEDM Technical Digest, p. 427-430 (1997).

[5]

F. G. Pikus and K. K. Likharev, Nanoscale field-effect transistors: An ultimate size analysis, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 71, 3661-3663 (1997);

[6]

Z. Ren, R. Venugopal, S. Datta, M. Lundstrom, D. Jovanovic, D., J. Fossum, The ballistic nanotransistor:
a simulation study, IEDM Technical Digest, p. 715-718 (2000);

[7]

L. Chang, S. Tang, T-J. King, J. Bokor and C. Hu, Gate Length Scaling and Threshold Voltage Control of
Double-Gate MOSFETs, IEDM Technical Digest, p. 719-722 (2000).

[8]

J. R. Watling et. al, Preprint.

[9]

Y. Taur and T. H. Ning, Fundamentals of Modern VLSI Devices, Cambridge University Press 1998.

[10]

K. Natori, Ballistic metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor, J. Appl. Phys. 76, 4870 (1994).

[11]

M. S. Lundstrom, Elementary scattering theory of the MOSFET, IEEE Elec. Dev. Lett. 18, 361-363 (1997).

[12]

M. Fischetti and S. Laux, Long-range Coluomb interactions in small Si devices. Part 1: Performance and
reliability, J. Appl. Phys. 89, 1205-1231 (2001); M. Fischetti, Long-range Coluomb interactions in small Si
devices. Part 2: Effective electron mobility in thin-oxide structures, J. Appl. Phys. 89, 1232-1250 (2001).

[13]

M. Fischetti and S. Laux, Monte Carlo study of sub-bandgap impact ionization in silicon field-effect transistors, IEDM Tech. Dig., 305 (1995)

[14]

A. Svizhenko et al., Two Dimensional Quantum Mechanical Modeling of Nanotransistors, J. of Appl. Phys.,
91, 2343-2354 (2002).

[15]

R. Lake, G. Klimeck, R. C. Bowen and D. Jovanovic, Single and multiband modeling of quantum electron
transport through layered semiconductor devices J. Appl. Phys. 81, 7845 (1997).

[16]

S. Datta, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997.

[17]

G. D. Mahan, Quantum transport equation for electric and magnetic fields, Physics Reports 145, 251 (1987);
A number of useful relationships involving the non equilibrium Greens functions can be found in this paper.

[18]

M. S. Lundstrom, Fundamentals of carrier transport, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990.

[19]

A. Svizhenko and M. P. Anantram, Unpublished.

[20]

Z. Ren and M. S. Lundstrom, Essential physics of carrier transport in nanoscale MOSFETs, IEEE Trans.
Elec. Dev., vol. 49, no. 1 , p. 133-141 (2002).

[21]

P. J. Price, Monte Carlo Calculation of Electron Transport in Solids, Semiconductor and Semimetals 14,
249-308 (1979)

100

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

11

lFigure Captions:

Fig. 1: Schematic of a Dual Gate MOSFET (DG MOSFET). Ex-s and Ex-d are
the extension regions outside the gate and the hatched region is the channel. The white
region between the source / drain / channel and gate is the oxide. In the model, the device
dimension normal to the page is infinite in extent.

Fig. 2: Energy of the lowest subband (E1 ) versus Y for Device A in the ballistic limit.
Eb and Yb are the energy and position of the source injection barrier respectively. Potential
= Ee1 .

Fig. 3: Plot of drain current (ID ) versus the right boundary of scattering (YRScatt ) for
device A. The scattering time is comparable to the transit time for this device. Scattering
is included from -20 nm to YRScatt . Note that scattering in the right half of the channel
(0 nm to 5 nm), which is to the right of the kB T layer, is almost as deleterious to current
flow as scattering in the left half of the channel (-5 nm to 0nm). The potential profile is
shown in Fig. 2. The black crosses represent Eb . Inset: Ballistic ID versus VD for VG =
0.6 V, showing substantial DIBL.

Fig. 4: Plot of drain current versus YRScatt for device B. The scattering time is more
than two times smaller than the transit time for this device. Scattering is included from
-12.5 nm to YRScatt . While the effect of scattering in the right half of the channel (0
nm to 12.5 nm) in reducing the drain current is significant, it is smaller than the effect
of scattering in the left half of the channel (-12.5 nm to 0 nm). The scattering rate for
the solid line is five times larger than the scattering rate for the dashed line. See text for
details of scattering lengths and deformation potentials used.

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

12

Fig. 5: Plot of the first resonant level along the channel (dashed) and current per unit
energy (family of solid lines) versus Y for device B. Each solid line carries practically zero
current at the smallest and largest energies shown. The scattering rate in (b) is five times
larger than in (a). While the current per unit energy at the drain-end is peaked above
Eb for the smaller scattering rate (a), it is peaked below Eb for the larger scattering rate
(b). (a) and (b) correspond to YRScatt = 12.5 nm of the dashed and solid lines of Fig. 4
respectively.

Fig. 6: Potential profile versus Y for device B with the higher scattering rate. Scattering from -12.5 nm to 2.5 nm causes a large change in the source injection barrier (Eb ).
Scattering to the right of 2.5nm causes a much smaller change in Eb . The large deviation
in the scattering profile from the ballistic profile is worth noting.

Fig. 7: ID versus YRScatt for Device C. Scattering is present only in the drain extension
region from 5 nm to 30 nm. The channel extends from -5 nm to + 5 nm. There is a
dramatic reduction in the drain current due to scattering of the hot carriers in the drain
extension region. The physics of this effect is completely different from a series resistance
effect. The five times larger scattering rate described in the text is used. Inset: Ballistic
ID (VD ) for devices A and C, showing that Device C exhibits much smaller DIBL than
Device A.

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

13

Device A

Devic B

scatt at source-end (s)

5.0 E-14

5.0E-14 (1.0 E-14)

scatt at drain-end (s)

2.5 E-14

2.4 E-14 (4.8 E-15)

transit at Eb+26 meV (s)

2.6 E-14

6.4 E-14

transit at 60 meV (s)

2.0 E-14

5.6 E-14

v at Yb, Eb+26 meV (m/s)

2.2 E+5

2.2 E+5

v at Yb, 60 meV (m/s)

3.5 E+5

2.8 E+5

LCh (nm)

10

25

v*(scatt at Yb)
E=Eb+26meV (nm)

11

11 (2.2)

scatt scattering time (hbar/2Im(r))

transit - shortest semiclassical transit time for electron with a given total energy = integeral

dy / [2(E-V(y))/m]
v - semiclassical velocity at y = [2(E-V(y))/m]1/2
For Device B, quantities in brackets are for the case of five times larger scattering rate

1/2

TABLE I
Estimates of scattering time, transit time, velocity and scattering length.

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

14

lEx-s

GATE

lEx-d

TCh

n+ drain

n+ source

lCh

Fig. 1

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

15

Device A

Eb
Yb

E (eV)

0.2

0.4

0.6
10

0
Y (nm)

10

Fig. 2

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

16

x 10

I (mA/m)

10

Id ( A /m )

1.8

V (V)
0
0

0.5

15

1.6
20

1.4
1.2
20

25
Device A

10

10
YRScatt (nm)

30
20

Fig. 3

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

17

x 10

Device B

10
8

I ( A / m )

12

6
4

5 times larger
scattering rate

10

0
Y

RScatt

10

(nm)

Fig. 4

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

18

200

200

(b)

150

150

100

100

50

50
E1 (meV)

E1 (meV)

(a)

50

50

100

100

150

150

200

17.5 12.5 7.5

2.5

2.5
Y (nm)

7.5

12.5

17.5

200

17.5 12.5 7.5

2.5

2.5
Y (nm)

7.5

12.5

17.5

Fig. 5

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

19

50
Device B

E1 (meV)

50

100

150

ballistic
scattering [12.5;2.5] nm
scattering [12.5; 2.5] nm
scattering [12.5; 7.5] nm

15

10

5
0
Y (nm)

10

Fig. 6

February 29, 2008

DRAFT

IEEE TRANSACTIONS IN ELECTRON DEVICES

20

1.8

2
I (mA/m)

I (A/m)

x 10

0
0

1.6
1.4
5

V (V)
D

0.5

Device A
Device C

10 15 20 25 30
Y
(nm)
RScatt

Fig. 7

February 29, 2008

DRAFT