Algorithms to select I DDQ measurement points to detect bridging faults

Abstract

IDD Q measurement is a time consuming process. Thus, reducing the number of IDDQ measurements have a great impact on the test time. Carefully selecting a few IDDQ measurement points is therefore an important problem. This problem has been studied for detecting leakage faults but not for bridging faults. We present novel algorithms to select IDDQ measurement points to detect bridging faults. Experimental results obtained are very encouraging. The method can also be used: by test generators to compress 1DDQ test sets; and to maximize the fault coverage when a fixed number of measurement points are given.

Fault models and test generation for IDDQ testing

“…The paper includes following ve techniques; removal of inert subsequences, replacement of inert subsequences, removal with partial substitution, conditional removal of fault-detecting subsequences, conditional removal of inert subsequences. The techniques [20] SAF seq TPG for SAF Chen et al [9] TBF seq TPG for SAF, genetic algorithm Dalpasso et al [10] TBF comb SPICE, BDD Isern & Figueras [17] INTRA-SH, TBF comb TPG for SAF Reddy et al [29] INTRA-SH, TBF comb random tests, TPG for SAF Mahlstedt et al [23] INTRA-SH, TBF comb random tests, deterministic TPG Higami et al [13] INTRA-SH, TBF seq weighted random tests Bollinger & Midki [2] USH comb modied PODEM Lee et al [21] USH seq genetic algorithm Chakravarty & Thadikaran [6] USH seq random tests, TPG for SAF Thadikaran et al [32] USH seq TPG for SAF Maeda et al [22] USH seq weighted random tests, TPG for SAF seq: sequential circuit comb: combinational circuit remove or replace inert subsequences as long as the state transition of a remaining test sequence is preserved. The fourth technique investigates if faults detected by a removed subsequence are also detected by a remaining test sequence.…”

IDDX-based test methods

“…The purpose of this article is to provide a survey of I DDX -based test methods not covered in earlier surveys. This article does not cover fault models [Higami et al 2000a] and test vector selection for I DDQ test [Chakravarty and Thadikaran 1996;Higami et al 2000b], current sensors [Roy and Kornfield 1992;Figueras et al 1999], and leakage current modeling and reduction techniques [Roy et al 2003;Kao et al 2002] that have been covered elsewhere. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows.…”

Fault models and test generation for IDDQ testing

“…The techniques [20] SAF seq TPG for SAF Chen et al [9] TBF seq TPG for SAF, genetic algorithm Dalpasso et al [10] TBF comb SPICE, BDD Isern & Figueras [17] INTRA-SH, TBF comb TPG for SAF Reddy et al [29] INTRA-SH, TBF comb random tests, TPG for SAF Mahlstedt et al [23] INTRA-SH, TBF comb random tests, deterministic TPG Higami et al [13] INTRA Since measurement of IDDQ is a time-consuming process, reduction of IDDQ measurement v ectors is more effective for reducing the total testing time. Therefore a method to select a small number of IDDQ measurement vectors has been proposed in [5,6,8,14,16,20,26]. Target faults are USHs in [5,6,14,16], LEs in [8,26], and SAFs in [20].…”

“…Therefore a method to select a small number of IDDQ measurement vectors has been proposed in [5,6,8,14,16,20,26]. Target faults are USHs in [5,6,14,16], LEs in [8,26], and SAFs in [20]. The problem of selecting minimum IDDQ measurement v ectors can be formulated as a SETCOVER problem [5,6].…”

“…Target faults are USHs in [5,6,14,16], LEs in [8,26], and SAFs in [20]. The problem of selecting minimum IDDQ measurement v ectors can be formulated as a SETCOVER problem [5,6]. To solve the problem, a method using a detection matrix is ecient [14,16].…”