Impact of the dimensionality on the performance of tunneling FETs: Bulk versus one-dimensional devices

285 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Tunneling phenomena in carbon nanotube field‐effect transistors (2008, background): “(12) becomes dominant which is the case if WKB T is large and thus changes only slightly with gate voltage (for more details see [34]).”
Steep Subthreshold Slope n- and p-Type Tunnel-FET Devices for Low-Power and Energy-Efficient Digital Circuits (2009, methodology): “The IOFF is still very small and on the order of 10−15 A/μm.”
Graphene Nanoribbon Tunnel Transistors (2008, background): “[1], [2] show by simulation that 1-D TFETs are preferred to bulk FETs because of the superior gate control and a reduction of transverse energy component in the 1-D tunneling transport.”
Complementary Silicon-Based Heterostructure Tunnel-FETs With High Tunnel Rates (2008, background): “UNNEL-FETs (TFETs) are potential successors of MOSFETs [1]–[ 6 ].”
Performance Comparison Between p-i-n Tunneling Transistors and Conventional MOSFETs (2008, background): “tunneling-barrier properties of a TFET have a more dominant effect on the drive current, and the channel mobility itself has only a comparatively minor influence [13], [15], [24], [37].”
Tunnel field-effect transistors as energy-efficient electronic switches (2011, background): “However, the channel valence band can be lifted by a small change in gate voltage, and the tunnelling width can effectively be reduced by the gate voltag”