4.4 Article

Review of fuse and antifuse solutions for advanced standard CMOS technologies

Journal

MICROELECTRONICS JOURNAL
Volume 40, Issue 12, Pages 1755-1765

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mejo.2009.09.007

Keywords

Antifuse; Polyfuse; Metalfuse; OTP memory; Non-volatile memory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Specific applications require large amounts of high-performance, dense and low-cost non-volatile memories with CMOS standard process compatibility. There exists numerous structures for one-time-programming (OTP) bitcells, exploiting various physical phenomena as programming modes. Not all of these physical phenomena will behave in a satisfactory manner with the CMOS technology shrink. Moreover, it is not easy to evaluate the effect of geometry and technology on the trade-off between density and reliability of the OTP bitcells. This paper aims to review literature about OTP memories and show that metal fuse, polyfuse and antifuse are the best candidates so far. Other memories require either additional masks with regards to core process, additional technological steps or unaffordable programming conditions. Significant results will be listed in comparison tables. This paper also wishes to give a summary of the physical phenomena involved in bitcell architectures. Opinions are given about the suitability of OTP architectures for specific applications, the most suitable bitcell architectures have been layouted in 65 and 45 nm for density comparison purpose. Particularly, promising structures are manufactured and characterized as they present fair trade offs for standard CMOS process. Discussion and conclusion are intended to give a comprehensive review about the parameters impacting the performances, the density and the cost of the OTP bitcell. Comparison tables are edited with the most pertinent parameters and available results. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available