2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0026-2692(00)00113-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A finite element simulator for three-dimensional analysis of interconnect structures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
16
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous analysis have shown a similar temperature increase when temperature dependency of material properties on nanometric scale is not considered [9,10]. Besides this temperature underestimation, the overall temperature profile and the location of the highest temperature value are consistent with experimental conditions.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous analysis have shown a similar temperature increase when temperature dependency of material properties on nanometric scale is not considered [9,10]. Besides this temperature underestimation, the overall temperature profile and the location of the highest temperature value are consistent with experimental conditions.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Due the reduced scale of the contact, the effect of convection and radiation processes are negligible (Figure 3). Similar models developed in previous research showed good fit between experimental and simulation results for less extreme current densities [9,10].…”
Section: Model Inputssupporting
confidence: 69%
“…The integration in (2) is performed only within the classical turning points. For electrostatic analysis the Smart-Analysis-Package (SAP) [9] was used. Since we focus on the subthreshold behavior of CNTFETs, we neglect charge on the CNT, which is considered to be a good approximation for the off-state regime [3,5,6,10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sabelka and Selberherr [4] modelled the via resistance of a copper via and found the measured experimental value to be 30% larger than that determined by their finite element model. They attributed this difference to the fact that they did not account for the ohmic contact interfaces in their via model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…This would account for some of the error observed ref. [4] where such interfaces were not modelled. Further resistance will be due to the presence of the interface ρ c2 .…”
Section: A Variation In Via Resistancementioning
confidence: 99%