Bridging fault diagnosis in the absence of physical information

Effective bridging fault diagnosis requires reducing the (/sub 2//sup n/) number of bridging faults to a handful of candidates. A preliminary step can reduce the O(n/sup 2/) candidates to a manageable O(n) candidates by using layout information to eliminate those bridging faults that are very unlikely to be shorted together. This step removes from consideration those faults that match the fault signature but are physically impossible. However, sometimes-perhaps due to issues of intellectual property or because the degree of information stored about a circuit changes over its lifecycle-the physical design of the circuit is not available, and the number of nodes is too large to explicitly consider all pairs. In this paper we present two ways to provide successful diagnoses without access to physical information. The second method produces optimal diagnoses under our ranking criteria. Either technique can be used in conjunction with information extracted from the physical design to allow for diagnoses of much larger circuits than previously possible.

[1]  F. Joel Ferguson,et al.  Carafe: an inductive fault analysis tool for CMOS VLSI circuits , 1993, Digest of Papers Eleventh Annual 1993 IEEE VLSI Test Symposium.

[2]  Peter C. Maxwell,et al.  Better models or better algorithms? techniques to improve fault diagnosis , 1995 .

[3]  B. Chess,et al.  Diagnosis of realistic bridging faults with single stuck-at information , 1995, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD).

[4]  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.

[5]  R. L. Wadsack,et al.  Fault modeling and logic simulation of CMOS and MOS integrated circuits , 1978, The Bell System Technical Journal.

[6]  S.D. Millman,et al.  Diagnosing CMOS bridging faults with stuck-at fault dictionaries , 1990, Proceedings. International Test Conference 1990.

[7]  Sreejit Chakravarty,et al.  An Algorithm for Diagnosing Two-Line Bridging Faults in Combinational Circuits , 1993, 30th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[8]  John Paul Shen,et al.  Inductive Fault Analysis of MOS Integrated Circuits , 1985, IEEE Design & Test of Computers.

[9]  C. C. Beh,et al.  Do Stuck Fault Models Reflect Manufacturing Defects? , 1982, ITC.

[10]  John M. Acken,et al.  Fault Model Evolution For Diagnosis: Accuracy vs Precision , 1992, 1992 Proceedings of the IEEE Custom Integrated Circuits Conference.

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

[12]  F. Joel Ferguson,et al.  Sandia National Labs , 2022 .

[13]  Sreejit Chakravarty,et al.  Algorithms for IDDQ measurement based diagnosis of bridging faults , 1992, J. Electron. Test..

[14]  Tracy Larrabee,et al.  Beyond the byzantine generals: unexpected behavior and bridging fault diagnosis , 1996, Proceedings International Test Conference 1996. Test and Design Validity.

[15]  Yves Crouzet,et al.  Physical Versus Logical Fault Models MOS LSI Circuits: Impact on Their Testability , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[16]  Sreejit Chakravarty,et al.  Which Set of Bridging Faults Should Test Compilers Target , 1996 .