Research article Special Issues

Medium-term cycles in affordability: what does the house price to income ratio indicate?

  • Received: 21 December 2020 Accepted: 20 April 2021 Published: 21 April 2021
  • JEL Codes: E32, R21, E51

  • Using the Christiano-Fitzgerald filter to extract business and medium-term cycles, this paper considers house price, gross domestic product per head and the ratio of the two for the UK over 1955–2020. It shown that, although the synchronisation of business and medium-term cycles is associated with the largest price and ratio events, there a shift of volatility from the former to the latter cycle range, which begins in the 1980s. The medium-term cycles are closely aligned. Indeed, the phase-leading role of income over the others is at odds with current stabilisation policy thinking. The trend in income growth is steady but then, around 2002 peters into a stagnant period. The trend in the house price-income ratio is remarkably stable, but in the era of finance liberalisation, that stability is disrupted both in trend and cycle. This appears to be altered by the adjustment to greater financial accessibility. In effect, this trend traces the amount of debt that an agent's income is expected to service when purchasing a dwelling, or the real interest rate. Any return to the "normal" cost of capital could have a severe impact on borrowers.

    Citation: David Gray. Medium-term cycles in affordability: what does the house price to income ratio indicate?[J]. National Accounting Review, 2021, 3(2): 204-217. doi: 10.3934/NAR.2021010

    Related Papers:

    [1] Subhajit Das, Sandip Bhattacharya, Debaprasad Das, Hafizur Rahaman . A survey on pristine and intercalation doped graphene nanoribbon interconnect for future VLSI circuits. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(2): 247-260. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021016
    [2] Yaorong Su, Weiguang Xie, Jianbin Xu . Towards low-voltage organic thin film transistors (OTFTs) with solution-processed high-k dielectric and interface engineering. AIMS Materials Science, 2015, 2(4): 510-529. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2015.4.510
    [3] M. P. Lavin-Lopez, L. Sanchez-Silva, J. L. Valverde, A. Romero . CVD-graphene growth on different polycrystalline transition metals. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(1): 194-208. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.1.194
    [4] Shuhan Jing, Adnan Younis, Dewei Chu, Sean Li . Resistive Switching Characteristics in Electrochemically Synthesized ZnO Films. AIMS Materials Science, 2015, 2(2): 28-36. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2015.2.28
    [5] Shuwei Lin, Yitai Fu, Yunsen Sang, Yi Li, Baozong Li, Yonggang Yang . Characterization of Chiral Carbonaceous Nanotubes Prepared from Four Coiled Tubular 4,4-biphenylene-silica Nanoribbons. AIMS Materials Science, 2014, 1(1): 1-10. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2013.1.1
    [6] Felicia Ullstad, Jay R. Chan, Harry Warring, Natalie Plank, Ben Ruck, Joe Trodahl, Franck Natali . Ohmic contacts of Au and Ag metals to n-type GdN thin films. AIMS Materials Science, 2015, 2(2): 79-85. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2015.2.79
    [7] Raghvendra K Pandey, William A Stapleton, Mohammad Shamsuzzoha, Ivan Sutanto . Voltage biased Varistor-Transistor Hybrid Devices: Properties and Applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2015, 2(3): 243-259. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2015.3.243
    [8] K.Pandey Raghvendra, A.Stapleto Williamn, Shamsuzzoha Mohammad, Sutanto Ivan . Voltage biased Varistor-Transistor Hybrid Devices: Properties and Applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2015, 2(3): 243-259. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2015.243
    [9] Gennaro Gelao, Roberto Marani, Anna Gina Perri . Analysis and design of current mode logic based on CNTFET. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(6): 965-980. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023052
    [10] Vishanth Uppu, Kunal Mishra, Libin K. Babu, Ranji Vaidyanathan . Understanding the influence of graphene and nonclay on the microcracks developed at cryogenic temperature. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(4): 559-566. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.4.559
  • Using the Christiano-Fitzgerald filter to extract business and medium-term cycles, this paper considers house price, gross domestic product per head and the ratio of the two for the UK over 1955–2020. It shown that, although the synchronisation of business and medium-term cycles is associated with the largest price and ratio events, there a shift of volatility from the former to the latter cycle range, which begins in the 1980s. The medium-term cycles are closely aligned. Indeed, the phase-leading role of income over the others is at odds with current stabilisation policy thinking. The trend in income growth is steady but then, around 2002 peters into a stagnant period. The trend in the house price-income ratio is remarkably stable, but in the era of finance liberalisation, that stability is disrupted both in trend and cycle. This appears to be altered by the adjustment to greater financial accessibility. In effect, this trend traces the amount of debt that an agent's income is expected to service when purchasing a dwelling, or the real interest rate. Any return to the "normal" cost of capital could have a severe impact on borrowers.



    1. Introduction

    Power supply voltage drop (IR-drop) has been one of most important challenges of power interconnects in sub nanometer designs [1,2,3,4]. It becomes even more challenging for the high density and high performance designs in which it has adverse effects on timing. The increase in chip operating temperature has two-fold effects on timing. Firstly, it increases the interconnect resistance which in turn increases the interconnect delay. Secondly, due to the increase in resistance there is more IR-drop which also increases the gate delay. Therefore, it is very essential to analyze the effects of temperature on IR-drop in sub nanometer designs, since the resistivity of the traditional copper based interconnects increases significantly in nanometer dimensions [5]. GNR is one of the most promising material for interconnect modeling for future generation technologies [5,6] due to its excellent properties compared with copper in nanometer dimensions. Recent studies [6,7,8,9,10] on GNR show its superiority over the traditional copper based interconnects. The compact resistance modeling with only absolute temperature (300 K) in MLGNR stacks is proposed by Sansiri Tanachutiwat et al. reported in [11]. The temperature independent IR-Drop induced delay-fault model and simultaneous switching noise for MLGNR interconnects has been investigated by D. Das et al. reported in [12,13,14]. The temperature dependent comparisons of delay between CNT and Cu have been investigated in [15,16]. However, as per our knowledge no investigation has been carried out to analyze the effects of the temperature on IR-drop in multi layer graphene nanoribbon (MLGNR) interconnect till date. Motivated by the previous work, we have proposed a temperature dependent resistive model of multi layer graphene nanoribbon (MLGNR) interconnect. Using the proposed model, we have analyzed the power supply voltage drop (IR-drop) and delay in MLGNR based power interconnects. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 and 3 presents the proposed temperature dependent resistive model of MLGNR and Cu interconnect. The results and conclusions are presented in the Sections 4 and 5.


    2. Temperature Dependent Resistance Model of MLGNR Interconnect

    A multilayer GNR (MLGNR) structure is shown in Figure 1 is used for modeling power interconnects in nanoscale design. The width, thickness, and height of the MLGNR structure are denoted by w, t, and ht, respectively. The separation between two MLGNR structures is denoted by sp. In our interconnect design, we have considered width (w)=16 nm and thickness (t)=32 nm for 16 nm International technology roadmap for semiconductors (ITRS) technology node [5]. The total number of SLGNR present in proposed MLGNR structure is given by [7].

    Figure 1. Schematic representation of multi-layer GNR interconnect.
    Nlayer=1+Integer[t/δ] (1)

    The interlayer spacing (δ) between two consecutive graphene layers is 0.34 nm which is called as van der walls gap. Using (1) we obtain the total number of SLGNR present in proposed MLGNR structure as Nlayer=95 for 16 nm technology node. The total resistance of MLGNR is given by.

    RTotalMLGNR=RQ(1+lMLGNRλeffective)+Rc (2)

    where lMLGNR is the length of MLGNR based interconnect and λeffective is the effective electron mean free path (MFP) of MLGNR. The quantum resistance (RQ) of SLGNR is 12.94 kΩ. The contact resistance is assumed as 100 Ω·µm. The quantum resistance for MLGNR expressed as [7]

    RQ=h/2.e2Nch.Nlayer=12.94kΩNch.Nlayer (3)

    In (3) Nch is the number of conducting channels in SLGNR, Nlayer is the number of layer present in MLGNR, h is the Planck’s constant, and e is the electronic charge. The number of conducting channel present in SLGNR is given by [8,10]

    Nch=ncj=1[1+e(Ej,nEF)/kBT]1+ncj=1[1+e(EF+Ej,h)/kBT]1 (4)

    where j=(1, 2, 3, …) is a positive integer, EF is Fermi energy, kB is the Boltzmann’s constant, T is temperature, and nc and nv are the number of conduction and valance sub-bands. Ej, n and Ej, h are the minimum energy of electron and hole in jth conduction sub-band as given by [8]

    Ej=ΔE|j+β|,whereΔE=hvf2w (5)

    ΔE is the sub-band energy in metallic GNR and β value is zero for metallic GNR and it is 1/3 in semiconducting GNR [8,10]. The Fermi potential for metallic GNR has been consider between 0.21 eV to 0.4 eV reported in [8,10]. The Fermi potential may varies in stacked multilayered GNR in each layer. Therefore, the value of Fermi energy for the inner layer GNR is derived as [11].

    EF,m=EFeδm/Ψ (6)

    In (6), “m” is the position of the layer in stacked MLGNR structure, δ=0.34 nm and Ψ=0.387 nm is the fitting parameter reported in [11]. The average of all Fermi potential for top, bottom and inner layers (total Nlayer ≅ 95) is equal to 0.3 eV. The number of conducting channels (Nch) is 6 for metallic SLGNR of width 16 nm for EF=0.3 eV. The effective MFP of SLGNR interconnects depends on three important parameters: electron-electron scattering (λe), acoustic phonon scattering (λap) and remote interfacial phonon scattering (λrip). Electron-electron scattering independent with temperature variation, but remaining two parameters vary with temperature which adversely affects on the interconnect delay due to change in resistance followed by temperature variation. Th e electron-electron scattering λe can be expressed as [11]

    λe=λdefect+wNchi=1Nchi1 (7)

    where, λdefect is the MFP of SLGNR due to the defects exists inside the graphene layer. Here, “i” is an integer variable which varies from 1 to Nch=6 and “w” is the interconnect width of MLGNR interconnect. The value of λdefect is assumed to be 1 µm [11]. The MFP due to acoustic phonon scattering λap can be expressed as [11]

    λap=h2ρsvs2vf2wπ2D2AkBT (8)

    In (8), vf is the Fermi velocity of GNR (=8 × 105 m/s), vs is the sound velocity of GNR (=2.1 × 104 m/s), DA is the acoustic deformation potential, kB is the Boltzmann constant, ρs is the 2D mass density of graphene, and T is the temperature. The MFP due to remote interfacial phonon scattering λrip is expressed as [11]

    λrip=αE1.02Fw(eE0kT1) (9)

    where α is the fitting parameter, EF is the Fermi potential, and E0=104 mV. The temperature dependent effective MFP of SLGNR is given by applying Matthiessen’s rule [11]

    λeffective=[(λe)1+(λap)1+(λrip)1]1 (10)

    The values of λe, λap, λrip, and λeffective, for different temperature are shown in Figure 2. Substituting the effective MFP of SLGNR in (2) we obtain the temperature dependent resistance of MLGNR in (11). The temperature dependent resistance values for different length and different temperatures for GNR interconnect is shown in Figure 3.

    RTotalMLGNR=RQ[1+lMLGNR(λeλap+λapλrip+λripλe)(λeλapλrip)] (11)
    Figure 2. Different MFP vs. temperature of multi-layer GNR interconnects.
    Figure 3. Resistance vs. temperature plot for GNR and Cu interconnects 16 nm technology.

    3. Temperature Dependent Resistance Model of Cu Interconnect

    The temperature dependent resistive model of Cu based nanointerconnect is explained in this section. To implement this model, surface roughness scattering and grain boundary scattering phenomena are considered. The surface roughness scattering based resistivity model first proposed by Fuchs [17] and Sondheim [18] (FS-model) which is given by (12)

    ρFSρO=1+34λOw(1P) (12)

    where ρo is the resistivity of the bulk material, w is width of the nanointerconnect, λo is the mean free path of the conduction electrons, and P (=0.6) is the Fuchs scattering parameter. The grain boundary scattering based resistivity model is proposed by Mayadas and Shatzkes (MS-model) [19] which is given by (13)

    ρMSρO=[132α+3α23α3ln(1+1α)]1 (13)

    Where,

    α=λOD(R1P)

    Here D is the mean grain size and R is the reflection coefficient in the grain edges or boundaries with values in between 0 and 1. In our model, we have considered the mean grain size is equivalent to film width and R=0.33. The total resistivity of Cu nanointerconnect can be measured by combined effects of surface roughness and grain boundary scattering as given in (14)

    ρCu=ρFS+ρMS (14)

    In (14) we have shown the temperature independent resistivity of Cu nanointerconnect. In general, the electrical resistivity of Cu nanointerconnects increases with temperature due to electron-phonon interactions mechanism [20]. As the temperature increase linearly, the resistance of Cu nanointerconnect also increases linearly. For Cu nanointerconnects, the temperature dependent resistivity ρcu(T) follows a power law function of temperature which is given by the Bloch-Grüneisen model given in (15) [20,21,22]

    ρCu(T)=ρCu(0)+4R(ΘR)[TΘR]nΘRT0xn(ex1)(1ex)dx (15)

    Here,

    R(ΘR)=ηe2[π3(3π2)1/3η24n2/3cellaMkBΘR]

    ΘR, is the Debye temperature used for resistivity calculation of Cu interconnect in nanometer dimension [20,21,22]. The Debye temperature ΘR, is taken ~320 K for bulk non-magnetic material like Cu [22]. In our analysis, the residual resistivity ρCu(0) in (15) has been ignored because it is temperature independent parameter and occurs due to presence of defect scattering [22]. Here η=Planck’s constant divided by , ncell=number of electron’s present in an atom which participate in current conduction, the atomic mass M=(atomic weight)/NA, where NA is the Avogadro’s number, a=(volume/atom)1/3, kB is Boltzmann’s constant, and e is the electron charge. Here “n” is an integer which depends on the characteristics of interaction. In general the value of “n” lies between 2-5.

    1. n=5 signifies that the resistance variation is due to scattering of electrons by phonons (for simple metals like Cu) [23];

    2. n=3 signifies that the resistance variation is due to s-d (spin density) electron scattering (for transition metals or dilute alloys) [23];

    3. n=2 signifies that the resistance variation is due to electron-electron collisions or interaction. [23];

    In our analysis we have considered the 1st condition. Thus, the temperature dependent resistance of Cu nanointerconnect is given by (16)

    RCu(T)=ρCu(T).lwt (16)

    where l=length, w=width, and t=thickness of Cu nanointerconnect. Here “w” is 16 nm and “t” is 32 nm for 16 nm ITRS technology node for Cu interconnect same as MLGNR interconnect. Length of Cu nanointerconnect is varied from 10 µm to 100 µm. The temperature dependent resistance values of Cu nanointerconnect for different lengths at different temperature are shown in Figure 3.


    4. Results

    Using the temperature dependent resistance model as discussed in previous section, we have calculated the resistance for different interconnect length and different temperature. In Figure 3 we have shown the temperature dependent resistance of MLGNR and Cu interconnect for different interconnect length (5 µm to 50 µm) for 16 nm technology node. MLGNR shows ~2-5x less resistance than that of Cu as shown in Figure 3. In Figure 2, with the increase in temperature, the effective mean free path reduces, and hence the scattering induced ohomic part of the total resistance of MLGNR increases. The IR-drop analysis is performed in MLGNR and Cu interconnects for 5 μm (local), 20 μm (intermediate) and 50 μm (global) interconnect lengths. The analysis is performed using equivalent circuit model shown in Figure 4.

    Figure 4. Schematic circuit used for power supply voltage drop analysis.

    In Figure 4, ten identical CMOS inverters are connected in series with temperature dependent resistance for both MLGNR and Cu. In our analysis, we have assumed the supply voltage as 0.7 V, the input voltage swing is from 0 to 0.7 V for all stages and pulse rise/fall time is assumed as 100 ps. The CMOS inverters are designed for 16 nm ITRS technology node using the Shttps://www.aimspress.com/aimspress-data/aimsmates/2016/4/PICE models from predictive technology model [24]. MOSFET model parameters are defined in Table 1. The simulations are performed using the Cadence spectra simulator. All the inverters are switched simultaneously so that they draw current from the power supply. As a result the power supply voltage decreases progressively away from the power pad. The decrease in power supply causes increase in propagation delay through the gate. As the temperature increases, the resistance of the power interconnects increases which causes more interconnect delay. With temperature as the IR-drop increases, the gates suffer more delay problem. Therefore, increase in temperature has twofold increase in delay: one due to increase in interconnect (RC) delay and the other due to increase in IR-drop. Figure 5-7 illustrate the IR-drop in GNR and Cu interconnects for local, intermediate, and global lengths. It is observed that the IR-drop increases with the increase in temperature both for MLGNR and Cu interconnects but MLGNR shows ~1.5-3.5× less IR-drop than Cu at local, intermediate and global lengths. The IR-Drop analyzed data shown in Table 2,Table 3 and Table 4, where maximum, minimum and average IR-Drop of MLGNR and Cu interconnects are present. The total propagation delay of MLGNR and Cu interconnect shown in Table 5. In our analysis, we also find out that MLGNR interconnect can reduce delay up to ~1.5-3× compared with Cu interconnect.

    Table 1. 16 nm Predictive Technology Model (PTM) CMOS Model Parameter.
    Model Parameters [24]n-MOS(Si)p-MOS(Si)
    Channel Length (L)16 nm
    Channel Width (W)64 nm128 nm
    Threshold Voltage (VTH0)0.47 volt−0.43 volt
    Dielectric Constant (εox for Sio2)εox = 3.9 × ε0,Where ε0 = 8.85 × 10−12 F/m
    Oxide Thickness(tox)0.95 nm1 nm
    Gate Oxide Capacitance (Cox)0.29 fF0.28 fF
    Junction Depth (Xj)5 nm
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 5. Average IR-drop vs. No of Stages of Cu and MLGNR interconnect at different temperature for 5 µm length (local level).
    Figure 6. Average IR-drop vs. No of Stages of Cu and MLGNR interconnect at different temperature for 20 µm length (intermediate level).
    Figure 7. Average IR-drop vs. No of Stages of Cu and MLGNR interconnect at different temperature for 50 µm length (global level).
    Table 2. Temperature dependent IR-Drop (mV) of MLGNR and Cu interconnect for 16 nm technology and 5 µm length (local length).
    Temperature (K)→150200250300350400450150200250300350400450
    No of Stages
    Maximum Peak IR-Drop of MLGNRMaximum Peak IR-Drop of Cu
    1st7.047.327.768.409.2310.2011.3013.8118.4122.4626.0829.3432.3335.10
    2nd13.2513.7714.6015.7917.3419.1621.2125.9234.5542.1748.9755.1160.7765.93
    3rd18.6819.4120.5722.2524.4126.9829.8636.4748.6459.4169.0577.8285.8893.29
    4th23.3624.2825.7227.8130.5233.7237.3145.6060.8774.4386.6197.72107.94117.41
    5th27.3328.3930.0932.5235.7039.4343.6353.3471.2587.24101.70114.88127.04138.35
    6th30.6131.8033.6936.4139.9644.1548.8659.7279.8797.93114.25129.29143.18156.11
    7th33.2134.5136.5639.5143.3547.9053.0264.8386.78106.46124.45140.87156.21170.55
    8th35.1536.5338.6941.8245.8850.6956.1168.6491.94112.94132.03149.76166.17181.48
    9th36.4537.8740.1143.3547.5652.5558.1771.1895.37117.25137.19155.68172.75188.97
    10th37.0938.5440.8244.1248.4053.4759.2072.4497.07119.39139.79158.62176.19192.74
    No of StagesMinimum Peak IR-Drop of MLGNRMinimum Peak IR-Drop of Cu
    1st1.181.231.311.431.591.792.022.553.544.475.366.196.987.74
    2nd2.242.332.492.713.023.403.834.846.728.4910.1811.7513.2714.73
    3rd3.173.313.533.854.304.835.446.879.5512.0714.4516.6918.8820.93
    4th3.994.164.444.855.416.086.858.6412.0315.2018.1821.0523.7826.42
    5th4.694.895.215.716.367.158.0610.1514.1517.8921.3724.7927.9731.15
    6th5.275.505.866.427.168.049.0611.4115.9120.1224.0727.8931.5435.09
    7th5.735.986.386.997.808.759.8612.4217.3221.9126.2330.3734.3938.23
    8th6.086.346.777.428.279.2810.4613.1718.3723.2527.8532.2336.5340.59
    9th6.316.587.037.718.599.6410.8613.6719.0824.1428.9333.4737.9642.21
    10th6.436.707.167.858.759.8211.0613.9219.4324.5929.4734.0938.6743.02
    No of StagesAverage IR-Drop of MLGNRAverage IR-Drop of Cu
    1st4.114.274.534.915.415.996.668.1810.9713.4615.7217.7619.6521.42
    2nd7.748.058.549.2510.1811.2812.5215.3820.6325.3329.5733.4337.0240.33
    3rd10.9211.3612.0513.0514.3515.9017.6521.6729.0935.7441.7547.2552.3857.11
    4th13.6714.2215.0816.3317.9619.9022.0827.1236.4544.8152.3959.3865.8671.91
    5th16.0116.6417.6519.1121.0323.2925.8431.7442.7052.5661.5369.8377.5084.75
    6th17.9418.0019.7721.4123.5626.0928.9635.5647.8959.0269.1678.5987.3695.60
    7th19.4720.2421.4723.2525.5728.3231.4438.6252.0564.1875.3485.6295.30104.39
    8th20.6121.4322.7324.6227.0729.9833.2840.9055.1568.0979.9490.99101.35111.03
    9th21.3822.2223.5725.5328.0731.0934.5142.4257.2270.6983.0694.57105.35115.59
    10th21.7622.6223.9925.9828.5731.6435.1343.1858.2571.9984.6396.35107.43117.88
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3. Temperature dependent IR-Drop (mV) of MLGNR and Cu interconnect for 16 nm technology and 20 µm length (intermediate length).
    Temperature (K)→150200250300350400450150200250300350400450
    No of Stages
    Maximum Peak IR-Drop of MLGNRMaximum Peak IR-Drop of Cu
    1st18.7619.5320.7322.4224.5426.9829.55036.5345.6653.2459.9065.9171.5276.76
    2nd35.2236.6638.8942.1046.0850.6755.5068.6685.83100.02112.40123.57133.86143.45
    3rd49.5751.6354.8259.3065.0171.4978.3897.18121.74142.15159.91175.86190.47204.12
    4th62.0564.6068.6074.2981.4889.6398.43122.30153.86180.08202.92223.39241.75257.80
    5th72.6275.6680.4087.0895.52105.27115.73144.25182.19213.81241.34264.33283.27299.31
    6th81.4584.8790.1497.75107.38118.40130.28162.87206.46242.96272.94295.93314.48329.98
    7th88.4992.1798.03106.25116.77128.87141.92178.00226.45266.87296.76319.25337.19352.06
    8th93.7497.68103.9112.73123.96136.91150.92189.68241.95284.23313.66335.60352.97367.26
    9th97.23101.3107.8117.03128.75142.26156.87197.40252.44295.44324.46345.97362.91376.79
    10th98.96103.2109.7119.17131.14144.92159.82201.38257.80300.94329.72351.00367.71381.38
    No of StagesMinimum Peak IR-Drop of MLGNRMinimum Peak IR-Drop of Cu
    1st3.623.794.074.464.985.596.258.1510.9013.2915.4517.4319.2220.86
    2nd6.877.207.728.479.4610.6111.8515.5020.7425.4229.6833.5637.1140.50
    3rd9.7710.2310.9612.0413.4415.0516.8522.0729.6536.4542.6648.4153.7558.81
    4th12.3012.8813.7915.1716.9218.9321.2427.8637.4746.2554.3561.9169.0575.84
    5th14.4615.1416.2417.8519.8922.3025.0132.8244.3354.8664.6473.9782.8291.31
    6th16.2617.0218.2820.0822.3725.1128.1436.9550.1062.1973.5884.3894.85104.92
    7th17.7018.5319.9121.8624.3427.3630.6440.3354.7068.1880.8893.07104.88116.36
    8th18.7819.6721.1323.2025.8329.0532.5242.8958.2972.6786.5099.77112.64125.29
    9th19.4920.4321.9424.0926.8330.1733.7644.5960.6975.8090.24104.33118.00131.35
    10th19.8520.8122.3524.5327.3430.7334.4045.4461.8977.3792.19106.61120.72134.47
    No of StagesAverage IR-Drop of MLGNRAverage IR-Drop of Cu
    1st11.1911.6612.4013.4414.7616.2817.9022.3428.2833.2637.6741.6745.3748.81
    2nd21.0421.9323.3025.2827.7730.6433.6742.0853.2862.7271.0478.5685.4891.97
    3rd29.6730.9332.8935.6739.2243.2747.6159.6275.6989.30101.28112.13122.11131.46
    4th37.1738.7441.1944.7349.2054.2859.8375.0895.66113.16128.63142.65155.40166.82
    5th43.5445.4048.3252.4657.7063.7870.3788.53113.26134.33152.99169.15183.04195.31
    6th48.8550.9454.2158.9164.8771.7579.2199.91128.28152.57173.26190.15204.66217.45
    7th53.0955.3558.9764.0570.5578.1186.28109.16140.57167.52188.82206.16221.03234.21
    8th56.2658.6762.5167.9674.8982.9891.72116.28150.12178.45200.08217.68232.80246.27
    9th58.3660.8664.8770.5677.7986.2195.31120.99156.56185.62207.35225.15240.45254.07
    10th59.4062.0066.0271.8579.2487.8297.11123.41159.84189.15210.95228.80244.21257.92
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4. Temperature dependent IR-Drop (mV) of MLGNR and Cu interconnect for 16 nm technology and 50 µm length (global length).
    Temperature (K)→150200250300350400450150200250300350400450
    No of Stages
    Maximum Peak IR-Drop of MLGNRMaximum Peak IR-Drop of Cu
    1st34.3835.5937.4540.0543.3046.9350.8161.6075.6087.7498.66108.77118.06126.79
    2nd64.5966.8570.4275.3181.4188.2095.54115.58141.31163.38183.20201.39218.29234.07
    3rd91.3394.6499.65106.70115.41125.18135.65164.42201.07232.16258.20280.07298.95315.48
    4th114.9119.1125.5134.49145.67158.28171.77208.71254.33287.89314.12335.66353.96369.79
    5th135.4140.3148.1158.91172.36187.45203.77248.10295.87328.67353.73374.09391.27406.10
    6th152.7158.4167.3179.70195.12212.65231.32279.77326.67357.97381.54400.58416.64430.55
    7th166.7173.1182.9196.73213.86233.40254.31303.48348.89378.61400.79418.68433.80446.96
    8th177.5184.2194.8209.71228.34249.37271.72320.23364.22392.61413.67430.66445.09457.70
    9th184.6191.9203.0218.59238.06260.20283.05330.91373.84401.28421.58437.97451.93464.19
    10th188.3195.7207.0223.00243.08265.75288.63336.11378.48405.43425.34441.43455.17467.25
    No of StagesMinimum Peak IR-Drop of MLGNRMinimum Peak IR-Drop of Cu
    1st7.547.888.429.1810.1611.3012.5115.9920.4924.2627.4830.3132.9535.32
    2nd14.3514.9916.017.4919.3721.5223.9430.7539.7547.4054.1260.1865.7470.90
    3rd20.3921.3122.824.9127.6030.7634.2344.2657.7169.4479.9489.6898.75107.30
    4th25.7126.9228.831.4234.9238.9143.4056.4774.2890.26104.90118.61131.65144.19
    5th30.3231.7333.937.1241.1946.0651.4367.2889.39109.51128.42146.31163.65180.43
    6th34.1635.7338.241.8846.5552.0158.2376.55102.66126.85149.76171.80193.21214.11
    7th37.2338.9341.745.6850.8756.9363.7484.27113.78141.50168.02193.71218.74243.18
    8th39.5341.3844.448.5354.1160.6568.0090.13122.39153.04182.47211.03238.86266.08
    9th41.0643.0346.150.5056.2863.1270.8594.18128.38160.99192.37222.98252.78281.88
    10th41.8343.8547.051.4957.3664.3672.2796.21131.37165.02197.50229.03259.87289.99
    No of StagesAverage IR-Drop of MLGNRAverage IR-Drop of Cu
    1st20.9621.7322.9324.6126.7329.1131.6638.7948.0456.0063.0769.5475.5081.05
    2nd39.4740.9243.2146.4050.3954.8659.7473.1690.53105.39118.66130.78142.01152.48
    3rd55.8657.9761.2365.8071.5077.9784.94104.34129.39150.80169.07184.87198.85211.39
    4th70.3073.0177.1482.9590.2998.59107.58132.59164.30189.07209.51227.13242.80256.99
    5th82.8686.0191.0098.01106.77116.75127.60157.69192.63219.09241.07260.20277.46293.26
    6th93.4397.06102.7110.79120.83132.33144.77178.16214.66242.41265.65286.19304.92322.33
    7th101.96106.01112.3121.20132.36145.16159.02193.87231.33260.05284.40306.19326.27345.07
    8th108.51112.79119.5129.12141.22155.01169.86205.18243.30272.82298.07320.84341.97361.89
    9th112.83117.46124.5134.54147.17161.66176.95212.54251.11281.13306.97330.47352.35373.03
    10th115.06119.77127.0137.24150.22165.05180.45216.16254.92285.22311.42335.23357.52378.62
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 5. Temperature dependent delay In MLGNR and Cu interconnects at different interconnects length Using 16 nm Technology. Delay Values Are In Ps.
    Temperature (K)→150200250300350400450150200250300350400450
    No of Stages
    MLGNR interconnect delay(5 μm-Local length)Cu interconnect delay(5 μm-Local length)
    1st3.743.753.763.773.783.793.823.863.944.034.124.204.284.37
    2nd6.056.066.096.116.166.216.276.416.686.947.217.477.738.00
    3rd8.018.088.098.188.328.428.588.959.6510.3010.8711.4812.0312.60
    4th9.829.8910.0410.2310.4410.7211.0211.7213.1514.5515.6516.7017.6018.45
    5th12.4812.6412.8013.1113.5013.9514.5015.8017.8019.6521.1022.4023.5024.65
    6th16.2516.4516.7017.1017.6518.3018.9520.3522.6524.9026.7028.1529.8531.15
    7th19.9520.1520.5021.0521.7522.5523.2525.0527.7030.3032.7034.2036.0537.80
    8th24.0024.3024.7525.4026.1526.7027.6529.6532.9536.1538.7040.6042.9545.40
    9th27.7528.1028.6029.2530.3031.1532.3034.4538.4042.3045.1547.7050.5054.05
    10th31.7032.1032.6533.3534.6035.6537.0039.3544.0048.7052.2556.3059.9062.65
    No of StagesMLGNR interconnect delay(20 μm-Intermediate length)Cu interconnect delay(20 μm-Intermediate length)
    1st3.963.973.994.034.084.144.214.414.725.035.325.605.906.20
    2nd6.706.756.836.947.097.277.498.139.1310.1511.0912.2012.8013.70
    3rd9.729.8610.0410.3010.6011.0511.5012.9014.9516.5017.9519.4020.9022.40
    4th13.2513.5013.9514.5515.2015.9516.7518.8521.7524.1526.7028.4030.5032.50
    5th18.0018.3518.8519.6520.5021.4022.5025.6529.3032.2035.7538.2041.1044.00
    6th22.9023.3024.0024.9026.0027.1028.2532.1536.9040.7545.0047.6051.3056.60
    7th27.9028.3029.0030.2031.8033.0534.3038.9045.1549.6055.9560.9065.2069.20
    8th33.2033.6534.5036.1037.9039.1540.8046.5054.4562.0066.8072.3079.6086.10
    9th38.6539.1540.2542.2544.2545.6547.9055.6064.6073.1082.4590.1098.10106.00
    10th44.3044.9546.3048.7050.8053.2056.6064.3578.5588.9599.15108.00118.00128.00
    No of StagesMLGNR interconnect delay(50 μm-Global length)Cu interconnect delay(50 μm-Global length)
    1st4.344.384.434.524.644.774.935.406.106.807.518.208.809.20
    2nd7.928.0408.238.498.849.269.7711.4013.4015.0016.2117.4018.5019.60
    3rd12.4512.7013.0513.6414.4015.2016.0518.3022.1025.4027.6929.7031.8034.50
    4th18.2018.5519.1019.8720.9022.1523.6027.2032.0036.9039.8442.9046.9050.30
    5th24.3524.9026.0026.6827.8529.9531.8536.4043.4048.8053.5261.0067.8072.60
    6th30.7531.4032.6533.6634.8037.9040.1045.7055.2065.3070.4177.2087.2096.00
    7th37.3038.2039.5041.1542.8546.1048.9057.5068.2079.5090.76100.10111.00121.50
    8th44.6545.8547.2549.0751.3556.2560.0068.2085.7099.60113.05122.00136.00150.50
    9th53.0554.6056.9059.1062.5066.0570.6084.40104.00121.00136.61151.00168.50184.50
    10th62.1063.5065.4069.7673.6079.9085.55102.00126.50150.00169.75188.00211.00233.00
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    5. Conclusions

    In this work, we have proposed a temperature dependent resistive model of MLGNR and Cu interconnect and analyzed the effect of temperature on power supply voltage drop (IR-drop). It is observed that with the increase in temperature, the resistance is increased for both MLGNR and Cu, but MLGNR shows significantly less increase than the Cu interconnects ( ~2-5× times lesser), which exhibits less power supply voltage variation and hence less impact on the timing of the circuits. It also reduces the power dissipation of MLGNR based power interconnects as compared with Cu.


    Acknowledgments

    This work is partially supported by the DIT, Government of West Bengal, India under VLSI Design Project.


    Conflict of Interest

    The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this manuscript.




    [1] Agnello L, Schuknecht L (2011) Booms and Busts in Housing Markets: Determinants and Implications. J Hous Econ 20: 171–190. doi: 10.1016/j.jhe.2011.04.001
    [2] Aikman D, Haldane A, Nelson B (2015) Curbing the Credit Cycle. Econ J 125: 1072–1109. doi: 10.1111/ecoj.12113
    [3] André C, Gil-Alana L, Gupta R (2014) Testing for persistence in housing price-to-income and price-to-rent ratios in 16 OECD countries. Appl Econ 46: 2127–2138. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2014.896988
    [4] Borio C (2014) The Financial cycle and Macroeconomics: What have we learnt? J Bank Financ 45: 182–198. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.07.031
    [5] Bracke P (2013) How Long to Housing Cycles Last? A Duration Analysis for 19 OECD Countries. J Hous Econ 22: 213–230. doi: 10.1016/j.jhe.2013.06.001
    [6] Calderon C, Fuentes J (2014) Have Business Cycle Changed over the Last Two Decades? An Empirical Investigation. J Dev Stud 109: 98–123.
    [7] Campbell J, Mankiw N (1991) The Response of Consumption to Income: A Cross-Country Investigation. Eur Econ Rev 35: 723–756. doi: 10.1016/0014-2921(91)90033-F
    [8] Christiano L, Fitzgerald T (2003) The Band Pass Filter. Int Econ Rev 44: 435–465. doi: 10.1111/1468-2354.t01-1-00076
    [9] Comin D, Gertler M (2006) Medium-Term Business Cycles. Am Econ Rev 96: 523–551. doi: 10.1257/aer.96.3.523
    [10] Donnell R, Pannell R (2019) The Changing Shape of the UK Mortgage Market. Available from: https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/policy-and-guidance/reports-publications/changing-shape-uk-mortgage-market.
    [11] Drehmann M. Borio C, Tstasaronis K (2012) Characterising the Financial Cycle: don't lose sight of the Medium Term! BIS Working Papers. No. 380. Bank for International Settlements.
    [12] Gallin J (2006) The long-run relationship between house prices and income: evidence from local housing markets. Real Estate Econ 34: 417–438. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6229.2006.00172.x
    [13] Ganoulis I, Giuliodori M (2011) Financial liberalization and house price dynamics in Europe. Appl Econ 43: 2671–2688. doi: 10.1080/00036840903315494
    [14] Gray D (2017) Cycles in the UK Housing Economy: Price and its Relationship with Lenders, Buyers, Consumption and Construction, Cham. Switzerland: Springer.
    [15] Gray D (2018) An Application of Two Non-Parametric Techniques to the Prices of British Dwellings: An Examination of Cyclicality. Urban Stud 55: 2286–2299. doi: 10.1177/0042098017710381
    [16] Gregoriou A, Kontonikas A, Montagnoli A (2014) Aggregate and Regional House Price to Earnings Ratio Dynamics in the UK. Urban Stud 51: 2916–2927. doi: 10.1177/0042098013506063
    [17] Harvey A, Trimbur T (2008) Trend Estimation and the Hodrick-Prescott Filter. J Japan Stat Soc 38: 41–49. doi: 10.14490/jjss.38.41
    [18] Hiebert P, Jaccard I, Schuler Y (2018) Contrasting financial and business cycles: Stylized facts and candidate explanations. J Financ Stab 38: 72–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2018.06.002
    [19] Hu Y, Oxley L (2018) Bubbles in US regional house prices: evidence from house price–income ratios at the State level. Appl Econ 50: 3196–3229. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2017.1418080
    [20] Hudson N, Green B (2017) Missing Movers: A Long-Term Decline in Housing Transactions? Council of Mortgage Lenders. Available from: https://www.cml.org.uk/news/cml-research/missing-movers-a-long-term-decline-in-housing-transactions/cml-missing-movers-research-report.pdf.
    [21] Iacoviello M, Pavan M (2013) Housing and Debt over the Life Cycle and over the Business Cycle. J Monetary Econ 60: 221–238. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2012.10.020
    [22] International Monetary Fund (2019) Global Financial Stability Report: Vulnerabilities in a Maturing Credit Cycle, Washington, DC. USA: IMF.
    [23] Jadevicius A, Huston S (2017) How long is UK property cycle? J Prop Invest Financ 35: 410–426.
    [24] Jamei M, O'Brien A (2017) UK and Irish housing markets: a first-time buyer perspective. UK Finance and Banking and Payments Federation Ireland. Available from: https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/policy-and-guidance/reports-publications/uk-and-irish-housing-markets-first-time-buyer-perspective.
    [25] Jones D, Leiby P, Paik I (2004) Oil Price Shocks and the Macroeconomy: What Has Been Learned Since 1996. Energy J 25: 1–32. doi: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol25-No2-1
    [26] Leamer E (2007) Housing is the Business Cycle, Working Paper 13428, NBER.
    [27] Leamer E (2015) Housing is the Business Cycle: What Survives the Lessons of 2008–09? J Money Credit Bank 47: 43–50.
    [28] Levy D, Dezhbakhsh H (2003) International Evidence on Output Fluctuation and Shock Persistence. J Monetary Econ 50: 1499–1530. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2003.08.005
    [29] Lind H (2009) Price bubbles in housing markets: Concept, theory and indicators. Int J Hous Mark Anal 2: 78–90. doi: 10.1108/17538270910939574
    [30] Malpezzi S (1999) A simple error correction model of house price. J Hous Econ 8: 27–62. doi: 10.1006/jhec.1999.0240
    [31] Meller B, Metiu N (2017): The synchronization of credit cycles. J Bank Financ 82: 98–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.05.011
    [32] Miles D, Monro V (2019) UK house prices and three decades of decline in the risk-free real interest rate. Staff Working Paper No. 837: Bank of England.
    [33] Miles W (2015) Regional House Price Segmentation and Convergence in the US: A New Approach. J Real Estate Financ Econ 50: 113–128. doi: 10.1007/s11146-013-9451-y
    [34] Mink M, Jacobs J, de Haan J (2012) Measuring coherence of output gaps with an application to the Euro area. Oxf Econ Pap 64: 217–236. doi: 10.1093/oep/gpr049
    [35] Pitros C, Arayici Y (2016) How to identify housing bubbles? A decision support model. Int J Hous Mark Anal 9: 190–221. doi: 10.1108/IJHMA-01-2015-0002
    [36] Pyhrr S, Roulac S, Born W (1999) Real Estate Cycles and their Strategic Implications for Investors and Portfolio Managers in the Global Economy. J Real Estate Res 18: 7–68.
    [37] Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (1999) UK Property Cycle—A History from 1921 to 1997, London: RICS Books.
    [38] Summers P (2005) What Caused The Great Moderation? Some Cross-Country Evidence. Econ Rev Fed Reserve Bank Kansas City 90: 5–32.
    [39] Zhang J, de Jong R, Haurin D (2016) Are US real house prices stationary? New evidence from univariate and panel data. Stud Nonlinear Dyn Econometrics 20: 1–18. doi: 10.1515/snde-2013-0134
    [40] Zhou WX, Sornette D (2006) Is there a real-estate bubble in the US? Phys A 361: 297–308.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Sandip Bhattacharya, Debaprasad Das, Hafizur Rahaman, Analysis of Simultaneous Switching Noise and IR-Drop in Side-Contact Multilayer Graphene Nanoribbon Power Distribution Network, 2018, 27, 0218-1266, 1850001, 10.1142/S0218126618500019
    2. Sandip Bhattacharya, Subhajit Das, Arnab Mukhopadhyay, Debaprasad Das, Hafizur Rahaman, Analysis of a temperature-dependent delay optimization model for GNR interconnects using a wire sizing method, 2018, 17, 1569-8025, 1536, 10.1007/s10825-018-1251-4
    3. Subhajit Das, Debaprasad Das, Hafizur Rahaman, Electro-thermal RF modeling and performance analysis of graphene nanoribbon interconnects, 2018, 17, 1569-8025, 1695, 10.1007/s10825-018-1245-2
    4. Subhajit Das, Debaprasad Das, Hafizur Rahaman, 2018, Performance modeling of intercalation doped graphene-nanoribbon interconnects, 978-1-5386-5122-3, 1, 10.1109/ISDCS.2018.8379685
    5. Sandip Bhattacharya, Debaprasad Das, Hafizur Rahaman, Analysis of Temperature-Dependent Crosstalk for Graphene Nanoribbon and Copper Interconnects, 2019, 0377-2063, 1, 10.1080/03772063.2019.1674193
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3005) PDF downloads(108) Cited by(2)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)  /  Tables(2)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog