1 The NSEU Sensitivity of Static Latch Based FPGAs and Flash Storage CPLDs Joseph Fabula Jason Moore Austin Lesea Saar Drimer MAPLD2004 This work has benefited.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IHP Im Technologiepark Frankfurt (Oder) Germany IHP Im Technologiepark Frankfurt (Oder) Germany ©
Advertisements

Sana Rezgui 1, Jeffrey George 2, Gary Swift 3, Kevin Somervill 4, Carl Carmichael 1 and Gregory Allen 3, SEU Mitigation of a Soft Embedded Processor in.
Scrubbing Approaches for Kintex-7 FPGAs
Discussion of: “Terrestrial-based Radiation Upsets: A Cautionary Tale” CprE 583 Tony Kuker 12/06/05.
Multi-Bit Upsets in the Virtex Devices Heather Quinn, Paul Graham, Jim Krone, Michael Caffrey Los Alamos National Laboratory Gary Swift, Jeff George, Fayez.
The NSEU Sensitivity of Static Latch Based FPGAs and Flash Storage CPLDs Joseph Fabula Jason Moore Austin Lesea Saar Drimer MAPLD2004 This work has benefited.
MURI Neutron-Induced Multiple-Bit Upset Alan D. Tipton 1, Jonathan A. Pellish 1, Patrick R. Fleming 1, Ronald D. Schrimpf.
April 30, Cost efficient soft-error protection for ASICs Tuvia Liran; Ramon Chips Ltd.
ICAP CONTROLLER FOR HIGH-RELIABLE INTERNAL SCRUBBING Quinn Martin Steven Fingulin.
Microprocessor Reliability
Trusted Design In FPGAs Steve Trimberger Xilinx Research Labs.
Nishinaga No. 1 MAPLD2005 Availability Analysis of Xilinx FPGA on Orbit Nozomu Nishinaga National Institute of Information and Communications Technology.
Future beyond CTF3: ESA/Electron testing January 27 th 2015 CLIC Workshop 2015: Future tests beyond CTF3 January 27 th 2015 Radiation Testing with CALIFES.
Maintaining Data Integrity in Programmable Logic in Atmospheric Environments through Error Detection Joel Seely Technical Marketing Manager Military &
March 16-18, 2008SSST'20081 Soft Error Rate Determination for Nanometer CMOS VLSI Circuits Fan Wang Vishwani D. Agrawal Department of Electrical and Computer.
הטכניון - מכון טכנולוגי לישראל הפקולטה להנדסת חשמל Technion - Israel institute of technology department of Electrical Engineering Virtex II-PRO Dynamical.
Estimation of SEUs in the FPGAs C. Targett-Adams V. Bartsch, M. Wing M. Warren, M. Postranecky.
Evaluation Boards. AFX Basic Evaluation Boards Low-Cost ML40X (~ $ 700)
Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) Layout An FPGA consists of a large array of Configurable Logic Blocks (CLBs) - typically 1,000 to 8,000 CLBs per chip.
COMPONENT TEST H4IRRAD 15 TH NOVEMBER 2011 G. Spiezia, P. Peronnard, G. Foucard, S. Danzeca, P. Gander, E. Fadakis (EN/STI/ECE)
®. ® Rad Hard Products for Satellites and Space ® QPRO for Avionics  Standard QPRO products immune to upsets in avionics environment.
Radiation Effects and Mitigation Strategies for modern FPGAs 10 th annual workshop for LHC and Future experiments Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA.
1 Dependability Benchmarking of VLSI Circuits Cristian Constantinescu Intel Corporation.
12004 MAPLD: 141Buchner Single Event Effects Testing of the Atmel IEEE1355 Protocol Chip Stephen Buchner 1, Mark Walter 2, Moses McCall 3 and Christian.
A comprehensive method for the evaluation of the sensitivity to SEUs of FPGA-based applications A comprehensive method for the evaluation of the sensitivity.
FPGA IRRADIATION and TESTING PLANS (Update) Ray Mountain, Marina Artuso, Bin Gui Syracuse University OUTLINE: 1.Core 2.Peripheral 3.Testing Procedures.
2004 MAPLD, Paper 190 JJ Wang 1 SEU-Hardened Storage Devices in a 0.15 µm Antifuse FPGA – RTAX-S J. J. Wang 1, B. Cronquist 1, J. McCollum 1, R. Gorgis.
M. Adinolfi – University of Oxford – MAPMT Workshop – Imperial College 27 June Rad-Hard qualification for the LHCb RICH L0 electronics M. Adinolfi.
Presented by Anthony B. Sanders NASA/GSFC at 2005 MAPLD Conference, Washington, DC #196 1 ALTERA STRATIX TM EP1S25 FIELD-PROGRAMMABLE GATE ARRAY (FPGA)
Single Event Effects in microelectronic circuits Author: Klemen Koselj Advisor: Prof. Dr. Peter Križan.
J. Christiansen, CERN - EP/MIC
SEE effects in deep submicron technologies F.Faccio, S.Bonacini CERN-PH/ESE SEE TWEPP2010.
ATMEL ATF280E Rad Hard SRAM Based FPGA SEE test results Application oriented SEU Sensitiveness Bernard BANCELIN ATMEL Nantes SAS, Aerospace Business Unit.
2/2/2009 Marina Artuso LHCb Electronics Upgrade Meeting1 Front-end FPGAs in the LHCb upgrade The issues What is known Work plan.
MAPLD 2005/202 Pratt1 Improving FPGA Design Robustness with Partial TMR Brian Pratt 1,2 Michael Caffrey, Paul Graham 2 Eric Johnson, Keith Morgan, Michael.
Configuration Bitstream Reduction for SRAM-based FPGAs by Enumerating LUT Input Permutations The University of British Columbia© 2011 Guy Lemieux Ameer.
Estimation of Radiation Effects in the Front-End Electronics of an ILC Electromagnetic Calorimeter V. Bartsch, M. Postranecky, M. Warren, M. Wing University.
StrideBV: Single chip 400G+ packet classification Author: Thilan Ganegedara, Viktor K. Prasanna Publisher: HPSR 2012 Presenter: Chun-Sheng Hsueh Date:
Analytical Approach for Soft Error Rate Estimation of SRAM-Based FPGAs Ghazanfar (Hossein) Asadi and Mehdi B. Tahoori Why Soft Error Rate (SER) Estimation?
LIP & ESA 18121/04/NL/CH MarsREC An integrated tool for Mars Radiation Environment Characterization and Effects 5º longitude.
Upgrade Radiation Issues Christopher O’Grady For the DCH Electronics Upgrade Group Based on work by Jerry Va’vra.
TRIUMF and ISIS Test Facilities Radiation 2 Electronics (R2E) LHC Activities TRIUMF and ISIS test facilities Rubén García Alía, Salvatore Danzeca, Adam.
Evaluating Logic Resources Utilization in an FPGA-Based TMR CPU
Greg Alkire/Brian Smith 197 MAPLD An Ultra Low Power Reconfigurable Task Processor for Space Brian Smith, Greg Alkire – PicoDyne Inc. Wes Powell.
DAQMB Status – Onward to Production! S. Durkin, J. Gu, B. Bylsma, J. Gilmore,T.Y. Ling DAQ Motherboard (DMB) Initiates FE digitization and readout Receives.
In-Place Decomposition for Robustness in FPGA Ju-Yueh Lee, Zhe Feng, and Lei He Electrical Engineering Dept., UCLA Presented by Ju-Yueh Lee Address comments.
FPGAs in ATLAS Front-End Electronics Henrik Åkerstedt, Steffen Muschter and Christian Bohm Stockholm University.
Delivered by.. Love Jain p08ec907. Design Styles  Full-custom  Cell-based  Gate array  Programmable logic Field programmable gate array (FPGA)
Nishinaga No. 1 MAPLD2005/1003-J Availability Analysis of Xilinx FPGA on Orbit Nozomu Nishinaga National Institute of Information and Communications Technology.
Gill 1 MAPLD 2005/234 Analysis and Reduction Soft Delay Errors in CMOS Circuits Balkaran Gill, Chris Papachristou, and Francis Wolff Department of Electrical.
A Novel, Highly SEU Tolerant Digital Circuit Design Approach By: Rajesh Garg Sunil P. Khatri Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M.
Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope Very Long Baseline Array Single Event.
Ketil Røed - LECC2005 Heidelberg Irradiation tests of the ALICE TPC Front-End Electronics chain Ketil Røed Faculty of Engineering, Bergen University.
Radiation Tolerance Studies using Fault Injection on the Readout Control FPGA Design of the ALICE TPC Detector Johan Alme Bergen University College, Norway.
Xilinx V4 Single Event Effects (SEE) High-Speed Testing Melanie D. Berg/MEI – Principal Investigator Hak Kim, Mark Friendlich/MEI.
Chandrasekhar 1 MAPLD 2005/204 Reduced Triple Modular Redundancy for Tolerating SEUs in SRAM based FPGAs Vikram Chandrasekhar, Sk. Noor Mahammad, V. Muralidharan.
P201-L/MAPLD SEE Validation of SEU Mitigation Methods for FPGAs Carl Carmichael 1, Sana Rezgui 1, Gary Swift 2, Jeff George 3, & Larry Edmonds 2.
CALIFES 2015 run preliminary results
Problems and solutions to the use of FPGA's in radiation zones
SEU Mitigation Techniques for Virtex FPGAs in Space Applications
Radiation Tolerance of an Used in a Large Tracking Detector
RCU3 –> RCU4 New Schematics
Maintaining Data Integrity in Programmable Logic in Atmospheric Environments through Error Detection Joel Seely Technical Marketing Manager Military &
Irradiation Test of the Spartan-6 Muon Port Card Mezzanine
Evaluation of Power Costs in Triplicated FPGA Designs
Analytical Approach for Soft Error Rate Estimation of SRAM-Based FPGAs
Effect of an ALCT SEU Much-overlooked good stuff
Xilinx Kintex7 SRAM-based FPGA
Rad Hard Products for Satellites and Space
Presentation transcript:

1 The NSEU Sensitivity of Static Latch Based FPGAs and Flash Storage CPLDs Joseph Fabula Jason Moore Austin Lesea Saar Drimer MAPLD2004 This work has benefited from the use of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This facility is funded by the US Department of Energy under Contract W-7405-ENG-36.

MAPLD Fabula_139 Objectives of this Study Measure the neutron single event upset cross section of various current CMOS processes - Utilizing accelerated neutron beams to: Test the upset potential of the static latches in FPGAs and CPLDs Test the upset potential of the flash storage cells in CPLDs - Utilizing applications atmospheric based tests to Test the upset potential of the static latches in FPGAs Calibrate the results of accelerated beam testing Compare findings with other independent researchers

MAPLD Fabula_139 Test Facilities Used Accelerated Testing – Los Alamos Neutron Science Center – Hess spectrum accelerated neutron beam – Energy levels 1.5 to 600 MeV Applications Testing (natural flux) – Xilinx San Jose – sea level – Xilinx Albuquerque – 5,200 feet – White Mountain Research Center – 12,000 feet – Mauna Kea Observatory – 13,500 feet

MAPLD Fabula_139 Devices Tested Virtex II FPGA – XC2V6000 – 150 nM CMOS Static-Latch based technology Virtex II-Pro FPGA – XC2VP4 and XC2VP7 – 130 nM CMOS Static-Latch based technology Spartan 3 FPGA – XC3S100 – 90 nM CMOS Static-Latch based technology XPLA3 (CoolRunner I) CPLD – XCR3256XL – 350 nM CMOS FLASH based technology CoolRunner II CPLD – XC2C256 – 150 nM CMOS FLASH based technology

MAPLD Fabula_139 FPGA Test Fixtures Virtex II Virtex II-Pro Spartan 3

MAPLD Fabula_139 CPLD Test Fixtures

MAPLD Fabula_139 How we tested NSEU Sensitivity Accelerated Testing vs Atmospheric Testing – Accelerated Testing with Spallation Neutron sources – LANSCE spallation spectrum matches atmospheric neutrons – LANSCE source gives ~ 10 5 to 10 6 acceleration – Atmospheric We can use the natural radiation environment around us Due to low rates, a very large number of devices are required Testing times can be very long (many month to years) – Acceleration (up to 10X) is achievable by testing at altitude(s) However, this test is the ultimate correlation for all accelerated tests – references JEDEC Standard (JESD89) “Measurement and Reporting of Alpha Particles and Terrestrial Cosmic Ray- Induced Soft Errors in Semiconductor Devices” IEC TC107-AR-8 (draft currently) Avionics Processes

MAPLD Fabula_139 Virtex II Accelerated Data

MAPLD Fabula_139 Virtex II-Pro Accelerated Data 2VP4 2VP7

MAPLD Fabula_139 Spartan 3 Accelerated Data

MAPLD Fabula_139 CPLD (Flash) Accelerated Data XCR3256XL (350 nM) XC2C256 (150 nM)

MAPLD Fabula_139 Summary Accelerated Test Results Static Latch Upset Results Flash Storage Upset Results This work has benefited from the use of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This facility is funded by the US Department of Energy under Contract W-7405-ENG-36.

MAPLD Fabula_139 Rosetta NSEU Testing What is Rosetta? – Atmospheric Test started in 7/2002 – Rosetta stone provided correlation between languages/scripts. Rosetta experiment provides correlation to LANSCE test results – System of 100 2V6000s Runs 24/7/365 – Internet Monitored Read back and error logging 12 times a day Each test contains >1.9 Gbits of config latches – Test operating at 4 altitudes Sea Level – San Jose 5,200 feet – Albuquerque 12,000 feet – White Mountain Research Center 13,500 feet – Mauna Kea Observatory – Additional testing started for VII-Pro (130 nM) and for Spartan-III (90 nM)

MAPLD Fabula_139 Rosetta Board 100 XC2V Gbits

MAPLD Fabula_139 Rosetta Test Results Data shown is accurate as of 5/6/04 – 3.18e6 total device hours – Rosetta/LANSCE correlation factor is 1.51 LANSCE is predicting worse results by a factor of 1.51

16 Appendix

MAPLD Fabula_139 Logic Failures vs SEUs (SEUPI) Is there a difference? YES – An SEU does not necessarily cause a functional failure Many Configuration Bits are not used – 90% of the FPGA is routing! – Example Proton test of a V300 Two methods to evaluate: Method 1: – Total Upsets / # 1 bit failures – 437/8 = 54.6 Method 2: – Total Upsets / # failures – 437 / 69 = 6.3 – Conservatively, we use a factor of 10 (SEUPI factor)

MAPLD Fabula_139 Logic Failures vs SEUs (SEUPI) Independent Confirmation – Work by BYU and LANL indicated that the logic upset multiplier can be as high as for specific designs in a V1000 – By logical extension, the larger the FPGA the higher the multiplier for any given logic implementation – BYU and LANL have developed a bit flip logic impact simulator for the V1000 that has been verified in Proton testing – Xilinx has extensive data on PIP utilization from the many EasyPath applications that we are supporting – Xilinx laboratories are developing software algorithms (SEUPI) to identify “critical” bits which may affect user logic – SEUPI analysis of specific customer applications has shown SEUPI factors from 10 to 80 with an mean of 42

MAPLD Fabula_139 Comparison with Independent Data Actel commissioned IROC to independently test various FPGAs for NSEU Effects IROC tested Xilinx, Altera and Actel products – Test design was “n” 16x16 bit multipliers whose values were muxed to a common output. Mux line was 7 bits -> up to 128 multipliers supported – Pure combinatorial logic – no FFs! “Focus was on configuration memory only”

MAPLD Fabula_139 IROC Analysis Results – IROC unquivocally stated that Xilinx FPGAs do not exhibit NSEL (Neutron Single Event Latch), a potentially destructive effect seen in some recent ASICs and RAMs – IROC confirmed the existence of the SEUPI factor in Xilinx FPGAs – even though it was only in one design: – VII (14MeV test) = 6.67 – VII (LANSCE) = 10 – S3 (LANSCE) = 4.54 – Reverse engineering of the IROC data confirmed Xilinx contention that the per-bit cross-section was improved by Xilinx in their 90nm technology vs their 150nm technology (see next slide)

MAPLD Fabula_139 IROC Analysis 150nm (V-II) vs 90nm (S-3) – Using IROCs data for the Number of SEUs and the Fluence (n/cm2) we can calculate the per-bit cross- section difference between technologies Conclusion: S-3 (90 nM) cross-section is smaller!

MAPLD Fabula_139 Conclusions LANSCE data provides good correlation with atmospheric testing when the correct energy model(s) are used ROSETTA data indicates clear support for using the >10.0 MeV model for current process technology Independent IROC data confirmed three of Xilinx key assertions, namely: – The sky is not falling as technology continues to shrink below 220 nM (Moore’s law still lives and our designers are smart) – Xilinx logic upset rates are greatly improved due to the documented SEUPI factor – Xilinx FPGAs do not exhibit Neutron Single Event Latch-up The neutron cross sections have been stabilized as technology shrinks (compensating a sensitivity increase by a probability decrease function) Xilinx designers are increasing the robustness of our state of the art static latches to the effects of atmospheric neutron flux Current generations of Flash storage cells continue to be immune to neutron upset

MAPLD Fabula_139 Virtex II MTBF Calculations Failure defined as incorrect operation of the FPGA – Time to Configuration Upset (Config Upset) = 1 / (# bits * Neutron Cross-Section (LANSCE) * Neutron Flux) – Config Upset Rosetta = Rosetta factor applied – Logic Upset = SEUPI factor applied Ignoring the SEUPI factor is inaccurate! – you don’t use every configuration memory cell in an FPGA. Calculations are at sea level = 14.4n-cm2/hr flux; Rosetta Factor = 1.5, SEUPI Factor = 10

MAPLD Fabula_139 Effects of Altitude Virtex-II MTBF Calculations at 40K feet – Assumptions: Neutron Flux of ,000 feet Rosetta Factor of 1.5 SEUPI Factor of 10

MAPLD Fabula_139 Spartan 3 MTBF Calculations Failure defined as incorrect operation of the FPGA – Time to Configuration Upset (Config Upset) = 1 / (# bits * Neutron Cross-Section (LANSCE) * Neutron Flux) – Config Upset Rosetta = Rosetta factor applied – Logic Upset = SEUPI factor applied Ignoring the SEUPI factor is inaccurate! – you don’t use every configuration memory cell in an FPGA. Calculations are at sea level = 14.4n-cm2/hr flux; Rosetta Factor = 1.5, SEUPI Factor = 10

MAPLD Fabula_139 Effects of Altitude Spartan 3 MTBF Calculations at altitude – Assumptions: Neutron Flux of ,000 feet Rosetta Factor of 1.5 SEUPI Factor of 10