2009 itrs emerging research devices working group face to face meeting
1 / 42

2009 ITRS Emerging Research Devices Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

2009 ITRS Emerging Research Devices Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting. Jim Hutchby - Facilitating San Francisco Hilton & Towers Hotel Franciscan A Room San Francisco, CA Sunday Dec 14, 2008 8:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. 2009 ITRS Emerging Research Devices Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

2009 ITRS Emerging Research Devices Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

2009 ITRSEmerging Research DevicesWorking GroupFace-to-Face Meeting

Jim Hutchby - Facilitating

San Francisco Hilton & Towers Hotel

Franciscan A Room

San Francisco, CA

Sunday Dec 14, 2008

8:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.

2009 ITRSEmerging Research DevicesWorking GroupFace-to-Face Meeting

U-In Chung & Jim Hutchby - Facilitating

COEX InterContinental Hotel

Room Moderato I

Seoul, Korea

Saturday Dec 6, 2008

9:00 – 17:30

Emerging Research Devices Working Group

  • Atsuhiro KinoshitaToshiba

  • Dae-Hong KoYonsei U.

  • Hiroshi KotakiSharp

  • Atsuhiro KinoshitaToshiba

  • Atsuhiro KinoshitaToshiba

  • Franz KreuplQimonda

  • Nety KrishnaAMAT

  • Zoran KrivokapicAMD

  • Phil KuekesHP

  • Jong-Ho LeeKyungpook Nation U.

  • Lou LomeIDA

  • Hiroshi MizutaU. Southampton

  • Murali Muraldihar Freescale

  • Fumiyuki NiheiNEC

  • Ferdinand PeperNICT

  • Yaw ObengNIST

  • Dave RobertsAir Products

  • Kaushal SinghAMAT

  • Sadas ShankarIntel

  • Satoshi SugaharaTokyo Tech

  • Shin-ichi TakagiU. Tokyo

  • Ken UchidaToshiba

  • Yasuo WadaToyo U.

  • Rainer WaserRWTH A

  • Franz Widdershoven NXP

  • Jeff WelserNRI/IBM

  • Philip WongStanford U.

  • Kojiro YagamiSony

  • David YehSRC/TI

  • In-Seok YeoSamsung

  • In-K YooSAIT

  • Peter ZeitzoffFreescale

  • Yuegang ZhangLLLab

  • Victor ZhirnovSRC

  • Hiroyugi AkinagaAIST

  • Tetsuya AsaiHokkaido U.

  • Yuji AwanoFujitsu

  • George BourianoffIntel

  • Michel BrillouetCEA/LETI

  • Joe BrewerU. Florida

  • John CarruthersPSU

  • Ralph CavinSRC

  • U-In ChungSamsung

  • Byung Jin ChoKAIST

  • Sung WoongChungHynix

  • Shamik DasMitre

  • Erik DeBenedictisSNL

  • Simon Deleonibus LETI

  • Kristin De MeyerIMEC

  • Michael FrankAMD

  • Christian GamratCEA

  • Mike GarnerIntel

  • Dan HammerstromPSU

  • Wilfried HaenschIBM

  • Tsuyoshi HasegawaNIMS

  • Shigenori HayashiMatsushita

  • Dan HerrSRC

  • Toshiro HiramotoU. Tokyo

  • Matsuo HidakaISTEK

  • Jim HutchbySRC

  • Adrian IonescuETH

  • Kohei ItohKeio U.

  • Kiyoshi KawabataRenesas Tech

  • Seiichiro KawamuraSelete

  • Rick KiehlU. Minn

  • Suhwan KimSeoul Nation U.

  • Hyoungjoon KimSamsung

Emerging Research Devices Working Group Dec. 6th Seoul FxF Meeting Objectives

  • Meet with Korean ERD Working Group (Morning)

    • Discuss International Collaboration Processes in 2009

    • ERD-Korean WG Inputs

      • 2007 Chapter Review – any Issues?

      • 2009 Scope and Content of Chapter

      • Other topics?

  • Meet with ERM (Afternoon)

    • Discuss ERM/ERD Interfaces & Collaboration in 2009

    • Review Proposed Materials & Device Topics for 2009

    • Discuss III-V and Ge Channel Replacement Materials?

    • Discuss new Potential Solutions section on “Carbon-based Nanoelectronics”

    • Devices in ERD-PIDs transition table - any entries limited by materials?

Emerging Research Devices Working Group Dec. 6nd Seoul FxF Meeting – Morning Agenda

9:00Welcome and IntroductionsDrs. U-InChung &

J. Hutchby

9:15Organization of Korean ERD & Dr. U-In Chung

Proposals from each part

9:20 ERD Logic part Prof. Jong-Ho Lee

9:50 ERD Memory part Dr. In-Seok Yeo

10:20 Break

10:50 ERD Architecture part Prof. Soo-Hwan Kim

11:20 Emerging Research Materials Prof. Dae-Hong Ko


ERD/ERM Working Groups Joint Meeting Dec. 6th Seoul FxF Meeting – Afternoon Agenda

  • 13:15 Review Arch’ture Approaches & IssuesTBA

  • 13:45 Review Memory Device IssuesTBA/V. Zhirnov

  • 14:30 Review Logic Device IssuesG. Bourianoff

  • 15:15 Break

  • 15:30 Review/summarize ERM Workshops M. Garner

    • Workshops

    • ERM Tables

  • 16:30 Review Carbon-based NanoelectronicM. Garner

  • materials issues

  • 17:00 Review proposed interaction with ERD M. Garner and

  • Working GroupJ. Hutchby

  • 17:30 Adjourn

  • Review Feedback on 2007 ERD Chapter

    Review ERD Chapter Organization for 2009


    Mission and Scope

    Deliverables, Timeline and Events

    Chapter page count and page allocation

    Operating Process and Meetings

    Technology Entries Inclusion Criteria

    Broadly inclusive

    Maturity Metric (current publications)

    Kick off 2009 ITRS ERD Chapter Preparation Dec. 14th San Francisco FxF Meeting Objectives

    Review ERD Chapter Content for 2009

    Major Technical Sections


    Logic Devices

    Selected Emerging Technologies

    Compliment or Extend CMOS

    Beyond CMOS

    Potential Solutions

    Memory Devices

    Selected Emerging Technologies

    Selected Potential Solutions

    Critical Review and Guiding Principle Sections

    Critical Review

    Selected Memory Devices

    Selected Logic Devices

    Guiding Principles

    Review ERD Decisions & Action Items for 2009

    Kick off 2009 ITRS ERD Chapter Preparation Dec. 14th San Francisco FxF Meeting Objectives

    7:30 Continental Breakfast

    8:00 Introductions

    8:10 Review meeting objectives and agenda J. Hutchby

    8:20 Review ERD Organization for 2009J. Hutchby


    Mission/Charter and Scope

    Deliverables, Timeline, and Events

    Chapter Page Count and Page Allocation

    Operating Process and Meetings

    9:00 Review status of ERDJ. Hutchby

    Chapter Status & Organization

    2007 ERD Chapter Feedback (12/07)

    Decisions for 2009


    Kick off 2009 ITRS ERD Chapter Preparation Dec. 14th San Francisco FxF Meeting Agenda

    10:15Review ERD Workshops and Discuss

    Status of Materials, Devices & Architectures

    10:15 MaterialsM. Garner

    11:00 Memory DevicesV. Zhirnov

    12:15Lunch (Continue Discussion)

    12:45 Logic DevicesG. Bourianoff

    Complement or extend CMOS

    Beyond CMOS

    2:15 ArchitecturesR. Cavin


    3:30Discuss Critical Review & Guiding Principle Sections

    3:30 Critical ReviewJ Hutchby

    Memory Devices

    Logic Devices

    4:30 Guiding PrinciplesJ. Hutchby

    5:00Wrap up, Review Decisions and Actions RequiredJ. Hutchby


    Kick off 2009 ITRS ERD Chapter Preparation Dec. 14th San Francisco FxF Meeting Agenda

    On behalf of the 2009 ITRS, develop an Emerging Research Devices chapter to --

    Critically assess suitability and maturity of novel approaches/technologies for Information Processing technology intended to complement or extend ultimate CMOS

    Identify the most promising approach(es) to Information Processing technology to be implemented by 2022

    To offer substantive input and guidance to –

    Global research community

    Relevant government agencies

    Technology managers


    Mission/Charter of ERD Chapter

    Integrated emerging research memory, logic and new architecture technologies enabled by supporting --

    Materials and process technologies

    Modeling and simulation


    Technology Entries will be selected based on level of published research activity, credibility and progress

    Should show significant maturity in research domain

    Further adoption limited by research issues

    Scope of ERD Chapter

    Research Devices and Architectures –

    Published by 2 or more groups in archival literature and peer reviewed conferences, or

    Published extensively by 1 group in archival literature and peer reviewed conferences

    Scope of ERD ChapterCriteria for Including Technology Entries

    Provides a valuable macro function more efficiently than CMOS

    Energy restorative process (e.g. gain)

    Functionally interfaceable with CMOS

    At or above room temperature operation

    Minimum energy per functional operation

    Minimum, scalable cost per function

    Scope of ERD Chapter Fundamental Requirements for CMOS Extension Information Processing Technologies

    Information processing throughput orders of magnitude beyond ultimately scaled CMOS

    Energy restorative process (e.g. gain)

    Functionally compatible with CMOS

    At or above room temperature operation

    Reduced energy per functional operation

    Reduced, scalable cost per function

    Scope of ERD Chapter Fundamental Requirements for Beyond CMOS Information Processing Technology Entries

    ERD FunctionLeader

    Chapter Chair – North AmericaHutchby

    Chapter Co-chair – EuropeTBD

    Chapter Co-chair – Japan ERDHiramoto

    Chapter Co-chair – Korea ERDChung




    Editorial TeamHutchby, Bourianoff, Cavin, Chung, Garner/Herr, Hiramoto, Zhirnov

    ITRS Liaisons

    PIDSNg, Hutchby


    Modeling & SimulationShankar




    More than MooreBrillouet

    Proposed 2009 ERD Working Group Organization

    ERD Chapter due August 21, 2009

    Major Tasks and Time Line

    Outlines for Memory, Logic, Architecture, Mat’lMarch 18

    Technology Requirements TablesApril 6

    Guiding Principles Section June 1

    Draft Text Completed

    Memory, Logic, Architecture, MaterialJuly 6

    Functional Organization & Critical ReviewJuly 20

    Scope, Difficult Challenges, etc.July 27

    Chapter CompletedAugust 21

    Chapter FrozenSept. 15

    Major Face-to-Face Meetings in 2009

    ITRS/ERD Meeting near Brussels, BelgiumMarch 18

    ITRS/ERD Meeting at Semicon West (SF, CA)July 12

    ITRS/ERD Meeting near Hsinchu, TaiwanNov. 30

    2009 ITRS/ERD Major Deliverables and Timeline

    2008 ERD/ERM Workshops






    Scope (1 page)

    Difficult Challenges (1)

    Taxonomy Chart (1)


    Memory Devices (15)

    Logic Devices (15)

    Architectures (8)

    Critical Assessment (6)

    Fundamental Guiding Principles (3)

    Total Pages (50)

    Draft ERD Chapter Outline


    Feedback on 2007 ERD Chapter Overall Comments

    • Increase involvement of international members – strengthen ties between US – EU – Asia. Requires good balance of representing members from these three regions.

    • Mission of ERD is not clear cut to universities – clearly state the mission in the introduction.

    • Need more detailed discussion of key messages and issues between ERD and ERM

    • To what extent and how does ERD/ERM deal with More than Moore?

    • Need a metric to gauge the potential of each Technology Entry to be disruptive.

    • Is a Technology Entry being limited by Fundamental Limits or a technologically limited research gap?

    • ERD needs to maintain a dialog with the Systems Drivers Chapter

    • Should ERD continue to include a failing Technology Entry?

    Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterEmerging Research Memory Devices

    • Transfers

      • Engineered Tunnel Barrier Memory to PIDS and FEP

      • Keep the Ferroelectric FET Memory Technology in ERD

      • Include STT RAM as a new entry. Given progress, should we include STT RAM in a new Potential Solution Table for Memory Technologies?

    • Other comments

      • Re-combine the capacitive and resistive memory tables

      • Discuss other materials (in addition to Pt/NiO/Pt) for Fuse/Anti-fuse Memory

      • Try to elucidate fundamental limits of Memory Devices

      • Add a new row to memory table to include Storage Capacity

      • Address Memory Architecture, perhaps in the Architecture Section

      • Why do all the memory technology entries have for “Best Projected Write Cycles” a value of 3E16 ?

      • Include scaling projections for all Memory Technology Entries

      • The Memory Group is preparing a single reference document containing scaling projections and citations

    Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterEmerging Research Logic Devices (1/3)

    • Transfers proposed

      • III-V Alternate Channel Materials to PIDS/FEP and

      • Low Dimensional Materials to PIDS/FEP

      • Move Molecular Devices to the Transition Table.

      • Include Band-to-Band Tunneling Device category in Table 1.

      • Move RTD out of Table 2 to Transition Table

    • Other comments

      • The comprehensive review with references is important

      • Like having two tables to represent the traditional, digital Boolean device applications and the new table to represent new, perhaps analog, applications of emerging research devices.

      • Include chart entitled “Evolution of Extended CMOS” from Japan ERD

      • The best demonstrated parameters are obtained from different devices. Is it possible to obtain them simultaneously on one device? We should include a note to this effect.

      • Define “Switching Speed” and “Circuit Speed”

    Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterEmerging Research Logic Devices (2/3)

    • Other comments

      • Discuss “Spin Gain Transistor” and “Spin Torque Transistor” in text. “Single Spin device” is not in the table

      • Should we constrain Logic Technology by availability of Memory Tech?

      • Should use term “high mobility/high velocity” instead of “high mobility”

      • Improve linkages to the Architecture Section and to the System Drivers Chapter.

      • Increase emphasis on Table 2 while maintaining Table 1. Place a stronger emphasis on non-linear response functions. Think about how to amend Table 1 to differentiate “Beyond CMOS” devices.

      • Separate Spin FETs from Spin State Devices (Spin transport without charge transport) and evaluate as separate categories.

      • Divide Table 1 into 2 tables – one for CMOS extension and the other for Beyond CMOS?

      • Include Spin Wave Bus in Table 1?

    Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterEmerging Research Logic Devices (3/3)

    • Other comments

      • Keep SETs in Table 2, Alternative Information Processing Technologies

      • Change Multiferroic Tunnel Junction Devices to Multiferroic Switching Device and keep in Table 2.

    Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterEmerging Research Architectures

    • Transfers proposed

      • Should we continue the “Homogeneous Multicore Section

    • Other comments

      • Morphic Architectures might include: Associative Memory Processor; Cellular Nonlinear Networks; and Neuromorphic LSIs for collision avoid.

      • Should Emerging Memory Architectures be addressed in this Section?

      • Recommend evaluation of integrating energy sources, storage memory, low-power sensors, and computational engines

      • Consider using biological concepts for new architectures to obtain high energy efficiency.

      • Consider integration of biological elements

    Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterCritique Section for Memory &Logic Tech Entries

    • Comments

      • Important section to survey technology trend of emerging research devices

      • Standard Deviation is very helpful

      • How and why were the Evaluation Criteria chosen?

      • Need much more discussion of the data.

      • How can we critically review Architectural approaches? Should we try?

      • Should we use different colors because our use of red, white and yellow has a different meaning than the use of these colors in other chapters of the ITRS.

      • We need to sure our Critique Section analysis is consistent with the text for the Technology Entries, e.g., we need to be sure the highs and lows in the Critique are addressed as strengths and research gaps in the text sections.

    Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterScope, Difficult Challenges, Taxonomy & Guiding Principles

    • Scope: In general the Scope is very good. However, the statement “…, CMOS certainly will provide a platform processing technology for sometime beyond the end of dimensional scaling, exploiting the notion that the ultimately scaled MOSFET is a nearly ideal electronic charge-based device” is a rather strong statement. Is it too strong? Should we say something about the technology “cost” in the Scope?

    • Difficult Challenges: The Difficult Challenges are very good.

    • Guiding Principles

      • The five original Guiding Principles are very good.

      • The sixth Guiding Principle related to “Architecture” needs clarification as to whether it only applies to “Beyond CMOS” or to both “Beyond CMOS” and CMOS integrated with Beyond CMOS devices?That is do we address: (1) New architectures with conventional devices and/or (2) New architectures with beyond CMOS devices on CMOS infrastructure?.

    Decisions for 2009 Chapter

    • Memory

      • Include device structural aspects of the new NW PCRAM in ERD with a summary of the materials issues. Include more materials information in ERM on this topic.

      • Include the Spin Torque Transfer MRAM in ERD/ERM.

      • Decide whether or not to include the “Magnetic Domain” or “Racetrack Memory” in ERD. We need to focus on mP applications.

      • We will keep nanomechanical memory in ERD Memory Table.

      • Move the Ferroelectric Effects Tunneling Barrier Memory from the Electronic Effects Memory category to the Memory Transition Table

      • Leave “Redox type” memories in the ERD. These are different than ionic cation migration effects memory.

      • By categorizing using a physics-based system, a given material that exhibits 2 or more effects will be listed in each category.

    Decisions for 2009 Chapter

    • Logic

      • ERD/ERM recommends carbon-based nanoelectronics to include CNT, graphene for more resources and roadmapping for IRC as part of promising technologies for 5-10 years demonstration horizon

      • Carbon-based nanoelectronics will be included in the 2009 ERD chapter via a two new Potential Solutions tables – for materials and for device issues.

      • Seven potential technologies were considered:

        • Carbon-based Nanoelectronics

        • Collective spin

        • Spin torque transfer

        • Atomic and electrochemical metal

        • CMOL/FPNI

        • Single Electron Transistor

        • NEMS

    Comments 9/23/08

    • Does this include wires, vias, pkg technology, etc. – no

    • For emphasis on Carbon-based NE Mike will connect w/ ESH Jim Jewett

    • ERM Table of Applications & Proposed Structure

      • What is infrastructure mean?

      • Equipment issue is important.

    • Potential Solution Chart

      • Don’t tie down the time frame too rigidly

      • Label chart by material or device structure

      • Label as More Moore and Beyond CMOS

      • Can we have a memory driver as we have a logic driver?

      • Entries

    Action Items (1/2)

    Action Items (2/2)

    Critical Review on Critical Assessment

    F. Nihey (NEC)

    1. Changes in Critical Assessment(2007<->2005)

    2. Short Comments

    ERD - Critical Assessment - Memory

    Engineered Tunnel Barrier


    Nano Mechanical

    Nano Floating Gate

    Engineered Tunnel Barrier

    Electron Injection

    Ferroelectric FET

    Insulator Resistance Change




    2005 Edition

    Ferroelectric FET



    2007 Edition

    ERD – Critical Assessment - Logic

    Engineered Tunnel Barrier

    1D Structure

    Channel Replacement Mat.

    Single Electron Tunneling

    1D Structure

    Resonant Tunneling

    Single Electron Tunneling





    2005 Edition



    2007 Edition

    Evaluation - Memory









    Evaluation – Logic (1/2)







    Evaluation – Logic (2/2)

    How can be improved? Something missing? Other comments?


    for each memory candidate, include very short comments (arguments!) on the high-scored and low-scored features: main advantages versus open issues(when possible quantify comments).

    when applicable, for each memory candidate, short comment about level of concrete demonstration and/or prospects for NV, SRAM, DRAM

    identify contributors.

    Critical review: memory

    • Team:

    • Jim Hutchby et al, Reviewer: Adrian M. Ionescu

    • Goals:

      • assess each Technology Entry (TE) for Memory & Logic

      • compare/benchmark with/against:

        • Si CMOS logic

        • memory technology to displace

      • provide the ERD community with and funding agencies with ERD WG collective view of the overall (long term) potential of each TE

    Critical Review: overview

    > 20

    >16 - 18

    >18 - 20

    < 16

    Critical Review – Memory (1/2)













    > 20

    >16 - 18

    >18 - 20

    < 16

    Critical Review – Memory (2/2)













  • Login