This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.

Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES 1

Analytical Modeling of DG-MOSFET

in Subthreshold Regime by
Green’s Function Approach
Ashutosh Nandi, Nilesh Pandey, and S. Dasgupta

Abstract — In this paper, we have developed an analyt-

ical model of double gate MOSFET using Green’s function
approach in the subthreshold regime of operation. The exact
analytical solution to 2-D Poisson’s equation by Green’s
function approach is redefined and Fourier coefficients
are calculated correctly that has a direct impact on the
outcomes of the model. The approach considers 2-D mixed
boundary conditions and multizone techniques while deriv-
ing potential equations. It is observed that the Green’s
function approach of solving 2-D Poisson’s equation in both
oxide and silicon region can accurately predict channel
potential, subthreshold current (I sub ), and subthreshold
slope of both long and short channel devices designed with
higher as well as lower t si /t ox oxide thickness ratio.
Index Terms — Dirichlet and Neumann boundary condi-
tions, Green’s function approach, multizone techniques.
I. I NTRODUCTION
I T IS almost inevitable to limit the integration of a number
of devices per chip because of ever increasing demand for
compact high performance portable electronic gadgets. As the
gadgets become smaller, the technology node is scaled to
accommodate an increased number of transistors per chip.
However, short channel effects (SCE) are becoming prominent
day by day because of loss of gate electrostatic integrity as the
device attributes of MOSFETs are scaled into the nanometer
regime. Therefore, it is imperative to devise analytical models
for short channel MOSFETs to gain physical insight of
device operation and provide guidelines to predict trends for
future generations. Recent years have seen many mathematical
models that can predict device operation in subthreshold to
post threshold regime of operation. Few important models such
as charge sharing approach, empirical expressions, polynomial
approach, evanescent mode analysis, and Green’s function
Manuscript received May 7, 2017; revised May 15, 2017; accepted
May 22, 2017. The review of this paper was arranged by Editor B. Iñiguez.
(Corresponding author: Ashutosh Nandi.)
A. Nandi and N. Pandey are with the Department of Electron-
ics and Communication Engineering, National Institute of Technology
Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra 136119, India (e-mail: ashutosh.chl@
gmail.com; nilesh.nitkkr2016@gmail.com).
S. Dasgupta is with the Department of Electronics and Commu-
nication Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India (e-mail:
sudebfec@iitr.ernet.in).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TED.2017.2708603
Fig. 1. Schematic of DG-MOSFET. L, tsi , and tox are gate length, channel
thickness, and oxide thickness, respectively.
approach are frequently used to characterize the advanced
MOSFETs in recent years.
However, the charge sharing approach [1] has not fully
considered the role of oxide thickness (tox ) into account.
It also lacks in defining drain induced barrier lowering (DIBL)
effect and incorrect in predicting SCE [1], [2]. An empirical
expression for SCE is based on few experimental results
and numerical fitting of 2-D simulation, without giving any
physical reasoning for doing so [3].
Polynomial approach [4]–[7] has addressed the SCE issues
to some extent; however, it considers 1-D boundary condi-
tions in Si–SiO2 interface neglecting the Source/Drain (S/D)
lateral electric field continuity at the interface. Recently, the
2-D boundary conditions at Si–SiO2 interfaces are considered
in evanescent mode analysis to derive a generalized scale
length, which is later used to derive the channel poten-
tial [8]–[10]. The SCE is introduced by solving 2-D Laplace
equation at S/D ends of the device so as to target an exact
potential expression in the channel region of the device.
Green’s function approach, on the other hand, provides
an exact solution to 2-D Poisson’s equation in channel and
oxide regions without any approximation [11]–[14]. How-
ever, the method is still not fully explored to be useful for
short channel devices. Therefore, it is still not clear, whether
the model is physically sound in terms of accuracy and
predictions. Fig. 1 shows the schematic of a double gate
(DG)-MOSFET.
In this paper, we have redefined a Green’s function approach
of solving 2-D Poisson’s equation in DG-MOSFET with
multizone and mixed boundary conditions. More importantly,

0018-9383 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES

the Fourier coefficients are calculated correctly that can where the Green’s functions G for different regions are
directly affect the outcomes of the model. Subsequently, defined in the Appendix. Substituting the Green’s functions
we have deduced subthreshold current (Isub ) and subthreshold into (2), the general form of 2-D potential distribution in the
slope (SS) expressions from the potential equation derived region I , II, and III as shown in Fig. 1, are derived as follows:
using Green’s function approach. The threshold voltage roll- ∞
off is computed from parallel shifts of Ids –Vgs curves (nor- −2  sin(kn x) sinh(kn y) Dsf
n
ψ I (x, y) =
malized to W/L) between the long-channel and short-channel L kn cosh(kn tox ) εox
n=1
devices. Rest of this paper is arranged as follows. Section II ∞
 2(VGS − φ)
derives the expression of channel potential by Green’s func- +
tion approach. Section III deals with subthreshold current nπ
n=1
derivation which is further extended to discuss the Vt roll-off. (1 − (−1)n ) sin(kn x) cosh(kn (tox − y))
Subthreshold slope model is taken up in Section IV. Finally, ×
cosh(k t )
Section V provides the conclusion. ∞   n ox
2  sin knI y
+  
II. P OTENTIAL M ODEL BY G REEN ’ S tox sinh knI L
n=1
F UNCTION A PPROACH     
Lin and Wu [15] are the first authors to propose an × AnS sinh knI (L − x) + AnD sinh knI x (3)
∞  II 
analytical solution for the potential distribution of the 2  cos kn (tox − y)
2-D Poisson’s equation using Green’s function approach with ψ II (x, y) =  
tsi
n=1
sinh knII L
Dirichlet boundary condition. The work has been carried out     
for short channel bulk MOSFET. Initially, both oxide and × BnS sinh knII (L − x) + BnD sinh knII x
∞
silicon regions were considered as a single region to solve 2 sin(kn x)
the potential distribution in a homogeneous system with same +
L εSi kn sinh(kn tsi )
dielectric constant. Subsequently, the potential equation is  n=1
improved by considering the interface problem for different × Dsf n
cosh(kn (tox + tsi − y))

dielectric by image-charge method, in which, the potential − Dsb n
cosh(kn (tox − y))
distribution satisfies continuities of both transverse electric ∞
2  Q nB cos(knII (tox − y))
field and normal electric displacement [15]. In a later work on +  2
SOI MOSFET, on the other hand, the same group [11] has tsi knII
n=1
 II   

avoided the complexity in dealing with the equivalent charge sinh kn (L − x) + sinh knII x
densities between the regions of different dielectric materi- × 1−  
sinh knII L
als. A multizone solution with mixed boundary conditions
(both Dirichlet and Neumann) is used to exactly solve the + ψ(0) + x VDS /L − q Na− x(L − x)/2εSi (4)
∞
2-D Poisson’s equation in three regions with different 2  sin(kn x) sinh(kn (2tox + tsi − y)) D n
dielectrics. The mixed boundary condition is similar to Rat- ψ III (x, y) = sb
L kn cosh(kn tox ) εox
nakumar and Meindl’s [16] analytical approach to solve n=1
∞

2-D Poisson’s equation in silicon region. A similar multizone 2(VGS − φ)
solution with mixed boundary conditions has also been used +
nπ
n=1
to derive Vth of fully depleted Si-SOI MESFET [12]. Later
(1 − (−1)n ) sin(kn x) cosh(kn (tox + tsi − y))
in 2011, two different groups have reported analytical model ×
of DG-MOSFET by use of the same multizone solution with cosh(kn tox )
∞  
mixed boundary conditions [13], [14]. 2  sin knI (tsi + 2tox − y)
For weak inversion operation the 2-D Poisson equation for +  
tox sinh knI L
potential ψ (x, y) in the channel region can be written as 
n=1
   
× CnS sinh knI (L − x) + CnD sinh knI x (5)
∂ 2ψ ∂ 2ψ q Na−
+ = . (1)
∂x2 ∂y 2 εSi where the Fourier coefficients AnS , AnD , BnS , BnD , Q nB , CnS ,
Using Green’s theorem, specific properties of Green’s func- and CnD are defined in the Appendix. It is also highlighted
tion ∇ 2 G = −∂ (x − x  )(y − y  ) and applying both dirichlet that the Fourier coefficients BnS , BnD , and Q nB would vanish
boundary conditions at surface and neumann boundary con- except for n = 0, i.e., Q 0B = −q Na− , B0S = ψ (0) and B0D =
ditions at Si–SiO2 interfaces, the solution to the Poisson’s ψ (0) + VDS . This leads to inclusion of (0), VDS , and qNa
equation (1) is derived as [17] as last term in (4). It is to be noted that (0) is selected
 as E g /(2q) throughout our analysis since the energy levels
ρ(x  , y  )
ψ(x, y) = G(x, y; x , y  )d x  d y  of the DG-MOSFET is referenced to electron quasi-Fermi
ε level or the conduction band of n+ source. Similarly, φ is

∂ψ(x  , y  ) the work function difference between gate electrodes (φm ) and
+ G(x, y; x , y  )d S 
∂n  silicon (χ + E g /2q), considering the fact that the body of

∂ G(x, y; x , y  )  DG-MOSFET is not charge neutral in general. Nevertheless,
− ψ(x  , y  ) dS (2)
∂n  midgap gate work function is selected throughout our analysis.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
NANDI et al.: ANALYTICAL MODELING OF DG-MOSFET 3

Subsequently, the simplified 2-D potential of silicon region II

is written as
∞
2 sin(kn x)  n
ψ II (x, y) = × Dsf cosh(kn (tox +tsi − y))
L ε k sinh(kn tsi )
n=1 Si n

−Dsbn
cosh(kn (tox − y))
+ ψ(0) + x VDS /L − q Na− x(L − x)/2εSi (6)
n n
where Dsf and Dsb are evaluated by equating (3) and (6)
at front Si–SiO2 interface and (5) and (6) at back Si–SiO2
n n
interface, respectively. The values of Dsf and Dsb are also
mentioned in the Appendix. It is to be noted that, the potential
expression derived using Green’s function approach does not
depend upon any separate calculation of scale length.
Fig. 2. Subthreshold current (Isub ) calculated from both double integra-
III. S UBTHRESHOLD C URRENT M ODEL tion and minimum potential method using Green’s function approach.
The source to drain current density ( J ) predominantly flows
in the x-direction as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, neglecting
the constant electron quasi-Fermi potential (φn ) in y-direction, Considering symmetric double gate structure, (10) is solved
the expression of current density (J ), considering both drift as
2K v t ψ(xmin ,y f )/v t
and diffusion components, can be written as [10] Isub = (e − eψ(xmin ,ym )/v t ) (11)
Ef
dφn (x)
J = −qμn(x, y) . (7) where we consider that ψ (x min , y f ) varies linearly from
dx front surface (y f = tox ) to ψ (x min , ym ) at central potential
Upon subsequent integration, the expression of subthreshold point (ym ) corresponding to a constant electric field [19], [21]
current (Isub ) in the x-direction can be deduced as
E f = (ψ(x min , y f ) − ψ(x min , ym ))/(ym − y f ).
dφn (x)
Isub (x) = −μW Q i (x) (8) For symmetric DG-MOSFET ym is located at tox + tsi /2.
dx
where Q i (x) is the inversion charge calculated as It is also pointed out that (11) is similar to the current equation
 yb  tox +tsi derived from diffusion dominated current density [18]–[21].
Q i (x) = qn(x, y)d x = q n i e[ψ (x,y)−φn (x)]/v t d x. This is obvious, since removing x dependence term form the
yf tox denominator of (9) almost neglects the current contribution
Integrating (8) from effective source to drain end, we derive due to drift term.
Fig. 2 shows the subthreshold current (Isub ) calculated with
the final expression of current (independent of x) as
the help of both double integration and minimum potential
qμW νt [1 − exp(−Vds /νt )] method, using the channel potential expressions derived by
Isub = L (9)
dx Green’s function approach. The minimum potential point x min
0  tox +tsi n eψ(x,y)/νt d y
tox i
is calculated by iteration procedure by equating ∂ /∂ x = 0.
where the limits of integration in y-direction [front surface It is observed that Isub calculated from minimum potential
(y f ) to back surface (yb )] are changed to tox to tox + tsi as per method follows closely the double integration method and
Fig. 1. As the Isub is mainly controlled by the maximum bar- TCAD Sentaurus simulation [22]. Nevertheless, subsequent
rier, the denominator term n i eψ(x,y)/νt of (9) can be assumed analysis has been carried out by double integration method to
to be independent of x considering the potential at minimum further validate our model with TCAD simulation. The TCAD
potential point x min . Subsequently, Isub is further approximated Sentaurus simulation environment is set as per [23] without
as  yb considering any advanced physical effects, such as quanti-
Isub = K e[ψ(xmin,y)]/v t d y (10) zation effects and nonstatic effects. Since these effects are
yf often considered as add-ons to the model already devised [24],
where the value of K = (qμv t n i W /L eff )[1 − e(−Vds /v t ) ], therefore, we have neglected these effects both in the model
L eff = L d,eff − L s,eff ,√L s,eff = L s − L D and L d,eff = as well as in TCAD environment.
L − (L d − L D ). L D = (εSi v t /qNd ) is the extrinsic Debye Fig. 3 shows the subthreshold current at different channel
length [18], [19]. The encroachments of depletion regions doping concentrations. It is observed that the Isub of an
associated with source and drain junctions (L s and L d ) are intrinsically doped channel and lightly doped channel till
estimated as [18]–[20] Na = 1016 cm−3 are same, verifying the fact that the band
bending due to depletion charge is negligible till Na =
2(ψ(0) − ψ(x min , ym )) 1016 cm−3 and band diagram for Na = 1016 cm−3 is no
Ls =
|∂ψ(x, ym )/∂ x|x=0 different from an intrinsic DG-MOSFET. On the other hand,
2(ψ(0) + Vds − ψ(x min , ym )) when the body doping exceeds 1016 cm−3 , the band bending
Ld = .
|∂ψ(x, ym )/∂ x|x=L due to depletion charge becomes appreciable. However, the
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES
Fig. 3. Subthreshold current (Isub ) calculated from double integration
method at different channel doping concentrations.
Fig. 4. Variation in subthreshold current (Isub ) with L at (a) tsi = 10 nm
and (b) tox = 1 nm calculated from double integration method.
silicon work function χ + E g /2q can be still considered for
calculation of φ since the body of DG-MOSFET is not
charge neutral. This can be verified from the plots of Isub as
shown in Fig. 3, where the doping concentration is varied till
Na = 4 × 1018 cm−3 . It is observed that the Green’s function
approach can accurately predict the Isub of DG-MOSFET
for all channel doping concentrations. We restrict our present
analysis to channel doping of 4 ×1018 cm−3 because at higher
doping level (>4 × 1018 cm−3 ) the DG-MOSFET tends to
enter into partial depletion regime where it can be viewed
as two identical bulk MOSFETs [25]. Nevertheless, higher
Fig. 5. Threshold voltage roll-off at (a) different tox and (b) different tsi .
Fig. 6. Threshold voltage roll-off at low and high Vds .
channel doping is of little interest to device designer these
days because of degraded carrier mobility, discrete dopant
fluctuation effects and strong band-to-band tunneling from the
body to drain that outweighs the advantages of SCE control
by higher channel doping. Therefore, further analysis of Isub is
carried out considering Na = 1016 cm−3 , where the devices
are almost free from these adverse effects.
Fig. 4(a) shows the variation of subthreshold current with
gate length at different oxide thicknesses, whereas, Fig. 4(b)
shows the variation of subthreshold current with gate length
at different channel thicknesses. The analytical model matches
well with TCAD data both at different oxide and channel
thicknesses of the device. Subsequently, the threshold voltage
roll-offs are obtained from the parallel shift of Ids –Vgs curves
of short channel device with respect to the long-channel device
for the constant current level I0 normalized to (W /L). I0 is
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
NANDI et al.: ANALYTICAL MODELING OF DG-MOSFET 5

V. C ONCLUSION
Green’s function approach, derived with multizone and
mixed boundary conditions with accurate Fourier coefficients
calculation, provides an exact solution to 2-D Poisson’s equa-
tion in channel and oxide regions without any approximation.
Therefore, it is physically sound in terms of accuracy and
prediction of channel potential and subthreshold current of
both long and short channel DG-MOSFET. The approach is
also equally good at predicting channel electrostatics of lower
tsi /tox ratio based devices where the S/D lateral electric field
is of paramount importance. It is observed that the results pre-
dicted by the analytical model derived from Green’s function
approach match well with those from TCAD sentaurus device
simulation.

A PPENDIX
The Green’s functions for region I, II, and III are defined
as follows:
Fig. 7. SS variation with (a) L, (b) tox , and (c) tsi .
G Ix (x, y; x , y  )
selected as the subthreshold current of the long-channel device ∞
at Vgs0 = Vt 0 − E g /4q. Where Vt 0 is extracted from linear 2  sin (kn x) sin (kn x  )
=
extrapolation of Ids –Vgs curves at Vds = 0.1 V. Fig. 5(a) L kn cosh (kn tox )
n=1
shows the threshold voltage roll-off with the variation of tox ,
sinh(kn y) cosh(kn (tox − y  )), (y < y  )
whereas Fig. 5(b) shows the threshold voltage roll-off with the ×
variation of tsi . We observe slight mismatch in Vt roll-off at sinh(kn y  ) cosh(kn (tox − y)), (y > y  )
shorter gate lengths. This may be attributed to the fact that,
Vt is extracted by a constant current method and we have G Iy (x, y; x , y  )
∞    
not considered any quasi-ballistic effects in Green’s function 2  sin knI y sin knI y 
approach that start dominating the overall current flowing =  
tox knI sinh knI L
through the channel at shorter gate lengths [26]. n=1
   
Fig. 6 shows the Vt roll-off of DG-MOSFET at high sinh knI x sinh knI (L − x  ) , (x < x  )
and low drain bias. The change in Vt with drain bias is an ×    
indication of DIBL effect that is pronounced at shorter gate sinh knI x  sinh knI (L − x) , (x > x  )
lengths due to increasing penetration of lateral electric field G IIx (x, y; x  , y  )
into the channel region of the device. ∞
2  sin (kn x) sin (kn x  )
=
IV. S UBTHRESHOLD S LOPE M ODEL L kn sinh (kn tsi )
n=1
Considering the fact that the subthreshold current is propor-
tional to the inversion charge n i e(ψ (xmin ,ym )/v t ) , we define a cosh(kn (tox − y)) cosh(kn (tox + tsi − y  )), (y < y  )
×
simplified expression of SS as cosh(kn (tox − y  )) cosh(kn (tox + tsi − y)), (y > y  )
SS ∼ 2.3v t (∂ψ(x min , ym )/∂ Vgs )−1 (12) G IIy (x, y; x  , y  )
∞    
Subsequently, we derive the expression of c  cos knII (tox − y) cos knII (tox − y  )
∂ψ (x min , ym )/∂ Vgs using Green’s function approach =  
tsi knII sinh knII L
as n=0
   
∂ψ(x min , ym )
∞
4  sin(kn x min ) cosh(kn tsi /2) ∂ Dsf
n sinh knII x sinh knII (L − x  ) , (x < x  )
= (13) ×  II    II 
∂ Vgs L εSi kn sinh(kn tsi ) ∂ Vgs sinh kn x sinh kn (L − x) , (x > x  )
n=1

where c = 1 for n = 0 and c = 2 for n > 0


∂ Dsf
n
1 (1 − (−1)n )  
x (x, y; x , y )
G III
= n .
∂ Vgs d4 kn cosh(kn tox ) ∞
2  sin (kn x) sin (kn x  )
=
Fig. 7 shows the subthreshold slope of DG-MOSFET with L kn cosh (kn tox )
n=1
variation in channel length, oxide thickness, and channel
thickness. It is observed that the analytical model matches cosh(kn (tsi +tox − y)) sinh(kn (tsi +2tox − y  )), (y < y  )
×
well with TCAD sentaurus device simulation results. cosh(kn (tsi +tox − y  )) sinh(kn (tsi +2tox − y)), (y > y  )
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES

 
y (x, y; x , y )
G III [2] Q. Xie, J. Xu, and Y. Taur, “Review and critique of analytic models of
∞     MOSFET short-channel effects in subthreshold,” IEEE Trans. Electron
2  sin knI (tsi + 2tox − y) sin knI (tsi + 2tox − y  ) Devices, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1569–1579, Jun. 2012.
=   [3] J. R. Brews, W. Fichtner, E. H. Nicollian, and S. M. Sze, “General-
tox
n=1
knI sinh knI L ized guide for MOSFET miniaturization,” IEEE Electron Device Lett.,
    vol. EDL-1, no. 1, pp. 2–4, Jan. 1980.
sinh knI x sinh knI (L − x  ) , (x < x  )
×     (14) [4] T. Toyabe and S. Asai, “Analytical models of threshold voltage and
sinh knI x  sinh knI (L − x) , (x > x  ) breakdown voltage of short-channel MOSFETs derived from two-
dimensional analysis,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. ED-26, no. 4,
pp. 453–461, Apr. 1979.
where kn = nπ/L, knI = (2n − 1)π/2tox and knII = nπ/tsi .
[5] K. K. Young, “Short-channel effect in fully depleted SOI MOSFETs,”
The Fourier coefficients AnS , AnD , BnS , BnD , CnS , CnD , Q nB , IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 399–402, Feb. 1989.
n n are defined as
Dsf , and Dsb [6] R.-H. Yan, A. Ourmazd, and K. F. Lee, “Scaling the Si MOSFET: From
 tox bulk to SOI to bulk,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 39, no. 7,
  pp. 1704–1710, Jul. 1992.
AnS = ψ I (0, y  ) sin knI y  d y  [7] K. Suzuki, T. Tanaka, Y. Tosaka, H. Horie, and Y. Arimoto, “Scaling
0 tox theory for double-gate SOI MOSFETs,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,
  vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 2326–2329, Dec. 1993.
AnD = ψ I (L, y  ) sin knI y  d y  [8] D. R. Poole and D. L. Kwong, “Two-dimensional analytical modeling of
0 tox +tsi threshold voltages of short-channel MOSFETs,” IEEE Electron Device
 
ψ II (0, y  ) cos knII (tox − y  ) d y 
Lett., vol. EDL-5, no. 11, pp. 443–446, Nov. 1984.
Bn =
S
[9] D. J. Frank, Y. Taur, and H.-S. P. Wong, “Generalized scale length
t
 oxtox +tsi for two-dimensional effects in MOSFETs,” IEEE Electron Device Lett.,
  vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 385–387, Oct. 1998.
Bn =
D
ψ II (L, y  ) cos knII (tox − y  ) d y  [10] X. Liang and Y. Taur, “A 2-D analytical solution for SCEs in
tox
 2tox +tsi
DG MOSFETs,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 51, no. 9,
  pp. 1385–1391, Sep. 2004.
CnS = ψ III (0, y  ) sin knI (tsi + 2tox − y  ) d y  [11] J.-Y. Guo and C.-Y. Wu, “A new 2-D analytic threshold-voltage model
tox +tsi
 2tox +tsi
for fully depleted short-channel SOI MOSFETs,” IEEE Trans. Electron
  Devices, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 1653–1661, Sep. 1993.
CnD = ψ III (L, y  ) sin knI (tsi + 2tox − y  ) d y  [12] C.-S. Hou and C.-Y. Wu, “A 2-D analytic model for the threshold-
t +t voltage of fully depleted short gate-length Si-SOI MESFETs,”
 oxtox +tsi si
  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 2156–2162,
Q nB = − q Na− /εSi cos(kn (tox − y  )) Dec. 1995.
tox [13] R. Sharma, S. Pandey, and S. B. Jain, “Compact modeling and simulation
 L of nanoscale fully depleted DG-SOI MOSFETs,” J. Comput. Electron.,
n
Dsf = Dsf (x  ) sin(kn x  )d x  vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 201–209, 2011.
0 [14] A. Garg, S. N. Sinha, and R. P. Agarwal, “A 2-D analutical threshold
 L voltage model for symmetric double gate MOSFETs using Green’s
n
Dsb = Dsb (x  ) sin(kn x  )d x  (15) function,” J. Nano Electron. Phys., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 894–902, 2011.
0 [15] P.-S. Lin and C.-Y. Wu, “A new approach to analytically solving the
two-dimensional Poisson’s equation and its application in short-channel
where, for simplicity we select MOSFET modeling,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. ED-34, no. 9,
pp. 1947–1956, Sep. 1987.
ψ I (0, y  ) = ψ II (0, y  ) = ψ III (0, y  ) = ψ (0) [16] K. N. Ratnakumar and J. D. Meindl, “Short-channel MOST threshold
ψ I (L, y  ) = ψ II (L, y  ) = ψ III (L, y  ) = ψ (0) + VDS voltage model,” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. SSC-17, no. 5,
pp. 937–948, Oct. 1982.
n is deduced as
Dsf [17] J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill, 1998.
 
n
Dsf = d1n + d2n − d3n /d4n (16) [18] D. S. Havaldar, G. Katti, N. DasGupta, and A. DasGupta, “Subthreshold
current model of FinFETs based on analytical solution of 3-D Poisson’s
equation,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 737–742,
where Apr. 2006.
∞   
2  kn sin knI tox AnS + AnD (−1)n+1 [19] A. Dey, A. Chakravorty, N. DasGupta, and A. DasGupta, “Analytical
d1n =  2 model of subthreshold current and slope for asymmetric 4-T and 3-T
tox (kn )2 + knI double-gate MOSFETs,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 55, no. 12,
n=1
pp. 3442–3449, Dec. 2008.
d2n = [(1 − (−1)n )(VGS − φ)]/[kn cosh(kn tox )] [20] P. C. Yeh and J. G. Fossum, “Physical subthreshold MOSFET modeling
ψ(0)(1 − (−1)n ) VDS (−1)n+1 q Na− (1 − (−1)n ) applied to viable design of deep-submicrometer fully depleted SOI low-
d3n = + − voltage CMOS technology,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 42,
kn kn ε Si kn3 no. 9, pp. 1605–1613, Sep. 1995.
1 1 tanh(kn tox ) [21] G. Rawat, S. Kumar, E. Goel, M. Kumar, S. Dubey, and S. Jit,
d4n = + + . “Analytical modeling of subthreshold current and subthreshold swing
kn εSi tanh(kn tsi ) kn εSi sinh(kn tsi ) kn εox of Gaussian-doped strained-Si-on-insulator MOSFETs,” J. Semicond.,
(17) vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 084001-1–084001-8, Aug. 2014.
[22] Sentaurus Device User Guide. [Online]. Available: http://www.synopsys.
n can be calculated in similar fashion by equating (5) and (6)
Dsb com
at back Si–SiO2 interface. [23] A. Nandi, A. K. Saxena, and S. Dasgupta, “Design and analysis
of analog performance of dual-k spacer underlap N/P-FinFET at
12 nm gate length,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 60, no. 5,
R EFERENCES pp. 1529–1535, May 2013.
[24] S. Uno, H. Abebe, and E. Cumberbatch, “Analytical solutions to
[1] L. D. Yau, “A simple theory to predict the threshold voltage of quantum drift-diffusion equations for quantum mechanical modeling of
short-channel IGFETs,” Solid-State Electron., vol. 17, pp. 1059–1063, MOS structures,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Solid State Devices, Kobe, Japan,
Oct. 1974. 2005, pp. 592–593.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
NANDI et al.: ANALYTICAL MODELING OF DG-MOSFET 7

[25] H. Lu, W.-Y. Lu, and Y. Taur, “Effect of body doping on double-gate Nilesh Pandey is currently pursuing the bache-
MOSFET characteristics,” Semicond. Sci. Technol., vol. 22, no. 1, 2008, lor’s degree with the Department of Electronics
Art. no. 252835. and Communication Engineering, National Insti-
[26] S. Eminente, D. Esseni, P. Palestri, C. Fiegna, L. Selmi, and E. Sangiorgi, tute of Technology Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra,
“Understanding quasi-ballistic transport in nano-MOSFETs: Part II— India.
Technology scaling along the ITRS,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, His current research interests include device
vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 2736–2743, Dec. 2005. modeling of multigate semiconductor devices,
and analog and digital circuit design.

Ashutosh Nandi received the Ph.D. degree from S. Dasgupta received the Ph.D. degree from IIT
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India, in 2015. BHU, Varanasi, India, in 2000.
He is currently an Assistant Professor with He is currently an Associate Professor with
the Department of Electronics and Communica- the Department of Electronics and Communica-
tion Engineering, National Institute of Technol- tion Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
ogy Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra, India. His current His current research interests include ultra-low
research interests include low power very large power applications, radiation effects on ICs,
scale integration design, device circuit co-design semiconductor devices, and device modeling.
in digital/analog domain, and device modeling of
multigate semiconductor devices.