Russian Microelectronics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 102–111 | Cite as

Limitations and prospects of using the two-phase CMOS logics in upset-immune sub-100-nm VLSIs

  • V. Ya. Stenin


The upset immunity of CMOS inverters with a two-phase structure to the effect of single nuclear particles for inverters with 65-nm and 45-nm design rules substantially depends on the capacitive coupling of their differential inputs (outputs). To evaluate the upset immunity, threshold characteristics are suggested, which associate the threshold values of critical charges with the corresponding threshold values of the capacity of the differential coupling. With the capacities of the differential coupling lower than the threshold values, the critical charges of two-phase CMOS inverters exceed the critical charges of the conventional CMOS logics by a factor of more than 10. Critical charges have lower values under the effect of current pulses with small constant rise and fall times.


Current Pulse RUSSIAN Microelectronics Upset Immunity Phase Inverter Critical Charge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Calin, T., Nicolaidis, M., and Velazco, R., Upset hardened memory design for submicron CMOS technology, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Science, 1996, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 2874–2878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gaspard, N., Jagannathan, S., Diggins, Z., et al., Estimation of hardened flip-flop neutron soft error rates using SRAM multiple-cell upset data in bulk CMOS, Proc. IEEE Int. Reliab. Phys. Symp., 2013, pp. SE.6.1–SE.6.5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jahinuzzaman, S.M., Rennie, D.J., and Sachdev, M., A soft error tolerant 10T SRAM bit-cell with differential read capability, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Science, 2009, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 3768–3773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ol’chev, S.I. and Stenin, V.Ya., CMOS logic elements with increased failure resistance to single-event upsets, Russ. Microelectron., 2011, vol. 40, no. 3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knowles, K.R., US Patent 6614257, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stenin, V.Ya. and Cherkasov, I.G., Memory-cell layout as a factor in the single-event-upset susceptibility of submicron DICE CMOS SRAM, Russ. Microelectron., 2011, vol. 40, no. 3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katunin, Yu.V. and Stenin, V.Ya., Simulation of the local effect of nuclear particles on 65-nm CMOS elements of two-phase logics, Russ. Microelectron., 2012, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naseer, R., Boulghassoul, Y., Draper, J., et al., Critical charge characterization for soft error rate modeling 90 nm SRAM, Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Circuits and Systems, 2007, pp. 1879–1882.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bajura, M.A., Boulghassoul, Y., Naseer, R., et al., Models and algorithmic limits for ECC-based approach to hardening sub-100-nm SRAMs, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Science, 2007, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 935–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nicolaidis, M., Soft Errors in Modern Electronic Systems, New York: Springer, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scientific Research Institute of System AnalysisRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.National Research Nuclear University MEPhIMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations