| Literature DB >> 31766105 |
N Rodriguez1,2, D Maldonado1, F J Romero1,2, F J Alonso3, A M Aguilera3, A Godoy1,2, F Jimenez-Molinos1, F G Ruiz1,2, J B Roldan1.
Abstract
This work investigates the sources of resistive switching (RS) in recently reported laser-fabricated graphene oxide memristors by means of two numerical analysis tools linked to the Time Series Statistical Analysis and the use of the Quantum Point Contact Conduction model. The application of both numerical procedures points to the existence of a filament connecting the electrodes that may be interrupted at a precise point within the conductive path, resulting in resistive switching phenomena. These results support the existing model attributing the memristance of laser-fabricated graphene oxide memristors to the modification of a conductive path stoichiometry inside the graphene oxide.Entities:
Keywords: RRAM; autocovariance; graphene oxide; laser; memristor; time series modeling; variability
Year: 2019 PMID: 31766105 PMCID: PMC6888125 DOI: 10.3390/ma12223734
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Schematic representation of the fabrication steps for graphene oxide memristors produced by laser. Graphene Oxide colloid is drop-casted on a PET substrate (a) and left 48 h on a 3D shaker for water evaporation (b). Then the laser diode is applied (70 mW) to partially reduce the GO resulting in the memristive structures (c). Finally, electrical contacts are created by depositing microdrops of organic bare conductive paint (d).
Figure 2(a) Experimental current versus voltage for two different cycles within a resistive switching series. A ramped voltage with step of 10 mV was employed in the measurement process. (b) Voltage and current versus time for the cycle A shown previously. (c) Conductance values obtained during device cycling with limited compliance current [18]. The resistance was extracted in the range [−1,1] V of the current–voltage characteristics.
Figure 3(a) ACF and (b) PACF versus cycle lag for the inverse of the values shown in Figure 2c. These functions show the ACF and PACFs versus cycle number that represent the distance apart in cycles within a RS series, see Reference [24]. The ACF and PACF minimum threshold bounds for the devices under study are ±0.195 for both plots (see the supplementary information for the information linked to the calculation of these threshold bounds), shown with dashed lines. We have considered 100 cycles in our series; this is a reasonable number to extract information on the correlation between the data and to extract a TSSA model.
Figure 4Experimental current versus applied voltage in the devices under study including the second derivative of the current versus voltage for cycle A (a) and cycle B (b) shown in Figure 2a. A pattern in agreement with the QPC model is seen in [22].
Figure 5Second derivative of the experimental current (symbols) versus voltage in the device under study for the two reset curves shown in Figure 2. The analytically calculated QPC modeled current second derivative (solid lines) is also shown. The QPC model parameters employed for cycle A are the following: α = 6.5 (eV)−1; β = 0.4; Φ = 0.13 eV; N = 1; and for cycle B: α = 7.5(eV)−1; β = 0.5; Φ = 0.055 eV; N = 1.