2012 International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies
Performance Comparison of Mixed CNT Bundle in Global VLSI Interconnect
Nisarg D. Pandya, Manoj Kumar Majumder, B. K. Kaushik and S. K. Manhas
Microelectronics and VLSI Group, Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee – 247667
Roorkee, INDIA
nis12pec@iitr.ernet.in, manojbesu@gmail.com, bkk23fec@iitr.ernet.in, samanfec@iitr.ernet.in
Abstract—This paper proposes a new modeling approach for
mixed carbon nanotube (CNT) bundle (MCB) interconnects.
An accurate modeling hierarchy has been proposed for MCB
structures. Bundled single-walled CNTs (SWNTs) and multi-
walled CNTs (MWNTs) have been modeled as equivalent
single conductor (ESC) transmission lines and then combined
to form a MCB interconnect. This MCB interconnect is
basically a multiple single conductor model. By considering
different arrangements of SWNT and MWNT in mixed CNT
bundle, performance is analyzed for two different MCB
structures (structure1 and structure 2) in terms of propagation
delay, crosstalk delay and power dissipation. It has been
observed that crosstalk delay for structure 1 is 55.5% lesser as
compared to structure 2. Consequently, power dissipation for
structure 1 is also lesser with respect to structure 2.
Keywords-Carbon nanotube (CNT); single-walled CNT
(SWNT); muti-walled CNT (MWNT); mixed CNT bundle
(MCB); crosstalk delay; power dissipation.
I. INTRODUCTION
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are considered as an emerging
interconnect material in the field of deep-submicron and
nano scale technology level. CNTs are popularly known as
allotropes of carbon [1], made by rolling up a sheet of
graphene into a cylinder. The sp2 bonding in graphene is
stronger than sp3 bonds in diamond [2] which makes
graphene the strongest material. Structure of CNTs depends
on chiral indices which are defined as rolling up direction of
graphene sheet. CNTs can exhibit unique armchair and
zigzag structure depending on their chiral indices (n, m). For
armchair CNTs, chiral indices are defined by n = m and for
zigzag CNTs, it is n or m = 0 [2]. 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), armchair CNTs are always
metallic and zigzag CNTs are either metallic or
semiconducting in nature depending on their chiral indices
[2, 3]. Statistically, a natural mix of CNTs will have 1/3rd
metallic and 2/3rd semiconducting chirality [3]. These unique
structures of CNTs basically depend on rolling up directions
of graphene sheet. CNTs are also classified into single-
walled CNTs (SWNTs) and multi-walled CNTs (MWNTs).
SWNTs are formed by only one rolled up graphene sheet
whereas MWNTs are formed by two or more concentrically
rolled graphene sheets. Double-walled CNT (DWNT) is
categorized as a type of MWNT which consists only two
concentrically rolled up graphene sheets.
978-0-7695-4692-6/12 $26.00 © 2012 IEEE 788
793
790
DOI 10.1109/CSNT.2012.171
Besides of the unique atomic arrangements (comes from
their unique structure), CNTs also have interesting physical
properties [3] like large current carrying capability [4], long
ballistic transport length, high thermal conductivity [5], and
mechanical strength [6]. Because of these extraordinary
physical properties, CNTs can show their exciting prospects
for a variety of applications in the areas of
microelectronics/nanoelectronics, spintronics, optics,
material science, mechanical and biological fields [3-7].
Particularly, in the area of nanoelectronics, CNTs and
graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) show their prospects as
energy storage devices (such as supercapacitors [8]), energy
conversion devices (including thermoelectric [9] and
photovoltaic [10] devices), field emission displays and
radiation sources, nanometer semiconductor transistor, nano-
electromechanical systems (NEMS) [11], electrostatic
discharge (ESD) protection [12], as well as interconnects and
passives [13].
Several analyzes have already been proposed on basis of
modeling and characterization for different CNT structures.
Recent analysis focuses on modeling and simulation for
different structures of mixed CNT bundle (MCB)
interconnects. The structure of MCB is more complicated
than that of SWNTs or MWNTs. So, direct analysis of these
bundles is not possible. Therefore, a new hierarchical model
has been developed [14] by considering two CNTs, one
SWNT and one MWNT. Equivalent single conductor (ESC)
models are developed both for the structures of bundled
SWNT and MWNT interconnects. These different
interconnect models are combined to develop the MCB
interconnect structure. This paper primarily focuses on
modeling approach for different MCB structures wherein
SWNTs and MWNTs are oriented in different fashion.
Performances in terms of propagation delay, crosstalk delay
and power dissipation have been demonstrated for two
different MCB structures at global interconnect lengths.
This paper is organized in five sections. Section II
describes proposed structure and equivalent RLC model for
mixed CNT bundle interconnects. Details of simulation setup
are given in section III, whereas results are analyzed in
section IV. Finally, section V draws a brief summary.
II. PROPOSED MCB STRUCTURES
Hypothetically, bundled CNT may contain only SWNTs
or only MWNTs. However, a realistic CNT bundle contains
a mix of SWNTs and MWNTs randomly arranged across the
cross-section [15]. Depending on process controls and
conditions during CNT synthesis, diameters of CNTs inside
a bundle follow normal distributions [15]. In this section, the
proposed bundle structure and their ESC models are
discussed.
A. Proposed Structure of MCB
Several researchers have already been reported that
conductivity of SWNTs is more than that of MWNTs.
Depending on this assumptions, this paper proposes two
different structures which contains different orientations of Fig. 3 ESC of an SWCNT bundle or and MWCNT [22]
SWNTs and MWNTs in bundle. The first structure (structure
1) of MCB is proposed in such a way that all the tubes which For an SWNT and MWNT bundle, the effective p.u.l.
conduct maximum current are placed at centre of the bundle kinetic inductance L'kESC and quantum capacitance
as shown in Fig. 1 [16]. The second structure (structure 2) C' are given by equation (3) and (4) respectively, in
demonstrates that all the tubes which conduct least or no qESC
current are at middle of mixed bundle as shown in Fig. 2 which ntot is defined as the total number of SWNTs and
[16]. The primary advantage of using the structure of Fig. 1 MWNTs in bundle.
is that conduction mainly occurs through the tubes at center L'
L'kESC = k0 (3)
of the bundle, while those at the outer periphery would serve
as the shields from neighboring CNT bundles [17]. Each of 2n
tot
these tubes (central or peripheral) can either be SWNTs or '
CqESC = 2ntot Cq' 0 (4)
MWNTs, which are again, either metallic or semi-
conducting in nature. It can be roughly estimated that 1/3rd of where L' = 16.1mH/m and C' = 96.8pF/m are the p.u.l.
k0 q0
the total CNTs in the bundle would be metallic, while 2/3rd
kinetic and quantum capacitance of a spinless single
are semi-conducting [17].
conducting channel, respectively [17].
At both ends, the tube is terminated on the lumped
resistance [18],
R
RtESC = 0 + Rm (5)
2n
tot
where R0 = 12.9K [18] is the intrinsic dc resistance of
SWNT and MWNT and Rm represents tube-to-metal contact
Fig. 1. Structure 1 shows MWNTs at periphery while all the SWNTs are at resistance. Depending upon fabrication process, the value of
the middle portion of bundle [16]. contact resistance ranges from a few ohms to hundred of
kilo-ohms.
The effective p.u.l. external capacitance of the ESC,
C' is computed as electrostatic capacitance of that
eESC
circumscribes the bundle by using equation (6). On the other
hand, effective p.u.l. magnetic inductance L'eESC is
computed in most general case by using the equation (7).
2πε
'
CeESC = (6)
Fig. 2. Structure 2 shows SWNTs at periphery while all the MWNTs are at ln( h / d )
the middle portion of bundle [16]. μ h
L'eESC = ln( ) (7)
B. Equivalent RLC model for proposed MCB structures 2π d
Equivalent RLC model for MCB has been developed by where d is nanotube diameter and h is the distance of the
the combination of ESC model of bundled SWNT and bundle from ground plane. For d=1nm and h=1m,
MWNT interconnects. The ESC models for both of the '
calculated value for CeESC (p.u.l.) and L'eESC (p.u.l.) are
bundled CNT structures have been developed on basis of 30aF/m and 1.4pH/m, respectively [19].
transmission line theory. The general ESC circuit model of a On basis of the ESC transmission line model parameters,
multiconductor nanoline is sketched in Fig. 3 in which the
equivalent RLC model for proposed MCB interconnect is
effective p.u.l. inductance and capacitance are as follows
[18], shown in Fig. 4. In this equivalent model, it is assumed that
all shells of MWNT are parallel and connected at both ends.
L'ESC = L'kESC + L'eESC (1)
By considering equal potential across components of each
'
CESC = (C '−1 + C '−1 )−1 (2) shell, simplified equivalent model is derived for MWNT
qESC eESC
interconnects with different number of shells.

791
794
789

Fig. 4. Equivalent RLC model for proposed MCB interconnects
In proposed RLC equivalent model of Fig. 4, coupling
capacitance has been considered between bundled SWNT
and MWNT interconnects. The coupling capacitance
depends on two factors: (1) diameter of bundled SWNT and
MWNT, and (2) spacing between two adjacent bundles. It
can be expressed by the folowing equation [20],
πε
CCM − ESC =
cosh− 1(Sp D )
where Sp denotes the spacing between two bundled structures
and D is the average diameter of bundled SWNT and
MWNT.
III. SIMULATION SETUP
Analysis of propagation delay under the influence of
dynamic crosstalk has been observed for MCB interconnects
with incorporation of two coupled line bus architecture, as
shown in Fig. 5. Out of these two lines, one is referred as
aggressor and the other one is as victim. The interconnect
line in bus architecture is replaced by equivalent RLC
transmission line model of MCB interconnect which is
shown in Fig. 4. In the bus architecture of Fig. 5, a CMOS
inverter is used instead of a simple resistive driver for
accurate estimation of crosstalk induced time delay and
power dissipation. The reason behind is that a CMOS gate
operates partially in linear region and partially in saturation
region during switching. But, a transistor can be accurately
approximated by a resistor only in the linear region. In
saturation region, transistor is more accurately modeled as a
current source with a parallel high resistance [21]. The bus
architecture has the following values of load capacitance
(Cri) and power supply voltage (Vdd): Cri = 10aF, with i = 1,
2, 3, and Vdd = 1V. Simulations are performed for two
opposite signal transitions at aggressor and victim lines
(dynamic crosstalk). Propagation delay, crosstalk induced
time delay and power dissipation have been observed at
different global interconnect lengths ranging from 100m to
1000m or 1mm.
Fig. 5. Two line bus architecture for two parallel MCBs.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this paper, simulations are run for two coupled line bus
architecture (shown in Fig. 5) by considering the first line as
aggressor and the second one is as victim. Propagation delay
under the influence of dynamic crosstalk has been observed
for opposite transition at two adjacent (aggressor and victim)
lines. Crosstalk delays are evaluated for different global
interconnect lengths at fixed transition time and spacing
(between aggressor and victim) of 1ns and 2nm,
respectively.
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 demonstrate a good comparison
between two different MCB interconnect structures
(structure1 and structure2) in terms of propagation delay and
power dissipation. It has been observed that propagation
delay for structure 1 is more as compared to structure 2 at
different global interconnect lengths. However, power
(8)
dissipation for structure 2 is more than structure 1. On the
other hand, propagation delay under the influence of
dynamic crosstalk is demonstrated for two different MCB
structures at a wide range of global interconnect lengths. The
results of crosstalk induced time delay and their percentage
improvement are summarized in Table I. It has been
observed that crosstalk induced time delay improves by
55.5% for structure 1 as compared to structure 2. This
improvement is more progressive with increasing
interconnect lengths.
The reason behind is the structural difference of mixed
CNT bundles. From Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, it has been observed
that MWNTs are at periphery for structure 1, whereas for
structure 2 MWNTs are at centre. As the conductivity of
MWNTs is less as compared to SWNTs, propagation delay
is more for structure 1 with respect to structure 2.
Consequently, improvement in crosstalk delay is also more
for structure 1. However, power dissipation is less for
structure 1 as compared to structure 2. This fact can be
understood by the expression of average power dissipation
[22],
CLV 2
Pavg = DD (9)
tp
where Pavg, CL, VDD and tp denote average power dissipation
of the interconnect line, load capacitance, supply voltage and
propagation delay, respectively. As propagation delay is
more for structure 1, average power dissipation becomes
lesser as compared to structure 2.
792
795
790
 REFERENCES
[1] G. Satio, G. Dresselhaus and S. Desselhaus, Physical Properties of
Carbon Nanotubes. London, U. K.: Imperial College Press, 1998.
[2] 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.
[3] A. Javey and J. Kong, Carbon Nanotube Electronics, Springer, 2000.
[4] J. 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.
[5] B. 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. 3128–3131, 2001.
Fig. 6. Propagation delay for different structures of mixed CNT bundles with [6] S. Berber, Y.-K. Kwon, and D. Tomanek, “Unusually high thermal
varying interconnect lengths. conductivity of carbon nanotubes,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 84, no. 20,
pp. 4613–4616, 2000.
[7] P. Avorious, Z. Chen and V. Perebeions, “Carbon-based electronics,”
Nat. Nanotechnol., vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 605-613, Oct. 2007.
[8] C. Du, J. Yeh, and N. Pan, “High power density supercapacitors using
locally aligned carbon nanotube electrodes,” Nanotechnology, vol.
16, no. 4, pp. 350–353, Feb. 2005.
[9] 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, pp. 166 808, Apr. 2009.
[10] 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 Mater., vol 11, no. 15, pp.1281–1285.
[11] 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. 529–532.
[12] Hyperion Catalysis. [Online]. Available: http://www.fibrils.com.
Fig. 7. Power dissipation for different structures of mixed CNT bundles with
varying interconnect lengths. [13] F. Kreupl, A. P. Graham, G. S. Duesberg, W. Steinhogl, M. Liebau,
E. Unger, and W. Honlein, “Carbon nanotubes in interconnect
applications,” Microelectron. Eng., vol. 64, no. 1–4, pp. 399–408,
TABLE I. IMPROVEMENT IN CROSSTALK DELAY FOR STRUCTURE 1
AS COMPARED TO STRUCTURE 2 AT DIFFERENT INTERCONNECT LENGTHS
Oct. 2003.
[14] P. U. Sathyakam and P. S. Mallick, “Transient analysis of mixed
carbin nanotube bundle interconnects,” IET Electronics Letters, vol.
Propagation delay under influence of crosstalk (ps) 47, no. 20, Sep. 2011.
Interconnect
Structure 1 Structure 2 Percentage [15] S. Haruehanroengra, and W. Wang, “Analyzing Conductance of
lengths (m)
improvement Mixed Carbon Nanotube Bundles for Interconnect Applications,”
for structure 1 IEEE Trans. Electronic Device Letters, vol. 28, Aug 2007, pp. 756-
100 14.68 29.621 50.4 759.
200 31.358 67.188 53.3 [16] M. K. Majumder, N. D. Pandya, B. K. Kaushik, and S. K. Manhas,
“Dynamic crosstalk effect in mixed CNT bundle interconnects,” IET
500 138.11 321.48 57.1 Electronics Letters, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 384-385, Mar. 2012.
800 331.77 797.71 58.4
[17] S. Subash, J. Kolar, M. H. Chowdhury, “A New Spatially Rearranged
1000 504.98 1225.3 58.7 Bundle of Mixed Carbon Nanotube as VLSI Interconnection,” IEEE
Trans. on nanotechnology, Jun. 2011.
[18] M. D. Amore, M. S. Sarto, A. Tamburrano, “Fast Transient Analysis
V. CONCLUSION of Next-Generation Interconnects Based on Carbon Nanotubes,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 52, no. 2, 2010.
A hierarchical modeling approach for MCB interconnects
[19] P. J. Burke, “Luttinger Liquid Theory as a Model of the Gigahertz
has been proposed. Different structures and equivalent Electrical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes,” IEEE Trans. on
models are derived for MCB interconnects. Performance on Nanotechnology, vol. 1, no. 3, Sep. 2002, pp. 129-144.
basis of propagation delay, crosstalk delay and power [20] D. Rossi, J. M. Cazeaux, C. Metra, and F. Lombardi, “Modeling
dissipation has been compared for different MCB structures Crosstalk Effects in CNT Bus Architecture,” IEEE Trans. on
at global interconnect lengths. It has been observed that Nanotechnology, vol. 6, no. 2, Mar. 2007, pp. 133-145.
crosstalk delay reduces by 55.5% for the MCB structure that [21] B. K. Kaushik, S. Sankar, R. P. Agarwal, and R. C. Joshi, “An
has MWNTs at peripheral and SWNTs are at centre of the analytical approach to dynamic crosstalk in coupled interconnects,”
Microelectronics Journal, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 85-92, 2010.
bundle. Consequently, power dissipation is also lesser for
[22] J. M. Rabaey, Digital Integrated Circuits, A Design Perspective, 2nd
structure 1 as compared to structure 2 where SWNTs are at Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2002.
periphery and MWNTs are at centre of mixed CNT bundle.

793
796
791