Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:36:23.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Metal Nanocrystals and Traps in Tunneling Rate Measurements in Metal Nanocrystal Based Carbon Nanotube Memory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Udayan Ganguly ,
Tuo-Hung Hou  and
Edwin Kan
Udayan Ganguly
Affiliation:
[email protected], Applied Materials, Applications Development Center, 974 E Arques Ave B81, Sunnyvale, CA, 94085, United States, 614-598-2339, 408-584-1194
Tuo-Hung Hou
Affiliation:
[email protected], Cornell University, Electrical and Computer Engr, Ithaca, NY, 14853, United States
Edwin Kan
Affiliation:
[email protected], Cornell University, Electrical and Computer Engr, Ithaca, NY, 14853, United States
Get access

Abstract

The metal nanocrystal (NC) based carbon nanotube (CNT) memory device has been probed with tunneling rate measurements. Firstly, tunneling behavior at two temperatures (300K and 10K) is reported here to demonstrate the distinct charge tunneling behavior for traps versus NCs and understand their relative contributions to program operations. Low temperature measurements show clear differentiation for two regimes of quantum transport. The FN tunneling regime exhibits strong bias dependence and dominates at high electric fields producing larger tunneling rates than the direct tunneling regime. In comparison to traps, the metal NCs repel potential contours and hence produce higher electric fields that enhance tunneling. The FN tunneling diminishes when the charging of the nanocrystal or traps decreases (relaxes) the electric field in the tunnel dielectric (TD) enough for the low field direct tunneling to dominate. The direct tunneling occurs at low fields, and is less sensitive to electric fields. The NCs demonstrate faster tunneling which can be ascribed to their large tunneling cross-section compared to traps. This is despite the relative proximity of traps to the channel in our structure. Secondly, the tunneling rates for two different TDs of similar EOT (under linear approximation) have been characterized and compared. They are a homogenous evaporated SiO2 and layered dielectric consisting of an evaporated SiO2 and ALD Al2O3 stack. While the evaporated SiO2 based TD demonstrates the distinct NC versus trap tunnel rate performance, the layered TD demonstrates stronger resistance to tunneling to the NCs. This result is consistent with the low tunneling rates demonstrated in Al2O3 elsewhere. Finally, the program performance of the NC-CNT memory device is evaluated as 0.5 V threshold voltage (VT) shift for a charging pulse of 9V and 100 μs. Combining with previous results, this indicates that NC-CNT memory is a promising candidate for low voltage, fast, multi-level cell (MLC) operation with sub-lithographic (self-assembled) features for sub 30 nm FLASH memory node. From the device physics perspective, these measurements may serve as the calibration and validation for advanced tunneling calculations and device modeling for promising nanoscale charge-based non-volatile memories.

Keywords

memorynanoscalemicroelectronics
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 963: Symposium Q – Nanowires and Carbon Nanotubes – Science and Applications , 2006 , 0963-Q14-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Ganguly, U., Kan, E. C., and Zhang, Y., Applied Physics Letters, 87, 43108, 2005.Google Scholar
2. Guo, J., Kan, E. C., Ganguly, U., and Zhang, Y., J. Appl. Phys., 99, 084301, 2006.Google Scholar
3. Ganguly, U., Lee, C., Hou, T.-H., and Kan, E. C., IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol. (accepted).Google Scholar
4. Narayanan, V. and Kan, E. C., in Intl. Conf. Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices (SISPAD), September 6–8, 2006, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
5. Choi, W. B., Chae, S., Bae, E., Lee, J. -W., Cheong, B. -H., Kim, J. -R., and Kim, J. -J., Applied Physics Letters, 82, 275, 2003.Google Scholar
6. ITRS 2005; online at: http://www.itrs.net/Links/2005ITRS/Home2005.htmGoogle Scholar
7. Taur, Y. and Ning, T. H., Fundamentals of Modern VLSI Devices, Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
8. Schuegraf, K. F. and Hu, C., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, 41, 761, 1994.Google Scholar
9. Lenzlinger, M. and Snow, E. H., J. Appl. Phys., 40, 278, 1969.Google Scholar
10. Frenkel, J., Tech. Phys. USSR 5, 685, 1938.Phys. Rev., 54, 647–648, 1938..Google Scholar
11. Compagnoni, C. M., Ielmini, D., Spinelli, A. S., and Lacaita, A. L., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, 52 , pp. 569–577, 2005.Google Scholar
12. Shankar, R., Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd Ed., Plenum Press, NY, 1994.Google Scholar
13. Govoreanu, B., Blomme, P., Rosmeulen, M., Van Houdt, J., De Meyer, K., IEEE Electron Device Letters, 24, 99, 2003.Google Scholar
14. Ganguly, U., Hou, T.-H., and Kan, E. C., MRS Fall 2006, O 5.12Google Scholar