An Electron Waveguide Model for FDSOI Transistors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript the author presents a quantum model for FDSOI-Transistors. The calculations were based on an averaged potential obtained using the abrupt transition approximation. The manuscript is clearly written and well organized. I recommend publishing the manuscript as is.
Some minor issues:
- There are a lot of abbreviations and notations in the manuscript. Some of them may need to be briefly explained when it appears in the manuscript for the first time. For example, the $V_T$ on the first page.
- It seems that the first formula in Eq.(5) should be \bar{V}(x<0,y)=0 .
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
please see my response to your report in the attached pdf-file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors use a model to thin body transistors focussing on FDSOI-transistors with a back plane (BP) as a back gate allowing for multiple VT operation. In my opinion, this manuscript is interesting to the readers of Solids. The topic is very important in this field. This work is novel and original. The authors have solid background in this field. Therefore, the referee recommends it to be published after the following revisions:
1. The English should be polished by a native speaker.
- Please compare this model with other previous works which use different models.
- Please cite more recent works (2020-2022).
In general, this work seems to be very interesting. The referee would like to see the revision if possible.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
please, read my response to your report in the attached pdf-file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a continuation of author's work on modeling transistors in the near ballistic limit by applying quantum transport theory. In this work the conduction channel is approximated as a box with two different dimensions in the transverse directions (perpendicular to the current direction x): very wide dimension in z and very narrow dimension in y. This allows the author to simplify the problem via separation of variables and obtain numerical results using somewhat realistic parameters.
Most of the model is fine and is similar to what the author has published in the past. However, one approximation, that invoked for V_T(y), is not treated properly and may be the cause for the large disagreement with experiment in the ON-state.
The author claims:
we assume for a thin film that the quantization energy induced by the boundary condition Ψ(x, y = 0, z, E) = Ψ(x, D, z, E) is dominant over the potential variation of VT (y) so that we can replace VT (y) with its average
This assertion is not valid for the parameters used in the paper. According to Eq. (8), if D=6 nm and m_y=0.19 m_e, then the separation between the quantum well levels in the y direction is the order of 0.1 eV. This is the same order as the variation in V_T as plotted in Fig. 2b between y=0 and 6 nm. Therefore neglecting the y-dependence of V_T will introduce a severe error in the ON-state, when the barrier is low (V_0 ~ 0). This is the real cause of large disagreement between theory and experiment in the ON-state. The explanations provided by the author (Coulomb interaction, device heating) are not justified (there is only speculation offered in Ref. [9]).
Numerical treatment of a linear potential in a confinement is not that hard. It is really not necessary to invoke a constant potential approximation. Once this deficiency is addressed, the paper will be suitable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
please read my response to your report in the enclosed pdf-file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The changes have addressed my concerns.
