1352
3, MARCH 2016
An Analytical Model to Estimate FinFET’s VT
Distribution Due to Fin-Edge Roughness
S. Mittal, A. S. Shekhawat, and U. Ganguly, Member, IEEE
Abstract— Line-edge roughness induced fin-edge rough-
ness (FER) is the primary source of VT variation in FinFETs.
Conventionally, stochastic simulations are performed to predict
the device variability due to FER for a technology, which are
computationally expensive. An analytical formulation to predict
variability due to FER enables understanding of the effect of
input parameters as well as provides quantitative results at frac-
tional computational costs. In this paper, we develop and present
an analytical model to estimate saturation VT (VT −sat ) variability
due to FER. The model is capable of capturing the VT variability
dependence on device parameters (L G and Wfin ) and variability
parameters (correlation length  and standard deviation )
accurately. The entire VT −sat distribution obtained by the model
is also presented and compared against the VT −sat distribution
of stochastic simulations to show that the model captures the
distribution effectively. We show that not only σ VT but even
μVT is affected by variability parameters. Hence, such modeling
is critical to defining nominal FinFET structure (L G and Wfin ),
which is affected by variability ( and ) especially for scaled
FinFETs, where quantum-confinement effects are enhanced.
Index Terms— Fin-edge roughness (FER), FinFET, line-edge
roughness (LER), modeling, VT variability.
I. I NTRODUCTION
L INE-EDGE roughness (LER) induced fin-edge rough-
ness (FER) is a major contributor to the variability
in advanced FinFETs in sub-20-nm node [1]. Various fin
patterning technologies, for example, self-aligned dual pat-
terning, extreme ultraviolet, nanoimprint lithography, and so
on [2], are characterized by their LER at a given critical
dimension. The impact of the obtained LER-dependent FER
variation at device level is essential in order to benchmark
and qualify a technology. The conventional procedure to
study the device level impact of FER variation is to perform
a large number of stochastic simulations [1], [3]. Stochas-
tic simulations provide accurate analysis of various device
parameters but are prohibitively computationally expensive.
In addition, analytical models provide superior insights of the
significance of individual parameters compared with stochastic
simulations. Therefore, the development of an analytical model
Manuscript received November 2, 2015; revised December 27, 2015;
accepted January 20, 2016. Date of publication February 8, 2016; date of
current version February 23, 2016. This work was supported in part by the
Department of Science and Technology, India, and in part by the Department
of Electronics and Information Technology within the Ministry of Communi-
cations and Information Technology. The review of this paper was arranged by
Editor R. M. Todi.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay,
Mumbai 400076, India (e-mail: smittal@iitb.ac.in; shekhawat@ee.iitb.ac.in;
udayan@ee.iitb.ac.in).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TED.2016.2520954
0018-9383 © 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 63, NO.
for FER variability evaluation at device level is attractive.
To this purpose, there are few analytical models reported
in literature [2], [4], [5]. Cheng et al. [4] assume fin edges to
be sinusoids with wavelength as multiples of correlation length
to model FER, which is a gross simplification and unable
to provide stochastic VT distribution. The formulation in [5]
is applicable to planar MOSFETs, not FinFETs. Patel [2]
assumes a linearity between VT and Wfin , which does not hold
true for FinFETs affected by quantum confinement (QC).
In our recent model [6], we show that suppose a FinFET
with FER has a minimum Wfin (Wmin ) occurring somewhere
between source and drain, then its VT −sat is essentially the
same as VT −sat of a FinFET with uniform Wfin of Wmin .
This is because maximum QC occurs at the position of
Wmin in a FinFET, which provides the maximum barrier and,
hence, defines VT −sat of FinFET. Thus, to obtain the VT −sat
distribution, first, the Wmin distribution is obtained from the
Langevin equation-based FER simulations [3]. Second, Wmin
distribution is used to estimate VT −sat distribution based on
the dependence of VT −sat on uniform Wfin FinFETs obtained
either from simulations [6] or compact models of FinFETs [7].
The implicit assumption in this model is a strong local con-
finement at Wmin which may not be accurate for approximately
uniform fins or where QC is weak.
In this paper, we present a model to calculate VT −sat
distribution of FinFETs due to FER variability, which is valid
both in weak and strong QC regimes. The model is validated
for a wide range of L G s (12–20 nm) [which is equivalent
to a technology nodes (7–14 nm [8])], Wfin s (3.5–8 nm),
and correlation length  (5–50 nm). The entire saturation
VT (VT −sat ) distribution obtained by the model is compared
against VT −sat distribution of stochastic simulations to show
that the model captures the distribution effectively.
This paper is arranged as follows. Section II provides
the details of the Sentaurus [9] simulation deck used in
simulations. Section III presents the methodology of the
model development. In this section, we describe in detail the
formulation of phenomenological model for the distribution of
minimum fin width (Wmin ). This is followed by VT estimation
based on percolation model [10] to generate Q–Q plots of
VT distribution. Results using this formulation are presented
in Section IV. Benchmarking and discussion are presented in
Section V. Finally, the conclusion is drawn in Section VI.
II. TCAD S IMULATION D ECK
The Sentaurus TCAD test bench was used to perform
FinFET variability studies. For reasonable estimations,
MITTAL et al.: ANALYTICAL MODEL TO ESTIMATE FinFET’s VT DISTRIBUTION DUE TO FER
TABLE I
PARAMETERS U SED FOR FinFET S IMULATION
first, the test bench was calibrated against experimental
data [11] at L G = 25 nm. The details of calibration are
provided in [3]. As described in [3], the 2-D structure has
been used in simulations in consistence with FinFET structures
in [12].
This well-calibrated 2-D simulation deck was used to
simulate variability for FinFET at various technology nodes in
this paper. For all the technology nodes presented in this paper
[7 nm (L G = 12 nm), 10 nm (L G = 15 nm), and 14 nm (L G =
20 nm)], an Effective Oxide Thickness of 0.67 nm, L SPACER of
5 nm, and VDD of 0.78 V [8] were used. A source/drain doping
of 4 × 1020 was used along with a channel doping of 1 × 1017 .
The parameters are shown in Table I.
To simulate the FER-based variability, method presented
in [3] has been adopted. Gaussian autocorrelation function [13]
was used to generate stochastic lines with specified correlation
length  and 3 variation. To study VT variability in this
paper, saturation VT (VT −sat ) was extracted from I D –VG
curves at VDS = VDD by constant current method at
I = 10−2 mA/μm, as also described in [3].
III. M ETHODOLOGY
A. VT −sat Dependence on Wmin Versus Wavg
Previously, we have demonstrated that Wmin correlates with
VT −sat of a FinFET, where local QC effects are strong [6].
A large parameter space is explored in detail in this section.
VT −sat versus uniform Wfin sensitivity check (SC) curve is
compared with stochastic analysis (SA) results of 200 samples
at L G = 15 nm in Fig. 1. For each stochastically generated fin,
the average Wfin (Wavg ), minimum Wfin (Wmin ), and maximum
Wfin (Wmax ) are extracted along with VT −sat . Each VT −sat is
plotted against its respective Wmax , Wmin , and Wavg to evaluate
its extent of correlation with SC. Fig. 1(a) shows the data for
a nominal Wfin = 5 nm and  = 5 nm, Fig. 1(b) shows
the data for nominal Wfin = 5 nm and  = 50 nm, while
Fig. 1(c) shows the data for nominal Wfin = 3.5 nm and
 = 5 nm. The schematic of one of the samples of randomly
generated FinFET is also shown in inset. It simply shows
that for larger  [Fig. 1(b)], fin looks uniform (closer to
SC uniform fins case), thus all variants of SA, such as Wmin ,
Wmax , and Wavg , correlate well with SC. For smaller , the fin
has significant undulation (high spatial frequency), as shown in
Fig. 1(a). Therefore, the distribution of Wmin , Wmax , and Wavg
moves apart as  decreases, as shown in Fig. 1(a) compared
with Fig. 1(b). The distributions move further apart as Wfin
decreases, as shown in Fig. 1(c) compared with Fig. 1(a). For
smaller Wfin and  [Fig. 1(c)], Wmin correlates well with SC,
where QC effect is prominent.
1353
Fig. 1. VT −sat versus uniform Wfin -based SC compared with VT −sat varia-
tion versus Wmin /Wmax /Wavg in SA for various Wfin and . (a) Wfin = 5 nm
and  = 5 nm, (b) Wfin = 5 nm and  = 50 nm, and (c) Wfin = 3.5 nm and
 = 5 nm for typical 3 = 2 nm. Insets of (a)–(c): cartoon of sample FinFET
generated, which indicate that the increase in  produces a more uniform fin
and the decrease in Wfin causes enhanced QC. (b) shows for uniform fins,
Wmin , Wmax , and Wavg correlate well with SC. (c) shows that at smaller 
and Wfin , Wmin , Wavg , and Wmax split and Wmin correlates well with SC.
(d) RMS error between SC and stochastic Wmin , Wavg , and Wmax
versus /L G . At smaller Wfin and /L G , Wmin has minimum error, while
Wavg has least error at larger /L G and Wfin . Thus, there are different
regimes, where Wmin and Wavg define the distribution better.
To summarize, Fig. 1(d) shows the rms error of Wmin , Wmax ,
and Wavg -based SA results with SC for various Wfin s and
/L G s. Wmax does not show minimum rms error for any Wfin s
and s. At smaller Wfin = 3.5 nm and /L G < 0.8, Wmin
shows the minimum rms error. Wavg shows the minimum error
elsewhere but the error increases sharply at lower /L G . Thus,
we see that Wmin better defines the VT −sat distribution for
smaller Wfin s and s, while Wavg defines it better elsewhere.
This indicates that the VT −sat distribution could be a weighted
function of both Wmin and Wavg for Wfin and  lying in
between these two regimes. To obtain this function, we first
develop an analytical model of Wmin and Wavg distribution
depending on /L G and Wfin . Second, we use a percolation
model to estimate VT −sat for a fin with varying Wfin . Finally,
we obtain a full VT −sat distribution and validate it with SA.
B. Phenomenological Model for μWmin , μWmax , and μWavg
Fig. 2(a) shows the μWmin , μWmax , and μWavg dependence
on /L G based on stochastic simulations [6]. μWmin decreases
with the decrease in /L G because of the presence of more
local minima (undulations) in one channel length, while
μWmax increases because of the presence of more maxima.
μWavg remains constant. To model the distribution of Wmin ,
we use the Brownian motion-based model of FER described
by Langevin equation [14]. Equation (1) shows the Langevin
equation
dy y
= F(x) − . (1)
dx 
1354 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 63, NO. 3, MARCH 2016

of Wfin . The expectation of the minima and maxima will

provide estimates for μWmin and μWmax , respectively. There
exist two cases for the position of Wmin , as shown in Fig. 2(c).
For the mth upper line, the minimum will lie at x = 0 for 1st
to mth lower line [Fig. 2(c) (Case 1)] and at x = L G for rest
of the lower lines [Fig. 2(c) (Case 2)]. A weighted summation
to obtain μWmin is done as follows:

μWmin
 n     
W W
= pm p1 Am + − A1 −
2 2
m=1
   
W W
+ p2 Am + − A2 −
2 2
   
W W
+ · · · + pm Am + − Am −
2 2
   
LG W LG W
+ pm+1 Am e−  + − Am+1 e−  −
2 2
    
LG W L W
Am e−  + − An e−  −
G
+ · · · + pn
2 2
(2)

where A1 , A2 etc. are the initial amplitudes, i.e., y(x = 0),

Fig. 2. (a) μWmin , μWmax , and μWavg with /L G at nominal
Wfin = 5 nm at FER 3 = 2 nm, extracted from randomly generated lines.
μWavg does not change (=nominal Wfin ) with /L G , while μWmin decreases
and μWmax increases as /L G decreases. (b) Each random line is governed
by two phenomenon (1): i) random force causing variation and ii) decay to
nominal position. Average of few random lines starting from a fixed y is thus
of different lines, p1 , p2 etc. are the probabilities of A1 , A2
etc., respectively, drawn from a normal probability distrib-
ution, W is the nominal Wfin , L G is the channel length,
 is the correlation length, and n is the total number of
random lines considered. By simplifying the above equation,
we get

n 
m LG

a decay line and it matches the exponential decay. (c) Spectrum generated
around upper and lower edge of FinFET with the mean decay lines. For the
μWmin = W + pm A m pi 1 − e − 
mth upper fin line and the ith lower fin line, depending on i, two cases exist. m=1 i=1
Case 1: for i < m, Wmin lies at x = 0. Case 2: for i > m, Wmin lies at 
n 
m LG

x = L G . For i = m, Wfin is constant (=W ) from x = 0 to L G . − pm pi A i 1 − e −  (3)

m=1 i=1
n
The first term in the RHS is the Gaussian zero-mean random where we have used relation that m=1 pm = 1
n
force, which is the cause of randomness in the line. The second and p
m=1 m mA = 0. To obtain the distribution of
term is the decay function, which brings the line back to its A [y(x = 0)], the following procedure is used. A line
nominal position after it is deviated from the nominal because is expressed as y = Ae−(x/). The mean of this line is
of the random force term. If the initial point, i.e., y(x = 0), estimated as
 LG

LG 
is deviated from the mean, then in the absence of the random
1
term, the line will decay to its mean position. Now, even in the My = yd x = A 1−e−  . (4)
presence of the random force, the mean trajectory of y(x) is LG 0 LG
an exponential decay function as the random force will, on the Thus, we can write
average, get cancelled out as it is a zero-mean process. As an
example, Fig. 2(b) shows that the mean line of many random LG 1
A = My
. (5)
lines from the same starting point would approximately be a  1 − e− LG
decay function even though the individual lines are subjected
to the random force.
We assume that M y has a Gaussian probability distribution
Next, we generate a set of exponentially decaying mean
with standard deviation σ () of the line with FER. Thus,
lines with different starting deviations from the nominal edge,
substituting (5) in (3), we get μWmin as
for both the upper and lower edges of a FinFET [Fig. 2(c)].
The initial amplitude of the decay function, i.e., y(x = 0),  n 
LG    
m n m
is assumed to have a normal probability distribution. From μWmin = W − pm pi M yi − pm M ym pi
this basis of lines, each combination of one upper and one 
m=1 i=1 m=1 i=1
lower edge mean line will provide a minima and maxima (6)
MITTAL et al.: ANALYTICAL MODEL TO ESTIMATE FinFET’s VT DISTRIBUTION DUE TO FER
Fig. 3. Comparison of μWmin and μWmax model with the data generated
using Gaussian autocorrelation function-based random lines versus /L G
at L G = 15 nm and Wfin = 5 nm for different 3 deviations. Greater
than 92% R 2 match is observed for all ranges of 3 deviations. A set
of 50 exponentially decaying lines [n = 50 in (6) and (7)] were used in
these results.
where M yi varies from −3σ to 3σ as i goes from 1 to n.
Similarly, μWmax is given as
μWmax
 
LG 
n 
m 
n 
m
=W+ pm pi M yi − pm M ym pi .
 minimum fin width would offer maximum resistance, while
m=1 i=1 m=1 i=1
(7)
Fig. 3 compares the results of this model with the data
generated using Gaussian autocorrelation function-based ran-
dom lines for different  variations at L G = 15 nm and
Wfin = 5 nm. n = 50 [(6) and (7)] has been used in these
results. Excellent match (R 2 > 92%) is obtained between the
presented model and the stochastic data. Thus, this simple
model captures the dependence of μWmin and μWmax on , ,
Wfin , and L G . The results become insensitive to n for n > 30
(not shown).
We have shown earlier that the standard deviation
of Wmin and Wmax is constant and independent of /L G [6].
Wfin is the difference between the upper and lower edges
of a fin. As both upper and lower edges are defined by
independent Gaussian random process, as holds true√for resist
defined fins [2], the standard deviation of Wfin is 2 times
standard
√ deviation of one edge. This theoretical value of
2 is experimentally verified for Wmin , Wavg , and Wmax
distributions [6]. Based on the above model for average and
standard deviation, the distribution of Wmax , Wmin , and Wavg
is determined. Next, we present how to use these distributions
in order to estimate VT variability due to FER.
C. Tapered Fin Percolation Model for a Non-Uniform Fin
The Wmin , Wavg , and Wmax distributions are Gaussians
with the same σ with μWmax and μWmin symmetrically
shifted about μWavg , which is the same as nominal Wfin
[Fig. 2(a)]. If each distribution is divided into n fin widths (W )
from −3σ to +3σ , then the i th W of each distribution,
i.e., Wmin (i ), Wavg (i ), and Wmax (i ), would have the same
probability. We assume that they belong to the i th fin.
1355
Fig. 4. (a) Schematic showing the methodology to estimate μVT due to FER
variability. Thickness of line shows the probability of occurrence of that line.
Wi (x) is the function of μWmin , μWmax , and Wmin −i. (b) cartoon of FinFET
with Wfin = W i (x). (c) Resistive network model of FinFET showing the
maximum resistance at Wmin position and least resistance at Wmax position.
Thus, n fins may be created, as shown in Fig. 4(a).
The i th fin has a linearly changing W (x) given by
 
i Wmax (i ) − Wmin (i )
W (x) = x + Wmin (i ) (8)
LG
 
μWmax − μWmin
W i (x) = x + Wmin (i ). (9)
LG
As Wmax (i )−Wmin (i ) = μWmax −μWmin , the slope of W (x)
is fixed. Such a tapered fin, as shown in Fig. 4(b), is amenable
to the application of percolation theory [10]. The position of
the position of maximum fin width would offer least resistance
[Fig. 4(c)]. Next, we see how these resistances are added in
subthreshold regime in order to find effective threshold voltage
for this FinFET with variable Wfin .
Ohm’s law current equation is given as
I = Aqμn E (10)
where A is the area, μ is the mobility, n is the number of
charge carriers, and E is the electric field. At a position x
[Fig. 4(b)], for a fin of length dx, current would be given as
dV x
I = Aqμn(x) (11)
dx
where n(x) is the number of charge carriers at position x
and dVx is the potential drop across fin of length dx. In sub-
threshold regime, the charge carriers are given by the following
relation:
q(V gs−VT (x))
n(x) = λe ηkT (12)
where λ is the proportionality constant, Vgs is the applied
gate bias, VT (x) is the threshold voltage at position x, which
depends on W (x), and η is the ideality factor which is essen-
tially the effectiveness of source-channel barrier modulation by
applied gate bias. As a first-order approximation, the variation
in η with fin width was ignored. We assumed a constant
η = 1.16 as the electrostatics is excellent in FinFETs with
subthreshold slope 70 mV/decade. VDS dependence in n(x)
is indirectly captured in (12) as VT (x) depends on VDS . Here,
we also ignore the dependence of mobility on fin width as the
carrier concentration is an exponential function and, therefore,
1356 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 63, NO. 3, MARCH 2016

would be dominant. Thus, (11) can be rewritten as

⎧ ⎫
⎨ Aqμλ e qV ηkT ⎬
gs
dV x
I = dV x =
⎩ dx qVT (x)
⎭ R(x)
e ηkT
⎧ ⎫
T (x) ⎬
⎨ d x e qVηkT dV x
R(x) = = (13)
⎩ qV gs
⎭ I
Aqμλe ηkT
where R(x) is the resistance at position x. Summing R(x)
from 0 to L G would give net effective resistance (Reff )


LG Vds
dV x Vds
R(x) = = = Reff
I I
x=0 V =0
⎧ qVT (x)
⎫ ⎧ ⎫
LG ⎨ ηkT ⎬ ⎨
qVT −eff
ηkT ⎬
dxe LGe Fig. 5. Q–Q plots of VT −sat distribution obtained using the above-
Reff = = (14) mentioned formalism for different Wfin s and s at L G = 15 nm and
⎩ qV gs
⎭ ⎩ qV gs
⎭ 3 = 2 nm [1], [15]. Deviation from the dashed lines represents the
x=0 Aqμλe ηkT Aqμλe ηkT
non-Gaussian nature of FER-induced VT variability.
where VT −eff is the effective threshold voltage. The summation
from 0 to L G is valid both for low and high VDS . For low
VDS case, channel extends from source to drain. Thus, all the
values of W (x) (for all x) contribute. So equally summing
over from 0 to L G over all the W ’s is correct. For high
VDS , channel extends from source to pinchoff point, unlike
low VDS case. Therefore, only the W (x) in the channel (from
source to pinchoff point) should be considered in the resistance
summation. However, different sections of the fin, i.e., W (x),
can be arranged in many equally likely ways, while ensuring
Fig. 6. (a) Contour plot of coefficient of determination (R 2 ) between
Wmin , Wmax , and Wavg of the fin are preserved. All such Q–Q plots generated using the model and stochastic simulations at
fins belong to the same probability quantile. Thus, to find L G = 15 nm for various Wfin s and /L G s. (b) R 2 contour plot at
effective VT at this particular probability quantile, summing Wfin = 5 nm for various L G s and s.
over channel (from source to pinchoff) in a large sample space
of fins with different W (x) arrangements may be replaced by where pi is the probability of occurrence of Wmin (i ), drawn
a simple, position-independent summation of all W (x) from a Gaussian probability distribution. The standard devia-
(from 0 to L G ) of a linearly varying fin, as presented in (14). tion of threshold voltage (σ VT ) is obtained similarly. Both
Thus, the final expression of VT −eff is given by VT −sat and VT −lin distribution can be obtained using this
⎧ ⎫ model; however, for brevity, the results of only VT −sat are
ηkT ⎨ ⎬
LG presented in the discussion to follow.
T (x)
d x qVηkT
VT −eff = ln e (15)
q ⎩ LG ⎭
x=0 IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
where VT (x) is VT at x, which depends upon the local fin A. VT −sat Distribution’s Q–Q Plot Comparison
width W (x). Using this fin width, VT (x) is obtained from Using the proposed model, the results of VT −sat distribu-
SC curve at VDS = VDD for VT −sat (Fig. 1) or using an tion’s Q–Q plot are shown and compared against stochastic
analytical expression for VT versus uniform fin width [7]. simulations (200 samples) in Fig. 5 for various fin widths
VT −eff for the i th fin depends upon W i (x) which in turn and s, at a fixed channel length of 15 nm. As can be seen,
varies uniquely with Wmin (i ) as the model is able to predict the VT −sat distribution very well
for a wide range of Wfin s and s. As a metric of compar-
VT −eff (i ) = VT (Wmin (i )). (16) ison between VT −sat distributions obtained using model and
stochastic simulations, the coefficient of determination (R 2 )
As Wmin has a Gaussian distribution √ with mean was calculated and is shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6(a) shows the
as μWmin (6) and standard deviation as 2 [6], from the R 2 value for the Q–Q plots shown in Fig. 5, i.e., at fixed
distribution of Wmin , the VT distribution due to FER can be L G = 15 nm, while Fig. 6(b) shows it for a fixed Wfin = 5 nm
obtained using (16). (Q–Q plots not shown). R 2 values with μ of 93% and
In order to find the mean of threshold voltage (μVT ), the σ of 13% are obtained for Fig. 6(a). Similarly, for Fig. 6(b),
following relation is used: R 2 values with μ = 94% and σ = 10% are obtained. In the

n region of interest, ( ranging from 15 to 50 nm [13]), the
μVT = pi VT (Wmin (i )) (17) R 2 value improves to μ = 98% and σ = 1.5% for Fig. 6(a)
i=1 and μ = 96% and σ = 5% for Fig. 6(b). Thus, the model
MITTAL et al.: ANALYTICAL MODEL TO ESTIMATE FinFET’s VT DISTRIBUTION DUE TO FER
Fig. 7. (a) μVT −sat obtained using the model compared against stochastic
simulations data for various fin widths at L G = 15 nm. A very close match is
obtained. (b) μVT −sat obtained using the model compared against stochastic
simulations for various L G s at Wfin = 5 nm.
Fig. 8. (a) σ VT −sat obtained using the model compared against stochastic
simulations data for various fin widths at L G = 15 nm. Model matches the
trend of σ VT −sat with  along with closely matching the values. (b) σ VT −sat
obtained using the model compared against stochastic simulations data for
various L G s at Wfin = 5 nm.
is capable of estimating the entire VT −sat distribution quite
accurately for a range of Wfin s, L G s, and s. The model’s
inaccuracy at  = 5 nm (/L G  1) is consistent with
the assumptions used in the derivation of Wmin and Wmax
distributions. The assumption that the average distribution is
an exponential decay implies that the random perturbations are
infrequent which is valid for large correlation lengths. Hence,
the model’s inaccuracy at small /L G is expected. Therefore,
we observe slight mismatch at /L G  1, which is beyond
our range of interest.
B. μVT −sat Comparison
From the Q–Q distribution, μVT −sat is obtained using (17)
and is compared against stochastic simulations (200 samples)
in Fig. 7(a) for various fin widths at a fixed channel length of
15 nm. As can be seen, model is able to predict the μVT −sat
dependence on /L G . The error over the entire surface shown
is 4.7 ± 7.5 mV. The error reduces to 3.4 ± 1.6 mV for the
practical ranges of  (in between 15 and 50 nm [13]). μVT −sat
obtained using the model at Wfin = 5 nm and various L G s is
compared in Fig. 7(b). Here, also match is appreciable with a
low error of 2.5 ± 1.9 mV. The error reduces to 2.3 ± 0.9 mV
for the practical ranges of  (in between 15 and 50 nm [13]).
C. σ VT −sat Comparison
From the complete VT −sat distribution obtained in Section
IV–A., the σ value of entire distribution is computed. Fig. 8(a)
compares σ VT −sat for various Wfin s at L G = 15 nm. As can
be seen, the model’s estimate of σ VT −sat matches well with
stochastic data for a range of /L G . For lower Wfin and lower
/L G , σ VT −sat increases. 8.5±23-mV error is obtained for the
1357
Fig. 9. (a) μVT −sat and (b) σ VT −sat versus /L G for various estimation
schemes compared against stochastic simulations data at L G = 15 nm and
Wfin = 3.5 nm. Wavg -based estimation [2] matches well at higher /L G
ratios, while Wmin -based estimation [6] is able to capture the trend. The model
proposed in this paper provides a good match to stochastic data at all /L G
along with capturing the trend. VT −sat at L G = 15 nm and Wfin = 3.5 nm
is also shown in (a).
entire range of Wfin s shown in Fig. 8(a). This enhanced overall
error is due to mismatch at Wfin = 3.5 nm and  = 5 nm.
This mismatch is expected as discussed earlier. However, this
large error reduces to 2.4 ± 2.6 mV in the regions of interest
( varying from 15 to 50 nm [13]). At Wfin = 5 nm and
for various channel lengths of 12, 15, and 20 nm, σ VT −sat is
compared in Fig. 8(b). The model’s σ VT −sat matches closely
with the stochastic simulations data. A low error of 4 ± 3.7 mV
is obtained for the entire surface. The error further reduces to
2.9 ± 2.9 mV in the regions of interest. Furthermore, it might
appear that the mismatch at L G = 12 nm is large; however,
the percentage error at all L G s is not much different. It is just
because of larger σ VT −sat at L G = 12 nm that the mismatch
appears slightly larger. Thus, the proposed model is capable
of capturing the standard deviation of threshold voltage quite
accurately.
V. B ENCHMARKING AND D ISCUSSION
A. Comparison With Average W f in (Wavg ) and
Minimum W f in (Wmin )-Based Estimations
In order to benchmark the present model against models
present in [2] and [6], μVT −sat and σ VT −sat versus /L G at
L G = 15 nm and Wfin = 3.5 nm is shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b),
respectively. Fig. 9(a) and (b) shows that Wavg -based
estimation (where the average Wfin of an i th fin (9) is
estimated, and a uniform fin of Wfin = Wavg provides VT
for the i th FinFET; W i (x) = Wavg (i ) [2]) matches the
stochastic data well for larger values of /L G . However, it
is insensitive to  and, hence, unable to capture the effect
of , which becomes significant at lower s. On the other
hand, Wmin -based estimations (W i (x) = Wmin (i ) [6]) provide
a  dependence that captures the trend. However, it produces
quantitative mismatch in μVT −sat and σ VT −sat estimations.
The present model provides sensitivity to  that enables
improved prediction of trends. This model also provides an
improved quantitative matching to the stochastic simulations
data for all values of /L G compared with the other models.
B. μVT −sat Dependence on Variability
A general assumption is that the nominal device’s per-
formance (device with nominal dimensions, no variations)
1358
is the average performance. We show in Fig. 7(a) that this
assumption holds true for the cases of high /L G (i.e., the
fins are fairly uniform) and large Wfin [where QC is weak
enabling a fairly linear device response (such as VT and ION )
to device dimensions]. However, for the cases of small Wfin
(where there is a QC-based large nonlinearity) and small
/L G (which produces local confinement due to high spatial
frequency-based undulations in fin edge), the mean of the
distribution gets shifted from the nominal. Fig. 9(a) shows
that VT −sat of the nominal device (magenta line) can deviate
significantly from the average performance (blue line) due to
FER at lower Wfin . Thus, for scaled Wfin s, the /L G effect on
μVT −sat gets enhanced. This effect may be further aggravated
by transition to Ge FinFETs, where the effective mass is lower
causing stronger QC at larger Wfin s [16]. This motivates a
reduction of 3 in LER. Thus, this paper shows that even
μVT −sat of FinFET (not just σ VT −sat ) is affected by variability
which will be critical to scaled FinFETs.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we present an analytical model to estimate
the VT −sat variability due to FER in advanced FinFETs. The
model consists of two formulations: 1) an analytical model for
the estimation of μWmin and μWmax and 2) tapered fin perco-
lation model to estimate VT distribution due to FER variability.
The model can compute the entire VT −sat distribution quite
accurately based on device parameters (e.g., L G and Wfin )
and FER parameters (e.g.,  and ). This paper demonstrates
that even μVT −sat of FinFET (not just σ VT −sat ) is affected
by variability and presents a model that accurately captures
this effect. Thus, this completely analytical formulation can
enable lithography engineers to compare the performance of
conventional versus novel lithography techniques based on
VT variability metrics. Similarly, the model can be imple-
mented in SPICE to enable FER VT −sat variability-dependent
circuit level analysis of scaled FinFETs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Prof. M. A. Alam from
Purdue University for the useful discussions. S. Mittal would
like to thank V. Sangwan for the helpful discussions.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 63, NO. 3, MARCH 2016
R EFERENCES
[1] X. Wang, A. R. Brown, B. Cheng, and A. Asenov, “Statistical variability
and reliability in nanoscale FinFETs,” in IEDM Tech. Dig., 2011,
pp. 5.4.1–5.4.4.
[2] K. Patel, “Intrinsic and systematic variability in nanometer CMOS tech-
nologies,” Dept. Elect. Eng. Comput. Sci., Univ. California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, USA, Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS-2010-181, 2010.
[3] S. Mittal et al., “Epitaxially defined FinFET: Variability resistant and
high-performance technology,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 61,
no. 8, pp. 2711–2718, Aug. 2014.
[4] Q. Cheng, J. You, and Y. Chen, “A generalized model to predict
fin-width roughness induced FinFET device variability using the bound-
ary perturbation method,” Proc. SPIE, vol. 9053, p. 90530U, Mar. 2014.
[5] Y. Ban, S. Sundareswaran, R. Panda, and D. Z. Pan, “Electrical impact
of line-edge roughness on sub-45 nm node standard cell,” Proc. SPIE,
vol. 7275, pp. 727518-1–727518-10, Mar. 2009.
[6] S. N. Chinta, S. Mittal, P. Debashis, and U. Ganguly, “A FinFET LER
VT variability estimation scheme with 300× efficiency improvement,” in
Proc. Int. Conf. Simulation Semiconductor Process. Devices (SISPAD),
Sep. 2014, pp. 277–280.
[7] T. Poiroux et al., “Multiple gate devices: Advantages and challenges,”
Microelectron. Eng., vol. 80, pp. 378–385, Jun. 2005.
[8] (2011). International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS)
2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.itrs.net/reports.html
[9] Sentaurus TCAD Design Suite. [Online]. Available: http://www.
synopsys.com
[10] M. A. Alam. Nanostructured Electronic Devices: Percolation and Reli-
ability. [Online]. Available: https://nanohub.org/resources/7168
[11] C.-Y. Chang et al., “A 25-nm gate-length FinFet transistor module for
32 nm node,” in IEDM Tech. Dig., 2009, pp. 1–4.
[12] T. Krishnamohan, “Band-engineering of novel channel materials for
high performance nanoscale MOSFETs,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Simulation
Semiconductor Process. Devices (SISPAD), 2008, pp. 97–100.
[13] A. Asenov, S. Kaya, and A. R. Brown, “Intrinsic parameter fluctuations
in decananometer MOSFETs introduced by gate line edge roughness,”
IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1254–1260, May 2003.
[14] L. Sjogren. Brownian Motion: Langevin Equation. [Online]. Available:
http://physics.gu.se/~frtbm/joomla/media/mydocs/LennartSjogren/kap6.pdf
[15] S. Mittal, A. S. Shekhawat, and U. Ganguly, “FinFET scaling rule
based on variability considerations,” in Proc. 73rd Annu. Device Res.
Conf. (DRC), Jun. 2015, pp. 127–128.
[16] S. Mittal et al., “Epitaxial rare earth oxide (EOx) FinFET: A variability-
resistant Ge FinFET architecture with multi VT ,” in Proc. 72nd Annu.
Device Res. Conf., Jun. 2014, pp. 97–98.
Authors’ photographs and biographies not available at the time of publication.