Three-dimensional multi-terminal superconductive integrated

circuit inductance extraction

Coenrad J Fourie1, Olaf Wetzstein

2, Thomas Ortlepp

3 and Jürgen Kunert

2

1 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Stellenbosch University,

Private Bag X1, 7602, South Africa

2 Institute of Photonic Technology (IPHT), Department of Quantum Detection, P.O.

Box 100239, 07702 Jena, Germany

3 Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of

California at Berkeley, 231 Cory Hall, Berkeley CA 94720

E-mail: coenrad@sun.ac.za

Abstract. Accurate inductance calculations are critical for the design of both digital and

analogue superconductive integrated circuits, and three-dimensional calculations are gaining

importance with the advent of inductive biasing, inductive coupling and sky plane shielding for

RSFQ cells. InductEx, an extraction programme based on the three-dimensional calculation

software FastHenry, was proposed earlier. InductEx uses segmentation techniques designed to

accurately model the geometries of superconductive integrated circuit structures. Inductance

extraction for complex multi-terminal three-dimensional structures from current distributions

calculated by FastHenry is discussed. Results for both a reflection plane modelling an infinite

ground plane, and a finite segmented ground plane that allows inductive elements to extend

over holes in the ground plane, are shown. Several SQUIDs were designed for and fabricated

with IPHT’s 1 kA/cm2 RSFQ1D niobium process. These SQUIDs implement a number of loop

structures that span different layers, include vias, inductively coupled control lines and ground

plane holes. We measured the loop inductance of these SQUIDs and show how the results are

used to calibrate the layer parameters in InductEx and verify the extraction accuracy. We also

show that with proper modelling, FastHenry can be fast enough to be used for the extraction of

typical RSFQ cell inductances.

1. Introduction

The calculation of inductance remains important for digital and analogue superconductive electronic

circuit design. Many numerical inductance calculation tools have been developed for integrated circuit

elements [1]. Most techniques or tools are two-dimensional, sometimes with a combination of

analytical models and curve-fitting [2], and fail for structures where the width-to-thickness ratio

becomes small. Some methods support full three-dimensional analysis [3], [4] but are not integrated

into software tools, or are limited to basic geometries [5]. Others do not readily incorporate ground

planes and are better suited to high temperature SQUID geometries [6]. Lmeter [7], which is still the

most widely used tool for the extraction of RSFQ circuit inductances, is integrated into computer-

aided design (CAD) software. It gives fast and reliable results for RSFQ circuits, but does not handle

ground plane holes. 3D-MLSI [8] handles three-dimensional structures and ground plane holes, and

can be integrated into CAD software, but is restricted to planar geometries. Published application of

3D-MLSI to RSFQ circuits is rare, and mostly for specific problems such as finding bias line coupling

to circuit inductors [9].

With the advent of inductive biasing for energy efficient RSFQ circuits [10] and inductively

coupled RSFQ cells for current recycling [11], [12], it is becoming increasingly important to calculate

inductance of non-planar structures in the presence of ground plane holes. Moreover, it has been

demonstrated that coupling between superconductive lines in integrated circuits permeate even thin

shield layers [13], so that three-dimensional extraction is important for circuits fabricated in new

multi-layer processes.

InductEx, an extraction programme that allows inductance calculation for three-dimensional circuit

structures, was proposed earlier [14]. InductEx is a pre-processor and post-processor for FastHenry

[15] with superconductivity support [16]. InductEx discretizes the geometries for multi-terminal

inductance networks in integrated circuits directly from GDSII input files, uses FastHenry to calculate

current distribution, and calculates branch currents and lumped inductance values corresponding to

specified circuit netlists during post-processing.

InductEx is slower than the quasi-2D solver Lmeter [7], [1] for large structures such as circuits

with multiple inductors. Although solution speed for all field solvers, including FastHenry and Lmeter,

is strongly related to discretization size, the typical RSFQ digital cell discretized for FastHenry with

the methods discussed in this paper contains about 20,000 – 50,000 filaments and solves 5 – 20 times

slower than with Lmeter. (Lmeter’s gain on FastHenry increases with model complexity.) However,

through FastHenry, InductEx allows the modelling of vertical structures such as vias, non-planar

effects, sky planes and holes in the ground plane.

We show how InductEx is used to model IPHT’s RSFQ1D superconductive integrated circuit

process [17], how discretization and simulation parameters are selected for stability and short

simulation times, and how calibration is performed to match extracted inductance values to results

measured in SQUID modulation tests. The accuracy of the extraction routine is then verified by

comparing extracted and measured results for typical RSFQ structures. Although results for FastHenry

calculations on superconductive structures have been published before, none have ever examined the

performance and accuracy over a range of structures or used FastHenry for multi-port networks.

2. Overview of FastHenry and InductEx

2.1. FastHenry

FastHenry is an established 3D inductance extraction tool developed originally for analysing general

packaging structures [15]. For analysis, a structure is subdivided into discrete connected segments

which can be divided further into filaments (see figure 1(a)). FastHenry then uses analytic solutions

for the filaments and performs a mesh analysis on the structure to calculate the complex impedance

between defined ports. The typical inductance extraction problem requires more than a few thousand

filaments, which renders Gaussian elimination for the solution of the complex linear system

impractical. Therefore an iterative generalized minimal residual (GMRES) algorithm [18] is

implemented in FastHenry. A multipole algorithm, which groups together filaments in close proximity

when calculating their interaction with elements that are at greater distances, further reduces

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. (a) A single segment as used by FastHenry, with electrical node and filaments shown, (b)

corner structure created when two segments as wide as conductors are connected at right angles and

(c) corner structure when segments much smaller than conductor widths are connected.

computation time and memory requirements. GMRES iteration convergence for the sparse matrix

inversion is accelerated by the use of a preconditioner. FastHenry supports several preconditioners, but

uses a sparsified-L cube-block preconditioner by default [15]. However, the performance of these

preconditioners is modest compared to that of more recent methods [19], leaving room for future

speed improvements.

2.1.1. FastHenry for superconductors. Early applications of field solvers to the analysis of

superconducting structures involved solving with normal conductors at a frequency where the

conductor skin depth matched the penetration depth of the superconducting material under

consideration [20]. This method only accounts for magnetic inductance and correction factors are used

to also incorporate kinetic inductance. Although MAXWELL [21] was used, Du concludes that the

method extends to all normal metal field solvers [20], which includes FastHenry. Another

implementation with FastHenry adds a kinetic inductance term to the inductance of every filament

[22]. Inherent support for superconductivity was later added to FastHenry through the inclusion of the

two-fluid London equations – thereby accounting for both magnetic and kinetic inductance [16]. It is

this version of FastHenry, with superconductivity support, that is used by InductEx. Confusion as to

the difference between the normal metal version of Kamon [15] and the superconductor version of

Whiteley [16] still exists, as evidenced by Kemppinen et al. [23] using the superconductor version of

FastHenry to solve geometric inductance while solving kinetic inductance separately (thus solving it

twice and presumably ambiguously), as well as Zen et al. [24] claiming to calculate only the magnetic

inductance of Nb striplines with FastHenry from Whiteley Research [16] while citing Kamon [15].

2.1.2. Accuracy and segmentation. Whiteley’s FastHenry was found to agree very accurately [1] with

an analytical formulation for inductance of a microstrip line [25]. However, its use of uniform current

flow along one axis of a segment, and the interconnection of segments at nodes on this axis mean that

three-axis interleaved segments are necessary to model current flow in bends, tees and vias (see figure

1(b) and 1(c)) when length-to-width ratios are small. Some recent work used FastHenry, backed by

SQUID measurements, for the calculation of mutual inductors in integrated circuits [12], [13], but no

indication of discretization or wider application to other circuit inductances is given. FastHenry cannot

perform segmentation on structures other than a ground plane, therefore this is done in pre-processing

with InductEx.

2.2. InductEx

InductEx divides complex circuit structures into x, y and z-directed segments, while taking into

account actual vertical offsets. Layout and process technology files are processed to generate input

files for FastHenry, and InductEx allows modelling of both a finite ground plane with holes and a

reflection plane at the effective penetration depth of the ground plane.

Due to the computer resources required to extract inductances with FastHenry, earlier CAD

implementations for superconductive integrated circuits used lookup tabulated results, calculated once

with FastHenry, for the inductances of typical structures such as lines, corners, tees and vias [22];

much the same as the technique for semiconductor integrated circuits [26].

However, with a good segmentation algorithm, multiple port extraction and a proper preconditioner

selection, typical RSFQ cells can be fully modelled and all the inductances extracted within minutes.

2.2.1. Port-to-port inductance calculation. FastHenry calculates the l × l complex impedance matrix

of an l-conductor network such as that shown in figure 2(a) if an external or input port is defined for

every conductor – either from end to end for partial inductance [27], or from one end of the conductor

to the closest point on a ground plane for total loop inductance if a closed current return path exists.

The self and mutual inductances of the l conductors are found by dividing frequency from the

imaginary components of the inductance matrix.

When the inductances of integrated circuit cells are extracted, models often contain a multi-

terminal (also called a multi-port) network of lumped inductances such as that shown in figure 2(b).

As long as there are no closed inductive loops, the simplest way to solve such a network is to calculate

the inductance between all ports in sequence by specifying one external (or input) port to FastHenry

while shorting a return port. This is done in pre-processing. For an m-port network containing k

inductors and no coupling, this requires FastHenry to be executed

2

1

mmn times. The individual

inductances are found by solving the overdetermined system of linear equations

yMb (1)

where M is a mostly zero (n × k) matrix of which the column entries are 1 if the corresponding

inductor forms part of the inductance calculated for a specific port-to-port row. The vector y contains

the n calculated port-to-port inductances, while the vector b holds the k unknown lumped inductance

values of the network. When more than one electrically isolated subnet is present, each subnet is

solved through (1) by using only the ports and inductors belonging to it. Mutual inductance between

two inductors in different isolated subnets can be found directly from the inductance matrix calculated

by simultaneously specifying an input and return port in each subnet such that the current paths

between the ports include the coupled inductors of interest, but no other inductors that have coupling.

Although this method works, it requires multiple executions of FastHenry. This would not be a

problem if FastHenry spends almost all the execution time on the iterative solver. However, for

practical RSFQ cells, calculating the preconditioner requires more time than the iterative solver, which

makes the method unnecessarily slow.

2.2.2. Inductance from port current calculation. A modification to the way in which FastHenry is

executed provides a much faster alternative. If all m ports in a network are specified simultaneously,

FastHenry attempts to solve an m × m impedance matrix by driving one port at a time with a unity

amplitude voltage while connecting zero volt sources over all the other ports. With multiple ports

connected to the same network, this yields a meaningless impedance matrix. However, during post-

processing the network port currents can be calculated. If an inductive circuit netlist is available, the

branch currents through every lumped inductor in the network can be calculated from the port

currents. This method requires FastHenry to be executed only once for an m-port network.

Consequently the preconditioner is also only calculated once. This method is substantially faster than

port-to-port calculation, although not exactly

2

1mm times, as the iterative solver is still called m

times and the preconditioner’s performance is slower than with port-to-port models.

Continuing with the arbitrary network of k inductors and m ports, we can apply Kirchhoff’s voltage

law around every loop in the network when port 1 is excited with a unity voltage, and repeat this for

all m ports. This yields

Izv f2 (2)

where f is the excitation frequency used by FastHenry. All the components of voltage vector v equal 1

for loops containing the excited port and 0 otherwise. I is the (m(m – 1) × k) branch current matrix. In

(2), z is the vector holding the k unknown inductance values which can be solved through singular

value decomposition.

In the general case where a circuit model contains any number of electrically isolated subnets with

a total of k inductors, m ports (with a minimum of 2 ports per subnet) and any number of mutual

inductances, such as the example shown in figure 2(c), vector z is expanded to include all the self and

mutual inductances of the total network, while v is enlarged with zero components corresponding to

zero-voltage loops in isolated subnets. The branch current matrix I is enlarged correspondingly, and

the solution of (2) through singular value decomposition still holds. This method is now supported by

InductEx, and is used for all results presented here.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. (a) Three-inductor network with self and mutual inductances solved readily with FastHenry,

(b) multi-terminal inductance network solved with InductEx through 10 port-to-port FastHenry

inductance calculations or a single FastHenry port current calculation and (c) multi-terminal

inductance network with multiple electrically isolated subnets and mutual inductance solved through a

single FastHenry port current calculation.

3. Discretization

In order to build a numerical model for FastHenry, InductEx slices every figure in a layout into a grid

of evenly-sized blocks in the xy plane so that no block dimension exceeds a specified maximum

segment size. Connectivity is simplified by applying slices made to any figure to all other figures (also

on other layers) bisected by the slice lines. We refer to the technique as “layered cake slicing”, and it

is described graphically and in more detail in [14]. Where current density gradient is steep, such as at

line edges or on the inside of corners, narrower slices can be enforced by the user through the layout

input file. We use this to define the lambda edge segments described in Section 3.1. Nodes are

declared in the centre of each block, and these are connected through segments in the x and y

directions. Segments in the z direction are only used at vias to connect different metal layers.

Segments in the xy plane can be subdivided into height filaments (see figure 1(a)) to model non-

uniform current density in layers thicker than the penetration depth.

When a structure is discretized for processing with FastHenry, a careful selection of segment size is

necessary. The uniform current distribution applied by FastHenry over filaments causes large

inaccuracies for structures with bends and short arms, as well as for superconducting structures where

most current flows close to the surface or edges. Making segments too large causes results that are

artificially high. Although calculated results can be adjusted closer to measured values through

calibration, such solutions are not stable, and changes to segment size enforced by geometry can cause

large variations. It has earlier been reported that a stable solution could be obtained by using more than

15 segments across the width of any arm of a structure [22]. This is excessive, and a more methodical

investigation is needed. A series of simulations on several structures show that the inductance solution

calculated by FastHenry decreases asymptotically for finer discretization until the segment size

reaches the London penetration depth () of the superconductor. For typical niobium-based

superconductor circuits, the penetration depth is in the order of 10-1

m, while line widths are in the

order of 101 m and cells in the order of 10

2 m. The practical limit for FastHenry 3.0wr, which was

compiled for a 32-bit address space, is just below 105 filaments, for which the mesh matrices and

preconditioner require 2 GB of memory. This makes discretization at 0.1 m impossible for any

structure larger than a short inductor over ground. A more efficient discretization strategy is thus

necessary.

3.1. Lambda edge segments

One way to mitigate the cost of discretization is to use non-uniform segments [5], where segments at

the edge of a structure are approximately wide, while the rest of the structure is segmented coarsely.

Figure 3 shows the current distribution over the cross section of a superconducting microstrip line

above a superconducting ground plane as calculated by FastHenry when the structures are segmented

at 0.1 m, 1 m and 1 m with lambda edge segments. In the simulation, = 90 nm. It can be seen

from figure 3 that the use of lambda edge segments allows FastHenry to approximate the current

distribution much better than with coarse segments, especially at the edges, with a minimal increase in

segments.

3.2. Filaments

IPHT Jena’s RSFQ1D [17] foundry process for RSFQ circuits, used for experiments described in this

paper, comprises three superconducting niobium layers. The first layer (M0, 200 nm thick) serves as a

ground plane, while both upper niobium layers are used for wiring. Both the lower wiring layer (M1,

250 nm thick), and the upper wiring layer (M2, 350 nm thick) are thicker than the penetration depth.

However, since there is no current flow in the vertical direction except near vias, it would be

unnecessarily expensive to create multiple segments over the height of the lines and connect these

with vertically directed segments. A much more efficient solution for allowing current density

variation over the thickness of a line is to use FastHenry’s built-in ability to create multiple height

filaments (which obviates the need to connect vertically).

Figure 3. Current distribution in the lowest filaments of a superconducting conductor and the highest

filaments in a ground plane as calculated by FastHenry. The line is 4 m wide, is 90 nm and

thickness is irrelevant. The graphs show the current distribution, from top to bottom, when 70

homogenous 0.1 m segments, 8 homogenous 1 m segments, and 1 m segments with 0.1 m

lambda edges (10 segments in total) are used.

3.3. Effects of discretization on calculation results and time

An experiment into the stability of solutions at different discretization levels has been done for

structures with typical dimensions for niobium integrated circuits. The structures are shown in figure

4. The first is a short line structure, 4 m wide by 10 m long (figure 4(a)). The second is a 4 m wide

line with a corner and arms extending 5 m on each end (figure 4(b)). Both structures have a 0.1 m

thick ground plane. Calculations for both structures show a decrease in inductance as segment size is

decreased. Figure 5 shows the results (normalised to the smallest solution) as segment size and height

filament number are varied for both structures. Segment size refers to the largest permissible

dimensions of any segment in the structure after discretization, and actual segment size is mostly

slightly smaller to allow equal segment sizes across the width or length of a structure. InductEx still

employs segmentation techniques described earlier [14].

For the simulation results shown in figure 5, where the conductor thickness is almost three times

the penetration depth, it can clearly be seen that the results for both structures improve substantially

with 2 and 3 height filaments, but stabilise thereafter. At three filaments, the conductor is divided into

upper and lower sections each 75 nm thick, and a centre section that is 150 nm thick. The use of

lambda segments also almost halves the initial inaccuracy of a solution, and makes solutions only half

as sensitive to segment size variations as those with homogenous segments.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4. Inductance structures, drawn to exact dimensions, used for calculating normalised

inductance of superconductive conductors above a ground plane as a function of segmentation. (a)

Straight line, (b) Corner and (c) U-shaped upper conductor coupled to straight lower conductor. The

structures in (a) and (b) are not process specific, while (c) is for the IPHT RSFQ1D process.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Inductance of superconducting structures calculated with FastHenry, and normalised to the

smallest solution for (a) a microstrip line 4 m wide and 10 m long and (b) a microstrip line 4 m

wide with a corner and arms extending 5 m on each side of the bend. Both lines are 0.3 m thick and

separated by 0.35 m from a 0.1 m thick ground plane extending 2 m beyond the line dimensions,

and = 90 nm throughout.

The stability of FastHenry solutions when models include mutual inductance was investigated for

the structures in figure 4(c). The parameters for IPHT’s 1 kA/cm2 RSFQ1D niobium process were

used, and the lower line (in layer M1) is 6 m wide and 25 long, with ports at both ends. The U-

shaped upper line is in layer M2 and is 4 m wide. The ground plane is 200 nm thick, so that it was

subdivided into height filaments along with the upper layers. The simulation results are shown in

figure 6 as segment size and height filaments are changed in unison over all the superconducting

layers.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6. Self and mutual inductance of two superconducting lines above a ground plane, as shown in

figure 4(c), modelled for IPHT’s 1 kA/cm2 RSFQ1D niobium process, and calculated with FastHenry.

Results are normalised to the smallest solution. (a) Self-inductance of a line in layer M1. (b) Self-

inductance of a U-shaped line in M2. (c) Mutual inductance between the structures in M1 and M2.

The ground plane extends 2 m beyond the M1 and M2 structures, and = 90 nm throughout. Height

filamentation is applied simultaneously over layers M0, M1 and M2. The key applies to all the graphs.

It can be seen from figure 6 that coarse segmentation and single height filaments cause results that

differ by almost 15 % from the asymptotic values. Although this can be adjusted with calibration, the

problem is that complex geometries cause uneven segmentation as segments are aligned to geometry

edges. This results in accuracy fluctuations internal to a structure that cannot be corrected through

calibration. It is clear that, for the IPHT RSFQ1D process, the use of 3 height filaments and lambda

edge segments gives a much more stable result (mostly within 2.5 % of the asymptotic value) than

simply decreasing the homogenous segment size by a factor of three.

The solution times versus segment size and filament count for the above simulations are shown in

figure 7. For the cases discussed here, using 3 height filaments and lambda edges with coarse (2 m)

segments is on average 4 times faster than using finer homogenous, single-filament segmentation to

obtain the same accuracy. The reason is visible in the graphs: solution time scales much more strongly

for decreasing segment size than for increased filament count, mostly because halving the segment

size quadruples the number of interleaved segments in the x and y directions, but also because

FastHenry preconditions problems with multiple filament segments faster than those with the

equivalent amount of elements consisting only of single filament segments.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7. Solution time in seconds versus segment size for (a) the straight line structure of figure 4

and (b) the corner line of figure 4, both solved with FastHenry’s sparsified-L cube-block

preconditioner, and (c) the coupled inductors of figure 4 solved with the sparsified-L diagonal-of-L

preconditioner.

Figure 8 shows solution time for the models discussed above against the total number of discrete

elements (segments and filaments). For models with fewer than 1000 elements, solution time is mostly

faster than 10 seconds and quicker when segments have fewer filaments. Solutions with the sparsified-

L cube-block preconditioner are also quicker than with the sparsified-L diagonal-of-L preconditioner,

because the GMRES algorithm does not converge as quickly for the latter (in this element range the

GMRES algorithm takes more time than the preconditioner), and the model used for this experiment

has double the number of ports than those used for the cube-block problems.

Figure 8 also shows that when models contain more than 104 elements, which is typical for RSFQ

cells segmented as described here, using segments with multiple filaments is more economical than

simply using more segments to improve accuracy. Furthermore, use of the diagonal-of-L

preconditioner gives faster solutions than some calculations with the cube-block preconditioner.

Above 104 elements the preconditioner dominates the calculation time, and a trade-off between

preconditioner time (diagonal-of-L is faster than cube-block for models of typical RSFQ geometries)

and convergence time (GMRES takes 2-3 times longer to converge after preconditioning with

diagonal-of-L rather than cube-block) can be made.

Figure 8. Solution time in seconds versus total number of elements (segments and filaments) for the

straight line, corner and coupled inductor structures. The straight line and corner structures were

solved with FastHenry’s sparsified-L cube-block preconditioner, and the coupled structure with the

sparsified-L diagonal-of-L preconditioner.

4. SQUID structures and test setup

4.1. Calibration structures

We use the IPHT RSFQ1D process, with two superconductive metal layers (M1 and M2) above a

ground plane. An inductive structure above the ground plane is typically realised in M1 or M2. The

inductance between the two Josephson junctions of a dc SQUID is easy to measure accurately [28],

and three standard test SQUIDs (with shunted junctions) are used: one with the loop inductor in M1,

another with the inductor in M2 (see figure 9(a) and 9(b)), and a third with an inductor that spans M1

and M2 and includes vias (see figure 9(c) and 9(d)).

Loop inductance is measured at 4.2 Kelvin in liquid helium by biasing the SQUID in the voltage

state. In a constant external magnetic field, the SQUID voltage is modulated by the application of a

swept modulation current flowing through the SQUID inductance. The voltage is periodic, and the

change in modulation current that sweeps out one period is equal to 0 divided by the loop inductance.

4.2. Test structures

An array of test SQUIDs was fabricated with which to verify the accuracy of InductEx and FastHenry.

This includes a SQUID with a longer M2 conductor (of about 20 pH), two SQUIDs for mutual

inductance measurement (one with the loop inductor in M2 and the control line in M1 as shown in

figure 9(g) and 9(h), and the other with the layer order inverted), and two SQUIDs with inductors that

loop over cut-outs in the ground plane (one in M1, as shown in figure 9(e) and 9(f), and one in M2).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 9. Segmented models and microphotographs of some of the SQUID inductances extracted for

this experiment. (a) Model of M2 calibration SQUID, with 10 m wide loop inductor in metal layer

M2, and image (using a reflection plane) and (b) M2 calibration SQUID microphotograph. (c) Model

of calibration SQUID with vias and a 10 m wide loop inductor transitioning between layers M2 and

M1, with ground plane included, and (d) VIA calibration SQUID microphotograph. (e) Model of

SQUID with inductor in M1 (12.5 m wide) looping over a hole in the ground plane to form an

enclosed hole of 12.5 m × 10 m, and (f) microphotograph SQUID with ground plane hole. (g)

Model of SQUID with 15 m wide loop inductor in M2 and 10 m wide control line passing between

loop inductor and ground plane in M1, and (h) microphotograph of SQUID with coupled control line.

All models are segmented to smaller than 2.5 m (x-y interleaving causes a perceived grid of 1.25 m)

with 0.1 m segments at edges. Shunt resistors are not modelled, and vias to ground are approximated

by line ports to reduce segment count. For image clarity, subdivision into height filaments is omitted

and vertical dimensions are enlarged 5 times.

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Inductance extraction circuit schematic diagrams for (a) the four-port model describing

the SQUIDs in figure 9(a), 9(c) and 9(e), and (b) the six-port model, with isolated control line,

describing the SQUID in figure 9(g).

5. Numerical modelling and extraction

Except for the mutual inductance models which have 6 ports each (figure 10(b)), the FastHenry

models for the test SQUIDs include the Josephson junction geometries and 4 ports – two at the

modulation current inputs and two at the ground contacts near the junctions (see figure 10(a)).

The IPHT RSFQ1D process is modelled as shown in table 1. The model is simplified, and loss of

thickness in M0 and M1 due to anodisation is not accounted for since the exact thicknesses of the

metal layers vary after fabrication. Calibration is used to remove most of this inaccuracy.

Table 1. IPHT RSFQ1D layer definitions.

Description Name Thickness (nm) (nm)

Ground M0 200 90

Isolation I0A, I0B 250 -

First wiring layer M1 250 90

Isolation I1B, I2 300 -

Second wiring layer M2 350 90

A segment size of 2.5 m is selected as the standard setup (except near junctions, where layouts do

not adhere to this grid).

When the ground plane is included in the analysis, all inductive structures are modelled with a

ground plane extending 2 m beyond the furthest edges of the structures, as shown in figure 9(c), 9(e)

and 9(g).

6. Using image theory to model infinite ground plane

We found that when the ground plane surrounding an inductor extends beyond its edges more than a

few times the height of the conductor, it is equally accurate to model the ground plane as infinite.

Using image theory, this is done with a reflection plane and a mirror image of the inductor. The

reflection plane is not placed at the top of the ground plane, but at the effective penetration depth of

the ground plane [4]. With this method the kinetic inductance of the ground plane is disregarded, but

the effect is not substantial for typical RSFQ inductances. Calculated inductance is divided by 2 to

remove the loop area between the reflection plane and the image, as well as the kinetic inductance of

the image conductor.

For the oblong test structures presented in this paper the computation time is very similar to when a

ground plane is used, but for typical RSFQ cells with almost square layouts and higher ratios of

ground plane to conductor segments, the computation time is 2–5 times shorter with a reflection plane.

A failure of image theory in partial inductance calculation has recently been reported [29], and

correction factors proposed. However, this is only problematic when a single inductance is

decomposed into smaller parts of which the return paths are not known a priori, and the partial

inductances of the parts then solved individually.

We will show that, after calibration, the method of images yields calculation results that are as

good as those obtained with ground planes.

7. Calibration

Although fabricated circuits differ from designs with respect to layer thickness of all the metal and

isolation layers, adjusting all of these to match numerical calculations to measurements is

cumbersome. We rather calibrate the numerical calculations against measurements by only adjusting

the penetration depths of layers M1 and M2 (M1 and M2), which mostly affects the kinetic

inductance. For calibration we use SQUIDs with loop inductors in M2 (figure 9(a)), M1, and both

layers connected with vias (figure 9(c)). We start by adjusting M1 and M2 separately until the

numerical and measured results for the M2 and M1 SQUIDs agree to within 0.5 %. Then the result for

the via SQUID (with the inductor spanning M1 and M2) is calculated and compared to its measured

value. The root mean squared error (RMSE) between the three calculations and measurements is then

minimised through two or three cycles of incremental changes in M1, M2. Recalibration is necessary

whenever structures on a new wafer are analysed. The resulting penetration depths used for inductance

calculation account for all process tolerances, offsets and calculation inaccuracies, and are therefore

artificial (they do not reflect the actual penetration depths).

8. Results

We tested chips from two identical fabrication runs with nominal parameters from IPHT Jena. The

fabrication runs are labelled “run 1” and “run 2”.

8.1. Calibration structures from fabrication run 1

The accuracy of the calculation and calibration process was tested with structures fabricated with run 1

from IPHT. Segment size is 2.5 m, with lambda edge segments of 0.1 m. Ground plane segments

have 2 height filaments, and conductor segments have 3. Uncalibrated calculations are done with the

parameters in table 1, and have an RMSE of 10.8 % compared to the measured results. After

calibration, calculated inductances for the three structures are found to agree to the measured results

with an RMSE of 1.05 %, while M1 = 104 nm and M2 = 195 nm. The results and errors after

calibration are listed in table 2. The input inductance of a DC-SFQ converter is then calculated as

3.76 pH, which differs only 0.3 % from the measured value of 3.75 pH.

The results are consistent with the three-digit inductance measurement accuracy and fall within the

guaranteed on-chip inductance homogeneity of 2 % for the process [17].

Table 2. Measured and extracted inductance results for calibration structures from fabrication

run 1 with ground plane in simulation model and lambda edge segments. Height filaments for

layers are: M0 = 2, M1 = 3 and M2 = 3. The first three structures were used for calibration.

Inductor Measured (pH) Uncalibrated (pH) Calibrated (pH) Error (%)

M2 10.77 9.20 10.86 +0.85 %

M1 5.88 5.72 5.93 +0.88 %

M1-M2 7.60 6.74 7.50 –1.35 %

DCSFQ-in 3.75 3.55 3.76 +0.33 %

8.2. Full array of test structures from fabrication run 2

A more detailed experiment was done with fabrication run 2. The full array of test structures described

in section 4.2 was distributed over 4 chips. For calibration, the M2, M1 and via SQUIDs on chip 1

were used, as well as a duplicate M2 SQUID on chip 2.

8.2.1. Ground plane in simulation model. A ground plane extending 2 m beyond the extremities of

the inductors, and with 2 height filaments per segment, is used. Segment size is 2.5 m, with lambda

edge segments of 0.1 m. Conductor segments in layers M1 and M2 have 3 height filaments.

Uncalibrated calculations are done with the parameters in table 1, and have an RMSE of 5.2 %

compared to measurements. After calibration, M1 = 83 nm and M2 = 140 nm, with an RMSE of only

0.45 % for the four calibration structures. The results are listed in table 3. For comparison, the

calculations were repeated for models without lambda segments but with the same number of height

filaments as above, and then for models without any lambda segments or filament subdivision. These

results are listed in table 4.

Table 3. Measured and extracted inductance results for fabrication run 2 inductors with ground plane

in simulation model and lambda edge segments. Height filaments for layers are: M0 = 2, M1 = 3 and

M2 = 3. The inductors on Chip 1 and the first inductor on Chip 2 were used for calibration.

Chip Inductor Measured (pH) Uncalibrated (pH) Calibrated (pH) Error – calibrated to

measured (%)

1 M2a 9.83 9.20 9.89 +0.7

1 M1 5.61 5.72 5.62 +0.3

1 M1-M2 6.92 6.74 6.92 +0.0

2 M2a 9.95 9.20 9.89 –0.6

2 L11 in M2b 11.2 10.5 11.2 +1.7

2 MM2-M1b 3.84 3.98 4.00 +4.2

2 L11 in M1c 5.68 5.88 5.79 +1.9

2 MM1-M2c 4.36 4.53 4.48 +2.6

3 M2 20.5 19.0 20.5 –0.1

3 M2 holed 17.4 19.6 20.2 +15.8

3 M1 holee 20.8 19.8 19.8 –5.1

4 MM1-M2 4.32 4.53 4.48 +3.6

4 M2a 9.73 9.20 9.89 +1.7

a Duplicate structure on different chips.

b Structure shown in figure 9(g), with SQUID loop in M2 and control line in M1.

c Structure with SQUID loop in M1 and inductively coupled control line in M2.

d SQUID with loop inductor in M2 spanning hole in ground plane.

e SQUID with loop inductor in M1 spanning hole in ground plane as show in figure 9(e).

8.2.2. Reflection plane in simulation model. The accuracy of the method of images was evaluated by

repeating the inductance calculations for all the structures except the two with ground plane holes.

Calculation models use lambda edge segments and 3 height filaments to every conductor segment.

After calibration, M1 = 88 nm and M2 = 146 nm, with an RMSE of only 0.43 % for the four

calibration structures. This very good agreement with the calibration parameters and RMSE of the

ground plane calculations not only validates the correctness of the method of images, but also that of

the reflection plane position proposed by Teh et al. [4]. The results are listed in table 5.

Table 4. Extracted inductance results for fabrication run 2 inductors with ground plane in simulation

model and uniform segments. Error percentage is the difference between calibrated calculation results

and the measurements listed in table 3. Inductors correspond to those listed in table 3. The inductors

on Chip 1 and the first inductor on Chip 2 were used for calibration.

Height filaments in

M0 = 2, M1 = 3, M2 = 3

Height filaments in

M0 = 1, M1 = 1, M2 = 1

Chip Inductor Uncalibrated

(pH)

Calibrated

(pH)

Error

(%)

Uncalibrated

(pH)

Calibrated

(pH)

Error

(%)

1 M2 9.32 9.88 +0.6 9.87 9.85 +0.2

1 M1 5.77 5.63 +0.3 6.12 5.67 +1.1

1 M1-M2 6.85 6.93 +0.2 7.35 7.06 +2.0

2 M2 9.32 9.88 –0.7 9.87 9.85 –1.0

2 L11 in M2 10.6 11.1 –0.6 11.63 11.61 +3.3

2 MM2-M1 4.03 4.01 +4.2 4.30 4.31 +12.1

2 L11 in M1 5.93 5.78 +1.7 6.30 5.85 +3.1

2 MM1-M2 4.57 4.49 +3.0 5.02 5.00 +14.7

3 M2 19.2 20.4 –0.6 20.3 20.2 –1.4

3 M2 hole 19.6 20.1 +15.4 19.8 19.8 +13.7

3 M1 hole 20.1 20.0 –3.8 20.3 19.8 –4.8

4 MM1-M2 4.48 4.49 +3.9 5.02 5.00 +15.8

4 M2 9.32 9.88 +1.6 9.87 9.85 +1.2

8.3. Discussion of results. A comparison of the values for M1 and M2 used to calibrate the four

calculation methods is shown in table 6, along with the RMSE of the calculations compared to the

measurements for every method. RMSE is calculated for only the calibration structures, then for all

the self and mutual inductances of the test structures excluding the two with ground plane holes, and

finally for all inductances calculated with ground plane methods.

The calculation results for the filamented methods – both with and without lambda segments –

agree very well with measured values and with each other. All inductance errors for the calibration

chip are within the 2 % on-chip homogeneity and all errors across the 4 chips within the 5 % to

6 % range for on-wafer homogeneity guaranteed by the foundry, with the exception of the inductor in

M2 across a ground plane hole.

Although the use of lambda edge segments gives more stable calculation results as shown in

figures 6 and 7, as well as better RMSE values as shown in table 6, the experiments described here do

not show a conclusive advantage over uniform segmentation after calibration. Fortunately, lambda

segments do not add a significant amount of elements to a model, and computation times for methods

with and without these segments are similar.

The results in tables 4 and 6 do show that models with single height filaments, although faster than

models with more filaments, produce substantially worse calculation results. Even for the calibration

structures, the kinetic inductance of layer M1 needs to be disregarded almost completely to produce a

good fit between simulations and measurements, while the inaccuracy is very evident for the mutual

inductance.

Table 5. Measured and extracted inductance results for fabrication run 2 inductors with lambda

edges and reflection plane in simulation model. Height filaments for layers are: M0 = 2, M1 = 3 and

M2 = 3. Error percentage is the difference between calibrated calculation results and the

measurements listed in table 3. Inductors correspond to those listed in table 3. The inductors on Chip 1

were used for calibration.

Chip Inductor Measured (pH) Uncalibrated (pH) Calibrated (pH) Error (%)

1 M2 9.83 9.09 9.89 +0.6

1 M1 5.61 5.64 5.62 +0.1

1 M1-M2 6.92 6.65 6.91 –0.1

2 M2 9.95 9.09 9.89 –0.6

2 L11 in M2 11.2 10.4 11.2 –0.4

2 MM2-M1 3.84 3.92 4.00 +3.1

2 L11 in M1 5.68 5.80 5.78 +1.7

2 MM1-M2 4.36 4.46 4.44 +1.8

3 M2 20.5 18.8 20.5 –0.2

4 MM1-M2 4.32 4.46 4.44 +2.7

4 M2 9.73 9.09 9.89 +1.6

Table 6. Calibrated penetration depth values and root-mean-square errors.

Parameter Lamda segments,

multiple height

filaments, ground

plane

Lambda segments,

multiple height

filaments, reflection

plane

Uniform segments,

multiple height

filaments, ground

plane

Uniform segments,

single height

filaments, ground

plane

M2 140 nm 146 nm 134 nm 90 nm

M1 83 nm 88 nm 79 nm 25 nm

RMSE (calibration

structures only) 0.45 % 0.43 % 0.47 % 1.24 %

RMSE (all except

ground plane holes) 2.02 % 1.56 % 2.75 % 7.64 %

RMSE (all) 5.06 % - 5.07 % 8.10 %

The calculated value of the loop inductor in layer M2 over a ground plane hole differs about 15 %

from the measured result. The inductance is primarily a function of the loop area, which is defined by

the square hole between the M2 inductor and the edge of the ground plane, and is thus not very

sensitive to calibration as we implement it through variation of the penetration depth. Calculations

with the lambda edge segment method were done for a range of misalignments between the ground

plane and M2, which effectively varies the loop area. The results are listed in table 7, and show that

the inductance of this structure is a function of mask alignment, but not enough to explain the 15 %

difference between calculation and measurement. Experiments are planned to obtain more data points

for such structures and to draw better conclusions on the accuracy of FastHenry calculations for

inductors over ground plane holes.

Table 7. Variation of calculated inductance of an M2 inductor over ground plane hole as a function of

M2-M0 misalignment.

Misalignment (m) -1.0 -0.7 -0.5 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0

Inductance variation (%) 3.6 2.5 1.8 1.1 0.7 0.4 -0.4 -1.1 -1.5 -2.2 -3.0 -4.2

9. Conclusion

We showed that a proper modelling of a multi-terminal inductive structure with the methods

incorporated into InductEx allows FastHenry to obtain very accurate calculation results that can be

post-processed to find lumped inductance values. Using port currents and good segmentation,

FastHenry calculations can be as versatile as those done with Lmeter for RSFQ circuits, with the

added advantage that holes in the ground plane are also supported. We furthermore showed that the

calculation results can be calibrated to give results with RMSE values smaller than 1 % for inductance

on a single chip and around 2 % for self and mutual inductance over a wafer (excluding inductors over

ground plane holes) – both of which are comparable to the measurement accuracy and smaller than the

guaranteed process homogeneity.

Inductance calculations for inductors over ground plane holes differ by 5 % to 15 % from measured

values, but only two test structures were available. These results are better than the 20 % to 30 % error

reported for FastHenry calculations of coupled structures over a ground plane hole [12], but suggest

that our modelling of such structures could be further improved.

The use of lambda edge segments when segment size exceeds the penetration depth by an order of

magnitude or more clearly yields more accurate results (at the cost of increased computing time) in

theory. However, during practical measurements and calibration the accuracy advantage is

overwhelmed by process variations. More practical measurements are required to verify if this is

always the case, but we can already suggest that such segments are not necessary for layout extraction.

We can thus conclude that the use of large segments (as opposed to the recommendation of very

fine segmentation [22]) with multiple height filaments, port current calculations and proper

preconditioners in FastHenry yields very accurate solutions for the lumped inductance of multi-

terminal structures typical of RFSQ cells. For IPHT layouts, we suggest 2.5 m segment size, 2 height

filaments for M0, and 3 height filaments for layers M1 and M2. The computation time for the

extraction of all the inductance in such cells typically falls in the range of 102 to 10

3 seconds with a

single processor, which makes full cell inductance extraction possible with computer-aided design

software.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank Retief Gerber and Jan Pool at NioCAD for their help in modifying

FastHenry.

References

[1] Gaj K, Herr Q P, Adler V, Krasniewski A, Friedman E G and Feldman M J 1999 Tools for the

computer-aided design of multigigahertz superconducting digital circuits IEEE Trans. Appl.

Supercond. 9 18–38

[2] Xiao P H, Charbon E, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A, Van Duzer T and Whiteley S R 1993

INDEX: An inductance extractor for superconducting circuits IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.

3 2629-32

[3] Nakazato T and Okabe Y 1997 Inductance computation of microscopic superconducting loop

IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 7 3626-9

[4] Teh C K, Kitagawa M and Okabe Y 1999 Inductance calculation of 3D superconducting

structures with ground plane Supercond. Sci. Technol. 12 921-4

[5] Sheen D M, Sami M, Oates D E, Withers R S and Kong J A 1991 Current distribution resistance

and inductance for superconducting strip transmission lines IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 1

108–15

[6] Hildebrandt G and Uhlmann F H 1995 Inductance calculation for integrated superconducting

structures by minimizing free energy IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 5 2766-9

[7] Bunyk P I and Rylov S V 1993 Automated calculation of mutual inductance matrices of

multilayer superconductor integrated circuits Ext. Abs. ISEC 62

[8] Khapaev M M, Kupriyanov M Y, Goldobin E and Siegel M 2003 Current distribution

simulation for superconducting multi-layered structures Supercond. Sci. Technol. 16 24-7

[9] Tolkacheva E, Engseth H, Kataeva I and Kidiyarova-Shevchenko A 2005 Influence of the bias

supply lines on the performance of RSFQ circuits IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 15 276-9

[10] Mukhanov O A 2011 Energy-efficient single flux quantum technology IEEE Trans. Appl.

Supercond. 21 760-9

[11] Kang J H and Kaplan S B 2003 Current recycling and SFQ signal transfer in large scale RSFQ

circuits IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 13 547-50

[12] Igarashi M, Yamanashi Y, Yoshikawa N, Fujiwara K and Hashimoto Y 2009 SFQ pulse transfer

circuits using inductive coupling for current recycling circuits IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.

19 649–52

[13] Mizugaki Y, Kashiwa R, Moriya M, Usami K and Kobayashi T 2007 Grounding positions of

superconducting layer for effective magnetic isolation in Josephson integrated circuits J

Appl. Phys. 101 114509-114509-4

[14] Fourie C J and Perold W J 2005 Simulated inductance variations in RSFQ circuit structures

IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 15 300–3

[15] Kamon M, Tsuk M J and White J K 1994 Fasthenry: A multipole-accelerated 3-d inductance

extraction program IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. 42 1750-8

[16] Whiteley S R 2001 FastHenry Version 3.0wr, available online via the Whiteley Researh

homepage http://www.sr-ware.com

[17] Fluxonics Foundry, Institute of Photonic Technology e.V., Albert Einstein Street 9, 07745 Jena,

homepage at http://www.fluxonics-foundry.de

[18] Saad Y and Schultz M H 1986 GMRES: A generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving

nonsymmetric linear systems SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 7 856-69

[19] Mahawar M, Sarin V and Shi W 2002 Fast inductance extraction of large VLSI circuits Proc.

International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium 415-21

[20] Du Z, Whiteley S R and Van Duzer T 1998 Inductance calculation of 3D superconducting

structures Appl. Supercond. 6 519-23

[21] MAXWELL Ansys, Inc. 275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317

[22] Guan B, Wengler M J, Rott P and Feldman M J 1997 Inductance estimation for complicated

superconducting thin film structures with a finite segment method IEEE Trans. Appl.

Supercond. 7 2776–9

[23] Kempinnen A, Manninen A J, Möttönen M, Vartiainen J J, Peltonen J T and Pekola J P 2008

Suppression of the critical current of a balanced superconducting quantum interference

device Appl. Phys. Lett. 92 052110

[24] Zen N, Casaburi A, Shiki S, Suzuki K, Ejrnaes M, Cristiano R and Ohkubo M (2009) 1 mm

ultrafast superconducting stripline molecule detector Appl. Phys. Lett. 95 172508

[25] Chang W H 1979 The inductance of a superconducting strip transmission line J. Appl. Phys. 50

8129-34

[26] Qi X, Wang G, Yu Z, Dutton R W, Young T and Chang 2000 On-chip Inductance Modeling

and RLC Extraction of VLSI Interconnects for Circuit Simulation Proc. Custom Integrated

Circuits Conference 487-90

[27] Ruehli A E 1972 Inductance calculations in a complex integrated circuit environment IBM J.

Res. Dev.16 470-81

[28] Henkels W H 1978 Accurate measurement of small inductances or penetration depths in

superconductors Appl. Phys. Lett. 32 829-31

[29] Paoletti Q, Hisakado T and Wada O 2010 IEEE Trans. Advanced Packaging 33 128-38