Journal of Electronic Testing

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 71–89 | Cite as

Generating a family of testable designs using the BILBO methodology

  • Sen-Pin Lin
  • Charles A. Njinda
  • Melvin A. Breuer


There are usually many different ways to make a digital circuit testable using the BILBO methodology. Each solution can have different values of test time and area overhead. A design system based on the BILBO methodology has been developed that can efficiently explore the testable design space to generate a family of designs ranging from the minimal test time design to the minimal area overhead design. A designer can select an appropriate design based on trade-offs between test time and area overhead. The branch and bound technique is employed during the exploring process to prune the design space. This significantly reduces the execution time of this process. To effectively bound the exploring process, a very efficient test scheduler has been developed. Unlike previous approaches, this new test scheduler can process a partially testable design as well as a complete testable design. A test schedule for a design is constructed incrementally. The test scheduling procedures are presented along with experimental results that show that this test scheduler usually outperforms existing schedulers. In many cases, it generates an optimal test schedule. Experiments have been performed on several circuits generated by MABAL, a CAD synthesis tool, to demonstrate the performance and practicality of this system.


BILBO design system built-in self-test synthesis for testability test scheduling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B. Konemann, J. Mucha, and G. Zwiehoff, “Built-in logic block observation technique,” inProc. Int. Test Conf., pages 37–41, October 1979.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.S. Abadir and M.A. Breuer, “A knowledge based system for designing testable VLSI chips,”IEEE Design and Test of Computers, vol. 3, pp. 56–68, August 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Kim, J.G. Tront, and D.S. Ha, “BIDES: A BIST design expert system,”J. of Electronic Testing: Theory and Applications, vol. 2, pp. 165–179, June 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Craig, C. Kime, and K. Saluja, “Test scheduling and control for VLSI built-in self-test,”IEEE Trans. on Computers, vol. C-37, pp. 1099–1109, September 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C.H. Chen, “Graph partitioning for concurrent test scheduling in VLSI circuit,” inProc. 28th Design Automation Conf., pp. 287–290, June 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W.B. Jone, C.A. Papachristou, and M. Pereira, “A scheme for overlaying concurrent testing of VLSI circuits,” inProc. 26th Design Automation Conf., pp. 531–536, June 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.P. Lin, C.A. Njinda, and M.A. Breuer, “A systematic approach for designing testable VLSI circuits,” inProc. ICCAD, pp. 496–499, November 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S.P. Lin, C.A. Njinda, and M.A. Breuer, “A systematic approach for designing testable VLSI circuits,” Technical Report Tech. Report CRI-91-18, University of Southerm California, July 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Kucukcakar and A.C. Parker, “MABAL: A software package for Module and Bus Allocation,”Int. J. of Computer Aided VLSI Design, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 419–426, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S.P. Lin, “A testable design system using BILBO-oriented methodologies,” University of Southern California, Department of EE-Systems, July 1992, Ph.D. Thesis Proposal.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L.T. Wang and E.J. McCluskey, “Built-in self-test for sequential machines,” inProc. Int'l. Test Conf., pp. 334–341, September 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Hwang and F.A. Briggs,Computer Architecture and Parallel Processing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rajiv Gupta, W.H. Cheng, Rajesh Gupta, I. Hardonag, and M.A. Breuer, “An object-oriented VLSI CAD framework: A case study in rapid prototyping,”IEEE Computer, pp. 28–37, May 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Z.-A. Zhu and M.A. Breuer, “A knowledge-based system for selecting test methodologies,”IEEE Design & Test of Computers, vol. 5, pp. 41–59, October 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S.P. Lin, M.A. Breuer, and C.A. Njinda, “A self-adaptive expert selection system (SAESS) and its application to selection problems,” inProc. Third Int'l Conf. on Software Eng. and Knowledge Eng., pp. 116–121, June 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. McFarland, A. Parker, and R. Camposano, “Tutorial on high-level synthesis,” inProc. 25th Design Automation Conf., pp. 330–336, July 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Abramovici, M.A. Breuer, and A.D. Friedman,Digital Systems Testing and Testable Design. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Majumdar and S. Sastry, “Test length prediction in random testing of combinational circuits,” private communication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sen-Pin Lin
    • 1
  • Charles A. Njinda
    • 1
  • Melvin A. Breuer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering-SystemsUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations