4.7 Article

The understanding of the impact of efficiently optimized underlap length on analog/RF performance parameters of GNR-FETs

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40711-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the analog/RF performance characteristics of graphene nanoribbon field-effect transistors using a novel technique called underlap engineering. The study determines the optimal underlap length for the devices and analyzes the impact of underlap engineering on performance metrics. The results demonstrate superior performance of the devices incorporating the underlap mechanism.
The aim of this study is to examine the analog/RF performance characteristics of graphene nanoribbon (GNR) field-effect transistors (FETs) using a novel technique called underlap engineering. The study employs self-consistent atomistic simulations and the non-equilibrium Green's function (NEGF) formalism. Initially, the optimal underlap length for the GNR-FET by device has been determined evaluating the ON-current (I-ON) to OFF-current (I-OFF) ratio, which is a critical parameter for digital applications. Subsequently, the impact of underlap engineering on analog/RF performance metrics has been analyzed and conducting a comprehensive trade-off analysis considering parameters such as intrinsic-gain, transistor efficiency, and device cut-off frequency. The results demonstrate that the device incorporating the underlap mechanism exhibits superior performance in terms of the I-ON/I-OFF ratio, transconductance generation factor (TGF), output resistance (r(0)), intrinsic gain (g(m)r(0)), gain frequency product (GFP), and gain transfer frequency product (GTFP). However, the device without the underlap effect demonstrates the highest transconductance (g(m)) and cut-off frequency (f(T)). Finally, a linearity analysis has been conducted to compare the optimized GNR-FET device with the conventional GNR-FET device without the underlap effect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据