All Tests for a Fault are Not Eyually Valuable for Defect Detection

The standard approach to generating a test set for a logic circuit is to select a set of target fault,s and generate one test for each fault (or at least most of the faults). By far, the most common target fault set is composed of single stuck-at faults. However, many potential manufacturing (non-target) defects are not included in the target fault set, so that their detection is just a fortuitous coincidence. In most cases, many different tests may exist which detect a given single stuck-at fault. However, each of these tests (for the same stuck-at fault) may perform very differently in terms of their non-target defect detection. We investigate this phenomenon empirically using a subset of the ISCXS 85 benchmark circuits, and our results show that extremely wide variations in defective part level are possible over sets of tests which all guarantee 100% single non-redundant stuck-at fault coverage. Our objective in this work is the investigation of non-target defects and their impact on defective part level. Here, our thrust is not to develop new test gene rut i o n methods .

[1]  Prathima Agrawal,et al.  Fault coverage requirement in production testing of LSI circuits , 1982 .

[2]  T. Tanji,et al.  Spread spectrum indoor video transmission , 1992, 1st International Conference on Universal Personal Communications - ICUPC '92 Proceedings.

[3]  M. Ray Mercer,et al.  The influences of fault type and topology on fault model performance and the implications to test and testable design , 1991, DAC '90.

[4]  Richard D. Eldred.  Test Routines Based on Symbolic Logical Statements , 1959, JACM.

[5]  Edward J. McCluskey,et al.  IC quality and test transparency , 1989 .

[6]  John Paul Shen,et al.  Extraction and simulation of realistic CMOS faults using inductive fault analysis , 1988, International Test Conference 1988 Proceeding@m_New Frontiers in Testing.

[7]  F. Brglez,et al.  A neutral netlist of 10 combinational benchmark circuits and a target translator in FORTRAN , 1985 .

[8]  K. C. Y. Mei,et al.  Bridging and Stuck-At Faults , 1974, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[9]  Edward J. McCluskey,et al.  Detecting bridging faults with stuck-at test sets , 1988, International Test Conference 1988 Proceeding@m_New Frontiers in Testing.

[10]  Brown,et al.  Defect Level as a Function of Fault Coverage , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[11]  M. R. Mercer,et al.  Fast functional evaluation of candidate OBDD variable orderings , 1991, Proceedings of the European Conference on Design Automation..

[12]  Don E. Ross,et al.  Heuristics to compute variable orderings for efficient manipulation of ordered binary decision diagrams , 1991, 28th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[13]  Robert C. Aitken,et al.  THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT TEST SETS ON QUALITY LEVEL PREDICTION: WHEN IS 80% BETTER THAN 90%? , 1991, 1991, Proceedings. International Test Conference.

[14]  Don E. Ross,et al.  Functional approaches to generating orderings for efficient symbolic representations , 1992, [1992] Proceedings 29th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[15]  Edward J. McCluskey,et al.  IC qualityd and test transparency , 1988, International Test Conference 1988 Proceeding@m_New Frontiers in Testing.

[16]  Randal E. Bryant,et al.  Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Computers.