Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Anne Meixner Leave a Comment

Stuck at Testing of Digital Combinational Logic—Part 2

Stuck at Testing of Digital Combinational Logic—Part 2

In the previous article you learned to apply the Stuck at Fault Model (S@) to a small combinational circuit.

You can take the learning on the Full 1-bit adder and apply it to larger combinational circuit.

In testing lingo, you often hear people refer to this as the testing of random logic. Technically, there’s nothing random about the logic.

I think “random” gets used to contrast with the highly structured design of memory circuits into array of 1-bit cells. Memory test lends itself to algorithmic testing, for example the Marching 1. In random logic testing you may use algorithms to propagate your faults, that is automatically develop a test pattern.

You need to keep in mind that the logic being tested has a functional purpose and this can be implemented in a multitude of ways. Let’s take a second look at the adder function.

A 4 Bit Adder

ripple-carry-adder

With a 4-bit adder you can calculate the efficiency of S@ fault vs functional testing. The 4-bit adder has 8 inputs and 5 outputs (you may observe that the Cin signal is grounded on the first bit). To functionally test this circuit with all possible inputs, you need 2**8 inputs, i.e. 256 test vectors. Looking solely at the inputs and outputs to the adder circuit you have 2 x13 S@ faults to test– 26 tests. This assumes that there is no fault collapsing. There probably such collapsing, though, to fully apply S@ testing you need to know what’s inside the adder block. In the last article, you propagated faults through the adder design shown below.

1bit adder internal nodes

Each adder has 3 inputs, 3 internal nodes and 2 outputs. A total of 16 S@ faults per 1-bit adder. With four 1-bit adders you have a total of 64 S@ faults to detect. Fault collapsing would result in less than 64 tests. As this is a tedious manual analysis you need to use a fault simulator know the minimum number of tests.  You can take advantage of the regularly in the adder design, i.e. 4 identical blocks. You analyze the faults in one adder and what the tests could be and use these to determine the total number of tests to get you a full 100% S@ fault coverage.

Different Adders

Now suppose you worked with a circuit technology that didn’t have exclusive ORs.  Then you may have a different implementation and hence a different number of stuck at faults. Consider a full adder implemented with only NAND gates or only NOR gates as depicted below.  How many S@ faults do you need to consider now for the 4-bit adder?

full-adder-using-NAND-logic full-adder-using-NOR-logic

Check your result s against the table below.

Adder implementationInternal NodesSignals per adderTotal Number of signalsNumber of S@ faults
XOR and AND383264
NAND7104080
NOR9124896

 

Approach for Logic Stuck at Fault Testing

I chose to use a familiar function, the adder, for exploring S@ fault testing to provide you several learning opportunities. First, you gained a sense of fault propagation by manually determining how to propagate faults to the output of the adder block. By expanding from 1 to 2 and then to 4-bit adders you have some numbers to easily compare the functional test approach to a S@ approach to testing. Comparing all possible inputs against detecting all S@ faults one can see that even without fault collapsing which approach wins with efficiency. Now I’ll be honest, I am biased towards stuck at faults. You also could see how hierarchy could be used and how there could be differences in the adder blocks which changes the number of S@ faults you need to detect.

When approaching an electronics device with over one million logic gates, the scale of the solution just builds upon looking at one logic gate. As William Mulholland, LA aqueduct mastermind stated “The man who has made one brick can make two bricks.  That is the bigness of this engineering problem. It is big, but it is simply big.” That’s really where fault simulation comes in handy. An introduction to terminology and approaches will be provided in the next article.

Meanwhile remember testing takes time and thoughtful application,

Anne Meixner, PhD

The implementations of adders were taken from an article in circuits today.

 

Filed Under: Articles, on Tools & Techniques, Testing 1 2 3 Tagged With: Digital Test, Logic Gates, Mastery 2, Stuck at Fault Model

« It’s Not Really That Clean Cut
CRE BoK and Risk Management »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Article by Anne Meixner
in the Testing 1 2 3 series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Posts

  • Significance Over Success. Innovation Over Change. Anticipation Over Agility.
  • Maintenance Planning and Scheduling for World Class Reliability and Maintenance Performance
  • Self-Discipline Part 1
  • Is Safety Training Helpful?
  • FINESSE Facilitation: What Are Best Practices for Qualitative Assessment Analysis?

© 2023 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.