Design Methodology and Technology Assessment for High-Density

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    14-Feb-2017
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    215
  • download

    2

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Design Methodology and Technology Assessment for High-Density

  • THSE

    Pour obtenir le grade de

    DOCTEUR DE LUNIVERSIT GRENOBLE ALPES

    Spcialit : Nano lectronique et nano technologies

    Arrt ministriel : 7 aot 2006

    Prsente par

    Hossam SARHAN Thse dirige par Fabien CLERMIDY prpare au sein du Laboratoire Intgration Silicium des Architectures Numriques dans l'cole Doctorale Electronique, Electrotechnique, Automatique et Traitement du Signal (EEATS)

    Design Methodology and Technology Assessment for High-Density 3D Technologies Thse soutenue publiquement le 23 Novembre 2015 , devant le jury compos de :

    Mme Lorena, ANGHEL Pofesseur, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, TIMA, Prsident

    M. Amara, AMARA Pofesseur, ISEP, Rapporteur

    M. Jacques-Olivier, KLEIN Pofesseur, Univ. Paris Sud, Rapporteur

    M. Sung Kyu, LIM Pofesseur, Georgia Institute of Technology, Membre

    M. Fabien, CLERMIDY HDR, CEA-LETI, Directeur de thse, Membre M. Sebastien, THURIES Ingenieur de recherche, CEA-LETI, Membre

  • Doctoral Thesis

    Design Methodology and TechnologyAssessment for High-Density 3D

    Technologies

    Hossam Sarhan

    November 2015

    http://www.linkedin.com/in/hsarhan

  • Abstract

    Scaling limitations of advanced technology nodes are increasing and the BEOL para-

    sitics become more dominant. This has led to an increasing interest in 3D technologies

    to overcome such limitations and continue the scaling predicted by Moores Law. 3D

    technologies vary according to the fabrication process which creates a wide spectrum

    of technologies including Through-Silicon-VIA (TSV), Copper-to-Copper (CuCu) and

    Monolithic (or sequential) 3D (M3D). TSV and CuCu provide 3D contacts of pitch

    around 5-10m while M3D scales down 3D via pitch extremely to 0.11m. Such high-

    density capability of Monolithic 3D technology creates new design paradigms. In this

    context, our objective is to propose innovative design methodologies to well utilize M3D

    technology and introduce a technology assessment framework to evaluate different M3D

    technology parameters from design perspective.

    This thesis can be divided into three main contributions. As creating 3D standard

    cells becomes achievable thanks to M3D technology, a new 3D standard cell approach

    called 3D Cell-on-Buffer (3DCoB) has been introduced. 3DCoB cells are created by

    splitting 2D cells into functioning gates and driving buffers stacked over each other.

    The simulation results show gain in timing performances compared to 2D. By applying

    an additionally Multi-VDD low-power approach, iso-performance power gain has been

    achieved. Afterwards cell-on-cell design approach has been explored where a partitioning

    methodology is required to distribute cells between different tiers, i.e. determine which

    cell should be placed on which tier. A physical-aware partitioning methodology has been

    introduced which improves power-performance-area results compared to state-of-the-art

    partitioning techniques. Finally a full high-density 3D technology assessment study is

    presented to explore the trade-offs between different 3D technologies, block complexities

    and partitioning methodologies.

  • Acknowledgements

    Here I am reaching the end of this journey. This work would not have been accom-

    plished without the efforts of many inspiring people. I would like to acknowledge all of

    their contributions. Above all, I am indebted to my thesis director Fabien Clermidy and

    my thesis supervisors Sebastien Thuries and Olivier Billoint. I have had the honor and

    pleasure of working with such smart and inspiring people. Fabien, Sebastien and Olivier

    are great mentors from whom I have learned a lot on the personal and technical levels.

    They helped me a lot throughout all my work.

    Even though a great effort has been put into this thesis, it would not have been with

    any value without the approval of a great jury. First of all, I would like to express my

    gratitude to Prof. Jacques-Olivier and Prof. Amara Amara for being the reporters and

    for their suggestions. I would also like to thank Prof. Sung Kyu Lim and Prof. Lorena

    Anghel for accepting to be part of the thesis jury. It was my pleasure to defend and

    discuss my thesis work with such technical experts.

    During this work, I have worked in collaboration with many researchers from whom

    I have had the chance to learn a lot. I would like to especially thank and acknowledge

    the effort of Synopsys/Atrenta SpyGlass team; Vladimir Pasca, Claudia Rusu and Ravi

    Varadarajan for their intensive support of SpyGlass Physical tool within a common lab

    during my PhD.

    I would like to acknowledge as well Perrine Batude for her support and contributions

    regarding Monolithic 3D Integration Technology process, Maud Vinet for directing the

    research effort in 3D Technologies, Meycene Toumi for his support on SpyGlass 3D tool

    flow, Bartosz Boguslawski for his collaboration and great effort in the 3D neural cliques

    contribution, Fabien Deprat and Alexandre Ayres for their support and contribution in

    the process characterization of Monolithic 3D technology, Edith Beigne for taking the

    responsibility of coaching us as PhD students and Pascal Vivet for his fruitful discus-

    sions and guidance. I would also like to thank Marc Belleville, Denis Dutoit, Gerald

    Cibrario, Guillaume Berhault, Frederic Heitzmann, Cristiano Lopes Dos Santos, Ogun

    Turkylimaz, Lilia Zaourar, Bilel Belhadj, Simone Bacles-Min, Houcine Oucheikh, David

    Coriat, Thiago Rappu Da Rosa, Yassine Fkih, Santhosh Onkaraiah and Natalija Jo-

    vanovic with whom I have exchanged many ideas and have had technical discussions. I

    really appreciate their contribution which shaped my thesis research substantially.

    I feel privileged for the chance to conduct research in such a dynamic and enriching

    workplace as CEA where I have met wonderful people. Especially, I would like thank

    ii

  • iii

    the members of my laboratory: Olivier Thomas, Bastien, Jerome, Jean-Frederic, Alexan-

    der, Yvain, Ivan, Romain, Pierre-Yves, Michel, Yves, Anthony and my friends Ismail,

    Vincent, Brahim, Oussama, Florent, Adam, Alex, Soundous, Emilie, Jolie, Melanie,

    Sebastien Bernard, Marie-Sophie, Nour, Mai, Alexandra, Julien, Lionel, Gregory for

    making the life in CEA even more enjoyable. I would also like to thank Catherine Bour

    and Jumana Boussey for being very helpful during my administrative struggles. I also

    want to thank the laboratory secretaries Caroline and Armelle for being kind and patient

    even with my limited French. I would like to deeply thank Haykel Ben-Jamaa without

    whom my path would have never crossed with CEA; as he was the one to invited me to

    this PhD position.

    My most thanks, appreciation, and gratitude go to my family. First my wife Nesma

    who was part of this journey. She has endured my working late so may times and con-

    tinuously encouraged me to continue through all the hard times that I have had. My son

    Yusuf whom I have been blessed with during my PhD journey and who has made my

    life a lot more joyful. My father Hassan, my mother Nawal, my father-in-law Mokhtar

    and my brother Mohamed have all been a source of motivation and strength. Without

    their constant encouragement, I would not have been able to get this far. I dedicate this

    dissertation to each and every one of my family and my friends for their unconditional

    love and generous support.

    Hossam Sarhan

  • Contents

    Abstract i

    Acknowledgements ii

    Contents iv

    List of Figures viii

    List of Tables x

    Abbreviations xii

    1 Introduction 1

    1.1 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

    1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

    1.3 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

    1.4 Thesis Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

    2 Overview on 3D Technologies and Design Space 7

    2.1 Why 3D ICs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

    2.2 3D Design Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

    2.3 3D Technology Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

    2.3.1 Integration Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

    2.3.1.1 2.5D Interposer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

    2.3.1.2 3D Configurations: Face-to-Back and Face-to-Face . . . . 10

    2.3.2 3D Through-Silicon-VIA Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

    2.3.3 3D Copper-to-Copper Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

    2.3.4 Monolithic 3D (3DVLSI) Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

    2.3.5 Summary: Comparing different 3D technologies . . . . . . . . . . . 13

    2.4 Partitioning Granularity: Stacking from Coarse-grain to Fine-grain . . 14

    2.4.1 Memory-on-logic integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

    2.4.2 Core-level and block-level integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

    2.4.3 Gate-level integration (Cell-on-Cell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

    2.4.4 Transistor-level integration (N/P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

    2.4.5 Logic-on-Logic stacking: Fine vs. Coarse grain Partitioning . . . . 18

    2.4.5.1 Coarse-Grain: Architecture-level Partitioning . . . . . . . 18

    2.4.5.2 Fine-Grain: Gate-level Partitioning . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

    iv