Analyzing Crosstalk-Induced Effects in Rough On-Chip Copper Interconnects

Pathania, Sunil; Kumar, Somesh; Sharma, Rohit

doi:10.1109/tcpmt.2019.2941871

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To evaluate the performance of smooth and rough Cu interconnects accurately for temperature ranging from 300 to 500 K, the analytical expressions of line parasitics viz. p.u.l resistance ( R ( T )), inductance ( L ), capacitance ( C ) and coupling capacitance ( C c ) are obtained from previous work 5,6,26 …”

Section: Mlgnr Interconnect Configurations and Circuit Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 1 shows cross-section view of three adjacent capacitively coupled victim and aggressor nets, with thickness t, width w, spacing s, and coupling capacitance (C c ), each one placed at a distance Y ILD from the upper and lower ground plane. 21,26,27 The various configurations of MLGNR (viz. U-and D-MLGNR) 16,21 and its ESC model 28 are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.…”

Section: Mlgnr Interconnect Configurations and Circuit Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…HTC, HSC, and VTC) and D‐HTC‐MLGNR are discussed. Figure 1 shows cross‐section view of three adjacent capacitively coupled victim and aggressor nets, with thickness t , width w , spacing s, and coupling capacitance ( C c ), each one placed at a distance Y ILD from the upper and lower ground plane 21,26,27 …”

Section: Mlgnr Interconnect Configurations and Circuit Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This justifies two results for the MLGNR variants that is, (a) minute decrease in values of the capacitance with increase in temperature, and (b) no significant difference in the capacitance values of MLGNR variants. The C c for MLGNR variants, smooth Cu, and rough Cu is obtained as 57.32, 57.32, and 59.56 aF/μm using formulas given in previous work 5,26 …”

Section: Extraction and Analysis Of Circuit Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…p.u.l resistance (R(T)), inductance (L), capacitance (C) and coupling capacitance (C c ) are obtained from previous work. 5,6,26…”

Section: Mlgnr Interconnect Configurations and Circuit Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Delay characterization of multilayer graphene nanoribbon interconnects in presence of scattering and thermal effects

Upadhyay

Kumar

Khanna

2023

Int J Numerical Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scattering source‐based mean free path (MFP) and circuit modeling are proposed for three different configurations of undoped multilayer graphene nanoribbon (U‐MLGNR) (viz. horizontal top‐contact (HTC), horizontal side‐contact (HSC), and vertical top‐contact (VTC)). A similar analysis is carried out for doped HTC‐MLGNR (D‐HTC‐MLGNR) considering dopants viz. Li, FeCl3, and AsF5, for a temperature range of 300–500 K. The optimistic intrinsic‐phonon limited (Λeff,1(T)) and realistic scattering limited (Λeff,2(T)) effective MFP models are considered to derive the equivalent resistance of MLGNR. The performance of MLGNR variants, considering Λeff,1(T) and Λeff,2(T), is compared to copper (Cu) (with smooth and rough surface) in terms of coupled line crosstalk‐induced delay (XT‐D). The results show that the MLGNR variants outperform Cu interconnects in terms of XT‐D, for Λeff,1(T). However, structural edge roughness being the dominant scattering source in Λeff,2(T), severely degrades the performance of MLGNR variants in comparison to Cu counterparts. Moreover, for Λeff,1(T) and Λeff,2(T), Li‐D HTC‐MLGNR outperforms other MLGNR variants. Also, among the MLGNR variants, U‐VTC‐MLGNR exhibits a minimum average relative penalty of 21.58 × 102% in terms of XT‐D, when Λeff,2(T) is considered as against Λeff,1(T). Li‐D HTC‐MLGNR with optimized width exhibits 10.59× lower XT‐D and 8.85× higher XT‐D for Λeff,1(T) and Λeff,2(T), respectively, compared to smooth Cu. The optimized Li‐D HTC‐MLGNR demonstrates a reduction of 85.48% and 74.67% in XT‐D values for Λeff,1 (T) and Λeff,2 (T), respectively, when compared to mixed carbon nanotube (MCNT) bundle interconnects.

show abstract

Section: Mlgnr Interconnect Configurations and Circuit Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%