DRAFT Version, Revised version published in IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. No.

6 (2010)

Methodology of Soft Error Rate Computation in Modern Microelectronics

G. I. Zebrev, I.O. Ishutin, R.G. Useinov, V.S. Anashin
This fundamental approximation implies that equal LET yields equal effect if track lengths being the same irrespective to the ion type and energy. This allows to significantly simplify consideration using LET as a dummy variable at integration over space spectra and ignoring composition of ion species and their energies. We intend to argue in this paper that this approximation is generally wrong. To the best of our knowledge the first extended critique of this statement appeared in [5]. Nevertheless it was until have appeared numerous inconsistencies between modeling and experiments that researchers began to take serious interest in this problem. Particularly, the applicability of LET approximation has been questioned recently (see [6, 7] and references within), wherein the lack of correlation between the measured SEU cross-sections and ion LETs is noted as the key point of the problem. The experimental situation is commonly consisted in the empirical facts that the greater is the ion energy the larger the probability of single event effects even at equal mean LET, especially for sub-threshold regions of cross-section vs LET curves with low LETs and high ions energies that turned to be significant for some technologies [8 , 9, 10, 11]. A complicated Monte Carlo simulation-based approach for SEE response description has been developed recently [12, 13] to obtain exhaustive description of energy deposition as applied to SER problem. Nevertheless the numerical Monte Carlo simulations are rather computationally intensive methods and their results seem to be often non-transparent. We believe that the noted contradictions should be simply explained in terms of transparent physical models. Particularly we have shown that for these facts to explain there must be gone beyond the mean LET approximations and systematically taken into account fundamental fluctuation of energy deposition in devices sensitive volumes (SV). Geometric dimensions of the sensitive volumes have been shrinking from tens to tenth of microns and now it is necessary to consider fundamental fluctuation of energy deposition such as energy-loss straggling [14]. The general objective of this work is to describe some new approaches to test and SER prediction methodologies based on the original approach proposed in [15]. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II and III we propose single event cross-section concept based on general definition accepted in nuclear physics and discuss in a unifying manner the complementary methods of angular averaging over full solid angle and averaging over chord length distribution under conditions of limited experimental information. Sec. IV is devoted to the extension of the PRIVET chord-length distribution approach beyond the average LET approximation

Abstract - We have proposed a test methodology based on successive experimental determination of angular cross-section dependence followed by averaging over full solid angle. Equivalence between phenomenological and chord-length distribution averaging for soft error rate computation is shown. Role of energy-loss straggling in subthreshold error rate enhancement has been revealed. Nuclear reaction induced error rate computation method providing crossover between BGR and chord-length approaches has been proposed. Possibility of inclusion of multiple bit error rate estimation in a unified computational scheme is shown. Index Terms Energy Deposition, LET, Multiple Bit Error, Nuclear Reactions, Sensitive Volume, Soft Error Rate, Straggling

I. INTRODUCTION ith the continuous scaling of technology node and decreasing of supply voltage, soft error issues have emerged as a new design challenge. Some fundamental problems of ground-based testing and soft error rate (SER) computation arise as a result of shrinking dimensions of devices, a use of thick overlayers and high-Z materials, multiple bit errors etc. provoking the growing public concern over single event rate prediction. As has been noted in Ref. [1] a need arises to rethink test methodologies, procedures and models in order to predict the true behavior of emerging technologies in space. The traditional rate-estimation methods are based mainly on two non-overlapping approaches, namely, the rectangular parallelepiped (RPP) chord length distribution for directly ionizing heavy ions [2,3] and the Burst Generation Rate (BGR) method [4] suitable for nuclear reaction induced error computation. Routinely the RPP methods do not include the variability of radiation events (e.g., nuclear reactions). Instead they approximate the direct ionization by assuming a validity of approximation of mean energy deposition in the sensitive volumes (SV) through a single (often constant) value for the mean linear energy transfer (LET).

Manuscript received September 11, 2009. G. I. Zebrev is with the Department of Micro- and Nanoelectronics of National Research Nuclear University MEPHI, Kashirskoye shosse 31, 115409, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: gizebrev@mephi.ru; phone: +7-4953240184; fax: +7-495-324-2111. I. O. Ishutin is a postgraduate of NRNU MEPHI, Moscow, Russia. R. G. Useinov is with Research Institute of Scientific Instruments, Lytkarino, Moscow region, Russia. V. S. Anashin is with Scientific Research Institute of Space Instrument Engineering, Moscow, Russia.

DRAFT Version, Revised version published in IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. No.6 (2010) to include in itself the subthreshold error effects. Sec. V and VI show how nuclear reactions and multiple bit errors can be included in the proposed general SER computation scheme making a bridge between BGR and chord length descriptions. II. CROSS-SECTION CONCEPT A. Definition and General Relations It is well known that single event rate prediction is based on experimental determination of cross-section versus LET dependencies. Single event error cross-section can be defined in ambiguous manner [2, 16, 17, 18]. Based on general definition accepted in nuclear physics we define differential cross-section with respect to primary particle flux in the only consistent way d N ( ; , ) ( ; , ) = , (1) ( ; , ) do d where do = d cos d is the solid angular element, d N ( ; , ) is the error number due to particles with LET in the range ... + d , incident from the solid angular element do ( ( , ) are polar and azimuthal angle with respect normal to IC face, ( ; , ) [cm-2 sterad-1 (MeV-cm2/mg)-1] is differential fluence per LET unit per solid angle. Knowing ( ; , ) we can compute full error rate immediately from definition (1) as a functional R = ( ; , ) ( ; , ) d ( cos ) d d , (2)

B. Phenomenological Angular Averaging Approach There exists in principle a possibility to perform angular averaging directly measured experimentally cross-sections for a large number of particle flux directions. For example in case of mono-directional beam of particle with a specified LET (or energy) and direction ( 0 , 0 ) we have
( ; , ) ( ) ( cos cos 0 ) ( 0 ) ,

(5)

where ( ) is total beam fluence with a specified LET. Using Eqs.1-2 one has obtained a basic equation for experimental determination of single event cross-section angle dependence N ( ; 0 , 0 ) , (6) exp ( ; 0 , 0 ) = () where N ( 0 , 0 ) is the error number registered at a given angle and LET. This equation yields experimental angular dependence of single event cross-section with respect to, for example, a chip surface normal (this is no more than convenient choice). Notice that no additional cosine arises in the basic relationship Eq.6. Dependence on orientation of the SV relative to incident beam direction is contained entirely in the angular dependence of cross-section. We prefer to avoid a use of an effective fluence concept since fluence represents a property of incident beam rather than its orientation relative to the exposed object. Therefore, a use of a concept of effective angular-dependent fluence leading to cross-section definition in a form N = cos seems to be misleading in general. The latter relation is obviously divergent for grazing angles ( cos 0 ) and this divergence implying angular cutoff [19] seems to be unjustified especially for the cuboid-like (i.e. with nearly equal aspect sizes) sensitive volumes, which become typical for modern microelectronics. Recall that any particle directions are absolutely equivalent in space environments. Measuring in some detail the cross-section angular dependence, one can in principle perform (at least approximately) direct averaging over full solid angle exp ( ) =
1 d d exp ( , , ) exp ( , ) d , 4 1 0 0 where cos is a notation for cosine of polar angle. =
+1 2 +1

where we use flux instead of fluence ( = d dt ). In general case one can introduce LET dependent crosssection ( ) averaged over the full solid angle 4, which is defined as

1 ( ; , ) d ( cos ) d . (3) 4 Cosmic ray direction distributions and corresponding LET spectra are typically assumed to be isotropic ( ) 4 ( ; , ) . Then the general relation in Eq.2 reads

() =

R = () () d .

(4)

Notice that hitherto the consideration remains rather general and all these relationships can be defined not for only LET but for ion energy E as well as with a use of differential fluence per energy unit ( E ) [cm-2 s-1 MeV-1] and with a formal replacement E . In particular the proton-induced error number is expressed through the cross-section dependencies as functions of energy averaged over full solid angle ( E ) (5) R = ( E ) ( E ) dE , irrespective to the exact ionization mechanisms (direct or nuclear-reaction-induced). This stems from the fact that the described approach is based on a very general phenomenological ground. In this manner one needs a procedure of averaging over all direction of incident particles. There exist at least three approaches to such angular averaging.

(7)

DRAFT Version, Revised version published in IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. No.6 (2010)

Fig.1. Illustrative sketch of cross-section dependence on polar angle at a given LET (negative region corresponding to particles incident from backside of the IC is assumed to be symmetric for brevity and omitted).

Distributions

Neglecting for brevity possible dependence on azimuthal angle the averaging is reduced to integration of experimental dependence on . It is equivalent to a determination of a square under the experimental curve exp ( , ) in the illustrative Fig.1. Comprehensive phenomenological approach does not require any additional approximations although one should know cross-section curves to be measured for extended set of experimental angles. Similar approach was proposed and utilized in Ref. [20]. Unfortunately such approaches are impossible in full measure because of economic factors. Nevertheless they allow to easily perform conservative SER estimations using maximum experimental cross-section values. C. Monte Carlo Averaging Approach Monte Carlo method is in essence full computer simulation analogue of phenomenological approach since it rely on repeated computational sampling followed be averaging over ensemble of incident particles [21]. An advantage of Monte Carlo method is it utilizes real space spectra. Limitation is it demands detailed information about layout and composition of the ICs and difficult in practical applications. And so most of practical SER simulators (CREME96 [22], SPENVIS (www.spenvis.oma.be) and PRIVET) are based on trade-off approaches combining a use of experimental crosssections vs LET curves and averaging over chord length distribution in the sensitive volumes. III. SIMULATOR PRIVET METHODOLOGY A. Chord-Length Distribution Averaging Approach Additional concepts of the sensitive volume (SV) and the critical energy EC should be involved due to lack of full experimental information. Critical energy is closely connected with the circuit parameter of the critical charge QC which is defined as minimum amount of collected charge to upset a memory cell. Both the sensitive volume (which is effective volume of charge collection) and the critical charge are in

essence circuit parameters depending on geometry, capacitances, transconductance etc. and can be computed in principle by circuit or TCAD simulation. We have introduced in Ref. [15] the memory cell sensitivity function K ( s EC ) which is an error probability dependent on energy deposition overdrive, where s = l is the mass length chord ( is the material mass density)). In the sensitive volume approximation for isotropic flux the full angular averaging is equivalent to averaging over the differential chord length distribution. This allows to replace the angular averaging of unknown in general phenomenological cross-section in Eq.3 by averaging of memory cell sensitivity function with a known for a concrete sensitive volume shape the chord length distribution f(s) 1 () = ( ; , ) d ( cos ) d = 4 (8) s S max = 0 K ( s EC ) f ( s ) ds, 4 0 where S0 is the full area of sensitive volume. Such replacement is a sort of the so called ergodic hypothesis wherein averaging on statistical ensemble of events can be replaced by averaging over appropriate distribution function. Inserting Eq.8 in Eq. 4 one obtains the expression smax S (9) R = 0 ( ) K ( s EC ) f ( s ) ds d , 4 0 which is indeed computational relationship proposed in [15] and used in heavy ion upset rate simulator PRIVET with the exact chord length distribution for RPP sensitive volume (see Fig.2).
1.4 1.2

integral
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

differential

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Chord Length, mm

Fig.2. Integral and differential chord length distribution in the rectangular parallelepiped dimensions 123 m3.

Notice that approximating error probability by the step function K ( s EC ) ( s EC ) , the Eq.8 can be expressed through the integral chord distribution F ( s ) ( f ( s ) = dF ( s ) ds )

(, EC ) = ( S0 4 ) F ( EC ) ,
that is equivalent to the Bradford approach (see, [23]).

(10)

DRAFT Version, Revised version published in IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. No.6 (2010)

structure of error probability K(s, EC). Unfortunately we are not capable to compute the factor (iv) in general case. A part of deposition energy variation connected with straggling can be in principle computed on physical level (see Sec. IV below). Both contributions are important and cannot be generally ignored in formal computation. In practice due to a lack of full information about factors (iii) and (iv) we would be forced to compensate knowledge shortage by a phenomenological information. More exactly, in view of inevitable variations in straggling, charge collection, and circuit response processes the step function of error probability is expected to smear into a more smooth phenomenological function w ( E EC ) with a finite energy scale of the rise WE (MeV)
Fig. 3. Simulated with Eq. 10 normalized cross-section vs LET dependencies for different EC.

(E EC )

AV

= ( s EC )

AV

Averaged cross-section depends not only on LET and full area of the sensitive volume but on the critical energy (or charge) as well which is a circuit parameter (see Fig.3). If the argument of the integral chord length distribution tends to zero we have F(EC/ 0) 1 and S0 / 4 since any ion strike would lead in this case to an error. B. Error Probability Response Function According to the microdosimetric approximation all the circuit response effects are contained in a critical charge

(13) s C a w , WE where the critical (threshold) energy is assumed to be EC C a by a definition. This function should be associated with the experimental data routinely obtained as Weibull functions of LET rather than transferred energy E . We are faced at this point with ambiguity of converting between energy and LET variables.
C. PRIVET Choice The following form of phenomenological parameterization of experimental curves is chosen in [15] s E C K ( s, C ) = 1 exp ( s EC ) , (14) W s

(energy) QC (EC ) ( EC = ion ( QC q ) , ion

3.6 eV in the Si)

which is a circuit parameter of the memory cell as a whole. The error probability formally determined in this approach by the step function with stochastic argument (11) perr ( E , EC ) = (E EC ) , where E is the stochastic energy released in the sensitive volume of the memory cell during pass of ionizing particle. We refer to the expectation value of the error probability which is yielded by averaging over all stochastic factors (denoted by ... AV ) as the response function of the memory cell [15]
K (E , EC ) = (E EC )
AV

where a is the sensitive volume thickness, is a dimensionless fitting constant, and W (MeV-cm2/mg) corresponds to an empirical constant of the Weibull distribution. This choice assumes that energy ( WE ) and LET ( W ) dispersions are connected through the relation WE = W s . The response function of a memory cell is assumed in the PRIVET simulator to be proportional to a normalized shape of cross-section versus effective LET dependence under normally incident ion (with s = a ) C exp ( C ) , (15) K = SAT W where the empiric values of the saturation cross-section SAT and the critical LET C should be determined experimentally. At present the straggling effects are not taken into account in the PRIVET computational scheme. Knowing from the experiments the sensitivity function K ( C ) one can perform numerical integration over twodimensional LET-chord length domain with two-variable integrand according to Eq.9. Typical view of the integrand is visualized in Figs.4-5. As can be seen from Fig.4 and 5 (the latter is the level curve map version of Fig.4) there exists the pronounced optimal region of the LET-chord length

(12)

We use at present in the PRIVET simulator the standard mean LET approximation where the energy deposition across the chord is represented by its mean value E ( s ) E = s . There are at least four contributions to the charge deposition variation in a given sensitive volume: (i) variance of track length for different hits; (ii) variance of mean linear energy transfer of particles for different particles; (iii) energy-loss straggling for fixed track length and ions energy and Z; (iv) variance in charge collection for fixed track length and ions energy. Factors (i) and (ii) are explicitly taken into account by averaging over the chord length distribution and convolution with the LET spectrum in Eq.9 and they are irrelevant to a

DRAFT Version, Revised version published in IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. No.6 (2010) domain with maximum contribution in soft error rate. Phase curve (hyperbola) defined by equation EC = s divide a domain in Fig.2 on two regions where conditional error probability 1 (upper-right region, s > EC) and where error probability 0 (lower-left region, s < EC). Partial SER is determined both by chord length distribution and LET spectrum.

Fig. 4. Partial contribution to SER as 2D function of chord length and LET.

Fig. 6. Comparison of OSOT simulation results with CREME96 and flight data adapted from Ref. [25]. Input circuit data for PRIVET computation are taken from Ref. [25]. Results computed with CREME96 CREME96 choice with CREME96 spectra are practically coincided with the online CREME96 results given in Ref. [25]. Results for two version of PRIVET with OSOT spectra are located closely in this case.

An example of simulation with the OSOT in comparison with CREME96 is shown in Fig.6.
D. CREME96 Choice As we noted above the choice of converting method from energy to LET variables adopted in the initial version of PRIVET is not a unique. There exists alternating approach, which is based on the constant energy dispersion assumption WE = W a (16) This corresponds to the following form of phenomenological parameterization of experimental curves s E C K ( s, C ) = 1 exp ( s EC ) = W a (17)
Fig. 5. Density plot of SER (light color corresponds to maximum error rate).

SER simulator PRIVET is one of computation modules of the program complex OSOT for SER prediction in space environments which has been developed under the aegis of the ROSCOSMOS (Russian Federal Space Agency) for the establishing accelerator based test center [24].

( s a ) C = 1 exp ( s EC ) . W In contrast to PRIVET assumption wherein WE = W s the approach in Eqs. 16-17 assumes an explicit independence of the sensitivity function rises energy scale WE on track length. We have introduced into the PRIVET an option allowing to perform computations corresponding to the choice in Eqs.1617. Extended computational comparison between CREME96 and PRIVET yield practically equivalent results (with differences typically no more 10%) for any input parameters and for any orbits and shielding. An example of comparison between two versions of

DRAFT Version, Revised version published in IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. No.6 (2010) PRIVET and CREME96 is shown in Fig.7. This gives us grounds to refer Eq.16 assumption hereinafter as to CREME96 choice.
0.01

IV. BEYOND AVERAGE LET APPROXIMATION LET is defined as the mean energy lost by an ion per unit of mass length in collisions with electrons of the material, and represents a good quantity to characterize only mean ionization rate averaged over large volumes. Mean LET concept is not enough for description of ionization in rather small volumes. Really, we are often faced in typical experiments with a situation when the track length can be considered to be constant. Nevertheless the measured crosssection curve vs LET is by far different from the step function. The question has arisen what is a nature of spreading of the step function characterizing error probability. This spreading in particular means that the error is possible even for mean deposited energies, which are less than the critical value EC. We will consider this effect in this section as corresponding to energy-loss straggling. A. Energy Deposition Distribution Energy deposition on small spatial scales is stochastic value which can be represented as a sum of the mean E ( s ) and fluctuation parts E ( s ) = E ( s) + = s + .

R, 1Hbit dayL

10-4 10-6 10-8

10-10 10-12

2 LC = 40 MeV - cm mg

2 LC = 7 MeV - cm mg

LC = 2 MeV - cm2 mg

0.1

0.5

1.0

5.0

10.0

50.0 100.0

a, mm
Fig. 7. Comparison of PRIVET (CREME96 choice) and online CREME96 simulation results for GEO orbit as functions of the SV thickness for three different critical LETs with CS=1010 m2; W =10 MeV-cm2/mg; =2; shielding 1g/cm2; (simulated curves for two simulators are practically coincided).

Note that PRIVET-choice version yields typically more conservative estimation of SER although for large critical LET and small W the differences are diminished.
E. SER Scalability Interrelations between variety of existing computational schemes were discussed in [14]. We regard computational approach in PRIVET as taking mathematical advantage over traditional approaches but having the same accuracy class since all of the approaches are based on the same physical approximations. Particularly, PRIVET and CREME96 simulators possess similar scalability properties. Let us consider the scale transformation of the RPP sizes with arbitrary non-zero positive scale factor s ' s , ds ' ds , a ' a , b ' b , c ' c , S0 ' 2 S0 . Chord length distribution obeys exactly the condition f ( s)' f (s) . Then the memory cell sensitivity kernel function in PRIVET-approximation is invariant under scaling transformation at a given critical LET ( C )

(19)

Full description of such fluctuations is yielded by distribution function P E , E ( s )

(see, for example,

[20]). To obtain contribution of straggling to spreading of error probability function one has to average energy deposition over distribution of energy-loss fluctuation K ( E EC ) = ( E EC ) str =
= d ( E ) ( E EC ) P E , E ( s ) = = P E , E ( s ) d ( E ) ,
EC +

(20)

where E ( s ) is stochastic energy loss at a fixed chord length s. If the mean energy deposition exceeds significantly the critical energy EC << E s we have integration over from minus to plus infinity yielding unity for error probability due to normalization property of distribution function. Then error cross-section for a given LET is represented as a result of two-fold averaging over deposited energy fluctuation and chord length instead of single integration of empirical response function K over chord lengths s + S max ( E , Z ) = 0 f ( s ) PLN E , E ( s ) d ( E ) ds .(21) EC 4 0 This relation was obtained first in our early paper [26] wherein we used the Landau distribution which is valid for only very short tracks with very rare scatterings. In this paper we use more pertinent and convenient Lindhard-Nielsen approximation [27] which can be adapted in a form PLN ( E , E ) =

s ' C c ' s C c K K , W s' Ws and the computed SER is scaled as R ' 2 R . SER in this approximation thusly represents a homogeneous function of the 2-nd order for the SV geometrical size parameters R ( s, a, b, c, EC / ) = 2 R ( s, a, b, c, EC ) ,
R ( s , a , b, c , C ) = 2 R ( s , a , b, c , C )

(18)

The simulator CREME96 is empirically found to have the same property of geometric scalability. We will show below that this is generally the incorrect model property since such geometric scalability should be violated under spatial scaling of the SV due to modification of energy-loss straggling role.

( E E )2 (22) , = exp 2 2 2m0vE E 2 m0vE E E where mean energy deposition can be approximated as E = s 0.233 (/(MeV-cm2/mg)) (s /m), (23) 1 E

DRAFT Version, Revised version published in IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. No.6 (2010) m0 is the rest electron mass, c is the light velocity, vE is the projectile ion velocity with kinetic energy E
M N c2 vE (24) , =1 2 c M N c + Ein MN is the rest energy of a nucleon ( 939 MeV/c2), Ein is the kinetic energy of the projectile ion per nucleon (or, the same, per atomic mass unit, a.m.u).
2 2

This is illustrated in Fig.9 where error probability is characterized by the squares of overlap between the distributions and the step function of error probability. The difference of the error cross-sections between ions with approximately equal LET but with drastically different atomic number and energies is illustrated in Fig.10. Error probabilities for Ar and Xe ions in the above threshold region E >> EC practically coincide. It is evident from Fig. 10 that the subthreshold (i.e. with the energy deposition significantly lower than the critical energy, < C ) crosssection for the Xe ion with larger energy becomes much larger that for the low-energy Ar ion despite of approximately equal LET.
1

10

Ar
probability
6

Xe
2

Ar
cross-section ratio
0.01

0.2 mm 1 mm

Xe
0 0 1 2 3 4

10-4

DE, MeV Fig. 8. Simulated with Eq.22 distributions of energy depositions for the ions of Xe (Zion =54, Ein =106 MeV/amu) and Ar (Zion = 18, Ein = 4.5 MeV/amu) with approximately equal LET (~14 MeV cm2 /mg) for track lengths 0.8 m (right peaks) and 0.1 m (left peaks). The Xe ion distribution peaks are broader than the Ar ones.

10-6

10-8 10 12 14

Ion LET
16 18

One should emphasize that the dispersion of distribution is specific for ions type since the straggling depends strongly on Z and energy of ions. As for mean energy deposition (LET) an increase in Z and energy of the projectile ions in a great extent compensate each other while at the same time straggling dramatically increases. Fig.8 shows simulated energy deposition probability distribution for the ions with different Z and energies but with approximately equal LETs. As can be seen in Fig.8 the peaks of energy-loss distributions for the high-energy and high-Z xenon are always broader than for the low-energy and low-Z argon. This fundamental fact inevitably leads to an appearance of more pronounced subthreshold errors in case of high-energy ions in comparison with lowenergy ones even for equal LET.

The ratio ( Ar ) / ( Xe ) is larger for large track length due to more pronounced straggling (increased energy-loss dispersion) for longer tracks. Critical energy increase leads to an increase of role of large energy deposition E in subthreshold region E EC and, consequently, to an increase in actual dispersion of energy deposition and subthreshold errors probability. This is why the subthreshold error effects are less pronounced for nonhardened devices with low EC and more pronounced for radhard devices and single event latchups with rather high EC. Direct comparison of experimental dependence of upset cross-sections versus ions energy at practically fixed LET [7] with simulation according our model is exhibited in Fig. 11.

LC, MeV-cm2 mg Fig. 10. Calculated ratio of cross-sections for Ar (4.5 MeV/amu) and Xe (Zion =54, 106 MeV/amu) ions with approximately equal LET (~14 MeV-cm2/mg) as function of critical LET for a track lengths s=0.2 m and 1 m.

Fig. 9. Illustrative comparison of subthreshold error probabilities for Xe (Zion =54, 106 MeV/amu) and Ar (Zion = 18, 4.5 MeV/amu) with approximately equal LET (~ 14 MeV-cm2/mg) with mean energy deposition E 3.3 MeV for case of the cell with the critical LET C =15 MeVcm2/mg corresponding to EC 3.5 MeV for the 1 m thickness of the SV.

DRAFT Version, Revised version published in IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. No.6 (2010) V. SECONDARY ION INDUCED ERROR RATE
10-11

10-12

simulation

10-13

Dodd, 2007

10-14

In case of proton or neutron the primary particles does not significant direct ionization along its track, producing, nevertheless, secondary ionizing nuclei capable to upset memory cells [28]. We are faced in this case with the situation where the LET from the very outset is not a good measure of capability to induce error since it is technically difficult to express energy transfer through the LET variable. Soft error rate due to secondary ion can be estimated through a general Eq. 5, where E p is flux spectrum as

Cross-section,cm2 bit

( )

10-15

Fig. 11. Comparison experimental results (adapted from Fig.12 Ref. [7] with simulation for ions with LET~ 4.3 MeV-cm2/mg: C12 (~13 MeV), Si28(~450 MeV), Ar40(~1200 MeV) for fitting constants EC = 3.2 MeV, CS = 22 m2, a = 1.6 m, C ~4.3 MeV-cm2/mg.

Energy per nuclon, MeV amu

10

20

function of projectile particles Ep. The problem again is to measure or compute primary particle energy dependent crosssection ( E p ) . Nuclear reactions are characterized by total cross section ( E p ) , which is approximately equal in silicon to 1-2 barns for proton (neutron) in the range from ten to hundreds MeV (see for example, [29])). Probability of nuclear reaction can be estimated as ( E p ) N at LR ( E p ) << 1, where Nat is the atom density in material (~5 1022 cm-3 in silicon), LR ( E p ) is a mean range of secondary particles [30]. Then effective flux of secondary particles can be approximated by equation (sec ) ( E p ) = ( E p ) N at LR ( E p ) ( E p ) << ( E p ) (27) via energy spectrum of primary particles ( E p ) . One can introduce the large and small SV approximations [30]. For the large SV typical for old technologies with dimensions L much greater 1 m the inequality LR << L is obeyed consisting with BGR approximation. The opposite condition of LR > L allows to consider the small SV as being positioned in field of effective flux of secondary particles (27) for primary particles with given energy E. Effective cross-section is yielded by averaging of Eq.10 over LET distribution function of secondary particles p ( ; E p ) for primary particles with energy E p [30, 31] S E (28) ( E , EC ) = 0 d p ( ; E ) F C . 4 Using Eqs. 5 and 27 one can get soft error rate induced by nuclear reaction S E R = 0 dE ( E ) N at LR ( E ) ( E ) d p ( ; E ) F C . (29) 4 This relation can be rewritten in an equivalent form S E (30) R = 0 d eff ( ) F C , 4 where the effective LET spectrum of secondary particles can be computed as eff ( ) = dE p ( ; E ) ( E ) N at LR ( E ) ( E ) . (31)

This comparison demonstrates excellent qualitative and satisfactory quantitative agreement between the experiments and simulation based on taking into account the straggling effects. We intentionally do not aim at best quantitative agreement in Fig.11 which can be achieved by additional fitting due to its formal character. The main point in Fig.11 is qualitatively similar behavior of experimental and simulated curves on three decades of cross-section magnitudes. We believe that such dramatic dependence cannot be explained in any different way. B. General Approach for Direct Ionization Induced SER Thus we have concluded that the mean LET approximation is in general insufficient for adequate SER modeling since LET spectra do not contain any information about energy deposition fluctuation. To correctly compute the SER one needs to turn to integration over energy distribution of primary ions taking into account partial contributions from ion species with all Z. General expression for direct ionization induced SER in which straggling is taken into account can be written as
R = (
m =1 92 m)

( E ) ( m) ( E, Z m ) dE ,

(25)

where ( m ) ( E ) [cm-2 s-1 MeV-1] is energy spectrum of m-th ion and cross-section of the m-th ion with energy E and atomic number Zm should be computed with distribution function specific for a given ion S ( m ) ( E , Z m ) = 0 K ( m ) E ( E , Z m , s ) EC f ( s ) ds . (26) 4 The contributions of ions with approximately equal LET but different Z and energy could be significantly different for such approach. Note that the theoretical Eq.25 is completely consistent with proposed phenomenological approach (cf. Eq.5) wherein the error cross-section for specific projectile ion is supposed to be determined from angular averaging over multiple experimental data.

If for a given mono-energy ( ( E p ) = 0 ( E E p ) , [ 0 ( E p ) ] = cm2 s-1) we have a concrete nuclear reaction with a secondary particle having energy ER assumed to be converted to ionization and mean range LR , then LET distribution can be roughly approximated as p ( ) ( ER / LR ) . Using the property of Dirac deltafunction one reads

DRAFT Version, Revised version published in IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. No.6 (2010) R ( Ep ) = E S0 N at ( E p ) LR ( E p ) F C LR ( E p ) 0 ( E p ) . (32) ER 4

For large energy deposition and/or short secondary particle ranges LR EC / ER << a 2 + b 2 + c 2 we have F ( x 0 ) 1 and reproduce the result of the known BGR approximation [4, 32] S R ( E p ) 0 N at ( E p ) LR ( E p ) 0 ( E p ) = 4 (33) = N at ( E p ) eff ( E p ) 0 ( E p ) with the effective sensitive volume for nuclear-induced reactions L S eff = 0 LR = R (34) 4 L where is the sensitive volume for direct ionization, L 4 / S0 is the mean chord length of the SV. This quasi-BGR form of SER with strong impact ( ER > EC ( LR / L ) ) is valid for the small SV approximation
LR > L

where multiple-bit error rate is expressed as follows s S smax RMBE = N 0 a0 0 ds f ( s ) d ( ) K EC 0 4 1 + N 0 a0 (39) The ratio of multiple-bit to the total error rates (i.e. relative MBE probability) in such approach is expressed as RMBU N 0 a0 = , (40) Rtot 1 + N 0 a0 tending to an unity for very high integration. For relatively low integration we have proportionality MBE probability to integration what is in reasonable agreement with experimental data. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank V.V. Emelianov, M.S. Gorbunov, N.V. Kuznetsov and A. Bulkin for fruitful discussions and technical support.

while for opposite case

LR < L

we have

true BGR approximation with eff . VI. MULTIPLE Bit Error Rate Estimation Modern highly scaled memory IC are susceptible to multiple bit upset (MBE), in which more than one bit is upset [33]. MBEs are relatively rare events in comparison to singlebit error. In low and moderate scaled IC the SER is proportional to the integration N0 (i.e. density of the sensitive volumes per unit area) ( R N 0 ). One can anticipate the total SER per device in the high-density ICs as being represented as a sum of single-bit ( RSBE ) and multiple-bit ( RMBE ) error rates
Rtot C1 N 0 + C2 N 02 RSBE + RMBE . (35) One of the main types of MBE is caused by a finite value of tracks transversal section square ( a0 1 um2). The smallness parameter for such MBE characterizing MBE probability is a dimensionless product N 0 a0 . This parameter

is assumed to be negligible for older technologies N 0 a0 << 1 , but in new technologies, due to smaller spacing between neighboring cells (i.e. large N0) it can no longer be ignored. Due to a single particle can deposit sufficient charge in two or more adjacent cells the effective LET spectrum increases (36) ( ) (1 + N 0 a0 ) ( ) . The effective LETs in contrast are reduced due to charge sharing between different nodes and we model this effect roughly (37) (1 + N 0 a0 ) . Substituting Eqs.36-37 into Eq.9 (neglecting in such way insufficient here straggling) one reads s S smax EC Rtot (1 + N 0 a0 ) 0 ds f ( s ) d ( ) K 0 4 1 + N 0 a0

RSBE + RMBE , (38)

DRAFT Version, Revised version published in IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. No.6 (2010)

10

REFERENCES
[1] N. Haddad et al. Traditional Methods Shortfall in Predicting Modern Microelectronics Behavior in Space RADECS 2007 Proceedings. [2] E. L. Petersen, Single Event Analysis and Prediction, IEEE NSREC Short Course, 1997. [3] E. Petersen, Soft Error Results Analysis and Error Rate Prediction IEEE NSREC Short Course, 2008. [4] E. Normand, Extension of the burst generation rate method for wider application to proton/neutron single event effects, IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci., V.45, no.6, pp.2904-2914, Dec.1998. [5] M. Xapsos, Applicability of LET to Single Events in Microelectronics Structures, IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci., vol.39, no.6, pp. 1613-1621, Dec. 1992. [6] R. A. Reed, R.A. Weller, M.H. Mendenhall et al., Impact of Ion Energy and Species on Single Event Effects Analysis, IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci., vol.54, no.6, pp. 2312-2321, Dec. 2007. [7] P. E. Dodd, J.R. Schwank, M.R. Shaneyfelt et al., Impact of Heavy Ion Energy and Nuclear Interaction on Single-Event Upset and Latchup in Integrated Circuits, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 2303 2311, Dec. 2007. [8] J. Schwank, M. Shaneyfelt, J. Baggio, P. Dodd, J. Felix, V. FerletCavrois, P. Paillet, D. Lambert, F. Sexton, G. Hash, and E. Blackmore, Effects of particle energy on proton-induced single event latchup, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 21252131, Dec. 2005. [9] K.M. Warren, R.A. Weller et al., The contribution of nuclear reactions to heavy ion single event upset cross-section measurements in high-density SEU hardened SRAM, IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci., vol.52, no. 6, pp. 2125-2131, Dec. 2005. [10] F. Wrobel, G. Hubert, and P. Iacconi, A Semi-empirical Approach for Heavy Ion SEU Cross Section Calculations, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 32713276, Dec. 2006. [11] R. Ecoffet and S. Duzellier, Estimation of latchup sensitive thickness and critical energy using large inclination heavy ions beam, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 23782385, Dec. 1997. [12] R.A. Reed, R.A. Weller, R.D. Schrimpf et al., Implications of nuclear reactions for Single Event Effects Test Methods and Analysis, IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci., V.53, No.6, pp. 3356-3362, Dec. 2006. [13] K. Warren, R. Weller, M. Mendenhall, R. Reed, D. Ball, C. Howe, B. Olson, M. Alles, L. Massengill, R. Schrimpf, N. Haddad, S. Doyle, D. McMorrow, J. Melinger, and W. Lotshaw, The contribution of nuclear reactions to heavy ion single event upset cross-section measurements in a high-density SEU hardened SRAM, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 21252131, Dec. 2005. [14] M.A. Xapsos, G.P. Summers, E.A. Burke, C. Poivey, Microdosimetry theory for microelectronic applications, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Research, V.B184, pp. 113-134, 2001. [15] G.I. Zebrev, I.A. Ladanov et al. PRIVET A Heavy Ion Induced Single Event Upset Rate Simulator in Space Environment, RADECS 2005 Proceedings, 2005. [16] R. Koga, Single-Event Effect Ground Test Issues, IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci., vol.43, no.2, pp. 661-671, 1996. [17] W.J. Stapor, Single Event Effects (SEE) qualification, IEEE NSREC Short Course, 1995. [18] JEDEC Standards, 2001. [19] D.Binder, "Analytic SEU rate calculations compared to space data", IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 35, p. 1570, Dec. 1988. [20] S. Petit, J.P. David, D. Falguere, S. Duzellier, C. Inguimbert, T. Nuns, R. Ecoffet, Memories Response to MBU and Semi-Empirical Approach for SEE Rate Calculation, IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci. V. 53, No. 4, Part 1, pp.1787 1793, Aug. 2006 [21] R. A. Weller, R. D. Schrimpf, R. A. Reed, M. H. Mendenhall, K. M. Warren, B. D. Sierawski and L. W. Massengill, Monte Carlo Simulation of Single Event Effects, RADECS 2009 Short Course. [22] A. J. Tylka, J. H. Adams et al., CREME96: A Revision of the Cosmic Ray Effects on Microelectronics, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. Vol. 44, No.6, pp.2150-2160, Dec. 1997. [23] J. N. Bradford, Geometrical Analysis of Soft Errors and Oxide Damage Produced by Heavy Cosmic Rays and Alpha Particles, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. Vol. 27, pp. 942, Feb. 1980. [24] V.S. Anashin, V.V. Emelyanov, G.I. Zebrev, I.O. Ishutin, N.V. Kuznetsov, B.Yu. Sharkov, Yu.A. Titarenko, V.F. Batyaev, S.P. Borovlev Accelerator Based Facility for Characterization of Single Event Upsets (SEU) and Latchups (SEL) in Digital Electronic Components. A report at International Conference on Micro- and Nanoelectronics, October 2007, Zvenigorod, Russia. [25] D.L. Hansen et al. Correlation of Prediction to On-Orbit SEU Performance for a Commercial 0.25-m CMOS SRAM IEEE Trans. on Nuclear Science, vol. 54, no. 6, p.2525, Dec. 2007. [26] R.G. Useinov, G.I. Zebrev et al. Physical Model Of Single Heavy Ion Induced Hard Errors, Proceedings of RADECS 2003: Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 15 19 September 2003. [27] P. Sigmund, Particle Penetration and Radiation Effects, SpringerVerlag, Berlin- Heidelberg, 2006. [28] H.H.K. Tang, Nuclear Processes and Soft Fails in Microelectronics, Nuclear Physics A 752, pp.706-715, 2005. [29] C. Inguimbert, S. Duzellier et al., Using Subthreshold Heavy Ion Upset Cross Section to Calculate Proton Sensitivity, vol.54, no.6, pp. 23942399, Dec. 2007. [30] G.I. Zebrev, Modeling neutron ionization effects in high-density CMOS circuit elements, Russian Microelectronics, vol.35, no.3, pp.185-196, May 2006. [31] J. Barak, Simple Calculation of Proton SEU Cross Sections from Heavy Ion Cross Sections, IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci., V.53, No.6, pp.33363342, Dec. 2006. [32] V. V. Miroshkin, M. G. Tverskoy, Two Parameter Model for Predicting SEU Rates, IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci., V.41, pp. 2085-2092, Dec. 1994. [33] E. Normand, Single-Event Effects in Systems Using Commercial Electronics in Harsh Environments, IEEE NSREC Short Course, 1994.