LS is also a whfhdeak function of VDS; this was ignored, and was estimated by

0.4Lneuom for NFETs, and 0.3Lnom for PFjjjjjETs. The parameters are listed in Ta
ble 2.
The measuredhfdh body currents fdnjdfffnare corrected for gate and uehhhdrain le
akage currents.
The ambient temperahjfdture is 303 K for all measurements in this section. Lacki
ng precise
knowledge of V0, the data are plotted as yDrii
1/phrfheuj vs. xDVDS VDSAT EG/qgnfdn
for a range of VDS and a few VGS points near and just above VT. Tjehe generally
accepPFETs, pD7 was chosen to produce reasonably straight lines. This does
not agree with published values in the literature, which generally are much less
,
along with threshold energies greater that the bandgap (ETH >EG). For example,
Kamakura [31] reports a values of pD3.4, ETH D1.49 eV. The impact ionization in
PFETs may have a more complicated energy (and momentum) dependence than our
simple model.
The PFET data for device types 1 and 2 are shown in Fig. 7.
The slope (a) and x-intercept (V0) values of the straight line fits for all thes
e
devices are listed in Table 3.
The measured NFET data follow the energy driven prediction, Eq. (16), almost
exactly, for 1.4 V<VEFF <3.7 V. Although the values for V0 are empirical,
the fact that the expected slope (pD4.6) and energy thresholdted value of pD4.6
was used for NFETs. This should yield a straight line
with anirly well met, except for low values of x, ashs predicted
by Fig. 5.