Updating the sets of target faults during test generation for multiple fault models

Updating the sets of target faults during test generation for multiple fault models

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for $120.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Your details
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
IET Computers & Digital Techniques — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

A comprehensive test set targets the detection of several fault models. As an example, in this study, stuck-at faults, transition faults and four-way bridging faults are targeted. Bridging faults represent a fault model where it is necessary to select a subset of target faults from all the possible faults. After test generation for single stuck-at faults, undetectable single stuck-at faults can be used for identifying undetectable transition and four-way bridging faults. These faults can be removed from the sets of target faults to reduce the test generation effort. The new contribution of the study is related to the possibility of updating the set of target bridging faults again after test generation for transition faults. The analysis performed in the study leads to the premise that the presence of an undetectable or aborted transition fault on a line g makes bridging faults that are associated with line g less likely to be detected. As a result, line g may be covered by fewer bridging faults than selected for it, creating a test hole. To address this issue, the study suggests that more bridging faults should be selected for line g in this case. Experimental results are presented to support the discussion.


    1. 1)
      • 1. Barzilai, Z., Rosen, B.: ‘Comparison of AC self-testing procedures’. Proc. Int. Test Conf., Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1983, pp. 8994.
    2. 2)
      • 2. Maly, W., Nag, P.K., Nigh, P.: ‘Testing oriented analysis of CMOS ICs with opens’, IEEE Int. Conf. Comput.-Aided Des., 1988, 1, pp. 344347.
    3. 3)
      • 3. Ferguson, F.J., Shen, J.P.: ‘A CMOS fault extractor for inductive fault analysis’, IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des., 1988, 7, (11), pp. 11811194.
    4. 4)
      • 4. Sengupta, S., Kundu, S., Chakravarty, S., et al: ‘Defect-based tests: a key enabler for successful migration to structural test’, Intel Technol. J., 1999, pp. 5871.
    5. 5)
      • 5. Krishnaswamy, V., Ma, A.B., Vishakantaiah, P.: ‘A study of bridging defect probabilities on a pentium (TM) 4 CPU’. Int. Test Conf., Baltimore, MD, USA, 2001, pp. 688695.
    6. 6)
      • 6. Pomeranz, I., Reddy, S.M., Kundu, S.: ‘On the characterization and efficient computation of hard-to-detect bridging faults’, IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des., 2004, 23, (12), pp. 16401649.
    7. 7)
      • 7. Favalli, M., Dalpasso, M.: ‘Boolean and Pseudo-boolean test generation for feedback bridging faults’, IEEE Trans. Comput., 2016, 65, (3), pp. 706715.
    8. 8)
      • 8. Wu, C.-H., Lee, S.J., Lee, K.-J.: ‘Test and diagnosis pattern generation for dynamic bridging faults and transition delay faults’. Proc. Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conf., Macau, China, 2016, pp. 755760.
    9. 9)
      • 9. Higami, Y., Furutani, H., Sakai, T., et al: ‘Test pattern selection for defect-aware test’. Proc. Asian Test Symp., New Delhi, India, 2011, pp. 102107.
    10. 10)
      • 10. Liu, Y., Xu, Q.: ‘On modeling faults in FinFET logic circuits’. Proc. Int. Test Conf., Anaheim, CA, USA, 2012, pp. 19.
    11. 11)
      • 11. Hapke, F., Redemund, W., Glowatz, A., et al: ‘Cell-aware test’, IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des., 2014, 33, (9), pp. 13961409.
    12. 12)
      • 12. Yang, F., Chakravarty, S., Gunda, A., et al: ‘Silicon evaluation of cell-aware ATPG tests and small delay tests’. Proc. Asian Test Symp., Hangzhou, China, 2014, pp. 101106.
    13. 13)
      • 13. Singh, A.D.: ‘Cell aware and stuck-open tests’. Proc. European Test Symp., Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2016, pp. 16.
    14. 14)
      • 14. Reddy, L.N., Pomeranz, I., Reddy, S.M.: ‘COMPACTEST-II: a method to generate compact two-pattern test sets for combinational logic circuits’. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer-Aided Design, Santa Clara, CA, USA, 1992, pp. 568574.
    15. 15)
      • 15. Desineni, R., Dwarkanath, K.N., Blanton, R.D.: ‘Universal test generation using fault tuples’. Proc. Int. Test Conf., Atlantic City, NJ, USA, 2000, pp. 812819.
    16. 16)
      • 16. Reddy, S.M., Chen, G., Rajski, J., et al: ‘A unified fault model and test generation procedure for interconnect opens and bridges’. Proc. Europ. Test Symp., Tallinn, Estonia, 2005, pp. 2227.
    17. 17)
      • 17. Goel, S., Parekhji, R.A.: ‘Choosing the right mix of at-speed structural test patterns: comparisons in pattern volume reduction and fault detection efficiency’. Proc. Asian Test Symp., Calcutta, India, 2005, pp. 330336.
    18. 18)
      • 18. Alampally, S., Venkatesh, R. T., Shanmugasundaram, P., et al: ‘An efficient test data reduction technique through dynamic pattern mixing across multiple fault models’. Proc. VLSI Test Symp., Dana Point, CA, USA, 2011, pp. 285290.
    19. 19)
      • 19. Wu, C.-H., Lee, K.-J.: ‘Transformation of multiple fault models to a unified model for ATPG efficiency enhancement’. Proc. Int. Test Conf., Fort Worth, TX, USA, 2016, pp. 110.

Related content

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address