Journal of Electronic Testing

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 247–262 | Cite as

Multiple Experiment Environments for Testing

  • Karen Panetta Lentz
  • Elias S. Manolakos
  • Edward Czeck
  • Jamie Heller


Concurrent simulation (CS) has been used successfully as areplacement for serial simulation. Based on storing differences fromexperiments, CS saves storage, speeds up simulation time and allowsexcellent internal observation of events. In this paper, we introduceMultiple Domain Concurrent Simulation (MDCS) which like concurrentsimulation, maintains efficiency by only simulating differences. MDCS alsoallows experiments to interact with one another and create new experimentsthrough the use of domains. These experiments can be traced and observed atany point, providing insight into the origin and causes of new experiments.While many experiment scenarios can be created, MDCS uses dynamic spawningand experiment compression rather than explicit enumeration to ensure thatthe number of experiment scenarios does not become exhaustive. MDCS does notrequire any pre-analysis or additions to the circuit under test. Providingthis capability in digital logic simulators allows more test cases to be runin less time. MDCS gives the exact location and causes of every experimentbehavior and can be used to track the signature paths of test patterns forcoverage analysis.

We will describe the algorithms for MDCS, discuss the rules forpropagating experiments and describe the concepts of domains for makingdynamic interactions possible. We will report on the effectiveness of MDCSfor attacking an exhaustive simulation problem such as Multiple Stuck-atFault simulations for digital logic. Finally, the applicability of MDCS formore general experimentation of digital logic systems will be discussed.

concurrent fault simulation multiple stuck-at scenario interactive experimentation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E. Ulrich and T. Baker, “The Concurrent Simulation of Nearly Identical Digital Networks,” Proc. 1973 Design Automation Conference, pp. 145-150.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Gai, P.L. Montessoro, and F. Somenzi, “MOZART:AConcurrent Multi-Level Simulator,” IEEE Transaction on CAD, Vol. 7, pp. 1006-1012, Nov. 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Kubiak and W.K. Fuchs, “Multiple-fault Simulation and Coverage of Deterministic Single-Fault Test Sets,” Proc. IEEE International Test Conference, pp. 956-962, Nov. 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Kitamura, “Sequential Circuit Fault Simulation by Fault Information Tracing Algorithm: Fit,” Proc. 28th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 1991, pp. 151-154.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Brglez and H. Fujiwara, “A Neutral Netlist of 10 Combinational Benchmark Circuits and a Target Translator in FORTRAN,” Special Session on Recent Algorithms for Gate-level ATPG with Fault Simulation and their Performance Assessment, Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, June 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Brglez, D. Bryan, and K. Koziminski, “Combinational Profiles of Sequential Benchmarks for Sequential Test Generation,” IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, May 1989, pp. 1929-1934.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Machlin, D. Gross, S. Kadkade, and E. Ulrich, “Switch-Level Concurrent Fault Simulation based on a General Purpose List Traversal Mechanism,” Proc. IEEE International Test Conference (ITC), 1988, pp. 574-581.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.L. Montessoro and S. Gai, “Creator: General and Efficient Multilevel Concurrent Fault Simulation,” Proc. First Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI, 1991, pp. 43-48.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Niermann, W. Cheng, and J. Patel, “PROOFS: A Fast, Memory Efficient Sequential Circuit Fault Simulator,” IEEE Transactions on Computer Aided Design, Vol. 11, No.2, pp. 198-206, Feb. 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K.P. Lentz, Multiple Domain Concurrent Simulation of Interacting Experiments and Its application to Multiple Stuck-at Fault Simulation, Ph.D. thesis, Northeastern University, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V.D. Agrawal, K.T. Cheng, and P. Agrawal, “A Directed Search Method for Test Generation Using a Concurrent Simulator,” IEEE Trans. CAD, Vol. 8, pp. 131-138, Feb. 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Schuler and R. Cleghorn, “An Efficient Method of Fault Simulation for Digital Circuits Modeled from Boolean Gates and Memories,” Proc. 14th Design Automation Conference, June 1977, pp. 230-238.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Gai and P. Montessoro, “Creator: New Advanced Concepts in Concurrent Simulation,” IEEE Trans. on CAD/ICAS, Vol. 13, No.6, pp. 786-795, June 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Cremer, J. Kearney, and Y. Papelis, “HCSM: A framework for Behavior and Scenario Control in Virtual Environments,” ACM Transactions on Modeling and Simulation. Vol. 5, No.3, pp. 242-267, July 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.E. Bryant, “Symbolic Boolean Manipulation with Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams,” ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 24, No.3, pp. 293-318, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Ulrich, K.P. Lentz, J. Arabian, V. Agrawal, and P.L. Montessoro, “The Comparative and Concurrent Simulation of Discrete-Event Experiments,” Journal of Electronic Testing: Theory and Applications, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 279-291, May 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Panetta Lentz
    • 1
  • Elias S. Manolakos
    • 2
  • Edward Czeck
    • 3
  • Jamie Heller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringTufts UniversityMedford
  2. 2.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentNortheastern UniversityBoston
  3. 3.Chrysalis Symbolic DesignBillerica

Personalised recommendations