banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Impact of interfacial roughness on tunneling conductance and extracted barrier parameters
Rent this article for
View: Figures


Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(Color online) Bias dependence of normalized tunneling conductance, calculated for , , and of 5%–20% of in steps of 2.5% (blue points), and single-thickness conductance for in steps (solid green lines).

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(Color online) Gaussian weighting coefficients used to simulate roughness (thick line), and tunneling probability (dashed line) as functions of barrier thickness with and . The contribution of each thickness to is given by (thin solid line, normalized). The thickness inferred from conductance measurements is the mean of the thin curve, which differs from by .

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(Color online) Best fit single thickness (a) and height (b) using the BDR model to fit vs in as a function of with for various (in percent of ).

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(Color online) (a) parameter space from fitting with the full BDR model in a bias range of : white, blue, and orange filled contours represent , , and . The solid lines indicate 20% confidence intervals (CI). was calculated using , and . (b) Parameter space area for and decreases with increasing bias range used for fitting. 20% CI for (c) , and (d) as functions of the bias range used for fitting; CI fluctuations are due to using discrete and in the calculations.


Article metrics loading...


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Impact of interfacial roughness on tunneling conductance and extracted barrier parameters