J. Phys. Chem. Solids Pergamon Press 1962. Vol. 23, pp. 1177-1190. Printed in Great Britain.

VOLT-CURRENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TUNNELING

THROUGH INSULATING FILMS
R. STRATTON
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Dallas 22, Texas

(Receiwed 5 March 1962)

Abstract-Previous theory is extended by including the temperature dependence and image force
correction and by a careful consideration of the electron energy ranges which give the main contri-
bution to the tunnel current. The effects on the volt-current characteristic of a non-parabolic energy
momentum relation in the insulator, and a conduction-band-edge effective electron mass in the
insulator which differs from that in the outer metal layers, have both been derived. The published
experimental dependence of the tunnel current on voltage and temperature, for Al-AlsOs-Al sand-
wiches, is in reasonable agreement with the theory if the effective electron mass in the insulator is
about a quarter of the free electron mass and the metal-insulator work function, for a 48 A thick
film, is about 1-l eV. Contrary to previous theory, it is predicted that the deviations (by about five
per cent) from the zero temperature and zero bias ohmic resistance will occur for temperatures in
excess of about 150°K and voltages in excess of about 0.1 V.

1. INTRODUCTION probability for electrons whose “~-directed”

TIME TUNNELING of electrons through insulating
films between metals (thin film sandwich) was
first considered by FRENKEL(~) in 1930. He de-
rived approximate results for the linear (i.e. ohmic)
and quadratic voltage terms in the volt-current
characteristic at the absolute zero temperature (T).
The calculation involved a rectangular potential
barrier for the insulating gap and the usual para-
bolic energy-momentum relation for free electrons
using the free electron mass in both the metals and
the insulator. BETIJE,t2) and later HOLM and
KIRSTEIN,(~) improved the calculation for the ohmic
resistance (at T = 0) by including the effect of
image forces in the barrier region. For sufficiently
large applied voltages, the current density is given
by the FOWLER-NORDHEIM(~) equation for field
emission from metals which has recently been
extended to non-zero temperatures by MURPHY
and GOOD@) and others. (Field emission from
metals has recently been reviewed by GOOD and
M~LLER).~)
HoLM(~) has presented a calculation of the
volt-current characteristic for intermediate volt-
ages. He assumes a rectangular potential barrier
at V = 0 which becomes a trapezoid for non-zero
applied voltages V. However, inspection of his
equations (5) and (15) reveals that the tunneling
3u
energy Ez is more than V below the peak of the
barrier is actually calculated for a rectangular
potential barrier whose height is +V less than the
height at zero applied potential. The effect of the
image force correction is taken care of by an inter-
polation scheme which leads to a smooth join
from the low voltage ohmic region to the field
emission region. There are further approximations
whose accuracy is difficult to assess.
The basic tunneling equations are stated and
discussed in the next Section. The derivation of
the volt-current characteristic for an arbitrary
barrier shape and temperature is presented in
Section 3, still keeping to the parabolic energy
momentum relation and equal electron masses
assumed in all previous work. Detailed results are
presented for triangular, rectangular and parabolic
barrier shapes; the last being a close approximation
to a very thin image force barrier.(s)
In Section 4 experimental volt-current charac-
teristics for Al-AlsOs-Al sandwiches, measured
at various temperatures, are compared with the
simple theory of Section 3. The agreement is
generally good except for some discrepancy be-
tween one of the derived parameters and the
theoretical prediction. The tunneling volt-current
characteristic for the case of an effective electron
1177
1178 R. STRATTON

mass in the insulator which differs from that in the values of x for whichp, = 0, and
the metals is derived in Section 5. Here the effect
of a non-parabolic energy-momentum relation in Pf = P;+P,2 13)
the forbidden gap of the insulator through which
3. TUNNJ2LING VOLT-CURRENT CHARACTER-
the electron tunnels is also considered.
ISTICS (FREE ELECTRON MASS)
For parabolic ener~-momentum relations with
2. BASIC TUNNELING EQUATIONS
the free electron mass m, in each of the three
PRICE and RADCLIFFE@) have shown that the
regions equations (1) and (2) reduce to h
current density in the x-direction due to electron
tunneling from a conducting region 1 to a con-
ducting region 2, through the forbidden energy gap
of an insulator or semiconductor, is given by
0 0

where

ln P(&) = -a 4(+&q/2 d.%

Here 9 is the charge on the electron, E is the
electron energy,* fr(E) and fg(.E) are the Fermi
Dirac dist~bution functions in the two conducting
regions, p, and p, are the quasi-electron momen-
tum components normal to the direction of the
current flow, and P(E, p,, pz) is the ratio of the
transmitted to the incident current or transition
probability. The upper limits on the integrations
over p, and p, can be determined from the con-
dition that these quantities and the electron energy
are conserved during the (direct) transition.
Equation (1) holds for an arbitrary dependence of
electron energy on momentum in each of the three
regions and applies equally well for a thin film
sandwich or a p-n junction tunnel diode.@? 9) (In
the derivation of equation (1) an integration over
p, is replaced by one over E because of the
velocity factor aE/ap,). Although PRICE and
~DCLIFFE(*) discuss the problem of deriving the
quantity P in great detail they do not give any
explicit results. By a more elementary argument,
using the W.K.B. approximation, HARRISON(Q) has
also derived equation (1) and gives the simple
formula
x1 XL
(2)
where xl and x2 are the classical turning points, i.e.
X1
E;: = pz,/Zm, a = ~2~)1/2/~ = 1*025 eV-r/‘J A-1,
(5)
4(x) is the barrier potential energy and p,l is the
quasi momentum, normal to the barrier, in metal 1.
This is essentially the form in which the equations
were first used to study tunneling by FRENKEL.(~
3.1 Arbitrary potential barrier
First, equations (4) and (5) will be brought into
a more useful form by making certain simplifying
assumptions without, however, specifying the
form of the potential barrier. In Section 3.2 simple
specific barrier shapes will be assumed which lead
to analytical forms of the volt-current character-
istic.
If a voltage is applied across the sandwich so
that metal 2 is lowered in energy by an amount V
with respect to metal 1 (c.f. Fig. 1)
#I(~) = M+ T/(3clL) (6)
where L is gap width and #O(X) is the equilibrium
barrier potential. The suffix 1 denotes a net elec-
tron current from metal 1 to metal 2. It will now
be provisionally assumed that the current flow is
predominantly due to electrons whose Ezl values
are close to the Fermi energy cr. Then the integral
in equation (S) can be expanded with respect to

* Unless otherwise stated all energies are measured G = 51--J% (7)

with reference to the bottom of the conduction band in
conductor 1. (Similar expansions have already been used to
VOLT-CURRENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TUNNELING THROUGH INSULA’I ‘ING FILMS 1179

-L _ CONDUCTION BAND
\~

XI i E. (P.)

FXG. 1. Electron energy diagram for a metal-insulator-metal sandwich.

The quantity I&(@,) is equal to EI + +(Jc) in the free electron mass
model and the higher energy solution of equations (61) or (62) for
non parabok energy bands. The length of the tunneling path
&-x1) is determined by the condition E&J = E+(p) and will in-
crease, for a given p, as p, increases. +(x) represents the conduction
band edge and differs from the dash-dot curve due to the image force
correction.

calculate field emission currents from metals@)

and semiconductors.( Thus, carrying out a
Taylor expansion,

ln P(E,) = -[m-clc%+_fi~~+ .a.]

where (c.f. Appendix 1)

$11
bl = d! (q&-51)1/2 dr (9)
s
%I

are all functions of V which can be computed for

a given #a(,> and the limits ~11 and 321 are the
(10)
values of x for which +&v) = 51. Following Murphy
and Good it can be shown that the quadratic and
higher order terms in equation (8) can be neglected
if
1 -c&T > kT(2f#/2 (124
 1180 R. STRATTON

There is a further condition due to the use of the expanding bl and cl as power series in V yields
W.K.B. approximation for calculating I’(&)
bl = blo-bllV-i&v~ (17)
[equation (S)]. Again following MURPHY and
GOOD,(~)we can write this in the form Cl = c10- c11V+crsP (18)
(f~-[l-kT(l-clkT)-f > R, P(Q) = e-1 (12b) on taking negative signs in front of the linear terms
for convenience. In Section 3.2 it will be shown,
where & is the maximum value of $1(x). [This is
by special examples, that subsequent coefficients
a slight generalization of the argument used by
in these expansions differ from preceding ones by
MURPHY and G00D(5f to derive their equation
a factor of order (l/x) where x is the barrier height,
@I).] In practice this condition merely limits the
above the Fermi level, at zero bias. Thus if cl0 is
applied voltage to a value just less than that
considerably greater than unity (as is the case for
leading to & = {I and also requires clkT to be
the examples treated in Section 4), cl can be re-
less than about one.
placed by cl0 in the exponent of the exponential
Integrating by parts in equation (4) leads to the
term since it would already be negligibly small
familiar form
compared to one for values of V that gave appreci-
4mnkT m able contributions to cl from terms other than the
j==4 - k3 %%J first. Under this condition, it is also reasonably
s accurate to replace cl by ~1s in the other terms
0
since the factor exp( -blV) will dominate the

1
f. + exp{(ti - &J/k T) voltage dependence of j. Thus, to terms of order
x in (13) V2 in b,
l~e~{(~l-~~-~)~kT~ m&T
‘Z=*
[exp(knV-klzl?l
Here the factor multiplying P(E& which has been ’ ‘JO sir&i&T)
called the supply function, represents the differ-
ence between the number of electrons per second
x (1 -exp[-cl0VJ) w
if
per unit area, having (x-directed) energy in the
range E, to Ez+dEo, incident on opposite sides cloX$l, klsV31
of the barrier. Inserting the value of P(&) from and where
equation (8) and carrying out the integration (c.f. .&a = A exp(-ho)(~wW-~ (W
Ref. 5) then leads to
is a constant (N-B. A is proportional to T2).
._ A exp( - bl) mlkT For barriers which are symmetrical with respect
’ - (c~kT)2 sin(~~~kT) (l-ex”-c’VI) (14) to the centre of the gap [x = &).&I equation (19)
can be even further simplified. Since, from
where equations (6) and (9),

A = 4mzp(kT)*/k3 = 120 T2 amp cm-2 (15)

Thus, at a given voltage the temperature depend-

ence of the current density is given by
it follows that
i(T) mlkT
-= + l+$ (mlkT)% ... (16)

s
X*1
i(0) sin(?rclkT)

The specific volt-current characteristic for a

bzl= G {q&v-&)-1/2x dx
X11
given barrier potential ~$0requires the evaluation
of br and cl as functions of Y from equations (9)
and (10). It is however possible to develop =** (X-V&L) 1
equation (14) further for small applied voltages
f (+o-51)1/2 IdA!= ;"'"
without specifying the barrier shape. Thus, XII
(22)
VOLT-CURRENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TUNNELING THROUGH INSULATING FILMS 1181

(The last integral is zero by symmetry.) Thus, for where the image force correction is
symmetrical barriers

rclOk T
j kj0 exp( -blsVs) 2 sinh
sin(rcmkT)
For asymmetrical barriers, bls = bss and cl0 =
css but bll # bsr, nor will any other pair of co-
efficients be equal in general. In fact, it can be is GAUSS'S p.s.i. function. The quantity K (omitted
shown that equation (22) is generalized to
h+b21 = Cl0
(22')
To consider the low-voltage ohmic region in
more detail, we expand the current density given
by equation (19) as a power series in V. Then
j/V = G(T)[l+ V(~I-BQO)
+ ~2(8~~,-~h1a0+~ C;o-b12)...]
where
G(T) = jloc&clokT/sin(?rclokT)]
is the zero-bias conductance. Thus the coefficients
of the linear terms for voltages applied in opposite
directions are equal but of opposite sign. For a
symmetric barrier the coefficient of the linear
term on the right-hand side of equation (24)
disappears, while that of the quadratic term be-
comes equal to (+)k2,, (neglecting 61s in com-
parison). However, here we must be more careful
and consider the effect of putting cl equal to crs in
equation (14). Inclusion of the linear term in the
expansion of cl [equation (18)] leads to an addi-
tional linear term
and
(23)
$(z) = d ln(z)!/dz (29)
in Ref. 2) is the appropriate high frequency di-
electric constant of the insulator; it will be set
equal to the square of the refractive index.
Evaluation of the various integrals in the pre-
vious section with this expression for 4 would
require a considerable computer program. We
have instead chosen to evaluate the volt-current
characteristic for three simple barrier profiles.
Our reasons for this are :
(a) The potential near the metal surfaces will
(24)
not be correctly given by equations (27) and (28)
in any case.
(25) (b) The use of a parabolic energy band in the
gap region makes a detailed computer solution of
doubtful value for application to thin film sand-
wiches, especially in view of (c) below.
(c) The main features of the volt-current
characteristic can be seen for the simple barrier
models and good agreement with presently avail-
able experimental results has been obtained.
The function &(x) has a maximum at x = +L
given by
ML) = -(n2/KL) ln 2 (30)
First &(x) will be replaced by the parabolic form

da&) = -(n2/KL) ln2-8[(x/L)-912 (31)

which has the same maximum as $a(~) and with B

determined by the condition that the tunneling
on the right-hand side of equation (24). For a non-
distance for electrons at the Fermi level (~cls-xn)
symmetrical barrier (when bn = (&lo) this term
is the same for both the parabolic barrier and the
is small since c&10 w 0(1/X) while c&t > 1.
image force barrier given by equations (27) and
(28). Using the asymptotic forms of&(x) near the
3.2 Special potential barriers
surfaces of the metals, it can be shown that
BETIIE(2)has shown that inclusion of the image
force leads to the expression (as-xn)/L + 7+/s + 2($./@1/2 (32)
or
+. = ll + Xl[l - (x/L)1 + X2(x/L) +di(x) (27)
8 + 4x,/r] (33)
1182 R. STRATTON

where KIRsTEINt3) was restricted to finding an expression

111’2 = [l -(@/4JcL)(x;1+x;1)] (34) for the zero-bias conductance G(T) at the absolute
zero of temperature. From equation (25)
X, = 4 (X,+&J)-(~~/KL) h 2 (35)
and
G(0) = A(sokT)-2~l~ exp( - bm) (41)
q2/‘&LK, q2/‘+x,LK, ~+~2~&‘-x~(/x, < 1

(N.B. q2 = 14.4 eV A so that all the inequalities By changing to our notation (using Table 1) it will
are very reasonable.) be seen that the expression for G(0) of HOLM and
Substituting this simplified image force barrier KIRSTEIN~ differs from equation (39) by having
potential [equations (27) and (31)] into equation the additional factor 2[1 +(l/claXr)]. The factor 2
(5) gives (c.f. equation (6)) arises because they calculated 0 from an equation
similar to equation (28) but evaluated as a function
-In P(E,) = naL[( V+ X1- X$ of Es, not just at the Fermi level. This implies a
change in the shape of the barrier with changing
+4e(x,+ c,-gv)y8e3~2 (36) electron energy. The quantity cn~Xr in the other
Thus
factor is usually very much greater than one.
blo = mtL[(X1 - X2)2+ 4&,]/803/2
BET&S(~) earlier result is actually very similar;
bll = ~a@ - (x, - &)]/‘t83/2 it differs from ours by the factor 2(X~/Xr)l’~ which
(37) arises partly because of a different method of
612 = mL/8tW
evaluating the pre-exponential coefficient.
Cl0 = 7raL/2lw Next we replace &(x) by the triangular form
and all other coefficients are zero. Thus equation &b(x) = -(q2/KL) ln 2-E[x-&LI (42)
(19) is not restricted to small values of I’ for a
parabolic barrier. The rectification ratio is given and consider symmetrical barriers only for the rest
bY (V > 0) of this section; the extension to asymmetric
barriers is obvious. The coefficient F is determined
1J$$- / =exp [“zL(:i2x2)“] (38)
similarly to 0 by equating tunneling paths [c.f.
equation (33)]. Thus

which is greater than one if X1 > Xs. F = 2X,/L7+/2 (43)

The explicit values of the coefficients can be aF
obtained by inserting the value for 0 into equation lnP(E,) = -4 (X,-gv+%zp (44)
(37). The results for a symmetrical barrier (X1 = 3 [F2- (V/L)21
so that
Xs = X) are given in Table 1.
It can easily be shown by arguments similar to b = 3 ~r~(+W3[1- (v/zx,)pyi - y(v/2~,)s]-1
that used in Ref. 10 that conditions (12) will be
satisfied if c = aL(~/X,)l/2[1 - (v/2x,)]t/s
&raL(q/X#/2kT < 1 (39) x [l - T( V/2X,)2]-1 (45)
v < Xr(4Ml +(I -?Y21 (40) f = $aL(+/2/X;/2)[1 - (V/2Xr)]-11s
The analysis of BEG and of HOLM and x [l - q( V/2Xr)2]-1

Table 1. (cl0 = 2611)

Shape blo[~L(X#~l-’ b11[aL(q/&)“‘F blz[aLq1fi/X,3f2]-1

Parabolic fr (l/64) *l)

Triangular 213 (l’s: = (3 + 87)/48
Rectangular 1 f -(l +q112)/48
_
VOLT-CURRENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TUNNELING THROUGH INSULATING FILMS 1183

Since (2f)l’s/c is equal to (3br)-1’2, which is always inequality (12a) requires

small, inequality (12a) will be satisfied if
+L KT(+,)1Ia < 1 (52)
aL(~/X,)WzT < 1 (46)
neglecting the term involving (-2f )I/3since
It can further be shown that condition (12b) will (-2f)1/3/c is approximately equal to b-112 which
be satisfied if is large. As V increases, however, (-f) increases

v-C2x?. [l-(2:;;;,2)](47) and the (-2f)1/3term will predominate. Then

we require

(The second term in the square brackets is usually (5)” (1-g;) > F (53)
negligible compared to unity.)
Expanding b as a power series in V leads to the Since the quantity on the right-hand side is very
values of the coefficients listed in Table 1. much less than one, this inequality essentially
Finally replacing +6(x) by the rectangular form limits V to a value slightly less than Xr.
For V in excess of Xr the last term in each
d&) = -(q2/xL) ln 2 Xl < x < xs (48) equation (50) and (51) is deleted. The limit on V
+--co x = Xl, x = xs is then given by inequality (12b) which leads to
where (V/L) < 8 aX$/2 (54)
Xl/L k l-(X& k fj2/4KLX
< 1 (49)
The expression for j then has the familiar form for
In the more usual form(T) of this approximation field emission from metals@) with neglect of the
x1 = 0 and xs = L. We have identified x1 and xs image force and with x1 = 0.
with the turning values given by the image-force In Table 1 the coefficients of the leading powers
barrier so that the results can readily be compared of V in the expansion of b have again been listed.
with those for the previous two simplified barrier In summary, equation (23) represents the volt-
shapes. Substituting into equation (5) and carrying current characteristic for the three simple barrier
out the integration leads to shapes with the coefficients, listed in Table I,
differing only by numerical factors. The equation
vxl 313 is only applicable to the triangular or the rectang-
-In P(E,) = f $ X,+C~-~
ular barrier if cubic and higher order terms in the
[i >
expansion of b may be neglected. For the p.arabolic
barrier, however, the voltage is not limited by this
requirement since b13 and the higher coefficients
are all zero. Considerable differences in the shapes
the last term being deleted when V > (XT+ of the volt-current characteristic for the various
l%)L/xs. Thus, using equation (8), and expanding barriers arise when V 2 X,.
BETHE'S replacement of the image force

bl = ;; [ (&._!y? (x#.+y2] barrier shape by a parabola is only a reasonable

approximation for very thin barriers which satisfy
2XKL/p2M XKL/7 M O(1) with X in eV and L in
Cl =
f [(x,- y2_ (xr-qy2] A. For thicker barriers (such as those considered
in the next section), image force effects will be
relatively unimportant and the barrier shape will

fl =
$[ (+ !$)-“‘_ (xr-!y2] be approximately rectangular unless there are
appreciable space charges in the insulator.

The conditions (12) for the expansion will now 4. COMF'ARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL
be considered separately for small (V < X,)and REsuLTs
large [V M 0(X,)]voltages. For small voltages, It will now be shown that the theoretical volt-
1184 R. STRATTON

current characteristic [equation (23)] can be fitted
to existing experimental data on Al-AlsO~Al thin
film sandwiches by a suitable choice of the co-
efficients bla, blr (= &la) and brs.
The experimental points in Fig. 2 were obtained
by FISHER and GIAVER(~~) (their film 1 in Fig. 2) at
room temperature for a film 48 h thick. By plotting
line in the inset in Fig. 2. The two points are the
experimental values taken from FISHER and
GIAVER’S paper and are in remarkably good agree-
ment with the theoretical values. From the value
ofja and brl we can deduce bra, using equation (20),
blo = 27.5

Using these experimental values it becomes

possible to deduce the parameters of the three
jo= barrier profiles considered in the previous section
and see whether any of them give good agreement.
h= From the values of bra and brl, Xr can be deduced
42= without further assumptions (c.f. Table 2). To
deduce X we require the thickness L which Fisher
_
and Giaver obtained from the capacity of the film
and which may thus be in error. (The value of
K was taken as 3-O.) With X determined, the values
of 610 and bll can only be made consistent by
choosing an electron mass m* (contained in a)
which differs from the free electron mass. This
conclusion, which depends critically on the mag-
nitude of L, has already been arrived at by Fisher
and Giaver on the basis of HOLM’~ theory.
Using the values of Xr, m*, L and 17a “theoretical”
value of bls can be deduced. This is compared
with the experimental value in the last column of
IO 20 3( Table 2.
MILLIVOLT It will be seen that for the most reasonable
I I I I L I
barrier shape (rectangular) the experimental value
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O-8 I.0 1.2 I.4
of brs has the wrong sign. Although the determina-
VOLT tion of bls from the experimental points is open to
considerable error we believe that this discrepancy
FIG. 2. Room temperature volt-current characteristics
is real. Since the coefficient brs depends sensitively
for an Al-AlzOs-Al sandwich. The experimental points
are taken from Fig. 1 of Ref. (11). (Only points for on barrier shape it may be that the factor 3.0
sample 1, with an estimated thickness of 48 A, have been would somewhat be increased for an image force
used; samples 2, 3, 4, and 5 carry currents which in- barrier which deviates from the rectangular barrier
crease approximately proportional to the increase of
in the direction of the parabolic barrier. A fun-
sandwich area.) The curves, which are theoretical,
correspond to equation (23) with the parameters given damental reason for the discrepancy may be the
in the Fig. inadequacy of the free electron mass model to
explain tunneling through insulators; this is dis-
cussed in the next section. However, there are
the slopes of the experimental curve in the expo- also effects of an experimental nature which may
nental region as a function of V it was found make the application of the theory problematical
possible to derive the coefficients in any case, e.g. patch effects, variable gap thick-
ness, local heating, etc.
ja = 1-O mA cm- a, 6r1 = 6.3 V-1, b12 = 1.1 ?‘-a
PIMBLEY(~) has measured the volt-current
The first two of these coefficients determine the characteristics of an Al-AlsOa-Al sandwich (of
zero-bias conductance G(T) which turns out to be unspecified area and thickness) at six temperatures
65 Cl-1 cm-a and is represented by the straight between liquid nitrogen and room temperatures.
VOLT-CURRENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TUNNELING THROUGH INSULATING FILMS 1185

Table 2. (L = 48 A)

Shape Xr ev XeV m*/m (&~aexp/biz)

Parabolic 2.0 2.1 0.22 3.0
Triangular 3.0 3.1 O-20 1.2
Rectangular 1.0 1.1 0.29 -1.1

.- --

The measurements were restricted to currents up T SK)

to 3mA and voltages up to about O-18 V, i.e. not far
beyond the ohmic region. We deduced the value
of q and J(0) at various values of I’ by iitting the
temperature dependence of J(T), the total current,
to equation (16) (using logrsJ( T) vs. logloT plots).
This gives

essentially independent of I’. Fig. 3, for the zero

bias conductance, shows the degree of fit that was
obtained. (The value of cl calculated actually in-
creased slightly from about 14.7 V-l at V < 70 mV
to about 15.2 for I/ = 160mV. However, this
small increase may be less than the accuracy of the
fitting procedure used.) The voltage dependence
of J(0) was in agreement with equation (19) for
the following values of the coefficients.
I I ’ 1.35
Jo = 91 pA, brl = 6.9 V-l, b12 = 2.3 V-2 I.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
LOGto T”(K)
as can be seen from Fig. 4. The discrepancy be-
tween the value of bll and @lo = 7.5 V-1 repre- FIG. 3. The dependence of zero bias conductance B(T)
on temperature for an Al-AlsOa-Al sandwich. The
sents some disagreement between the theory, for a
experimental points are taken from Ref. 13. The
symmetrical non-rectifying barrier, and experi- curve, which is theoretical, corresponds to equation (25)
ment. Since the area and thickness of the fiIm are with the parameters given in the Fig. (The area and thick-
not known, the parameters appropriate to the ness of the insulating film are not known.)
various barrier shapes cannot be derived.
If the effective mass in the gap region differs
5. UNEQUAL EFFECTIVE ELECTRON MASSES
from that in the metal, equation (4) will not apply
AND NON-PARABOLIC ENERGY 3ANBS
since the upper limits for the integration over p,
The assumption that the electrons have the free and p, are altered. From equation (2)
electron mass in the metal and barrier regions will
now be abandoned. First we keep to the parabolic 21
energy momentum relations but assume that the In P(&) = -a( (4 - E,)lP dx
f (55)
effective electron mass in the insulator (mr) differs
x1
from that in the metals (mC). Then the deviation
from the parabolic energy momentum relation in where
the forbidden gap of the insulator will be con- Es = E-E,, EL = P3h ai = q2mz)li2i~
sidered using the band structure proposed by (56)
FRANZ. Since p, is conserved during the transition, the
1186 R. STRATTON

025 I I I I I I I

0.20

0.15

"E
is
=s
010

0.05

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

v, mv
Fro. 4. Zero temperature volt-current characteristic for an
Al-AlsOa-AI sandwich. The “experimental points” represent the
currents at zero temperature obtained by fitting the measured
(Ref. 13) current temperature dependence at various voltages
with the theoretical prediction (equation 16). Tbe curve, which
is theoretical, corresponds to equation (19) with tbe parameters
given in the Fig.

__ limit on EL,
ufiper - for a given E,is which should be compared with equation (4).
Integrating by parts then leads to - . .
(nac/m)E= (1-G (57)
Thus, from equations (1) and (56),
4mn&T Q)
j=q- cW#W&--'yP(yEz)l
h3 s
0

i = q~~~~~-~~E~~ dEfJ-V&% (58) l+ex~(~l-E~)l~~~

x In (59)
0 YE 1+exp{(k-&+ VW”} I
VOLT-CURRENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TUNNELING THROUGH INSULATING FILMS 1187

which is similar to equation (13) for the vacuum From the last three equations it is easily seen that
gap except for the correction term involving Kane’s band structure degenerates to Franz’s
yP(yE%). If m, > m, y is negative and P(yE,) de- when m, < m. We have chosen Franz’s band
creases as E, increases from zero. Hence, the cor- structure rather than Kane’s for our calculation
rection term will involve the tunneling probability since this leads to known (elliptic) integrals.
for electrons from the bottom of the conduction Further, it can be shown that the two band
band in metal 1 and will be extremely small. Thus structures actually lead to identical values of
the effective masses deduced in the previous P(E,pypz) for p-n junction tunneling. This
section could correspond to rnf if m, > m_ strengthens our belief that Kane’s band structure
If mC < ml,and P(E,) is expanded in the form will not lead to results qualitatively different from
of equation (8) a treatment similar to that of those we calculate for Fanz’s.
Section 4 in Ref. (10) leads to Substituting for pa into equation (2) from
equation (61) leads to
exp( - by)
sin:ICtiT) (I- exp( - cl V G.
i = Ai [ (qkT)2
lnP= -ai [E, - (E- YVO+ (E- W%>11’2
dx
s
Y exp( -A) Xl
- - exp{ - rGV) . (65)
(roq sinIL:T) (’ I
(60) crz
= - E1’2 “~(EF#“(+-EI)‘/~ dx (66)
where b; and h are defined similarly to bl and cl g’ z1
[equations (9) and (lo)] except that the barrier
where El and Ea (Es > El) are the roots of the
height is increased by (l-y&. The correction
quadratic equation
term becomes appreciable when y is close to one
or (m,/mi) is much less than one. +(2E+E,#+(E2+EEg--EEJ = 0 (67)
Next, instead of assuming a parabolic energy
momentum relation for the insulator, we will use for c#. The turning values x1 and xa are the roots of
the empirical relation proposed by FRANZ the equation C/J(X)= El.* [N.B.: If Eg $ E,,
El --f E-El and Es + E+ Eg so that equation
p2/2ml: = (E-W + (E- W%I (61) (66) degenerates to equation (55) for a parabolic
band as expected.]
where Eg is the width of the forbidden energy gap
As an example we now consider the parabolic
and C$now represents the bottom of the conduction
potential barrier given by equations (6) (27) and
band for the insulator. This equation yields a
(31). Then equation (66) can be rewritten in the
parabolic energy-momentum dependence near the
form
bottom of the conduction band and the top of the
valence band with both the hole and electron mass
equal to rnf. Franz’s empirical band structure is
closely related to the band structure that ICANE
lnP=
2cqL
-- E1,2
s
;z;+zs)“s(zf -es) dz (68)
g 0
derived for InSb which can be written as
where

.z = (4L)+4(V+x1-x2)/8-~
1+ (69)

(62) $ = (An--El)/4 ~"2 = (E2-+m)/B (70)

(llmr) = (llmz-)+(llmr+) (63) and
if the spin orbit splitting is neglected. Here, %_ +m = x,+t;-gv+a(v+xl-x2>2/e (71)
and ms+ are the electron and hole masses in the * For a p-n junction the turning values satisfy
vicinity of the band edges; they satisfy the relation +(x1) = El and +(~a) = E2. This leads to a far simpler
integral and is also reason why the analogous calculation
(2/m) = (M+)-(Umz-) (64) using KANE’S band structure yields the same result.
 1188 R. STRATTON

is the maximum value of $. The integral can be Furthermore, the supply function for the lower
evaluated in terms of elliptic integrals and [using energy electrons will be greater. However, it
equation (67)] seems most likely that Xr/Eg will be considerably
4EL 314
In P = -;$sE$? l-l”---- k%(k) (72) I
i Eg )
where

c(k) = & [(l-ks)K-(l-Zks)E]

r

= l-8 kz+O(k*) (73) 0.5

@ -= 4
z
(Ilm-E-Wg
+A (74)
2;+22, E,[l f (4EL/Eg)]1’2 2

By di~erentiating the right-hand side of equation

(72) it can be shown that P decreases monotonically
as EL increases for a fixed value of E so that only 0
small values of EL need be considered. By carrying
out the expansion we then have

InP = -:%:(9,-E)a(k)

EL ET -045
x l+O -, (7%
[ ( EB E&&z - Ez) )I

k2 = (y)p + O($ Eg($:_Ez,I] (76)

By comparing with equations (36) and (75) it will

-I*0
be seen that the effect of the nonparabolic energy
momentum relation on P is given by the factor FIG. 5. The dependence on the parameter k2 of the
a(k). The larger the ratio of (&-Es) to Eg the functions IS,k2a, p and Y, defined by equations (73), (78)
and (79).
more pronounced will this effect be (c.f. Fig. 5).
From equations (75) and (76) it follows that In P
is proportional to -k%(k) which has a minimum less than unity in practice so the range of k2 values
when k2 = k: = 0.82. Thus as Ez decreases or will not exceed k:.
k2 increases, P decreases until &-- Ez = k~l.& Proceeding as in Section 3 we now expand In P
after which it increases. In practice it is extremely around the Fermi level (eZ = C-E,). Then the
unlikely that P values in the latter region will ever coefficients of equation (8) are
come into play. This can be seen by considering
61 = (~~~+~~~~+~s~)~(k~)
tunneling at T = 0. Then tunneling only occurs (‘7)
for electrons whose E, values are in the range ~1 = &ocL(kr)
5 - V to C corresponding to a k2 range from Xr + $V
fi = (~a~L12e1’zE,)[y(k~)~k~J
+$(v+xl-Xs)sj@ to x,-~V+g(V+x-x,)s/@.
where
Now if Xr/Eg were of the order of k”, then elec-
k; = [+-$I’+ a( V+XI--X~)~/~]/E~
trons whose E, value were near [- V would make
an important contribution to the tunnel current F(k) = wd(E-a
since their tunneling probabili~ would be com-
= l-%k2-~k*+O(k~) (781
parable to that for electrons at the Fermi level.
 VOLT-CURRENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TUNNELING THROUGH INSULATING FlLMS 1189

v(K) = [(l-2P)E-(l-P)K]/[2a(l-k2)] will be obeyed, say to within about five per cent,
for voltages up to about l&i [c.f. equation (24)]
= - 8 k2(1+# k2)+0 (k6) (79)
i.e. about 80 mV for the sandwiches analyzed in
and &0,&l, &a and ho are the coefficients defined Section 4. At a given voltage, the tunnel resistance
by equation (37). (c.f. Fig. 5). Using the expansions will decrease by about 5 per cent from its zero
of CTand p for small k2 we then find temperature value when T is about (2mlk)-1 [c.f.
equation (16)] i.e. about 150°K using the data of
bl0 = %o[l- Q(wq7)I Section 4. These results should be contrasted with
the statement in Ref. 3 that a one per cent deviation
bll = &I[1 + +%(X1 - x2)2/w7H from Ohm’s law will only occur for voltages in
bl2 = ZlZ[l - g(&/&) (80)
excess of 0.5 V and that the temperature depend-
ence is negligible below the “region of thermionic
+ ~(@7){1 -(X1 - X2)/W
emission”.
-*x1 - X2)2/&7Ql 1 In Section 6 we derive the effect of deviations
from the free electron mass model on the volt-
Although the general trend is to increase the current characteristic. If the energy bands are still
theoretical value of bls (N.B. 0 +4X1/7) it is un- parabolic and the effective mass in the metals is not
likely to be sufficient to remove the discrepancy much less than that in the insulator the previous
between theory and experiment noted in Table 2, results hold with the free electron mass replaced
even if k2 were too large for the expansion of p(k) by the insulator effective electron mass. Other-
and o(k) to be valid. wise, the current is reduced [c.f. equation (60)].
The non-parabolic relation between energy and
6. CONCLUSIONS momentum in the forbidden gap of the insulator
In the free electron mass approximation the volt- should only be important if the metal-insulator
current characteristic is given by equation (14) work function is an appreciable fraction of the for-
[provided condition (12) applies] where bl and cl bidden energy gap. If it is, then the current density
can be derived from equations (9) and (10) for any will be larger than the value estimated on the basis
potential barrier shape. The reasonably good of parabolic energy bands [c.f. equations (14)
agreement between the measured volt-current and (80)].
characteristics of Al-AlsOa-Al sandwiches at
various temperatures, and the theoretical predic-
tions, based on a rectangular barrier, support the REFERENCES
idea that tunneling was observed. However, the 1. FRENKELJ., Phys. Rew. 36, 1604 (1930). See also
relatively large layer thicknesses (for tunneling) EHRENBERC W. and H~NL H.. 2. Phvs._ 68._ 289
(1931).
estimated by FISHERand GIAVER@~)lead to low
2. SOMMERFELDA. and BETHE H. Handbuch der
effective masses (= 0.3 m) for the oxide. An in- Physik (Edited by GEIGERH. und SCHEELK.),
dependent estimate of this effective mass would Vol. XXIV/2, p. 450 Springer, Berlin (1933).
be very desirable. The value of the reduced HOLM R. and KIR~TEINB., 2. Tech. Pkys. 16,488
metal-insulation work function (X, = 1-O eV) (19351.
Fiw~& R. and NORDHEIML., Proc. Roy. Sot. A119,
involves only the ratio @l&l) and should thus 173 (1928). NORDHEIML. ibid A121. 626 (19281.
be reasonably accurate if the theory applies. MURPHYE. L. and GOOD R. H. JR., Piys. Rekr. lOi,
Further the value of the unreduced metal-insulator 1464 (1956).
work function (X = 1.1 eV) is only slightly de- GOOD R. H. and MUELLER E. W., Handbuch der
Physik (Edited by FL~GGES.), Vol. XXI, p. 176.
pendent on the thickness. Since the volt-current
Springer, Berlin (1956).
characteristic for a parabolic potential barrier 7. HOLM R.,J. appl. Phys. 22, 509 (1951).
applies for all voltages up to breakdown, a detailed 8. PRICEP. J. and RADCLIFFE J. M., IBM J. Res. Dew.
computation for other barriers shapes will only be 3,364 (1959).
HARRISON W. A., Pkys. Rev. 123, 85 (1961).
useful when sufficient high voltage experimental
109: STRATTON R., Phys. Rev. 125, 67 (1962).
data has been obtained. 11. FISCHER J. C. and GIAVERI., J. appl. Phys. 32,127
For a symmetrical potential barrier, Ohm’s law (1961).
1190 R. STRATTON

12. MEAD C. A., Phys. Rev. Letters 6, 545 (1961). a > b. Then
13. PIMBLEY W. T., J. appl. Pkys. to be published.
14. FRANZ W., Handbwh der Physik. (Edited by 2 dlnP
FL~GE S.)Vol XVII, p. 155. Springer, Berlin
(1956). -,dE, = C?J jc[+;:.,,
15. KANE E. O., J. Phys. Chem. Solids 1, 249 (1957).
and

2dzlnP 1 a du
---=-
APPENDIX cc dE; a-b sb [+1--51+%]“2
Derivation of the coeficients in equation (8)
From equation (5) x [(+I - &-I- lX)1’2{(dx2/d.EX) - (da/dEz)} (A.3)

dx 1
1 d In P(Ez) 1 xp x2-33
--
W)
0: dE, = i s [#I - I&+ Q/2 -Z(+l-51+@2

+(a-u) 2
which leads immediately to the value for CL Further X
differentiation of the integral leads to a difference be- Now
tween divergent quantities [N.B. XI and xs are functions
of Ez through the relations &(xr,s) = &I. This can be d&(x) d&r d-xl 1
-=-~r-=-
circumvented by introducing the linear transformation (A.4)
dxl bl d&z 4'da)

with a similar relation for dxs/dEz. Substituting into

.=a(.=)+b(.=) (A.2) equation (A.3) from equation (A.4) and changing back
to an integration over x by substituting for u from
equation (A.2) leads to equation (11) for fr given in
where a and b are arbitrary constants chosen so that Section 3.