Contact resistance

last updated 2026-08-31 · +3 sources in last 30d
Assessment draft · unreviewed
Viability
2/5
Drivers
4/5
Novelty
3/5
Diffusion
2/5
Impact
4/5

Timing Soon (2-5yr) · Read Fairly rated

Electron-scale metrology Electron-scale metr… Semiconductor Equipment Semiconductor Equip… Contact r…

Summary

Why it has become a gating parameter rather than a nuisance: as logic moves to gate-all-around nanoribbons and complementary FETs (CFETs), channel widths fall into the tens of nanometres and channel resistance falls with them, so the fixed contact term comes to dominate total device resistance. Atomically thin transition-metal dichalcogenide (TMD) channels are attractive for those architectures because a sub-nanometre body suppresses leakage, but there is very little material into which to inject carriers. A 2026 trade analysis lists contact resistance, weak p-type behaviour and integration as the three blockers keeping TMD channels out of production ref. The same analysis notes copper interconnect hitting its own nanoscale resistance wall, with ruthenium and molybdenum offering large reductions in ultra-fine lines, so the resistance problem is arriving at both ends of the wire-to-channel path.

Contact resistance is not only a logic problem. A diamond Schottky PIN diode reporting ~116 kA/cm2 and 0.05 mOhm-cm2 specific on-resistance identifies defect density and contact resistance as the two terms that must fall for the device to approach its theoretical material limit. Interfacial charge-transfer resistance is also the framing concern in electrode/electrolyte pairing for solid oxide cells, where surface energy and roughness descriptors are proposed as early screens.

Evidence base

Open questions


Assessment drafted 2026-08-31 from up to 11 KB sources using the technology-scorecard framework; scores are a draft read pending review.

Recent mentions

Related concepts

Frontier questions