Journal of Electronic Testing

, Volume 7, Issue 1–2, pp 125–137 | Cite as

Integration of partial scan and built-in self-test

  • Chih-Jen Lin
  • Yervant Zorian
  • Sudipta Bhawmik
Self-Test with Partial Scan

Abstract

Partial-Scan based Built-In Self-Test (PSBIST) is a versatile Design for Testability (DFT) scheme, which employs pseudo-random BIST at all levels of test to achieve fault coverages greater than 98% on average, and supports deterministic partial scan at the IC level to achieve nearly 100% fault coverage. PSBIST builds its BIST capability on top a partial scan structure by adding a test pattern generator, an output data compactor, and a PSBIST controller in a way similar to that of deriving a full scan BIST from a full scan structure. However, to make the scheme effective, there is a minimum requirement regarding which flip-flops in the circuit should be replaced by scan flip-flops and/or initialization flip-flops. In addition, test arents are usually added to boost the fault coverage to the range of 95 to 100 percent. These test points are selected based on a novel probabilistic testability measure, which can be computed extremely fast for a special class of circuits. This ciass of circuits is precisely the type of circuits that we obtain after replacing some of the flip-flops.withscan and/or initilization flip-flops. The testability measure is also used for a very useful quick estimation of the fault coverage right after the selection of sean flip-flops, even before the circuit is modified to incorporate PSBIST capability. While PSBIST provides all the benefits of BIST, it incurs lower area overhead and performance degradation than full scan. The area overhead is further reduced when the boundary scan cells are reconfigured for BIST usage.

Keywords

built-in self-test design for testability partial scan test points 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Eichelberger and T.W. Williams, “A Logic Design Structure for LSI Testability,”Proc. 14th Design Autom. Conf., pp. 462–468, June 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Trischler, “Incomplete Scan Path with an Automatic Test Generation Methodology,”Proc. Int'l. Test Conf., pp. 153–162, November 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Gupta, R. Gupta, and M. Breuer, “The BALLAST Methodology for Structure Partial Scan design,”IEEE Trans. on Comput., Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 538–544, April 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K.T. Cheng and V.D. Agrawal, “A Partial Scan Method for Sequential Circuits with Feedbacks,”IEEE Trans. on Comput., Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 544–548, April 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Lee and S. Reddy, “On Determining Scan Flip-flops in Partial Scan Designs,”Proc. Int'l. on f. on Computer Aided Design, pp. 322–325, November 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Bhawmik, C.J. Lin, K.T. Cheng, and V.D. Agrawal, “PASCANT: CAPartial Scan and Test Generation System,”Proc. IEEE 1991 Custom Integrated Circuits Conf., pp. 17.3.1–17.3.4, May 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K.T. Cheng and J. Jou, “Timing-Driving Partial Scan for High Speed Circuits,”Proc. Int'l. onnf. on Computer Aided Design, pp. 404–407, November 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Chakradhar, A. Balakrishnan, and V.D. Agrawal, “An Exact Algorithm for Selecting Partial Scan Flip-Flops,”Proc. 31st Design Autom, Conf., pp. 81–87, June 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Bardell and W. McAnney, “Self-Testing of Multiple Chip Modules,”Proc. Int'l Test Conf., pp. 200–204, November 1982.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Stroud, “An Automated BIST Approach for General Sequential Synthesis,”Proc. 25th Design Autom. Conf., pp. 3–7, June 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Pradhan, E. O'Brien, S. Lam, and J. Bausang, “Circular BIST with Partial Scan,”Proc. of Int'l. Test Conf., pp. 719–729, September 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Wunderlich and S. Hellebrand, “The Pseudo-Exhaustive Test of Sequential Circuits,”Proc. Int'l. Test Conf., pp. 19–27, August 1989.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Wu and P. Rutkowski, “PEST- A Tool for Implementing Pseudo-Exhaustive Self Test,”Proc. European Design Autom. Conf., pp. 639–643, March 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Muradali, V.K. Agarwal, and B. Nadeau-Dostie, “A New Procedure for Weighted Random Built-In Self-Test,”Proc. Int'l. Test Conf., pp. 660–669, September 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Lin, Y. Zorian, and S. Bhawmik, “PSBIST: A Partial Scan Based Built-In Self-Test Scheme,”Proc. Int'l. Test Conf., pp. 507–516, October 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y. Zorian, “A Distributed BIST Control Scheme for Complex VLSI Devices,”Proc. 12th IEEE VLSI Test Symp., pp. 4–9, April 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    IEEE Standard 1149.1–1990, “IEEE Standard Test Abcess Port and Boundary Scan Architecture,” New York: IEEE Standard Board, May 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P.H. Bardell, “Design Considerations for Parallel Pseudorandom Pattern Generators,”J. of Electronic Testing: Theory and Applications, Vol. 1, pp. 73–87, February 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Maxwell, R. Aitken, V. Johansen, and I. Chiang, “The Effect of Different Test Sets on Quality Level Prediction: When is 80% better than 90%?”Proc. Int'l. Conf., pp. 358–364, September 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Brglez, D. Bryan, and K. Kozminski, “Combinational Profiles of Sequential Benchmark Circuits,”Proc. Int'l. Symposium on Circuits and Systems, pp. 1929–1934, May 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ACM/SIGDA Benchmark Newsletter, June 1993-3-DAC'93 Edition, pp. 19–22.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Bencivenga, T. Chakraborty, and S. Davidson, “The Areniteeture of the GENTEST Sequential Test Generator,”Proc. IEEE 1991 Custom Integrated Circuits Conf., pp. 17.1.1–17.1.4, May 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Cheng, “An ATPG-Based Approach to Sequential Circuit Optimization,”Proc. Int'l. Conf. on Computer Aided Design. pp. 372–375, November 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Briers and K. Totton, “Random Pattern Testability by East Fault Simulation,”Proc. Int'l. Test Conf., pp. 274–281, September 1986.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    V. Iyengar and D. Brand, “Synthesis of Pseudo-Random Pattern Testable Design,”Proc. Int'l. Test Conf., pp. 501–508, August 1989.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. Brglez, “On Testability Analysis of Combinational Networks,”Proc. 1984 Custom Integrated Circuits Conf., pp. 221–225, May 1984.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Y. Savaria, M. Youssef, B. Kaminska, and M. Koudil, “Automatic Test Point Insertion for Pseudo-Random Testing,”Proc. Int'l. Symposium on Circuits and Systems, pp. 1960–1963, June 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. Seiss, P. Trouborst, and M. Schulz, “Test points Insertion for Scan-Based BIST,”Proc. of 2nd European Test Conf., pp. 253–262, April 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S.K. Jain and V.D. Agrawal, “Statistical Fault Analysis,”IEEE Design and Test of Computer, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 38–44, February 1985.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    P.H. Bardell, W. McAnney, and J. Savir,Built-In Test for VLSI Pseudorandom Technique, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1987.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Y. Zorian and A. Ivanov, “Programmable Space Compaction for BIST,”Proc. 23rd Fault Tolerant Computing Symp., pp. 340–349, June 1993.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Y. Zorian, “On the Effectiveness of Output Data Specific Compaction for BIST,”Proc. International Symp. on Circuits and Systems, pp. 1881–1884, June 1991.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Y. Savaria and B. Kaminska, “Force-Observe, A New Design for Testability Approach,”IEEE International Symp. on Circuits and Systems, pp. 193–197, June 1988.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    N.S.V. Rao and S. Toida, “Computational Complexity of Test Point Insertion and Decomposition,”Proc. Fifth Int'l. Conf. on VLSI Design, pp. 233–238, January 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chih-Jen Lin
    • 1
  • Yervant Zorian
    • 1
  • Sudipta Bhawmik
    • 1
  1. 1.AT&T Bell LaboratoriesEngineering Research CenterPrinceton

Personalised recommendations