细胞感知测试的挑战

S. P. Dixit, Divyeshkumar Dhanjibhai Vora, Ke Peng
{"title":"细胞感知测试的挑战","authors":"S. P. Dixit, Divyeshkumar Dhanjibhai Vora, Ke Peng","doi":"10.1109/ETS.2018.8400700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Physical defects like opens and bridging defects can occur during the fabrication process of integrated circuits. The logic level abstraction of these physical defects, named fault models like stuck-at, transition, bridge, and small-delay defect, have been proposed, and are widely used in the industry for Automatic Test Pattern Generation (ATPG). However, as the technology moves to increasingly smaller geometries, these fault models and their associated test patterns are becoming less effective. The reason behind this is that existing fault models only consider faults on cell inputs and outputs, plus the interconnects between them. A growing number of defects occur within the cells, which are not explicitly targeted by traditional ATPG. N-detect algorithms can potentially test such defects by generating multiple patterns which detect cell-internal defects randomly. Cell-Aware Test (CAT) tries to solve this problem by uniquely targeting every possible internal defect. This is done via a series of analog simulations of all possible input combinations for all identified possible defects, which come at a significant runtime penalty. This paper shows a comparison of the static and transition patterns that are generated by the CAT methodology and the traditional ATPG for different library and cell parameters. This paper also aims to throw light on the quality concerns of the generated User Defined Fault Model (UDFM) by comparing results while varying different parameters of analog simulations, which reflect the variation due to Process, Voltage and Temperature (PVT). The increase in performance, pattern count and test coverage with respect to two Arm designs is also presented, which reflects the actual cost and gains of the CAT model over traditional ATPG.","PeriodicalId":223459,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 23rd European Test Symposium (ETS)","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges in Cell-Aware Test\",\"authors\":\"S. P. Dixit, Divyeshkumar Dhanjibhai Vora, Ke Peng\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ETS.2018.8400700\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Physical defects like opens and bridging defects can occur during the fabrication process of integrated circuits. The logic level abstraction of these physical defects, named fault models like stuck-at, transition, bridge, and small-delay defect, have been proposed, and are widely used in the industry for Automatic Test Pattern Generation (ATPG). However, as the technology moves to increasingly smaller geometries, these fault models and their associated test patterns are becoming less effective. The reason behind this is that existing fault models only consider faults on cell inputs and outputs, plus the interconnects between them. A growing number of defects occur within the cells, which are not explicitly targeted by traditional ATPG. N-detect algorithms can potentially test such defects by generating multiple patterns which detect cell-internal defects randomly. Cell-Aware Test (CAT) tries to solve this problem by uniquely targeting every possible internal defect. This is done via a series of analog simulations of all possible input combinations for all identified possible defects, which come at a significant runtime penalty. This paper shows a comparison of the static and transition patterns that are generated by the CAT methodology and the traditional ATPG for different library and cell parameters. This paper also aims to throw light on the quality concerns of the generated User Defined Fault Model (UDFM) by comparing results while varying different parameters of analog simulations, which reflect the variation due to Process, Voltage and Temperature (PVT). The increase in performance, pattern count and test coverage with respect to two Arm designs is also presented, which reflects the actual cost and gains of the CAT model over traditional ATPG.\",\"PeriodicalId\":223459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 IEEE 23rd European Test Symposium (ETS)\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 IEEE 23rd European Test Symposium (ETS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ETS.2018.8400700\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE 23rd European Test Symposium (ETS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ETS.2018.8400700","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

在集成电路的制造过程中,会出现开路和桥接缺陷等物理缺陷。这些物理缺陷的逻辑层次抽象被提出,被称为卡滞缺陷、过渡缺陷、桥接缺陷和小延迟缺陷等故障模型,并在工业上广泛用于自动测试模式生成(ATPG)。然而,随着技术向越来越小的几何形状移动,这些故障模型及其相关的测试模式变得越来越不有效。这背后的原因是,现有的故障模型只考虑单元输入和输出上的故障,以及它们之间的互连。越来越多的缺陷发生在细胞内,这不是传统的ATPG明确针对的。n检测算法可以通过生成随机检测细胞内部缺陷的多个模式来潜在地检测这些缺陷。细胞感知测试(CAT)试图通过独特地针对每一个可能的内部缺陷来解决这个问题。这是通过对所有已识别的可能缺陷的所有可能的输入组合进行一系列模拟来完成的,这将带来重大的运行时损失。本文展示了由CAT方法和传统的ATPG生成的静态模式和转换模式对不同库和单元参数的比较。本文还旨在通过改变模拟仿真的不同参数(反映过程、电压和温度(PVT)的变化)的结果来比较所生成的用户自定义故障模型(UDFM)的质量问题。本文还介绍了两种Arm设计在性能、模式数和测试覆盖率方面的提高,这反映了CAT模型相对于传统ATPG的实际成本和收益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenges in Cell-Aware Test
Physical defects like opens and bridging defects can occur during the fabrication process of integrated circuits. The logic level abstraction of these physical defects, named fault models like stuck-at, transition, bridge, and small-delay defect, have been proposed, and are widely used in the industry for Automatic Test Pattern Generation (ATPG). However, as the technology moves to increasingly smaller geometries, these fault models and their associated test patterns are becoming less effective. The reason behind this is that existing fault models only consider faults on cell inputs and outputs, plus the interconnects between them. A growing number of defects occur within the cells, which are not explicitly targeted by traditional ATPG. N-detect algorithms can potentially test such defects by generating multiple patterns which detect cell-internal defects randomly. Cell-Aware Test (CAT) tries to solve this problem by uniquely targeting every possible internal defect. This is done via a series of analog simulations of all possible input combinations for all identified possible defects, which come at a significant runtime penalty. This paper shows a comparison of the static and transition patterns that are generated by the CAT methodology and the traditional ATPG for different library and cell parameters. This paper also aims to throw light on the quality concerns of the generated User Defined Fault Model (UDFM) by comparing results while varying different parameters of analog simulations, which reflect the variation due to Process, Voltage and Temperature (PVT). The increase in performance, pattern count and test coverage with respect to two Arm designs is also presented, which reflects the actual cost and gains of the CAT model over traditional ATPG.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信