INTEGRATED CIRCUITS
Alan Seabaugh
Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN
Acknowledgements: P. Barrios, B. Bate, P. Berger, T. Blake,
B. Brar, T. Broekaert, K. Clark, M. Dashiell, X. Deng, W. Frensley,
G. Frazier, J. Gunther, J. Hellums, K. Hobart, W. Kirk,
J. Kolodzey, R. Lake, J. Lyding, E. Maldonado, C. Marrian,
P. Mazumder, T. Moise, F. Morris, G. Pomrenke, S. Rommel,
G. Spencer, P. Thompson, T. Troeger, P. van der Wagt, G. Witt.
A. Seabaugh, Promise of Tunnel Diode Integrated Circuits, Tunnel Diode and CMOS/HBT
Integration Workshop, December 9, 1999, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC.
Current (mA)
300 K
0.1
EC
0.05
EF
0
1N2927 Si
tunnel diode
-0.05
-0.25
0.25
Voltage (V)
0.5
0.75
Si Plot 1
EV
20 m
The demise of the tunnel diode [in the 1960s] was signaled by the arrival in force of the
Swartz, In perspective: the tunnel diode, 1986 IEEE Int. Solid-State
Circuits Conf., pp. 278-280. Until recently, processes for forming tunnel diodes were still based
on the discrete approach shown above.
MAIN POINTS
Circuit simulations using tunnel diodes (TD) show benefit
RTD/HEMT technology shows feasibilty
Silicon TDs now demonstrated: Matsushita, Toshiba, U. Delaware,
NRL, Raytheon, Hughes, Max-Planck Institute
Time is right to add TD to silicon bipolar and MOS
Relatively low risk
High benefit/cost
A. Seabaugh, B. Brar, T. Broekaert, F. Morris, P. van der Wagt, and G. Frazier, ResonantTunneling Mixed-Signal Circuit Technology, Solid State Electronics 43 (1999) 1355-1365.
Area
2.2x
(1.4x)
1.6-3x
Speed
(3x)
same
1.7-2.2x
Active Power
2.1-2.4x
Static Power
8x
23x
(1.1-1.7x)
1.3-1.4x
1.2-2.3x
1.5-1.8x
same
3.5x
2.2x
5.8x
2.3x
( ) performance reduction
Numbers which are not in parenthesis represent improvements obtained using the tunnel diode,
e.g. in line 1, the tunnel diode embedded RAM occupies 2.2x less area than the 6T cell and
dissipates 8x less standby power, while numbers in parenthesis indicate a performance reduction,
e.g. again in line 1, 3x slower access speed for the TD circuit vs the 6T SRAM.
0V
I3
TD1
TD2
I1
I2
BL
CURRENT ( pA)
1V
0V
I 2 +I3
16
12
I2
I1
I3
4
0
0
0.4
0.8
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3: CMOS/TD SRAM cell: (a) schematic diagram
and (b) current-voltage relations.
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF CMOS/TD SRAM CELLS WITH CMOS
EMBEDDED DRAM AND 6T SRAM
Process
Cell
CMOS
CMOS
CMOS
+TD
CMOS
+Cap
CMOS
+Cap+TD
6T
SRAM
1T+1Cg
DRAM
1T+1Cg+2TD
SRAM
1T+1Cst
DRAM
1T+1Cst+2TD
SRAM
Area
( m2)
7.00
Density
Ratio
(x6T)
1.0
Cycle
Time
(ns)
4
Standby
Current
(pA)
7
5.79
1.2
18
31
7.02
1.0
18
2.26
3.1
12
21
3.15
2.2
12
0.9
CK
VD D
CK
VD D
OUT
IN
IN
CK
OUT
CK
(a)
(b)
0.05
OUT (V)
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
200
400
600
TIME (ps)
800
1000
3771trtf plot
A. Seabaugh, B. Brar, T. Broekaert, F. Morris, P. van der Wagt, and G. Frazier, ResonantTunneling Mixed-Signal Circuit Technology, Solid State Electronics 43 (1999) 1355-1365.
Risk
Low
v
v
High
v
v
2.
QMOS ROADMAP
Integration of the quantum device (tunnel diode) with CMOS is
called QMOS.
1000
1000
Silicide,
Local
interconnect
Cost (uc/device)
100
10
Cu
Low k
SOI?
QMOS?
10
10
No known
solutions - SIA 97
1997
1999
180
1999
150 2002130
2001
2003
2005100
2006
200870
2009
2011 50
Feature Size
2012 Production Year
CONCLUSIONS
Circuit simulations using tunnel diodes (TD) show benefit
RTD/HEMT technology shows feasibilty
Silicon TDs now demonstrated: Matsushita, Toshiba, U. Delaware,
NRL, Raytheon, Hughes, Max-Planck Institute
Time is right to add TD to silicon bipolar and MOS
Relatively low risk
High benefit/cost