Process Variation Aware Analysis of SRAM SEU Cross Sections Using Data Retention Voltage

Static random access memory (SRAM) is one the most sensitive devices to radiation. It may often exhibit undesired reversals of memory bits, called single-event upsets or soft errors. Sensitivity to such undesired events is widely quantified with the parameter of cross sections, which varies from cell to cell due to process variations. Many efforts have been made to quantify such variations, most commonly using simulations that often become a hurdle especially for commercial-off-the-shelf SRAMs. In this regard, an analysis method is proposed to extract such variations easily from radiation test data. It relies on the data retention voltage, which is an electrical parameter associated with the static noise margin. This voltage can be measured on a desk without special circuits. The validity of the proposed method is experimentally demonstrated using SRAM fabricated in a 65-nm silicon-on-insulator technology, which was exposed to various high-energy heavy ions simulating the effects of galactic and terrestrial cosmic rays. Theoretical discussion provides further evidence, while revealing an interesting relationship between the data retention voltage and power supply voltage. This relationship suggests power-supply voltage tuning to deal with chip-to-chip variations in cross sections and also with similar variations caused by total-dose effects and aging effects such as negative bias temperature instability.

[1]  Elena I. Vatajelu,et al.  On the correlation between Static Noise Margin and Soft Error Rate evaluated for a 40nm SRAM cell , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Defect and Fault Tolerance in VLSI and Nanotechnology Systems (DFTS).

[2]  G. Gasiot,et al.  Impacts of front-end and middle-end process modifications on terrestrial soft error rate , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability.

[3]  R.V. Joshi,et al.  The Impact of Aging Effects and Manufacturing Variation on SRAM Soft-Error Rate , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability.

[4]  Jeffrey H. Warner,et al.  Single-Event Upsets in Substrate-Etched CMOS SOI SRAMs Using Ultraviolet Optical Pulses With Sub-Micrometer Spot Size , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[5]  A V Kauppila,et al.  Impact of Process Variations on SRAM Single Event Upsets , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[6]  G. Gasiot,et al.  Process Variability Effect on Soft Error Rate by Characterization of Large Number of Samples , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[7]  peixiong zhao,et al.  The Impact of Delta-Rays on Single-Event Upsets in Highly Scaled SOI SRAMs , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[8]  J. Ziegler,et al.  SRIM – The stopping and range of ions in matter (2010) , 2010 .

[9]  L. Massengill,et al.  Implications of Dopant-Fluctuation-Induced $V_{\rm t}$ Variations on the Radiation Hardness of Deep Submicrometer CMOS SRAMs , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability.

[10]  Mohab Anis,et al.  Nanometer Variation-Tolerant SRAM: Circuits and Statistical Design for Yield , 2012 .

[11]  Qi Guo,et al.  Total Ionizing Dose Influence on the Single-Event Upset Sensitivity of 130-nm PD SOI SRAMs , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[12]  Lloyd W. Massengill,et al.  Effects of process parameter distributions and ion strike locations on SEU cross-section data (CMOS SRAMs) , 1993 .

[13]  Y. Nakamura,et al.  Development of Cyclotron Beam Technology for Applications in Materials Science and Biotechnology at JAERI‐TIARA , 2003 .

[14]  Philippe Roche,et al.  Comparison of the sensitivity to heavy ions of 0.25-/spl mu/m bulk and SOI technologies , 2002 .

[15]  Masanori Hashimoto,et al.  Alpha-particle-induced soft errors and multiple cell upsets in 65-nm 10T subthreshold SRAM , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium.

[16]  D. Schmitt-Landsiedel,et al.  A 1 Mbit SRAM test structure to analyze local mismatch beyond 5 sigma variation , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Microelectronic Test Structures.

[17]  B. Kruseman,et al.  Alpha-particle-induced SER of embedded SRAMs affected by variations in process parameters and by the use of process options , 2005 .

[18]  S. E. Diehl,et al.  Suggested Single Event Upset Figure of Merit , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[19]  Paul Zuber,et al.  Impact of process variability on the radiation-induced soft error of nanometer-scale srams in hold and read conditions , 2011, 2011 12th European Conference on Radiation and Its Effects on Components and Systems.

[20]  Jan M. Rabaey,et al.  SRAM leakage suppression by minimizing standby supply voltage , 2004, International Symposium on Signals, Circuits and Systems. Proceedings, SCS 2003. (Cat. No.03EX720).

[21]  Kazuyuki Hirose,et al.  Heavy-Ion Soft Errors in Back-Biased Thin-BOX SOI SRAMs: Hundredfold Sensitivity Due to Line-Type Multicell Upsets , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[22]  Asim J. Al-Khalili,et al.  Postsilicon Tuning of Standby Supply Voltage in SRAMs to Reduce Yield Losses Due to Parametric Data-Retention Failures , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems.

[23]  Tino Heijmen Spread in Alpha-Particle-Induced Soft-Error Rate of 90-nm Embedded SRAMs , 2007, 13th IEEE International On-Line Testing Symposium (IOLTS 2007).

[24]  Rob A. Rutenbar,et al.  Two Fast Methods for Estimating the Minimum Standby Supply Voltage for Large SRAMs , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems.