Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • About
    • Adam Bahret
    • Alex Williams
    • Andre Kleyner
    • Anne Meixner
    • Arthur Hart
    • Ash Norton
    • Carl Carlson
    • Chris Jackson
    • Chris Stapelmann
    • Dennis Craggs
    • Dev Raheja
    • Doug Lehr
    • Doug Plucknette
    • Fred Schenkelberg
    • George Williams
    • Gina Tabasso
    • Greg Hutchins
    • James Kovacevic
    • James Reyes-Picknell
    • Joe Anderson
    • John Paschkewitz
    • Katie Switzer
    • Kevin Stewart
    • Kirk Gray
    • Les Warrington
    • Mike Konrad
    • Mike Sondalini
    • Nancy Regan
    • Perry Parendo
    • Philip Sage
    • Ray Harkins
    • Rob Allen
    • Robert (Bob) J. Latino
    • Robert Kalwarowsky
    • Ryan Chan
    • Shane Turcott
    • Steven Wachs
    • Tim Rodgers
    • Usman Mustafa Syed
  • Reliability.fm
    • Dare to Know
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Masterminds 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
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Plant Maintenance
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The RCA
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside FMEA
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
      • Reliability Reflections
  • eBooks
    • Reliability Engineering Management DRAFT
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Groups
    • Reliability Integration
    • Mastermind
    • Study Groups
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Online Course
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • 5-day Reliability Green Belt ® Live Course
    • 5-day Reliability Black Belt ® Live Course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
Don’t show this message again.

Cookies

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.

by Anne Meixner Leave a Comment

Stuck at Testing of Digital Combinational Logic—Part 1

Stuck at Testing of Digital Combinational Logic—Part 1

Stuck at Testing Digital Combinational Logic—Part 1

To work our ways towards understanding Design For Test (DFT)applications I am taking you back to the Stuck at Fault model (S@).

In the article which introduced you to the S@ model you learned the S@ model at the logic gate level.

Let’s build on this by applying it to combinational logic circuits.

Combinational logic has no clocked circuitry; sequential logic has clocked circuitry. In a few articles you’ll learn about test and sequential logic circuitry.

S@ Faults in an Adder Circuit

Let’s look at an adder circuit which every microprocessor includes. The diagram below shows a 2-bit adder at a functional block level with five inputs: Cin, A0, B0, B1, B2 and three outputs: S0, S1, C0. 2BitAdderApplying a functional test would result in you adding all possible combination of numbers; 2**5 which is 32 test vectors. How, ever there exist only 2*3 possible outputs- 16. Right off the back you can sense an improved efficiency is right around the corner. Applying S@ fault model at the inputs and outputs you have a total of 16 S@ fault models to detect. That though presumes nothing about the contents of each 1-bit adder. What’s inside the box?

Applying S@ Model to a 1-bit Adder

1bit adder internal nodes

The diagram above has a series of XOR, AND and OR gates. Three internal signals (X1, X2, X3) lie between the adder’s inputs and outputs. To develop a test for a S@ fault you need to know what inputs “pass” the faulty state for detection. In the introductory article we discussed those states for a NAND and a NOR gate. You get to revisit this concept as we proceed to propagate a fault to an output.

Let’s first look at the Cin signal and work at propagating the impact of a S@1. Cin is the input to an XOR circuit and a AND circuit.

For the XOR circuit an X1 value of either “1” or “0” will let you detect a faulty Cin. It’s nice to have choices; let’s choose “1.” For A and B to create a “1” either “10” or “01” will give you that state. You choose the A and B values. With Cin S@1 you detect the fault at S because you observe a “0”  instead of a “1.”

Another Observation Point for Cin Faults

You can now check on propagating Cin S@1 to the Cout signal. You have an AND gate;1 X1 needs to be a “1” to pass Cin’s value to the next gate. Lucky you, you already know how to do that (AB = “01” or “10”). However, you have another set of gates to control so that you can observe a faulty response at Cout. This maybe where things get a little tricky.

With Cin S@1 and X1 =“1”, X2 = “1”, you would expect a “0” if Cin = “0.”  For you to pass the X2 value to Cout you need X3 to be a “0.” Then faulty response will be Cout=1 the good response will be Cout=0.

How to get that 0, you have choices AB can be “00”, “01” or “10.” Ut-oh- here’s the tricky part is there a conflict? Between deriving X1 and deriving X2 from the same values A and B—turns out you can. In combinational logic you can run into logic conflicts when attempting to propagate a fault state to your observation point. Can you find such a conflict in looking at the other S@ faults for this 1-bit adder?

Learnings from the 1-Bit Adder

In walking through this 1-bit adder you have taken fault propagation through several states. You learned that in combinational logic one can have multiple states to propagate a fault. You also have a passing glance at conflicts. Finally, you can probably gain an appreciation for why engineers built simulators to perform the tedious task of fault simulation.

In the next article we will look at a 2-bit adder circuit to make some observations regarding hierarchy, larger building block assumptions and how knowledge about the black box results in efficient testing. Meanwhile, do you work with circuitry at the black box level that you would like to know more about. Let me know in the comments below and I’ll give you some references to unveil your black box from a test perspective.

Meanwhile remember testing takes time and thoughtful application,

Anne Meixner, PhD

Additional Reading:

To learn a bit more about adders check out this article.  Want to know the full truth table for a 2-bit adder- see here.

Professor Ed McCluskey wrote a classic text book on VLSI logic design that included lots of test information. While there exist more recent books on testing, I believe this one provides a great primer on the topic.

I met Ed during my PhD studies while attending the International Test Conference.  While he had a reputation for being cantankerous I found him to be approachable. To attend a corporate party at ITC one time I masqueraded as him while my Intel co-worker Dave Zimmerman went as Mrs. McCluskey. I believe Ed would have fully approved our party crashing technique.

 

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

« Becoming An Engineering Subject Matter Expert – Lessons Learned
Review of 2018 ASQ CRE Body of Knowledge »

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

  • 5 Ways To Reduce Your Overall Maintenance Workload
  • Infrastructure Is Not a One Time Investment
  • What’s Wrong With A Questioning Attitude?
  • Maximizing Oilfield Equipment Reliability
  • Living With The 6 Failure Patterns

© 2021 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy