Journal of Electronic Materials

, Volume 48, Issue 5, pp 3078–3085 | Cite as

Parameterized Comparison of Nanotransistors Based on CNT and GNR Materials: Effect of Variation in Gate Oxide Thickness and Dielectric Constant

  • Anjana Kumari
  • Suman Rani
  • Balwinder SinghEmail author


Silicon based technology encounters scaling parameters that prohibit the advancement of transistor technology. Graphene nanoribbons (GNR) and carbon nanotubes (CNT) are often considered the predominating devices to replace silicon technology. Carbon nanotube field effect transistors (CNTFETs) are considered the most promising devices because of their most interesting properties such as high current carrying ability (∼ 1010 A/cm2), excellent carrier mobility, scalability, high reliability for elevated temperature operation, and negligible leakage current. In this paper, a comparative analysis of CNTFET and graphene nanoribbon field effect transistors (GNRFET) is presented. The results of simulations are presented, and comparisons of devices are done based on different parameters listed as ION/IOFF current ratio, trans-conductance, and inverse subthreshold slope using NanoTCAD ViDES. After simulation, it is shown that CNTFET offers better results for ION/IOFF on the order of 106, subthreshold swing (SS) as 74.4 mV/dec, and transconductance as 7.6 μS. Further the effect of oxide thickness and dielectric constant has been studied for both FET devices. At the end, it is concluded that CNTFET offers better simulation result than that of GNRFET.


Carbon nanotube carbon nanotube field effect transistor graphene nanoribbon field effect transistor NanoTCAD ViDES 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



  1. 1.
    A. Singh, M. Khosla, and B. Raj, Comparative analysis of carbon nanotube field effect transistors, in IEEE 4th Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE) (2015), p. 552.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.A Kabir, Int. J. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 3(3/4), 1 (2014).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S.K. Sinha and S. Chaudhary, Advantage of CNTFET characteristics over MOSFET to reduce leakage power, in 2nd IEEE International Conference on Devices, Circuits and Systems (2014), p. 1.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Al-Shaggah, A. Rjoub, and M. Khasawneh, Carbon nanotube field effect transistor models performance and evaluation, in Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (AEECT), IEEE Jordan Conference on Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (2013), p. 1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Appenzeller, Y.M. Lin, J. Knoch, Z. Chen, and P. Avouris, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 52, 2568 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.H Rashed and A. Lotfi, A graphene nanoribbon field-effect transistor modeling Integrated system technology. Diss. Thesis Dissertation, Politecnico di Torino (2014).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Prégaldiny, J. B. Kammerer, and C. Lallement, Compact modeling and applications of CNTFETs for analog and digital circuit design, in 13th IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems (2006).
  8. 8.
    A. Javey, J. Guo, Q. Wang, M. Lundstrom, and H. Dai, Nature 424, 654 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Appenzeller, J. Knoch, V. Derycke, R. Martel, S. Wind, and P. Avouris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 126 801-1 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Singh, D.K. Saini, and D. Agarwal, J. Semicond 37, 074001 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Ouyang, Y. Yoon, J.K. Fodor, and J. Guo, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 107 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Fiori, G. Iannaccone, and G. Klimeck, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 53, 1782 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.R. Chowdhury, S. Mukhopadhyay, and K. Roy, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 23, 1411 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S.K. Sinha and S. Chaudhary, IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol. 12, 958 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. MAnas, A study of single layer and bilayer GNRFET, in UKSim-AMSS 18th International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation (2016), p. 93.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S.Z. Ahmed, M.S. Shawkat, M.I.H. Chowdhury, and S.M. Mominuzzaman, Current-voltage characteristics of ballistic schottky barrier GNRFET and CNTFET: effect of relative dielectric contant, in 10th IEEE International Conference on Nano/Micro Engg and Molecular System (2015), p. 384.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Bu, Y. Chen, M. Zou, H. Yi, K. Bi, and Z. Ni, Phys. Lett. A 373, 3359 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Fiori, D. Neumaier, and B.N. Szafranek, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 61, 729 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y.W. Son, M.L. Cohen, and S.G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 216803 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Fiori and G. Iannaccone, 3D Poisson/NEGF solver for the simulation of Graphene Nanoribbon, Carbon nanotubes and Silicon Nanowire Transistors, NanoTCAD ViDES (2016).
  21. 21.
    G. Fiori and G. Iannaccone, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 28, 706 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Y.M. Banadaki, Electronics 5, 11 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Singh, M. Khosla, and B. Raj, J. Nanoelectron. Optoelectron. 11, 388 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Development of Advanced Computing IndiaMinistry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy), Govt of IndiaNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Baba Farid College of Engineering and TechnologyBathindaIndia
  3. 3.I.K.G Punjab Technical UniversityJalandharIndia

Personalised recommendations