Graphene Transistors – A New Contender for Future Electronics

Frank Schwierz
Institut für Mikro- und Nanoelektronik, Technische Universität Ilmenau, PF 100565, 98684 Ilmenau, Germany
Email: frank.schwierz@tu-ilmenau.de

Abstract
During the last few years, graphene has gained
remarkable attention in the device community. Graphene
transistors are evolving at a rapid pace and
graphene-based devices are considered as an option for a
post-Si electronics. To assess whether graphene can meet
the high expectations or not, the properties and specifics
of this new material have to be analyzed carefully. The
present paper provides an overview of the current status
of graphene transistor development and reviews the
prospects and problems of these devices.

1. Introduction
In October 2004 researchers of the University of
Manchester reported that they had prepared and analyzed
single sheets of carbon atoms arranged in a regular
honeycomb lattice [1]. Since than, this new material
called graphene has attracted the attention of engineers
working in various fields [2-4]. Targeted applications of
graphene range from serving as an additive for aviation
fuel and car tires to transparent electrodes for solar cells
and to high-performance transistors.
Graphene is indeed a fascinating material, yet due to the
predominantly euphoric appraisal of its potential, the
prospects of graphene in electronics are sometimes
assessed overly optimistic.
In the following, I will discuss the properties of graphene
relevant for transistors, review the state-of-the-art of
graphene transistors, and discuss the prospects of
graphene from a device engineer's point of view. Since
so far most work on graphene devices was related to
MOSFETs, the main emphasis in the present paper is put
on graphene MOSFETs.
2. Properties of graphene
Currently the most popular approaches to prepare
graphene for electronic applications are (i) mechanical
exfoliation of pyrolytic graphite and transfer to oxidized
Si wafers [1], (ii) epitaxial graphene growth on metals
and subsequent graphene transfer to insulating substrates
[5], and (iii) thermal decomposition of SiC [6].
Large-area graphene is a semi-metal having a zero
bandgap and cone-shaped conduction and valence bands
meeting each other at the K point of the brillouin zone.
Due to the missing bandgap, MOSFETs with large-area
graphene channels cannot be switched off (see Fig. 1)
and are not suitable for CMOS-like logic applications.
Figure 1. Transfer characteristics of an experimental graphene
MOSFET with large-area gapless channel [7]. Shown is also
the band diagram indicating the shift of the Fermi level and the
changeover from p- to n-type conduction at the Dirac point.
On the other hand, large-area graphene shows very high
carrier mobilities. In exfoliated graphene on SiO2-
covered Si wafers, mobilities of 10,000-15,000 cm2/Vs
are measured routinely [1, 8], an upper mobility limit of
70,000 cm2/Vs has been suggested [9], and in the
absence of charged impurities and ripples, mobilities of
200,000 cm2/Vs have been predicted [10]. These high
mobilities make graphene a promising material for fast
RF (radio frequency) transistors, in particular since
switch-off is not required per se for transistors in RF
circuits.
The above statement that large-area graphene is gapless
does not mean, however, that a gap in graphene cannot
be opened. Instead, several approaches to create a gap
are explored. Most popular is constraining one
dimension of large-area graphene thus forming narrow
GNRs (graphene nanoribbon) [11-12], while a second
option is biasing bilayer graphene [13]. The two ideal
GNR types are armchair (ac) and zigzag (zz)
nanoribbons. It has been predicted that these two GNR
configurations show a bandgap EG that depends on the
GNR width w roughly according to EG v 1/w [14]. The
gap opening has been verified experimentally for ribbons
with widths down to about 1 nm [11-12]. Figure 2 shows
a compilation of theoretical and experimental data for
the bandgap of GNRs as a function of GNR width. It can
be seen that, to get a gap of about 0.4 eV, very narrow
GNRs with widths around/below 10 nm are needed.

978-1-4244-5798-4/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE


Figure 2. Calculated and measured GNR bandgap vs. ribbon
width, after [4]. Stars: experimental data [11-12], triangles:
simulation [14], p denotes the number of carbon atoms along
the GNR width.
Now the question arises if the gap opening affects the
mobility. The answer is yes. It is a general trend in
semiconductor physics that an increasing bandgap is
associated with a decreasing mobility – and graphene
does not buck this trend. Theoretical investigations
suggest that the gap opening in narrow GNRs will be
accompanied by a dramatic mobility reduction [15].
Figure 3 shows the electron mobility in conventional
semiconductors, carbon nanotubes, large-area graphene,
and GNRs.
Figure 3. Electron mobility vs. bandgap. Black circles: III-V
compounds, from left to right InSb, InAs, In0.53Ga0.47As, InP,
GaAs, In0.49Ga0.51P, GaN. Blue stars and lines: carbon
nanotubes, simulated [16-17]. Open blue circle: carbon
nanotube, experiment [18]. Magenta stars and line: large-area
graphene [8-10]. Light blue area: GNRs, simulated [15, 19].
Green triangle (up), red full and open triangles (down): bulk
Ge, bulk Si and Si MOS channels.
Figure 3 indicates that, for a given bandgap, graphene
does not offer a distinct advantage in terms of electron
mobility compared to other semiconductors. Less
frequently the high-field transport in graphene is
discussed. Simulations have shown that graphene shows
much higher electron velocities at high fields (around
4u107 cm/s [20-21]) than the conventional materials.
Note that at high fields, the electron saturation velocity
in Si and in most of the III-V compounds is only around
107 cm/s.
Graphene offers another feature that is highly desirable
for MOSFETs. Aggressively scaled nm-gate Si
MOSFETs are known to suffer from short-channel
effects, such as threshold voltage roll-off, drain-induced
barrier lowering, and impaired saturation of drain
currents [22-23]. The scale length theory predicts that a
MOSFET having a thin gate dielectric and a thin
gate-controlled channel region will be robust against
short-channel effects [24]. Since graphene offers the
thinnest possible channels (only one atomic layer thick),
nm-gate graphene MOSFET are expected to be very
robust against short-channel effects and to show
excellent scaling potential exceeding that of Si
MOSFETs. It is important to note, however, that the
scale length concept is valid only for MOSFETs having a
semiconducting channel. Thus, our statement regarding
the scalability applies only to graphene MOSFETs with
GNR channels and not to those with gapless large-area
channels.
3. Graphene transistors
A growing number of groups are now successfully
fabricating graphene MOSFETs with both GNR and
gapless large-area channels and with different gate
configurations. Most important from the application
point of view are graphene MOSFETs with a top-gate.
For proof-of-concept purposes, however, back-gate
graphene MOSFETs (where the oxidized Si wafer acts as
back-gate) have also been realized.
We start the discussion with MOSFETs having gapless
large-area graphene channels that so far constitute the
majority of experimental graphene devices. While due to
the missing switch-off these transistors are not suitable
for logic applications, they may be useful for RF
applications, and indeed significant efforts have been
spent on investigating and enhancing the RF
performance of these transistors. The first graphene
MOSFET with GHz capabilities has been reported in
December 2008 at IEDM [25]. It was a 500-nm gate
device showing a cutoff frequency fT of 14.7 GHz. It
should be noted that its small-signal current gain did not
roll-off with the typical slope of -20 dB/dec. Furthermore,
this transistor showed a poor saturation of the output
characteristics. Such an unsatisfying saturation behavior
is currently a problem of all graphene MOSFETs with
gapless large-area channels. In general, a FET needs to
be operated in current saturation to exploit the full speed
potential of its channel material [4]. During the 18
months since December 2008, the progress in graphene
RF MOSFETs has been breathtaking and the data we
will present in the following should be considered as a
snapshot showing the state-of-the-art in July 2010 only.
Figure 6 compares the cutoff frequency of experimental
graphene MOSFETs (all with gapless large-area
graphene channels) with the best fT values reported for
other types of RF FETs: InP HEMTs, GaAs mHEMTs, Si
MOSFETs, GaAs pHEMTs. So far, the fastest (in terms
of fT) graphene transistors are a 240-nm gate graphene
MOSFET showing an fT of 100 GHz and a transistor
with an fT of 53 GHz and a 550-nm gate [6].
Figure 4. Cutoff frequency vs. gate length for different RF FET
types. The symbols indicate experimental data compiled from
the literature [26] and the lines are a guide for the eye. Red
open circles: GaAs mHEMTs and InP HEMTs; blue full circles:
Si MOSFETs; green triangles: GaAs pHEMTs; stars: graphene
MOSFETs [6, 27-29].
The reported record fT data for the competing RF FET
types are as follows: 660 GHz for a 20-nm gate GaAs
mHEMT [30], 628 GHz for a 30-nm gate InP HEMT
[31], 485 GHz for a 29-nm gate Si MOSFET [32], and
152 GHz for a 100-nm gate GaAs pHEMT [33]. For
comparison, the fastest carbon nanotube MOSFET
reported so far has a 300-nm gate and shows an fT of 80
GHz [34]. As can be seen from Fig. 6, in terms of cutoff
frequency the best graphene MOSFETs already
outperform the fastest Si MOSFETs with comparable
gate length and aggressively attack the GaAs pHEMTs.
Compared to the large amount of reported fT data for
graphene MOSFETs, much less information on the
maximum frequency of oscillation fmax has been
published so far. Currently the record fmax for graphene
MOSFETs is 14 GHz [6]. So far, no data on the RF noise
performance of graphene transistors is available. In any
case, further improvements in the RF performance of
graphene MOSFETs can be expected in the nearest
future.
GNR back-gate MOSFETs with narrow semiconducting
channels (width down to less than 5 nm) have been
reported [12, 35]. These transistors showed excellent
switch-off and on-off ratios up to 106. Recently also the
first GNR MOSFET with top-gate has been
demonstrated [36]. The on-off ratio of this transistor
(around 70) significantly exceeds the on-off ratios of
MOSFETs with large-area graphene channels (typically
2…20) but is still too low for logic application where
on-off ratios of 104 to 107 are required [37]. The GNR
channel of this transistor was about 10-20 nm wide and
apparently did not offer a bandgap wide enough to
sufficiently suppress the off-current. However, a by
further reduction of the ribbon width we can expect
much better on-off ratios of top-gated GNR MOSFETs
in the near future. So far, experimental data on the
dynamic behavior (e.g., on the cutoff frequency or the
switching delay) of GNR MOSFETs is not available.
The graphene transistor discussed so far are based on the
conventional MOSFET principle, i.e., controlling the
carrier concentration and thus the channel conductivity
by the applied gate voltage. In spite of the impressing
performance obtained with experimental devices, these
"conventional" graphene MOSFETs suffer from several
fundamental problems. Some of these are: (i) the loss of
mobility in narrow GNRs, (ii) the need of extremely
narrow GNRs (only a very few nm wide) to open a gap
useful for switch-off, (iii) the unsatisfying drain current
saturation of graphene MOSFETs with large-area
graphene channels. This has motivated research on novel
graphene-based FET concepts. Two examples, that have
already gathered considerable attention in the device
community, are the graphene tunnel FET [38] and the
graphene BiSFET (Bilayer PseudoSpin FET) [39].
Although these two transistor concepts are still at an
embryonic stage, they already found their way into the
Emerging Research Devices section of the most recent
issue of the ITRS [37].
4. Conclusion
During the past two years, we have witnessed huge
progress in the development of graphene transistors.
Most impressing was the demonstration of a 100 GHz fT
graphene MOSFETs and of the excellent switching
behavior of MOSFETs with narrow GNR channels.
Currently it seems that, regarding logic applications, the
biggest advantage of graphene MOSFETs may not be, as
frequently stated, the high mobility but rather the
ultimately thin channel and the resulting ultra-short scale
length.
Experiences from the past have shown that RF
chipmakers are more open to novel device and material
concepts than chipmakers in mainstream VLSI
electronics. Therefore, graphene might make its first
appearance in RF applications rather than in logic
circuits [4].
When assessing the prospects of graphene in electronics,
it is important to recognize that all other options
considered as possible successors of the conventional
mainstream transistors also face serious problems.
Concepts that have been investigated already for many
years, such as spin transistors or molecular devices, seem
to be farther from applications than graphene transistors,
and it is not clear if they will ever reach the production
stage. At the moment it is impossible to assess which of
the alternative device concepts, if any, has the potential
to replace Si MOSFETs and III-V HEMTs. The race is
still open and the chances for electronic graphene
devices are at least as promising as those of other device
concepts. The commercialization of graphene-based
devices and ICs in the near future, however, is not likely.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the 2008-2009
Excellence Research Grant of TU Ilmenau.
References
[1] K. S. Novoselov et al., Science, 306, p. 666 (2004).
[2] A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Mater., 6,
p. 183 (2007).
[3] A. K. Geim, Science, 324, p. 1530 (2009).
[4] F. Schwierz, Nature Nanotech., 5, p. 487 (2010).
[5] J. Kedzierski et al., IEEE Electron Device Lett., 30,
p. 745 (2009).
[6] Y.-M. Lin et al., Science, 327, p. 662 (2010).
[7] J. Kedzierski et al., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,
55, p. 2078 (2008).
[8] J.-H. Chen et al., Nature Nanotech., 3, p. 206
(2008).
[9] F. Chen et al., Nano Lett., 9, p. 2571 (2009).
[10] S. V. Morozov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, p. 016602
(2008).
[11] M. Han et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, p. 206805
(2007).
[12] X. Li et al., Science, 319, p. 1229 (2008).
[13] E. V. Castro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, p. 216802
(2007).
[14] L. Yang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, p. 186801
(2007).
[15] B. Obradovic et al., Appl. Phys. Lett., 88, p. 142102
(2006).
[16] X. Zhou et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 95, p. 146805
(2005).
[17]V. Perebeinos, J. Tersoff, and Ph. Avouris, Phys. Rev.
Lett., 94, p. 0786802 (2005).
[18]G. Pennington and N. Goldsman, Phys. Rev. B, 71, p.
205318 (2005).
[19] T. Fang et al., Phys. Rev. B, 78, p. 205403, 2008.
[20] A. Akturk and N. Goldsman, J. Appl. Phys., 103, p.
053702 (2008).
[21]R. S. Shishir and D. K. Ferry, J. Phys.: Cond. Matter,
21, p. 344201 (2009).
[22] Y. Taur and T. H. Ning, Fundamentals of Modern
VLSI Devices, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (1998).
[23] F. Schwierz, H. Wong, and J. J. Liou, Nanometer
CMOS, Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore (2010).
[24] D. J. Frank, Y. Taur, and H.-S. P. Wong, IEEE
Electron Device Lett., 19, p. 385 (1998).
[25] I. Meric et al., Tech. Dig. IEDM, p. 21.2 (2008).
[26] F. Schwierz, Microwave Transistors: State of the art
in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s – A compilation of
1000 top references, unpublished (2010).
[27] Y.-M. Lin et al., IEEE Electron Device Lett., 31, p.
68 (2010).
[28] D. B. Farmer et al., Nano Lett., 9, p. 4474 (2009).
[29] J. S. Moon et al., IEEE Electron Device Lett., 30, p.
650 (2009).
[30] M. Schlechtweg, Private communication (2010).
[31] D.-H. Kim and J. A. del Alamo, IEEE Electron
Device Lett., 29, p. 830 (2008).
[32] S. Lee et al., Tech. Dig. IEDM, p. 255 (2007).
[33] L. D. Nguyen et al., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,
36, p. 2243 (1989).
[34] L. Nougaret et al., Appl. Phys. Lett., 94, p. 243505
(2009).
[35] X. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 100, p. 206803
(2008).
[36] L. Liao et al., Nano Lett., 10, p. 1917 (2010).
[37] The International Technology Roadmap for
Semiconductors ITRS, Semiconductor Industry
Association (2009).
[38] G. Iannoccone et al., Tech. Dig. IEDM, p. 245
(2009).
[39] S. K. Banerjee, et al., IEEE Electron Device Lett.,
30, p. 158 (2009).