Analytical Determination of the Radiation-induced Pulse Shape

  • Rajesh Garg
  • Sunil P. Khatri


In this chapter, an analytical model to efficiently estimate the shape of the voltage glitch that results from a radiation particle strike is presented. A model for the load current I out G (V in, V out) of the output terminal current of the gate G is used. The model presented in this chapter is applicable to any general combinational gate with different loading, and for arbitrary values of collected charge (Q). The effect of the ion track establishment constant (τβ) of the radiation particle induced current pulse is accounted for. The voltage glitch computed by this analytical model can be propagated to the primary outputs of a circuit using existing voltage glitch propagation tools. The properties of the voltage glitch (such as its magnitude, glitch shape, and width) at the primary outputs can be used to evaluate the SEE robustness of the circuit. On the basis of the result of this analysis, circuit hardening approaches can be implemented to achieve the level of radiation tolerance required. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed analytical model is fast (at least 275 ×faster) and accurate (average root-mean-square-percentage error is 5%) compared with SPICE.


Lookup Table Soft Error Primary Output Combinational Circuit Node Voltage 
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.
    Q. Zhou and K. Mohanram, “Gate sizing to radiation harden combinational logic,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 155–166, Jan. 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Heijmen and A. Nieuwland, “Soft-error rate testing of deep-submicron integrated circuits,” in Proc. of the IEEE European Test Symposium, 2006, pp. 247–252.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Mohanram and N. A. Touba, “Cost-effective approach for reducing soft error failure rate in logic circuits,” in Proc. of the Intl. Test Conf., 2003, pp. 893–901.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Shivakumar, M. Kistler, S. W. Keckler, D. Burger, and L. Alvisi, “Modeling the effect of technology trends on the soft error rate of combinational logic,” in Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Dependable Systems and Networks, 2002, pp. 389–398.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. P. Baze and S. P. Buchner, “Attenuation of single event induced pulses in CMOS combinational logic,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 44, pp. 2217–2223, Dec. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Mitra, N. Seifert, M. Zhang, and K. Kim, “Robust system design with built-in soft-error resilience,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 38, pp. 43–52, Feb. 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Nicolaidis, “Time redundancy based soft-error tolerance to rescue nanometer technologies,” in Proc. of the VLSI Test Symposium, April 1999, pp. 86–94.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Anghel, D. Alexandrescu, and M. Nicolaidis, “Evaluation of a soft error tolerance technique based on time and/or space redundancy,” in Proc of the Symposium on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design, Manaus, Brazil, 2000, pp. 237–242.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Dahlgren and P. Liden, “A switch-level algorithm for simulation of transients in combinational logic,” in Proc. of the Intl. Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, June 1995, pp. 207–216.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Kasnavi, J. W. Wang, M. Shahram, and J. Zejda, “Analytical modeling of crosstalk noise waveforms using Weibull function,” in Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Design, 2004, pp. 141–146.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Chen, S. K. Gupta, and M. A. Breuer, “Analytical models for crosstalk excitation and propagation in VLSI circuits,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 1117–1131, Oct. 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Wang, Y. Xie, R. Rajaraman, and B. Vaidyanathan, “Soft error rate analysis for combinational logic using an accurate electrical masking model,” in Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on VLSI Design, 2007, pp. 165–170.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Kashyap, C. Amin, N. Menezes, and E. Chiprout, “A nonlinear cell macromodel for digital applications,” in Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Design, 2007, pp. 678–685.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Forzan and D. Pandini, “A complete methodology for an accurate static noise analysis,” in Proc. of the Great Lakes symposium on VLSI, 2005, pp. 302–307.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nanoscale integration and modeling (NIMO) group (2007), ASU Predictive Technology Model [On-line], Available:∼ptm.
  16. 16.
    L. Nagel, “Spice: A computer program to simulate computer circuits,” in University of California, Berkeley UCB/ERL Memo M520, May 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Mohanram, “Closed-form simulation and robustness models for SEU-tolerant design,” in Proc. of the VLSI Test Symposium, 2005, pp. 327–333.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HillsboroUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringTexas A & M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations