Performance Comparison between Single Wall

Carbon Nanotube Bundle and Multiwall Carbon

Nanotube for Global Interconnects
Manoj Kumar Majumder
#1
, B. K. Kaushik
*2
, S. K. Manhas
#3

#
Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology-Roorkee,
Roorkee, INDIA
1
manojbesu@gmail.com,
2
samanfec@iitr.ernet.in,
3
bkk23fec@iitr.ernet.in

Abstract- Multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWNTs) have
potentially provided an attractive solution over single-wall
carbon nanotube (SWNT) bundles at deep sub-micron level very
large scale integration (VLSI) technologies. This paper presents a
comprehensive analysis of propagation delay for both MWNT
and SWNT bundles at different interconnect lengths (global) and
shows a comparison of area for equivalent number of SWNTs in
bundle and shells in MWNTs. It has been observed that
irrespective of the type of CNTs, propagation delay increases
with interconnect lengths. For same propagation delay
performance, the area occupied by SWNT bundle is more than
the MWNTs for a specified interconnect length.

Keywords Carbon nanotube, propagation delay, area, VLSI,
NOC, nanotechnology.
I. INTRODUCTION
Continuous advances in VLSI technologies leads to
development of more complex chips which contains millions
of interconnections that integrate the components on the IC
chip. At present VLSI technology, interconnection plays most
significant role in determining the size, power consumption
and clock frequency of digital system. Advancement of
technological development leads for the solution of long path
interconnects, which is known as global interconnects. For this
global level, conventional interconnect technologies used by
copper or aluminium fails because of their increasing
resistively with length which may cause some serious
problems like electro migration and hillocks or voids
formation in the successive levels of interconnect paths [1].
For this reason, researchers like to introduce some new
materials as carbon nanotubes (CNTs) or graphene
nanoribbons (GNRs) which may be a possible solution for
future VLSI technologies of global interconnects.
CNTs are known as allotropes of carbon [2] and made by
rolling up a sheet of graphene into a cylinder. Graphene is a
monolayer sheet of graphite with sp
2
bonding of carbon atoms
arranged in a honeycomb lattice structure. The sp
2
bonding in
graphene is stronger than sp
3
bonds in diamond [3] which
makes graphene the strongest material. CNTs have not only
unique atomic arrangement but also interesting physical
properties [4]; including current carrying capability [5], long
ballistic transport length [4], high thermal conductivity [6],
and mechanical strength [7]. These remarkable properties
make CNTs one of the most promising research materials for
future VLSI technology. The extraordinary physical properties
of CNTs make them exciting prospects for a variety of
applications in microelectronics/ Nan electronics [8],
spintronics [9], optics [10], material science [11], mechanical
[12] and biological fields [13]. Particularly, in the area of
nanoelectronics, CNTs and GNRs show their prospects as
energy storage devices (such as super capacitors [14]), energy
conversion devices (including thermoelectric [15] and
photovoltaic [16] devices), field emission displays and
radiation sources [17], nanometer semiconductor transistors
[18], nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS) [19],
electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection [20], as well as
interconnects [21, 22] and passives [23].
Structure of CNTs depends on chiral indices i.e., the rolling
up direction of a graphene sheet. Depending on the chiral
indices (n, m), CNTs can get their unique armchair or zigzag
structures. For armchair CNTs, the chiral indices is defined by
n = m [3] and for zigzag CNTs, it is n or m = 0 [3]. For other
values of n and m, CNTs are known as chiral. Depending upon
their different structures, CNTs can exhibit both metallic and
semiconducting properties. By satisfying the condition n m
=3i (where i is an integer), the armchair CNTs are always
metallic and zigzag CNTs are either metallic or
semiconducting in nature depending on their chiral indices [3,
4]. Statistically, a natural mix of CNTs will have 1/3
rd
of
metallic and 2/3
rd
of their semiconducting chirality [24]. These
unique structures of CNTs basically depend on the rolling up
directions of graphene sheet. CNTs are also classified into
single-walled nanotubes (SWNTs) and multi-walled nanotubes
(MWNTs). The main difference between SWNT and MWNT
arises from number of concentrically rolled up graphene
sheets. For SWNTs, only one rolled up graphene sheet is there
whereas for two or more concentrically rolled up graphene
sheets, CNTs are known as MWNT. SWNT bundle is formed
by packing together a large number of SWNTs in a bundle
form. The parasitic elements of SWNT bundle and MWNTs
depend on number of metallic SWNTs in the bundle and
number of shells in the MWNTs. It is very difficult to achieve
ballistic transport for MWNTs for a long length whereas
978-1-4577-0240-2/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE 104
SWNTs have mean free path of the order of a micron [25] due
to its diameter in nano range.
The paper is organized as follows. In section II, different
interconnect models of SWNT bundle and MWNT are
reviewed. Section III introduces simulation setup for
calculating propagation delay on the basis of described models
in section II. Graphical plots of propagation delay for MWNT
shells with equivalent numbers of SWNTs in bundles at
different global interconnects lengths are presented in section
IV. Finally, section V draws a brief summary.
II. INTERCONNECT MODELS OF SWNT BUNDLE AND MWNTS
Depending on different interconnect parasitics such as
resistance, capacitance and inductance, RLC circuit models
(Fig. 1 and 5) for both MWNT and SWNT bundle are
presented [26, 27] on the basis of semi-classical one-
dimensional electron fluid model [28, 29].
This 1-D electron fluid model is derived from a classical
two-dimensional electron fluid theory [4, 30] taking into
account electron-electron repulsive force. The MWNT
interconnect model presented in [26, 27] is defined in terms of
number of shells in MWNTs which is formulated as [27],
-
1
2
D D
I N
M
(
= + (

(1)
Where DI and DN are the outermost and innermost
shell diameters of MWNT, respectively. is the spacing
between shells in a MWNT and the value is defined as =
0.34 nm [26]. The square bracket term of equation (1) is a
floor function and the factor is the ratio of metallic shells to
those shells in a MWNT.
When DI 10 nm [27], then one-third of the shells are
metallic and the rest of the shells are semiconducting. In the
model [27] of Fig.1, magnetic inductance is neglected
compared with kinetic inductance as the value of magnetic
inductance is much smaller than kinetic inductance for a CNT
[25]. The kinetic inductance per unit length is formulated by
approximating the kinetic energy per unit length of a 1-D wire
[3, 4, 29] and expressed by the equation [25],

2
2
h
L
K
e v
F
= (2)
where h is the planks constant, e is electron charge and v
F

is the Fermi velocity of graphene (= 810
5
m/s). Therefore,
value of kinetic inductance of a CNT is given by 16 nH/ m
[25]. Due to band structure, SWNT has two propagating
channels and for each channel, electrons have the properties of
spin up and spin down [4]. For this fourfold band degeneracy,
kinetic inductance per unit length is arrived as 4 nH/ m [31].
In the given model of Fig.1 electrostatic capacitance (C
E
)
does not exist in inner shells of MWNTs as outermost shells of
MWNTs shields inner shells from the ground plane. But, one
additional electrostatic capacitance (C
S
) between the
neighboring metallic shells and can be formulated as [26, 27],

2
0
l n
C
S
D
i
D
j
| |
|
|
\ .

= (3)
where
0
is the permittivity of the vacuum, D
i
and D
j
are the
diameters of the i
th
and j
th
metallic shells, respectively and i <
j.
The circuit model presented in Fig.1 is simplified in Fig. 2
by considering identical inner shells of MWNT. In the
simplified model presented in Fig. 2, it is assume that there are
no variation in distributed parameters, R and L
k
as they are
same for each shell of MWNT. Now, by assumption of equal
potential across components of each shell in a MWNT, the
circuit model of Fig. 2 is again simplified to an equivalent
circuit model which is presented in Fig. 3. For all the circuit
models presented in Figs [1-3], R
C
is the contact resistance and
its ideal value is defined as 3.2 K per shell [26]. The values
of C
E
and C
Q
are of the same order. C
Q
appears in parallel for
all metallic sheets with a series combination of C
E
. Therefore,
for M number of metallic sheets C
Q
appears as (M C
Q
) and
the value of C
E
appears as in the previous case.


Figure 1. Equivalent circuit of a metallic MWNT interconnects [27].


Figure 2. Simplified equivalent circuit of a metallic MWNT interconnects
[27].
The RLC model of SWNT bundle [27, 32] considers all
individual SWNTs at parallel directions in the bundle. The
spacing between SWNTs in the bundle is determined by
vander waals forces between the atoms in adjacent nanotubes.
The metallic nanotubes are distributed randomly with a
probability = 1/3 due to the lack of chirality [27]. The
105
proportions of metallic nanotubes are therefore potentially be
increased using techniques reported in [33] and [34].
Therefore, total number of metallic SWNTs is formulated as
shown in Fig. 4 [27].

R
C
/M R/M L
k
/M
M X C
Q
C
E

Figure 3. Simple equivalent circuit model of a metallic MWNT interconnect

2
N
y
N N N
x y
( (
( (
( (
( (

= (4)
where N
x
and N
y
are the number of SWNTs in the bundle at
horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. The distance
between adjacent SWNTs in bundle can be derived from the
cross-section of a bundle (Fig. 4) as [27],

b
d d =+ (5)
where = 0.34 nm is the spacing between the SWNT in
the bundle and d is the diameter of SWNT. The equivalent
circuit of SWNT bundles interconnect is shown in Fig. 5
where Na and Nb denote the number of upper level and
bottom level SWNTs (Fig. 4) [27].


Figure 4. Cross-section of a SWNT bundle interconnects [27].
For the RLC model of SWNT bundle presented in Fig. 5,
the assumption is made for all SWNTs in the bundle are
identical and each SWNT has same potential across it [27]. The
equivalent circuit of Fig. 5 is further simplified in Fig. 6, where
electrostatic capacitance between neighbouring metallic
SWNTs (Cb) has no effect on the circuit behaviour and (Nx
CE) can be regarded as an electrostatic capacitance between
SWNT bundle and ground plane. In the upper level of SWNTs,
CE does not exist as the bottom level shields the upper levels
SWNTs from the ground plane, as shown in Fig. 5. Quantum
capacitance (CQ) arises as 4CQ due to fourfold band
degeneracy structure of SWNT [4]. The values of CE and CQ
are nearly same in magnitude. CQ of all metallic SWNTs are
oriented in parallel and then is serial with CE. Therefore, CQ
can be neglected for large value of N. The resistance and
inductance of all metallic SWNTs are in parallel in the bundle
and N times smaller than that of a SWNT.
R
C
/N
a
R/N
a
R
C
/N
b
R/N
b
L
k
/ N
a
L
k
/ N
b
C
Q
(N
b
)
C
E
(N
b
)
C
b
C
Q
(N
a
)
R
C
/N
b
R
C
/N
a
2 ~ N
Y
1

Figure 5. Equivalent circuit of a SWNT bundle interconnects [27].
R
C
/N R/N L
k
/N
NX C
Q
N
X
X C
E

Figure 6. Simplified equivalent circuit of a SWNT bundle interconnects
III. SIMULATION SETUP FOR CALCULATING PROPAGATION DELAY
In this paper, propagation delay for SWNT bundle and
MWNT is measured at different interconnect lengths of 100,
200, 500, 1000 and 2000 m by using the geometries
suggested in [26, 27]. Simulation setup uses CMOS inverter at
32 nm technology node for which the technology parameters
(length and width) of NMOS is taken as 32 nm and 640 nm
and for PMOS, these parameters are taken as 32 nm and 1280
nm, respectively. As shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, the input rise
time is triggered at 90% whereas the output fall time is target
at 10%. The delay is analysed for different number of shells in

R
C
/N R/N
L
k
/N
Propagation
Delay
O/P
I/P
N X C
Q
N
X
X C
E

Figure 7. Simulation setup for SWNT Bundle interconnects.
106
MWNTs and for different number of SWNTs in the bundle.
For each type of MWNT shells and SWNT bundles,the
propagation delay is measured for 20 distributed elements at
different interconnect lengths.
R
C
/M R/M
L
k
/M
Propagation
Delay
O/P
I/P
MX C
Q
C
E


Figure 8. Simulation setup for MWNT interconnects.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this paper, different simulation results for propagation
delay are presented for MWNTs and SWNT bundles at
different interconnect lengths (global). A comparative analysis
for SWNT bundles and MWNTs are also presented here in
terms of propagation delay at different interconnects lengths.
Fig. 9 presents the propagation delay of different numbers of
MWNT shells for different interconnect lengths whereas Fig.
10 shows the same analysis for different number of SWNTs in
bundle. In both cases, it is shown that propagation delay for
both MWNT and SWNT bundles are increased with
interconnect lengths but decreased with the increasing number
of shells and number of SWNTs in bundle, respectively. By
analysing the simulation results, a comparative study is done
between the number of shells in MWNTs and number of
SWNTs in the bundle. This comparative study will show the
equivalent number of SWNTs in the bundle for a given
number of shells in MWNTs at specified interconnect length
(global).

0 500 1000 1500 2000
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
P
r
o
p
a
g
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
l
a
y

(
n
s
)
Interconnect Length (m)
No of shells=4
No of shells=10
No of shells=20

Figure 9. Propagation delay of MWNTs for different numbers of shells with
varying interconnects lengths (global).
For a certain propagation delay, the equivalent numbers of
SWNTs in bundle and shells in MWNTs for different
interconnect lengths of 100, 200, 500, 1000 and 2000 m are
graphically presented in Figs. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15,
respectively. Finally, these equivalent numbers of MWNTs
and SWNT bundles at different interconnect lengths are
graphically presented in Fig. 16.

The area is analysed for equivalent number of shells in
MWNTs and number of SWNTs in the bundle (Fig. 17) in
terms of diameters of SWNT bundle and MWNT. The areas of
MWNTs depend on the number of shells and innermost and
outermost diameters which is obtained by using equation (1).
From this graphical analysis, it is clear that the area is
minimized for equivalent shells of MWNTs than the
equivalent number of SWNTs in bundle.


0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
P
r
o
p
a
g
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
l
a
y

(
n
s
)
Interconnect Length(m)
SWNTs=4
SWNTs=9
SWNTs=13
SWNTs=17
SWNTs=25
SWNTs=58
SWNTs=99
SWNTs=105
SWNTs=111
SWNTs=163
SWNTs=660

Figure 10. Propagation delay of SWNT bundle with varying interconnects
lengths (global).\


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
MWNT
SWNT Bundle
Propagation Delay (ns)
N
o
.

o
f

S
h
e
l
l
s

(
M
W
N
T
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
N
o
.

o
f

S
W
N
T
s

i
n

b
u
n
d
l
e

107
Figure 11. . Equivalent number of shells of MWNTs for different number of
SWNTs in bundle at specified interconnect length of 100m for same
performance of propagation delay.

0 2 4
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
MWNT
SWNT Bundle
Propagation Delay (ns)
N
o
.

o
f

S
h
e
l
l
s

(
M
W
N
T
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
N
o
.

o
f

S
W
N
T
s

i
n

b
u
n
d
l
e

Figure 12. Equivalent number of shells of MWNTs for different number of
SWNTs in bundle at specified interconnect length of 200m for same
performance of propagation delay.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
MWNT
SWNT Bundle
Propagation Delay (ns)
N
o
.

o
f

S
h
e
l
l
s

(
M
W
N
T
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
N
o
.

o
f

S
W
N
T
s

i
n

B
u
n
d
l
e

Figure 13. Equivalent number of shells of MWNTs for different number of
SWNTs in bundle at specified interconnect length of 500m for same
performance of propagation delay.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
MWNT
SWNT Bundle
Propagation Delay (ns)
N
o
.

o
f

S
h
e
l
l
s

(
M
W
N
T
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
N
o
.

o
f

S
W
N
T
s

i
n

B
u
n
d
l
e

Figure 14. Equivalent number of shells of MWNTs for different number of
SWNTs in bundle at specified interconnect length of 1000m for same
performance of propagation delay.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
MWNT
SWNT Bundle
Propagation Delay (ns)
N
o
.

o
f

S
h
e
l
l
s

(
M
W
N
T
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
N
o
.

o
f

S
W
N
T
s

i
n

B
u
n
d
l
e

Figure 15. Equivalent number of shells of MWNTs for different number of
SWNTs in bundle at specified interconnect length of 2000m for same
performance of propagation delay.

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

S
W
N
T
s

i
n

b
u
n
d
l
e
No. of Shells (MWNT)
Interconnect length = 100 m
Interconnect length = 200 m
Interconnect length = 500 m
Interconnect length = 1000 m
Interconnect length = 2000 m

Figure 16. Equivalent number of SWNTs in the bundle for different numbers
of shells in MWNTs at different interconnects lengths (global) for same
performance of propagation delay.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

A
r
e
a

o
f

S
W
N
T

B
u
n
d
l
e

(
n
m
2
)
Area of MWNTs (nm
2
)
Interconnect length = 100m
Interconnect length = 200m
Interconnect length = 500m
Interconnect length = 1000m
Interconnect length = 2000m

108
Figure 17. Analysis of area for different number of shells in MWNTs with
equivalent number of SWNTs in bundle at different interconnect lengths
(global).
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, models for MWNT and SWNT bundle
interconnects are reviewed on the basis of one-dimensional
fluid theory. These models are compared at 32 nm technology
nodes in terms of propagation delay and area. Simulation
result shows that MWNT requires lesser area than SWNT
bundle at different interconnect lengths for same performance
of propagation delay. Therefore, for future VLSI technology,
MWNTs may be proven as more promising candidate than
copper.
REFERENCES
[1] A. K. Goel, High-speed VLSI Interconnections, Willey-IEEE Press, Sep.
2007.
[2] R. Satio, G. Dresselhaus, and S. Desselhaus, Physical Properties of
Carbon Nanotubes. London, U. K.: Imperial College Press, 1998.
[3] H. Li, C. Xu, N. Srivastava, and K. Banerjee, Carbon Nanomaterials for
Next-Generation Interconnects and Passives: Physics, Status and
Prospects, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 1799-1821,
Sep. 2009.
[4] A. Javey and J. Kong, Carbon Nanotube Electronics, Springer, 2009.
[5] B. Q. Wei, R. Vajtai, and P. M. Ajayan, Reliability and current carrying
capacity of carbon nanotubes, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 79, no. 8, pp.
1172-1174, 2001.
[6] P. G. Collins, M. Hersam, M. Arnold, R. Martel, and P. Avouris,
Current saturation and electrical breakdown in multiwalled carbon
nanotubes, Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 86, no. 14, pp. 31283131, 2001.
[7] S. Berber, Y.-K. Kwon, and D. Tomanek, Unusually high thermal
conductivity of carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 84, no. 20, pp.
46134616, 2000.
[8] P. Avorious, Z. Chen, and V. Perebeions, Carbon-based electronics,
Nat. Nanotechnol., vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 605-613, Oct. 2007.
[9] K. Tsukagoshi, B. W. Alphenaar, and H. Ago, Coherent transport of
electron spin in a ferromagnetically contacted carbon nanotube, Nature,
vol. 401, no. 6753, pp. 572-574, Oct. 1999.
[10] J. A. Misewich, R. Martel, P. Avouris, J. C. Tsang, S. Heinze, and J.
Tersoff, Electrically induced optical emission from a carbon nanotube
FET, Science, vol. 300, no. 5620, pp. 783786, May 2003.
[11] N. Wang, Z. K. Tang, G. D. Li, and J. S. Chen, Materials science:
Single-walled 4 carbon nanotube arrays, Nature, vol. 408, no. 6808,
pp. 5051, Nov. 2000.
[12] M. F. Yu, O. Lourie, M. J. Dyer, K. Moloni, T. F. Kelly, and R. S.
Ruoff, Strength and breaking mechanism of multiwalled carbon
nanotubes under tensile load, Science, vol. 287, no. 5453, pp. 637640,
Jan. 2000.
[13] F. Lu, L. Gu, M. J. Meziani, X. Wang, P. G. Luo, L. M. Veca, L. Cao,
and Y. P. Sun, Advances in bioapplications of carbon nanotubes, Adv.
Mater., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 139 152, 2009.
[14] C. Du, J. Yeh, and N. Pan, High power density supercapacitors using
locally aligned carbon nanotube electrodes, Nanotechnology, vol. 16,
no. 4, pp. 350353, Feb. 2005.
[15] P. Wei, W. Bao, Y. Pu, C. N. Lau, and J.Shi, Anomalous thermoelectric
transport of Dirac particles in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 102, no.
16, p. 166 808, Apr. 2009.
[16] H. Ago, K. Petritsch, M. S. P. Shaffer, A. H. Windle, and R. H. Friend,
Composites of carbon nanotubes and conjugated polymers for
photovoltaic devices, Adv. Matter., vol. 11, no. 15, pp.12811285,
1999.
[17] W. B. Choi, D. S. Chung, J. H. Kang, H. Y. Kim, Y. W. Jin, I. T. Han,
Y. H. Lee, J. E. Jung, N. S. Lee, G. S. Park, and J. M. Kim, Fully
sealed, high-brightness carbon-nanotube field-emission display, Appl.
Phys. Lett., vol. 75, no. 20, pp. 31293131, Nov. 1999.
[18] P. G. Collins, M. S. Arnold, and P. Avouris, Engineering carbon
nanotubes and nanotube circuits using electrical breakdown, Science,
vol. 292, no. 5517, pp. 706709, Apr. 2001.
[19] H. Dadgour, A. M. Cassell, and K. Banerjee, Scaling and variability
analysis of CNT-based NEMS devices and circuits with implications for
process design, in IEDM Tech. Dig., 2008, pp. 529532.
[20] Hyperion Catalysis. [Online]. Available: http://www.fibrils.com.
[21] F. Kreupl, A. P. Graham, G. S. Duesberg, W. Steinhogl, M. Liebau, E.
Unger, and W. Honlein, Carbon nanotubes in interconnect
applications, Microelectronics Eng., vol. 64, no. 14, pp. 399408, Oct.
2002.
[22] J. Li, Q. Ye, A. Cassell, H. T. Ng, R. Stevens, J. Han, and M.
Meyyappan,Bottom-up approach for carbon nanotube interconnects,
Appl. Phys.Lett., vol. 82, no. 15, pp. 24912493, Apr. 2003.
[23] H. Li and K. Banerjee, High-frequency effects in carbon nanotube
interconnects and implications for on-chip inductor design, in IEDM
Tech. Dig., pp. 525528, 2008.
[24] P. L. McEuen, M. S. Fuhrer, and H. Park, Single-Walled Carbon
Nanotube Electronics, IEEE Trans. Nanotechnology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.
78-85, Mar. 2002.
[25] N. Srivastava and K. Banerjee, Performance Analysis of Carbon
Nanotube Interconnects for VLSI Applications, in Proc. IEEE/ACM
International conference on Computer-aided design, 2005.
[26] Y. Xu and A. Srivastava, A Model of Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotube
Interconnects, in Proc. 52nd IEEE International Midwest Symposium
on Circuits and Systems, 2009.
[27] A. Srivastava, Y. Xu, and A. K. Sharma, Carbon nanotubes for next
generation very large scale integration interconnects, Journal of
Nanophotonics, vol. 4, no. 041690, pp. 1-26, May 2010.
[28] Y. Xu and A. Srivastava, A model for carbon nanotube interconnects,
Int. J. Circ. Theor. Appl., vol. 38, pp. 559-575, Mar. 2009.
[29] P. J. Burke, Lttinger Liquid Theory as a Model of the Gigahertz
Electrical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes, IEEE Trans.
Nanotechnology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 129-144, Sep. 2002.
[30] G. Miano and F. Villone, An integral formulation for the
electrodynamics of metallic carbon nanotubes based on a uid model,
IEEE Trans Antennas and Prop., vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 2713-2724, 2006.
[31] A. Nieuwoudt and Y. Massoud, Understanding the Impact of
Inductance in Carbon Nanotube Bundles for VLSI Interconnect Using
Scalable Modeling Techniques. IEEE Trans. Nanotechnology, vol. 5,
no. 6, Nov. 2006.
[32] Y. Xu, A. Srivastava, and A. K. Sharma, Emerging Carbon Nanotube
Electronic Circuits, VLSI Design, vol. 2010, pp. 1-8, 2010.
[33] N. Peng, Q. Zhang, J. Li, and N. Liu, "Influences of ac electric field on
the spatial distribution of carbon nanotubes formed between electrodes,"
J. Appl. Phys., vol. 100, no. 2, 2006.
[34] M. Zheng, A. Jagota, M. S. Strano, A. P. Santos, P. Barone, S. G. Chou,
B. A. Diner, M. S. Dresselhaus, R.S. McLean, G.B. Onoa, G. G.
Samsonidze, E. D. Semke, M. Usrey, and D. J. Walls, "Structure-based
carbon nanotube sorting by sequence dependent DNA assembly,"
Science, vol. 302, no. 5650, pp. 15451548, Nov. 2003.
109