This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Equivalence, Dominance, and Similarity Relations between Fault Pairs and a Fault Pair Collapsing Process for Fault Diagnosis
February 2010 (vol. 59 no. 2)
pp. 150-158
Irith Pomeranz, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Sudhakar M. Reddy, University of Iowa, Iowa City
Equivalence and dominance relations used earlier in fault diagnosis procedures are defined as relations between faults, similar to the relations used for fault collapsing. Since the basic entity of diagnostic fault simulation and test generation is a fault pair, and not a single fault, we introduce a framework where equivalence and dominance relations are defined for fault pairs. Using equivalence and dominance relations between fault pairs, we define a fault pair collapsing process, where fault pairs are removed from consideration under diagnostic fault simulation and test generation since they are guaranteed to be distinguished when other fault pairs are distinguished. Another concept, which was used earlier to enhance fault collapsing, is the level of similarity between faults. We extend this definition into a level of similarity between fault pairs and discuss its use for fault pair collapsing. The level of similarity encompasses equivalence and dominance relations between fault pairs, and extends them to allow additional fault pair collapsing.

[1] M. Abramovici, M.A. Breuer, and A.D. Friedman, Digital Systems Testing and Testable Design. IEEE Press, 1995.
[2] M.L. Bushnell and V.D. Agrawal, Essentials of Electronic Testing for Digital, Memory and Mixed-Signal VLSI Circuits. Kluwer Academic, 2000.
[3] T. Gruning, U. Mahlstedt, and H. Koopmeiners, “DIATEST: A Fast Diagnostic Test Pattern Generator for Combinational Circuits,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Computer-Aided Design, pp. 194-197, Nov. 1991.
[4] F. Corno, P. Prinetto, M. Rebaudengo, and M. Sonza Reorda, “GARDA: A Diagnostic ATPG for Large Synchronous Sequential Circuits,” Proc. European Design and Test Conf., pp. 267-271, 1995.
[5] S. Venkataraman, I. Hartanto, W.K. Fuchs, E.M. Rudnick, S. Chakravarty, and J.H. Patel, “Rapid Diagnostic Fault Simulation of Stuck-At Faults in Sequential Circuits Using Compact Lists,” Proc. Design Automation Conf., pp. 133-138, June 1995.
[6] S. Venkataraman and W.K. Fuchs, “Distributed Diagnostic Simulation of Stuck-At Faults in Sequential Circuits,” Proc. Very Large-Scale Integration Design (VLSID), pp. 381-385, Jan. 1997.
[7] I. Pomeranz, S. Venkataraman, S.M. Reddy, and B. Seshadri, “Z-Sets and Z-Detections: Circuit Characteristics that Simplify Fault Diagnosis,” Proc. Design Automation and Test in Europe Conf., pp. 68-73, Feb. 2004.
[8] E.J. McCluskey and F.W. Clegg, “Fault Equivalence in Combinational Logic Networks,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 20, no. 11, pp.1286-1293, Nov. 1971.
[9] B.K. Roy, “Diagnosis and Fault Equivalences in Combinational Circuits,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 955-963, Sept. 1974.
[10] A. Goundan and J.P. Hayes, “Identification of Equivalent Faults in Logic Networks,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 20, no. 11, pp.978-985, Nov. 1980.
[11] A. Lioy, “Advanced Fault Collapsing,” IEEE Design & Test of Computers, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 64-71, Mar. 1992.
[12] I. Hartanto, V. Boppana, and W.K. Fuchs, “Diagnostic Fault Equivalence Identification Using Redundancy Information & Structural Analysis,” Proc. Int'l Test Conf., pp. 294-302, Oct. 1996.
[13] M.E. Amyeen, W.K. Fuchs, I. Pomeranz, and V. Boppana, “Fault Equivalence Identification in Combinational Circuits Using Implication and Evaluation Techniques,” IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Design, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 922-936, July 2003.
[14] B. Seshadri, S. Venkataraman, I. Pomeranz, and S.M. Reddy, “Dominance Based Analysis for Large Volume Production Fail Diagnosis,” Proc. Very Large-Scale Integration Test Symp., pp.392-397, Apr. 2006.
[15] K. To, “Fault Folding for Irredundant and Redundant Combinational Circuits,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 22, no. 11, pp.1008-1015, Nov. 1973.
[16] R. Hahn, R. Krieger, and B. Becker, “A Hierarchical Approach to Fault Collapsing,” Proc. European Design and Test Conf., pp.171-176, 1994.
[17] A.V.S.S. Prasad, V.D. Agrawal, and M.V. Atre, “A New Algorithm for Global Fault Collapsing into Equivalence and Dominance Sets,” Proc. Int'l Test Conf., pp. 391-397, 2002.
[18] I. Pomeranz and S.M. Reddy, “Level of Similarity: A Metric for Fault Collapsing,” Proc. Design Automation and Test in Europe Conf., pp. 56-61, Feb. 2004.
[19] I. Pomeranz and S.M. Reddy, “Equivalence and Dominance Relations between Fault Pairs and Their Use in Fault Pair Collapsing for Fault Diagnosis,” Proc. Very Large-Scale Integration Design Conf., pp. 498-503, Jan. 2007.
[20] I. Pomeranz and S.M. Reddy, “On the Use of Fault Dominance in $n$ -Detection Test Generation,” Proc. Very Large-Scale Integration Test Symp., pp. 352-357, Apr. 2001.
[21] S.B. Akers et al., “On the Role of Independent Fault Sets in the Generation of Minimal Test Sets,” Proc. Int'l Test Conf., pp.1100-1107, 1987.
[22] I. Pomeranz, L.N. Reddy, and S.M. Reddy, “COMPACTEST: A Method to Generate Compact Test Sets for Combinational Circuits,” IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Design, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1040-1049, July 1993.

Index Terms:
Diagnostic fault simulation, diagnostic test generation, fault collapsing, fault diagnosis, fault dominance, fault equivalence.
Citation:
Irith Pomeranz, Sudhakar M. Reddy, "Equivalence, Dominance, and Similarity Relations between Fault Pairs and a Fault Pair Collapsing Process for Fault Diagnosis," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 150-158, Feb. 2010, doi:10.1109/TC.2009.112
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.