System-Level Modeling and Analysis of the Vulnerability of a Processor to Single-Event Upsets (SEUs)

  • Marwan Ammar
  • Ghaith Bany Hamad
  • Otmane Ait MohamedEmail author
  • Yvon Savaria


In this chapter, an efficient system-level approach to model and analyze the propagation of SEUs in a simple processor is introduced. The high-level model of the processor is formalized as a Continuous-Time Markov Chain (CTMC). Probabilistic model checking (PMC) is utilized to exhaustively estimate the impact of SEUs on the behavior of the processor. The proposed CTMC model is analyzed for different SEU injection scenarios and different bit-flip rates. Results demonstrate that the proposed approach can provide an accurate estimation of different metrics, such as Mean Time to Failure (MTTF), Mean Time to Recover(MTTR), Steady-State Availability (SSA), and the probability of failure for each SEU injection scenario in the system’s subcomponents. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that in comparison with existing simulation based analysis of fault impact evaluation, the presented approach is orders of magnitude faster in terms of analysis time.


  1. 1.
    R. Reis et al., Circuit Design for Reliability (Springer, New York, NY, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Velazco et al., Heavy ion test results for the 68020 microprocessor and the 68882 coprocessor. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 39(3), 436–440 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Bezerra et al., SEU and latch up results on transputers. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 43(3), 893–898 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Velazco et al., Predicting error rate for microprocessor based digital architectures through C.E.U. (code emulating upsets) injection. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 47(6), 2405–2411 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Rezgui et al., Estimating error rates in processor-based architectures. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 48(5), 1680–1687 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Ferreyra et al., Injecting single event upsets in a digital signal processor by means of direct memory access requests, in Radiation and its Effects on Devices and Systems, Grenoble, France, 2001, pp. 248–252.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.A. Ferreyra et al., Failure map functions and accelerated mean time to failure tests: new approaches for improving the reliability estimation in systems exposed to single event upsets. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 52(1), 494–500 (Apr. 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.A. Ferreyra et al., Failure and coverage factors based mark off models: a new approach for improving the dependability estimation in complex fault tolerant systems exposed to seus. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 54(4), 912–919 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Kerryann et al., IRT: a modeling system for single event upset analysis that captures charge sharing effects, in IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium, 2014, pages 5F–1.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Geng et al., Monte carlo simulation based on geant4 of single event upset induced by heavy ions. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 56(6), 1120–1125 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    F.L. Kastensmidt et al.. On the use of vhdl simulation and emulation to derive error rates, in Radiation and Its Effects on Components and Systems, Grenoble, France, 2001, pp. 253–260.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.R. Azambuja et al., Hybrid Fault Tolerance Techniques to Detect Transient Faults in Embedded Processors (Springer, Cham, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    F.L. Kastensmidt et al., Fault-tolerance techniques for SRAM-based FPGAs, vol 32 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Bany Hamad et al., Characterizing, modeling, and analyzing soft error propagation in asynchronous and synchronous digital circuits. Microelectron Reliab 55(1), 238–250 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Godefroid et al., Partial-Order Methods for the Verification of Concurrent Systems, volume 1032 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Baier et al., Principles of model checking (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Rohani et al., A technique for accelerating injection of transient faults in complex socs, in 14th Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design, Oulu, Finland, pp. 213–220, 2011.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E.M. Clarke, E.A. Emerson, A.P. Sistla, Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transact Program Lang Syst 8(2), 244–263 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, D. Peled, Model Checking (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Kwiatkowska et al., PRISM 4.0: verification of probabilistic real-time systems, in International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), UT, USA, 2011, pp. 585–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Alur, T.A. Henzinger, Reactive modules. Form Meth Syst Design 15(1), 7–48 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Fujita, P.C. McGeer, J.C.-Y. Yang, Multi-terminal binary decision diagrams: an efficient data structure for matrix representation. Form Meth Syst Design 10(2–3), 149–169 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J.D. Carpinelli, Computer systems organization and architecture, 1st edn. (Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co, Boston, MA, 2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Ammar, G.Bany Hamad, O. Ait Mohamed, Y. Savaria, and R. Velazco, Comprehensive vulnerability analysis of systems exposed to SEUs via probabilistic model checking. In 16th IEEE European Conference on Radiation and Its Effects on Components and Systems (RADECS), 2016 (pp. 1-4).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Atmel, 8-bit avr atmega103 user manual, 2011.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marwan Ammar
    • 1
  • Ghaith Bany Hamad
    • 1
  • Otmane Ait Mohamed
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yvon Savaria
    • 2
  1. 1.Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Polytechnique MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations