1 / 36

A systematic procedure for the development of hardened technology: application to the I3T80-HR

A systematic procedure for the development of hardened technology: application to the I3T80-HR. Karl Grangé – SODERN Karl.grange@sodern.fr. Agenda. Collaboration Initial specifications Initial philosophy: why to harden? The proposed procedure step by step: Technology selection

noelle
Download Presentation

A systematic procedure for the development of hardened technology: application to the I3T80-HR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A systematic procedure for the development of hardened technology:application to the I3T80-HR Karl Grangé – SODERNKarl.grange@sodern.fr

  2. Agenda • Collaboration • Initial specifications • Initial philosophy: why to harden? • The proposed procedure step by step: • Technology selection • Hardening techniques • Hardening against TID • Hardening against latch-up • Design kit development • First application: the SPADA_RT ASIC • Total dose evaluation • Latch-up evaluation • Analog SET evaluation • Distribution of the I3T80-HR technology AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  3. Collaboration • This project is an ESA co-funded contract (TOS-EDP): • VPC2 project, contract n°18082/04/NL/CB • All hardening tasks performed have been done with the support of the CEA (French atomic agency) of Bruyères-Le-Châtel (SEIM) AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  4. Initial specifications • Specifications are issued from the VPC2 project: • Develop a multi sensor acquisition board, able to be inserted in a SpaceWire/RMAP platform • The heart of this acquisition module is a high accuracy / medium speed ASIC called SPADA_RT (Signal Processing ASIC for Detector Array – Radiation Tolerant). • Issued from SPADA_RT specifications, hardening task objectives can be summarized as follow: • Latch-up threshold: > 80Mev/mg.cm² • TID hardness: > 60Krad(Si) • Life time: > 10-15 years • Considering strong economic pressure, use only commercial CMOS technologies • Hardening By Design (none extra cost allowed) • European factory • MPW / MLM facility for space user (low volume) AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  5. Initial philosophy • Hardening By Design (HBD) seems the ideal approach when dealing with radiations for space use (moderate environment)… • Lower cost / higher flexibility compared to dedicated technology • State of the art performances • … but in practice, comparison with dedicated technology costs is not evident: • Time needed to design test vector (including software) • Time and set-up costs for testing • Time needed to exploit test results. • Conclusion: the following approach has been chosen • Sub-micron technology + moderate environment = HBD a priori, without test vector. • To limit risks, all hardening technique used shall be quantified, even roughly. AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  6. Open point #1: why is it necessary to harden? • Decision to harden has been taken following 3 criteria: • High reliability with multi-mission specifications • Latch-up free • Degradation due to total dose Is it a real issue? • Typical dose level for : • GEO • 4mm of Al • Is about ~20Krad(Si)/year, which induces a dose rate of 2Rad(Si)/h. With a typical 0.35µm technology Vth ~10mV@100Krad(Si) Could modern processes be considered radiation tolerant? 1) Low oxide thickness 2) Low dose rate AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  7. Open point #2: why is it necessary to consider dose (1)? • The radiation effect shall not be considered only from the TID point of view: • Degradation is time dependent. • Degradation is temperature dependent. • Degradation is dose rate dependent. • Considering only TID at low dose rate will ignore the leakage current failure mode: • Low dose rate naturally increases the reliability by about 5 for the same TID Transistor threshold voltage variation • The transistor is less conductor: • Timing failure Low Dose Rate TID High Dose Rate • The transistor is more conductor: • Leakage failure AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  8. Gate oxide: none relevant degradation up to 100Krad(Si) Bird beak : Radiation hardness depend of its characteristics Field oxide: lack of isolation between 3-10Krad(Si) Open point #2: why is it necessary to consider dose (2)? • The conventional NMOS transistor is not hardened against leakage current failure mode: • Failure appears in the bird beak zone, side of the transistor itself. • The bird beak oxide thickness increases from the gate oxide thickness (7nm) up to field oxide thickness (~500nm): determination of its radiation hardness is very complex. • Hardening By Design can address leakage current but not threshold voltage increasing. AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  9. Open point #2: why is it necessary to consider dose (3)? • Conclusion (0.35µm and lower technology considered): • Test at low dose rate = only failure related to threshold voltage increasing addressed. • Test at high dose rate = both leakage current failure (after radiation) and threshold voltage increasing failure (after annealing) are addressed. • To address leakage current failure, it is necessary to harden. XILINX VIRTEX FPGA vs total dose (0.25µm) Thermal failure Failure level Strongly FPGA code dependent !!! AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  10. Open point #2: why is it necessary to consider dose (4)? • In space environment, some TID sources are issued from discrete events: • Passage through the trapped particles belts and polar zones for LEO. • Solar flares for GEO and extra planetary missions. • It means that the dose rate can be transiently high. x10000 The solar eruption that took place in August 1972 (> 30Mev) Measured solar protons flux (10MeV & 30MeV) between 1965 and 1985 (continuous line = Wolf law) AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  11. 1g/cm² -> 4mm Al Open point #2: why is it necessary to consider dose (5)? • Practical example: The BEPI-COLOMBO mission • Mercury: 0.35UA + very low magnetic field = GEO solar flare x 10. • In GEO solar flare environment, the worst case for dose rate is an Anomalous Large (AL) protons solar flare: • 5Krad(Si) / 1 day -> 200rad(Si)/h behind 4mm of Al • It means that the need for the BEPI-COLOMBO mission considering only large solar protons flares behind 4mm of Al without margins is: • 50Krad(Si) for 1 large protons flare with 2Krad(Si)/h of dose rate. • 100Krad(Si) for 2 larges protons flares with 2Krad(Si)/h of dose rate… • Computation with the software “Space Radiations (v.5.0)” of some protons solar flares: • August 1972: 240rad(Si)/h behind 4mm of Al • October 1989: 110rad(Si)/h behind 4mm of Al AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  12. Open point #2: why is it necessary to consider dose (6)? • Are large protons flares rare? In red: maximum solar cycle AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  13. Open point #2: why is it necessary to consider dose (7) ? • Thus, it is necessary to harden against TID because: • It’s bringing reliability margin. • All failure modes are addressed. • High level of total dose and dose rate tolerance is also minimizing shielding requirement (low mass / volume) and simplify ray tracing consideration. • Low level of high dose rate tolerance need a refined mission analysis. • Where is the frontier between high and low dose rate? • Technology dependent (oxide thickness, quality…) • Complex simulations needed • Only some certitudes: • 10Krad(Si)/h -> high dose rate • 100Rad(Si)/h -> low dose rate AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  14. Open point #2: why is it necessary to consider dose (8) ? • How to apply standards? • Low dose rate windows: • Earth missions • Worst case for bipolar transistors • ECSS 22900: 36-360rad(Si)/h • MIL.STD.883F method 1019.6: < 0.1rad(Si)/s • High dose rate • Extra-planetary mission • Worst case for MOS transistors: • ECSS 22900: 3-30Krad(Si)/h • MIL.STD.883F method 1019.6: 50-300rad(Si)/s AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  15. Hardening procedure: general guidelines • Used approach • Use a systematic approach: • Prevent any marginal cases • Reaction against technology disappearance • None local optimization, taking into account biasing current, function… • Use all known hardening measures, with a « light » approach: • None test vector • None new techniques • Risk management about the light approach • Limit the temperature range (latch-up). • None memory point (SEU). • None bipolar structure. • Choice of the technology is part of the hardening procedure • « Light » environmental specifications (60KRad / 80MeV/mg.cm²) AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  16. Technology selection criterion (1) • Economic consideration • Exclusive supplier of a « big » customer • Market (HV, OPTO, OTP… options) • Second source, introduction year • Distribution (MPW ? Number of run per year ?) • Electrical performances • Simulate some representative cases • Identify and quantify critical parameters (channel length, current density…) • Specific needs (analog capacitors…) • Intrinsic radiation level estimation • Intrinsic total dose level estimation: • Gate oxide thickness, voltage threshold, kind of isolation... • Intrinsic latch-up level estimation • EPI characteristic, isolation, Twin Tub, temperature range, diffusion depth, retrograde wells… • Technological characteristics allowing usual efficient countermeasures: • Buried layer, Shottky module, number of metal tracks AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  17. Technology selection criterion (2) • Subjective approach shall be avoided (the smallest, the fashion technology…) • Ex: XFAB 1µm  certainly the best choice for latch-up, life time and reliability but incompatible with the electrical need. • Point attribution procedure concerning 21 criterion in the previous 3 categories has been established: • Elimination: incompatibility with the application. • Negative point: hypothesis done in the initial analysis were optimistic on this point. • Null: conform to the initial analysis • Positive point: Real advantage compared to the initial analysis. for each criteria, an “ideal” response shall be prepared. AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  18. Technology selection criterion (3) Issued from economic analysis on life time Issued from economic analysis of project costs. Issued from initial analysis + simulations Extensive bibliography of well known hardening techniques Customer request Red = parameters with elimination condition AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  19. Technology selection criterion (4) • This systematic procedure help to formalize the need. • All proposed parameters are accessible with a simple NDA. • The selected technology is the I3T80 CMOS 0.35µm from AMIS (ex ALCATEL). • The I3T80 is a hetero epitaxy process, which allow HV devices thanks to electrically isolated pocket • This kind of process is growing due to SoC applications. N-epitaxy NEPI NEPI Deep P-plugs allow electrical isolation (80V) of adjacent N-EPI pockets P-substrate AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  20. Hardening technique: TID (1) • The following failure modes are addressed: • Device to device leakage current (NMOS): • Intra device leakage current (NMOS) AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  21. Hardening technique: TID (2) • NMOS device to device leakage current is easily cancelled via systematic guard rings AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  22. Hardening technique: TID (3) • For the intra device leakage current, a modified NMOS geometry is needed: • Classical circular geometry is not adopted because accurate electrical model can not be obtained without tests. • The geometry chosen is electrically 80% compatible with the classical geometry and its hardening level is compliant with 100Krad(Si). AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  23. Hardening technique: TID (4) Geometry Electrical model Thanks to its great similitude with the classical geometry, an high accuracy is obtained on the electrical modeling “a priori”. AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  24. Hardening technique: Latch-up (1) • As baseline, the proposed technology increases the latch-up hardening by a factor 6 if NMOS and PMOS transistors are manufactured in separated pockets. Parasitic SCR circuit AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  25. Hardening technique: Latch-up (2) • In addition to the previous rule (NMOS & PMOS shall be manufactured in separated EPI pocket), others hardening rules are added (see initial philosophy): • Systematic guard ring around PMOS and NMOS • PMOS and NMOS above buried layer • Limit the transistor size • Limit the wells (buried layer) size • Purpose of size limiting rules is to prevent: • S/D junction turn ON for transistor sizing limitation • Wells junction turn ON for NWELL or PWELL sizing limitation In case of ion strike. • Sizing limitation is computed with analytical models. AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  26. Hardening technique: Latch-up (3) • Cross-section with hardening rules: • NMOS and PMOS in separated N-EPI pocket • NMOS and PMOS wells above buried layer • NMOS and PMOS have maximum dimension • NMOS and PMOS wells have maximum dimension AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  27. Hardening technique: Latch-up (4) • Sub-model 1: Layer isolated by junction is used to fix the maximum transistor size. • Sub-model 2: layer above a low impedance buried layer with the same polarity (N or P) used to fix the maximum wells dimension: 2.R1max S/D diffusion POLY gate Guard ring Sub-model1: Transistor size Charges (ion) Buried layer NPLUG NEPI 2.R2max Wells (N or P) Sub-model1: Wells size AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  28. Practical implementation of hardening rules • Practically and to prevent weak points, a new design kit has been coded with all hardening rules (ESD pads included) • Compared to the original one, the following modifications have been done: • Unused elements removed (front and back end) • MOS electrical models modified • MOS geometries modified • DRC rules modified (latch-up rules + detection of removed elements) • Extraction rules modified (mainly for NMOS extraction) • Basic library modified (ESD pads) • Digital gates redesigned • 17 months have been necessary for: • Technology selection • Hardening rules • Design kit coding • SPADA_RT chip design and test AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  29. First application: the SPADA_RT • The proposed flow have been validated with the development of an mixed ASIC. • SPADA_RT = Signal Processing ASIC for Detector Array _ Radiation Tolerant. • Multi sensor chip: CCD, APS, HgCdTe • Include all necessary circuitry for sensor / house keeping conditioning (ADC excluded) • Both electrical and environmental specifications have been met at the first run. AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  30. SPADA_RT TID results (1) • TID evaluation of the SPADA_RT has been done at PAGURE (France) facility. • Method used is the ESCC.22900 method: • Standard windows • 10Krad(Si)/h • 5 steps: 0Krad(Si), 30Krad(Si), 60Krad(Si), 120Krad(Si) and annealing. • 5 dies • None functional or specification failure has been measured. AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  31. SPADA_RT TID results (2) AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  32. Specie Angle Flux (p/(cm².s)) LET (Si) Penetration (µm) C 0° 1E7 1.2 Mev/mg.cm² 266 Ne 0° 1E7 3.3 Mev/mg.cm² 199 Ar 0° 1E7 10.1 Mev/mg.cm² 120 Ni 0° 1E7 21.9 Mev/mg.cm² 85 Kr 0° 1E7 32.4 Mev/mg.cm² 92 Kr 60° 1E7 64.8 Mev/mg.cm² 46 SPADA_RT latch-up results • Test set-up: • Power supplies: +3.3V +/-2% • Number of DUT: 5 • Temperature: +25°C +/- 2°C • Die pixel frequency: 120KHz • Location: LOUVAIN (CYCLONE) • Heavy ions cocktail: See the next table. • None latch-up detected. AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  33. SPADA_RT analog SET results • A complete characterization of analog Single Effect Transient (Analog SET) have been done: • Event = upset of +/-25mV around the steady state value (better accuracy is not possible due to the noisy environment) AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  34. I3T80-HR distribution (1) • In accordance with ESA, this technology is now available for all potential ESA users: • MPW facilities always accessible • SODERN / EUROPRACTICE kit distribution (under analysis) • The nominal kit is available under HyperSilicon software suite (TANNER) • Low cost • New verification suite include is compatible with CALIBRE • Digital & analog library accessible (including the SPADA_RT) • In addition of this nominal kit, an innovative distribution flow called Netlist-to-layout is also accessible: • From our library, the user develops the front end, SODERN make the back end, up to the tape out, • User do not need any specific software or competences: he simply uses a low cost simulator (PSPICE, HSPICE…). • Similar digital flow in 2007. AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  35. I3T80-HR distribution (2) AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

  36. End • Thank you for your attention. Karl Grangé – SODERNKarl.grange@sodern.fr AMICSA’2006 – SODERN

More Related