2015
DOI: 10.1166/jolpe.2015.1371
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Variability Characterisation of Nanoscale Si and InGaAs Fin Field-Effect-Transistors at Subthreshold

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, we have compared the Poisson Voronoi Diagram (PVD) variability against the Rayleigh model for both TiN and TaN metal gates. The PVD is an optimum method [17], [18] to generate metal grains since this approach represents the shape of domains that grow from randomly placed nucleation points as observed in a real fabrication [10], and the grain distribution generated matches the experimental results. We have shown that the Rayleigh approach overestimates the device variability (by 11.9% for the TiN and by 7.14% for the TaN), whereas the variability provided by the Gamma distribution is much closer to the realistic metal gate induced device variability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Finally, we have compared the Poisson Voronoi Diagram (PVD) variability against the Rayleigh model for both TiN and TaN metal gates. The PVD is an optimum method [17], [18] to generate metal grains since this approach represents the shape of domains that grow from randomly placed nucleation points as observed in a real fabrication [10], and the grain distribution generated matches the experimental results. We have shown that the Rayleigh approach overestimates the device variability (by 11.9% for the TiN and by 7.14% for the TaN), whereas the variability provided by the Gamma distribution is much closer to the realistic metal gate induced device variability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%