Equivalent oxide thickness (EOT)

Engineering track

In plain words

A way of comparing : the thickness of plain silicon dioxide that would do the same job. A smaller number means the gate controls the more strongly.

Going deeper

Left: 1 nm of silicon dioxide next to 5 nm of a dielectric with κ = 20; both give the same gate capacitance, so the second has an equivalent oxide thickness of about 1 nm, following EOT = physical thickness × 3.9 / κ. Right: why a small EOT matters, and the difficulty of growing thin oxides on a surface with no dangling bonds. two insulators, the same grip 1 nm of SiO₂ κ = 3.9 5 nm of a κ = 20 oxide EOT ≈ 1 nm EOT = physical thickness × 3.9 / κ a thicker layer of a stronger dielectric grips the channel as well, while electrons find it harder to tunnel through – the same control, with less leakage why a small number matters the gate holds the channel through its capacitance, which goes as 1/EOT – so a smaller EOT means a steeper switch and a shorter channel that is still controlled for a 2D channel there is a catch oxides do not nucleate on a surface without dangling bonds, so thin, pinhole-free layers are hard to grow directly; seeds, buffers and crystalline fluorides are all being tried quoting EOT without the leakage current at a stated voltage says only half of it
Equivalent oxide thickness restates any gate insulator as the thickness of plain silicon dioxide that would give the same capacitance. A physically thicker layer of a stronger dielectric can grip the channel just as firmly while leaking far less – which is why the number, not the thickness, is what gets quoted.

One number for very different stacks

A gate controls a channel through its capacitance per unit area, which for a simple is κε0 divided by the thickness. Two insulators with the same ratio of κ to thickness therefore give the same control, however different they are. EOT expresses that by rescaling to silicon dioxide: EOT = physical thickness × 3.9/κ. Five nanometres of a κ = 20 oxide has an EOT of about one nanometre.

The practical gain is leakage. Tunnelling through an insulator falls exponentially with physical thickness, so the thicker high-κ layer passes far less current for the same electrostatic control – the reason hafnium-based oxides replaced silicon dioxide in silicon technology in the late 2000s.

Why 2D channels make it hard

Growing a thin, uniform oxide on a is difficult precisely because its surface is inert. relies on reactive sites, and a pristine basal plane has none, so films nucleate in islands and leave pinholes until they are thick – which defeats the purpose. The workarounds all have costs: seeding with a metal that is then oxidised, functionalising the surface, depositing a buffer that adds to the EOT, or using a native oxide of another 2D crystal.

Crystalline insulators are an alternative: hBN is clean but has a modest κ of about 4, so it buys little; crystalline fluorides such as CaF2 have been grown on 2D channels with the aim of combining a clean interface with a thin equivalent thickness.

Reading the number

EOT is a capacitance restated, so it depends on how the capacitance was measured – frequency, area, fringing fields and the correction for quantum capacitance in a thin channel all matter, and small devices are hard to measure at all. An EOT quoted without the leakage current density at a stated voltage is half a result, because the trade-off between the two is the whole point.

Interface quality matters as much as thickness. Traps at the interface store charge, cause and degrade the subthreshold slope, so a stack with a slightly larger EOT and a clean interface often makes a better transistor than a thinner one with a poor one.

For specialists

The SiO2 thickness that would give the same gate capacitance as the actual dielectric stack.

Where this comes from

  1. Ultrathin calcium fluoride insulators for two-dimensional field-effect transistors Illarionov et al. · Nature Electronics 2, 230 (2019) cited by 326