4.4 Article

RSFQ/ERSFQ Cell Library With Improved Circuit Optimization, Timing Verification, and Test Characterization

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TASC.2017.2677418

关键词

Process corners; Monte-Carlo simulations; timing back-annotation; cell library; statistical variations; ring oscillator

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research [N00014-12-1-0243, N00014-16-1-2291]
  2. SPAWAR [N00039-08-C-0044]
  3. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity [W911NF-14-C0090]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We address all round development of the standard cell library including simulation, layout, and testing. We present a new circuit analysis scheme based onMonte-Carlo simulations and process corners. Using a phase modulation decoder as an example circuit, we identify weak spots in the design that was originally optimized for parameter margins. To support static timing analysis for very high complexity circuits, we describe the timing characterization of library cells as a function of its load, and demonstrate digital timing verification with timing back-annotation using Verilog hardware descriptive language. For the layout of library cells, we present architecture for the dual RSFQ/ERSFQ standard cell library for the MIT-LL, 10 kA/cm(2), SFQ4EE and SFQ5EE processes. Testing and characterizing hundreds of library cells, including unique cells and their layout variations, is a challenge. For efficient characterization of the digital cells, we have developed an NDRO cell-based multiplexing scheme that lets us characterize hundreds of cells on a single chip. For better model-to-hardware correlation, we have implemented a differential delay measurement scheme using ring oscillators that facilitates timing characterization of the synchronous and asynchronous cells. We also report design and measurement of statistical variations for the critical current of decision-making pair of junctions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据