Advertisement

Journal of Electronic Testing

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 445–455 | Cite as

Functional Constraints vs. Test Compression in Scan-Based Delay Testing

  • Ilia PolianEmail author
  • Hideo Fujiwara
Article

Abstract

We present an approach to prevent overtesting in scan-based delay test. The test data is transformed with respect to functional constraints while simultaneously keeping as many positions as possible unspecified in order to facilitate test compression. The method is independent of the employed delay fault model, ATPG algorithm and test compression technique, and it is easy to integrate into an existing flow. Experimental results emphasize the severity of overtesting in scan-based delay test. Influence of different functional constraints on the amount of the required test data and the compression efficiency is investigated. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic study on the relationship between overtesting prevention and test compression.

Keywords

Overtesting prevention Functional constraints Scan-based delay test Test compression 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by 21st Century COE (Center of Excellence) Program “Ubiquitous Networked Media Computing” and in part by JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) under Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research B(2)(No. 15300018). We are thankful to Prof. Sudhakar M. Reddy for fruitful discussions on overtesting.

References

  1. 1.
    Bryant R (1986) Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput. 35(8):677–691zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dervisoglu B, Stong G (1991) Design for testability: using scanpath techniques for path-delay test and measurement. In: Int’l test conf., pp 365–374Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engelke P, Polian I, Renovell M, Seshadri B, Becker B (2004) The pros and cons of very-low-voltage testing: an analysis based on resistive short defects. In: VLSI test symp., pp 171–178Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fudoli A, Ascagni A, Appello D, Manhaeve H (2003) A practical evaluation of IDDQ test strategies for deep submicron production test application. experiences and targets from the field. In: European test workshop., pp 65–70Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giles G, Irby J, Toneva D, Tsai K-H (2005) Built-in constraint resolution. In: Int’l test conf.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hao H, McCluskey E (1991) Resistive shorts within CMOS gates. In: Int’l test conf., pp 292–301Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henftling M, Wittmann H (1995) Bit parallel test pattern generation for path delay faults. In: European design and test conf., pp 521–525Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krstić A, Liou J-J, Cheng K-T, Wang L-C (2003) On structural vs. functional testing for delay faults. In: Int’l symp. on quality electronic design, pp 438–441Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin Y-C, Lu F, Cheng K-T (2005a) Pseudo-functional scan-based BIST for delay fault. In: VLSI test symp., pp 229–234Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin Y-C, Lu F, Yang K, Cheng K-T (2005b) Constraint extraction for pseudo-functional scan-based delay testing. In: Asia and South Pacific design autom. conf., pp 166–171Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu X, Hsiao M (2003) Constrained ATPG for broadside transition testing. In: Int’l symp. on defect and fault tolerance in VLSI systems, pp 175–184Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu X, Hsiao M (2005) A novel transition fault ATPG that reduces yield loss. IEEE Des. Test Comput. 22(6):576–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Madge R, Benware B, Daasch W (2003) Obtaining high defect coverage for frequency-dependent defects in complex ASICs. IEEE Des. Test Comput. 20(5): 46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitra S, Avra L, McCluskey E (1997) Scan synthesis for one-hot signals. In: Int’l test conf., pp 414–422Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pecht M, Radojic R, Rao G (1998) Managing silicon chip reliability. CRC Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pomeranz I (2004) On the generation of scan-based test sets with reachable states for testing under functional operation conditions. In: Design autom. conf., pp 928–933Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rajski J, Tyszer J, Kassab M, Mukherjee, N (2004) Embedded deterministic test. IEEE Trans. CAD 23(5):776–792Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rearick J (2001) Too much delay fault coverage is a bad thing. In: Int’l test conf., pp 624–633Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savir J (1994) Broad-Side delay test. IEEE Trans. CAD 13(8):1057–1064Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saxena J, Butler K, Jayaram V, Kundu S, Arvind N, Sreeprakash P, Hachinger M (2003) A case study of IR-drop in structured at-speed testing. In: Int’l test conf., pp 1098–1104Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tafertshofer P, Ganz A, Henftling M (1997) A SAT-based implication engine for efficient ATPG, equivalence checking, and optimization of netlists. In: Int’l Conf. on CAD, pp 648–655Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tehranipour M, Nourani M, Chakrabarty, K (2004) Nine-coded compression technique with application to reduced pin-count testing and flexible on-chip decompression. In: Design, automation and test in Europe, pp 173–178.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vedula V, Abraham J (2000) A novel methodology for hierarchical test generation using functional constraint composition. In: Int’l high-level validation and test workshop, pp 9–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceAlbert-Ludwigs-UniversityFreiburg im BreisgauGermany
  2. 2.Graduate School of Information ScienceNara Institute of Science and TechnologyNaraJapan

Personalised recommendations