Statistical Analysis of Normality of Systematic and Random Variability of Flip-Flop Race Immunity in 130nm and 90nm CMOS Technologies.

  • Gustavo Neuberger
  • Gilson Wirth
  • Fernanda Kastensmidt
  • Ricardo Reis
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 291)

Statistical process variations are a critical issue for circuit design strategies to ensure high yield in sub-100nm technologies. In this work we investigate the variability of flip-flop race immunity in 130nm and 90nm low power CMOS technologies. An on-chip measurement technique with resolution of ~1ps is used to characterize hold time violations of flip-flops in short logic paths, which are generated by clock-edge uncertainties in synchronous designs. Statistical die-to-die variations of hold time violations are measured in various register-to-register configurations and show overall 3s die-to-die standard deviations of 12-16%. Mathematical methods to separate the measured variability between systematic and random variability are discussed, and the results presented. They show that while systematic variability is the major issue in 130nm, it is significantly decreased in 90nm technology due to better process control. Another important point is that the race immunity decreases about 30% in 90nm, showing that smaller clock skews can lead to violations in 90nm. Normality tests to check if the variability follows a normal Gaussian distribution are also presented.


CMOS Technology Ring Oscillator Test Circuit Random Variability Dynamic Voltage Scaling 
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.


  1. [1]
    H. Q. Dao, K. Nowka, and V. G. Oklobdzija, “Analysis of clocked timing elements for dynamic voltage scaling effects over process parameter variation”, Proc. Intl. Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED), 2001, pp. 56–59.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. Marković, B. Nikolić, and R. W. Brodersen, “Analysis and design of low-energy flip-flops”, Proc. Intl. Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED). 2001, pp. 52–55.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Y. Huang, W. T. Cheng, S. M. Reddy, C. J. Hsieh, and Y. T. Hung, “Statistical diagnosis for intermittent scan chain hold-time fault”, Proc. Intl. Test Conf, 2003, pp. 319–328.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Edirisooriya, and G. Edirisooriya, “Diagnosis of scan failures”, Proc. VLSI. Test Symposium, 1995, pp. 250–255.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Guo, and S. Venkataraman, “A technique for fault diagnosis of defects in scan chains”, Proc. Intl. Test Conf, 2001, pp. 268–277.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. C.-M. Li, “Diagnosis of multiple hold-time and setup-time faults in scan chains”, IEEE Transactions on Computers, Nov. 2005, Vol 54 Issue 11, pp. 1467–1472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Z. Wang, M. Marek-Sadowska, K.-H. Tsai, and J. Rajski, “Diagnosis of hold time defects”, Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Computer Design (ICCD), 2004, pp. 192–199.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    N. V. Shenoy, R. K. Brayton, and A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, “Minimum padding to satisfy short path constraints”, Proc. IEEE/ACM Intl. Conf. on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 1993, pp. 156–161.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    G. Neuberger, F. Kastensmidt, R. Reis, G. Wirth, R. Brederlow, C. Pacha, “Statistical characterization of hold time violations in 130nm CMOS technology”, IEEE European Solid-State Circuits Conference (ESSCIRC), 2006.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Gerosa et al., “A 2.2W, 80 MHz superscalar RISC Microprocessor”, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, 1994, pp. 1440–1454.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    B. E. Stine, D. S. Boning, and J. E. Chung, “Analysis and decomposition of spatial variation in integrated circuit processes and devices”, IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, Feb. 1997, Vol 10 Issue 1, pp. 24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. S. Boning, and J. E. Chung, “Statistical metrology: understanding spatial variation in semiconductor manufacturing”, Proc. Microelectronic Manufacturing Yield, Reliability and Failure Analysis II: SPIE 1996 Symposium on Microelectronic Manufacturing, 1996, pp. 16–26.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    P. Mach, and H. Hochlova, “Testing of normality of data files for application of SPC tools”, 27th International Spring Seminar on Electronics Technology: Meeting the Challenges of Electronics Technology Progress, 2004, pp. 318–321.Google Scholar
  14. [14]

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)Instituto de InformáicaPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations