Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3, JUNE 2003
Abstract—Total-dose radiation hardness assurance is reviewed laboratory in exactly the radiation environment that the part is
for MOS and bipolar devices and integrated circuits (ICs), with an required to withstand. So, correlation between laboratory to use
emphasis on issues addressed by recent revisions to military and environments is required. Standard radiation tests must be ca-
commercial standard test methods. Hardness assurance typically
depends upon sample tests of a subgroup of devices or circuits to pable of being performed with commonly available equipment,
determine whether the full group meets its performance and func- often by personnel who are not expert in the field. All these and
tionality requirements to a desired confidence level. The dose rates other issues provide significant challenges to the economical as-
of many standard test methods match neither the very high dose sessment and assurance of the total-dose radiation hardness of
rates of some military environments nor the very low dose rates MOS and bipolar microelectronics.
of most space environments. So, one must ensure that hardness as-
surance test plans address device response in the radiation environ- Many reviews have been written on topics related to radiation
ment of interest. An increasing emphasis has been placed over the hardness assurance in military and space radiation environments
last few decades on standardized test procedures to qualify devices [2]–[10]; here, we will focus on issues that have driven the de-
for use in the natural space radiation environment. Challenging is- velopment and revision of standard test methods over the last
sues for defining test methods for space environments are MOS 20–25 years. In particular, we briefly review early test methods
transistor threshold-voltage rebound and enhanced low-dose-rate
sensitivity for linear bipolar devices and ICs. Effects of preirradi- that focus on using Co-60 irradiation at a modest dose rate to
ation elevated temperature stress on MOS radiation response are provide a reasonable surrogate for some tactical military envi-
also a significant concern. Trends are identified for future radia- ronments [2], [3]. We show how these tests can be extended to
tion hardness tests on advanced microelectronics technologies. cover the natural space environment for MOS devices and dis-
Index Terms—Bipolar radiation effects, hardness assurance, cuss the special challenge of testing linear bipolar devices for
MOS radiation effects, test methods. use in space. We also illustrate how scaling trends in micro-
electronics technologies have changed the way hardness assur-
I. INTRODUCTION ance is performed and how these trends will continue to affect
hardness assurance in the future. A conclusion that seems in-
modes. So, the standards community has had to adapt its test process [25], [26]. No high-temperature processing was allowed
methods accordingly. after the deposition of the Al-gate, owing to the relatively low
A notable shift in hardness assurance philosophy is the change melting point of Al. For these devices, the circuit failure mech-
fromanexclusive“qualifiedpartslist(QPL)”approach[2],[10]to anisms, and the transistor threshold-voltage ( ) shifts that
allowing (when possible) a “qualified manufacturers list (QML)” cause them, are still quite similar to those for modern Si-gate
approach[10],[16],[17].Theformerfocusesonrigorousandwell- CMOS [27], [28]:
definedteststhataremostlystatisticalindesign.Thelatterisamore • Failure to switch
holistic approach that credits manufacturers who “design in” ra- Positive or negative MOS
diation hardness in a verified and controlled fashion and recog- Negative MOS
nizestherelativedifficulty of“testingin”performance,reliability, • Excessive leakage
and/or radiation hardness that was not first designed and deliber- Negative MOS
ately built into a device or IC. • Speed reduction
The QML approach to hardness assurance presumes the Positive MOS or negative MOS
variables that affect the radiation response of a particular process • Loss of noise immunity
are under statistical process control [16], [17]. Hence, one may Positive or negative MOS
not employ QML methods to attempt to evaluate the suitability of Negative MOS .
devices and ICs for use in a particular system if the required degree To understand why these effects occur, one must recognize
of process and technology control is not present. So, one may not that oxide-trap charge is almost universally found to be net pos-
apply a QML approach to hardness assurance for commercial itive in MOS gate oxides [29], which leads to negative threshold
industrial grade parts that may exhibit a degree of fortuitous voltage shifts in both MOS and MOS transistors during ra-
radiation tolerance; one must use QPL test methods instead [10], diation exposure. Interface trap charge is predominantly nega-
[17], [19]. This is an example of how the variability in radiation tive for MOS transistors, leading to positive threshold voltage
response that is often observed in industrial-grade technologies shifts during radiation exposure, and positive for MOS transis-
that have not been purposefully radiation hardened can lead to tors, leading to negative threshold voltage shifts [30]. The time
hardness assurance and testing issues that are challenging to ad- dependence of the buildup and/or annealing of oxide- and in-
dress in a cost-effective fashion [16]–[22]. However, sometimes terface-trap charge differ greatly, which complicates the design
the savings in part costs and/or the increase in (at least initial) of total dose MOS hardness assurance tests [1], [31]. However,
system functionality can justify the extra expense in testing for early Al-gate devices, with relatively thick oxides, it was
and/or extra risk to a system [20]–[22]. In this regard, we should often the case that the total-dose response was dominated by
point out that a good hardness assurance plan is no substitute for the effects of net positive oxide-trap charge, causing the MOS
considering radiation hardness assurance issues early in system transistor threshold voltage to go into depletion mode at about
design. The best hardness assurance methodology in the world the point of circuit failure [24]–[26]. Device-to-device leakage
cannot salvage a device that is fundamentally unsuited for the use due to parasitic oxides was often controlled by the use of highly
environment. Early and ongoing communication between design doped “guard bands,” especially in radiation hardened technolo-
and test engineers is necessary to develop a practical, economical, gies [27], [28].
and effective hardness assurance test plan. In [24], Gregory compares two process lots, one with a rela-
tively hardened process and another with a less radiation-hard-
III. SINGLE-PARAMETER HARDNESS ASSURANCE TESTS ened process, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The histograms reflect the
unhardened process, and the approximately Gaussian distribu-
Before the mid-1970s, most of the radiation hardness assur- tion shows the greatly improved hardened process. The smaller
ance literature was focused on testing bipolar devices in neutron shifts and the significant reduction in variability for the harder
environments [7]–[9], [23]. With the emergence of CMOS tech- process both make hardness assurance testing much easier for
nology, test methods were initially designed to screen primarily the harder process than the softer process [16], [18]–[22]. If
for the effects of negative MOS gate or parasitic field-oxide tran- one takes as a definition of failure in Fig. 1 the criterion that
sistor threshold-voltage shifts due to the buildup of trapped posi- the MOS shifts less than 1 V, Fig. 2 shows a survival
tive charge in those regions. This testing is analogous in form to confidence for the radiation-hardened parts in this example of
neutron tests intended to assess bipolar transistor gain degrada- 90% for a starting threshold voltage of 1.4 V. A confidence of
tion [23], in the sense that each is a test in which one compares 99.9% is achieved with a starting threshold voltage of 1.9 V
the degradation of a single parameter against an allowable range [24]. Of course, increasing the starting MOS threshold voltage
of responses. This congruence in testing methodology allowed for reduces the speed and initial noise margin of a CMOS IC, so
many similarities in early statistics-based methods used for neu- this leads to tradeoffs between one’s desires to maximize cir-
tron and total-dose hardness assurance. cuit performance and radiation hardness. The dose rate of the
As an illustration of single point hardness assurance testing tests performed in Figs. 1 and 2 is not given in [24]; however,
methods, Gregory provides an early review of the failure mech- typically, Co-60 irradiation1 is done at 50–300 rad(SiO )/s
anisms in Al-gate MOS technologies [24], which is instructive
1In this document, we typically discuss dose rates in rad(SiO )/s, which is
to consider briefly. Unlike the oxides of modern Si-gate de-
the most relevant parameter for MOS and bipolar technologies. Older sources
vices, which are self-aligned and grown early in a processing se- tend to use the more traditional rad(Si)/s. These are interchangeable for gamma
quence, Al-gate oxides were grown toward the end of the device
irradiation, but differ by a factor of 1.8 for 10-keV X-ray irradiation [58].
554 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, VOL. 50, NO. 3, JUNE 2003
Fig. 5. Read access time versus total dose for 16 k static random access
memories built in Sandia’s 2-m radiation-hardened process. Solid symbols
represent irradiation with Cs-137 gamma rays at 0.2 rad(SiO )/s; open circles
are device response after irradiation according to MIL-STD 883D, Test
Method, 1019.4 rebound test conditions specified in Fig. 4 (after [79].)
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of main path for qualification of MOS devices and
ICs via MIL-STD 883D, Test Method, 1019.4. The three blocks that follow the
Fig. 6. Maximum positive nMOS transistor threshold voltage shift as a
first postirradiation electrical test comprise the “rebound test” in TM 1019 (after
[31], [52], and [76]).
function of dose and oxide thickness, assuming a charge yield of 80% and
an interface-trap generation efficiency of 20% per electron-hole pair that is
generated and escapes recombination (after [74]).
large part because “true” dose rate effects are typically not ob-
served in MOS devices under worst case operating conditions
ance tests [2], [4], [6], [10], [33]–[36]. So, device scaling has
[1].
made MOS hardness assurance testing easier to do for modern
While effective, the two-part irradiation and annealing test
devices in recent years. Older technologies with thicker gate ox-
sequence in MIL-STD 883, Test Method 1019 consumes time
ides still require the full testing sequence in Fig. 4. Of course,
and resources that may no longer be justified for many modern
if one does not know the oxide thickness of a particular device
technologies with ultrathin gate oxides. In very thin oxides, it is
or IC being tested, it is difficult to take advantages of simpli-
difficult for enough interface traps to build up to cause device
fications in testing sequence from which one could otherwise
failure [81], [82]. This trend is shown in Fig. 6, in which the
benefit, showing the necessity of understanding at least some
projected maximum MOS transistor threshold voltage rebound
basic processing details of devices intended for use in radiation
is calculated theoretically, assuming one interface trap is created
environments.
for every five electron-hole pairs created in the oxide [74].
Modern gate oxides can be more than ten times thinner than
the 20 nm oxide considered in Fig. 6. Thus, it is clear that, VII. BIPOLAR HARDNESS ASSURANCE FOR SPACE
except for very high total doses and/or exceedingly low noise For moderate and high-dose-rate radiation environments, one
margins, rebound will become less and less a problem for most can almost always use similar hardness assurance tests to eval-
modern MOS microelectronics technologies. Indeed, gate oxide uate the total-dose response of MOS and bipolar devices [32],
layers are now so thin in many cases that negative threshold [52], [86], [87]. However, this is not the case for low-dose-rate
voltage shifts are also less and less a problem [81]–[83]. So, environments. The ionizing radiation response of modern linear
the chief concern for modern MOS devices with gate insula- bipolar devices and ICs is mostly a function of oxide and inter-
tors thinner than 10 nm in space often is negative shifts face traps in the parasitic insulator that overlays the base-emitter
associated with parasitic field, edge, and/or buried insulators junction, as shown schematically for an npn transistor in Fig. 7
[28], [67], [84], [85]. These can be assessed easily using the [87], [88]. In 1991, Enlow and co-workers discovered a signifi-
first part of MIL-STD 883D, Test Method 1019.4 in Fig. 4 (not cant enhancement in gain degradation at low dose rates for linear
including the rebound test), in conjunction with the single-pa- bipolar devices that could not be bounded by testing using the
rameter statistical methods developed in early hardness assur- irradiation-and-anneal methodology of MIL-STD 883D, Test
FLEETWOOD AND EISEN: TOTAL-DOSE RADIATION HARDNESS ASSURANCE 557
Fig. 11. Static power supply leakage for octal buffer/line drivers with or XI. CONCLUSION
without preirradiation burn in at 150 C for one week. Devices were irradiated
with Co-60 gamma rays at 90 rad(SiO )/s at 5.5 V (after [129]). Total-dose radiation hardness assurance for many tactical
military and low-dose-rate environments can be performed with
high confidence for MOS devices using existing standard test
ation response as a device ages in system use and/or storage is a methods, as long as devices are tested in the packages used in
closely related concern. Presently, MIL-STD 883, Test Method the system and have experienced an equivalent thermal history.
1019 and ASTM Guide F-1892 require the irradiation of devices For linear bipolar devices that exhibit ELDRS effects, there
in the packages in which they are to be fielded, after exposure can be significantly greater uncertainty in the ability of either
to the same thermal treatments they will receive in their use his- low-dose-rate testing or elevated-temperature irradiation to be
tory, unless the devices are demonstrated not to be sensitive to an adequate hardness assurance test method. In either case,
PETS effects [115], [131], [132]. But, this continues to be an hardness assurance testing is simplified if considered as early as
area of active study, both from mechanisms and hardness assur- possible in system design, as sometimes the success or failure
ance standpoints. of one’s hardness assurance test plan is determined almost
entirely by the selection of the part types to be evaluated. In the
X. FUTURE TRENDS IN HARDNESS ASSURANCE future, continued scaling down of device feature sizes and the
As technologies change, new effects like ELDRS and PETS introduction of new technologies into radiation environments
are almost certain to be found. A continuing trend is for de- will make radiation hardness assurance an ongoing challenge.
vices to have smaller feature sizes and to be more complex in There will be few short cuts to an understanding of basic device
design. This makes it virtually impossible to define a reasonable radiation response. This will increasingly include a heavier
set of test vectors and/or bias conditions that ensure approxi- reliance on modeling and simulation to understand how to
mately worst case response for the device or IC. Modeling and improve device response and/or design improved hardness
simulation are increasingly necessary to do analysis of circuit assurance tests. Validation and verification testing will always
response before and after irradiation to identify operating con- be required at one level or another to check for variations in
ditions under which a circuit may be expected to be most vul- device response as well as to continue to look for unexpected
nerable to radiation exposure [13]–[15], [28]. This clearly will failure mechanisms.
be an area of increasing study.
Most MOS radiation hardness assurance test techniques APPENDIX
are designed under the presumption that the gate dielectric is
The following are radiation hardness assurance test methods,
thermal SiO . It is already known that other dielectrics like
guidelines, and standards. Also included is present contact in-
Al O , Si N , and HfO and Hf silicates can have different
formation from which copies may be obtained. This list updates
radiation responses than thermal SiO [5], [135], [136]. So,
that provided in [2]; this list is updated at the Web site of the
assumptions made in relating irradiation and annealing to
Space Parts Working Group’s Hardness Assurance Committee:
low-dose-rate response for MOS devices, for example, likely
http://www.spwghac.org.
will have to be reevaluated when these kinds of insulating
layers become more common in microelectronics.
Farther into the future, there is presently a lot of speculation Military Performance Specifications
that non-Si based nanotechnologies and/or biologically inspired • 19 500, General Specification for Semiconductor Devices.
devices may replace or augment the capabilities of Si-based • 38 510, General Specification for Microcircuits.
electronics for some critical high-performance sensing and • 38 534, Performance Specification for Hybrid Microcir-
computing environments. Some of these technologies may cuits.
be very radiation tolerant; others may be extremely radiation • 38 535, General Specification for Integrated Circuits (Mi-
sensitive. One can make the case that, for small enough device crocircuits) Manufacturing.
560 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, VOL. 50, NO. 3, JUNE 2003
• DNA-H-93-52, Program Management Handbook on Nu- The following are radiation dosimetry standards. They are
clear Survivability. under the oversight of ASTM Subcommittee E10.07; Chairman,
• DNA-H-95-61, Transient Radiation Effects on Electronics Dave Vehar, 505-845-3414.
(TREE) Handbook. • E265, Test Method for Measuring Reaction Rates and
• DNA-H-93-140, Military Handbook for Hardness Assur- Fast-Neutron Fluences by Radioactivation of Sulfur-32.
ance, Maintenance and Surveillance (HAMS). • E496, Test Method for Measuring Neutron Fluence Rate
DTRA documents can be obtained from the Defense Tech- and Average Energy from 3H(d,n)4He Neutron Genera-
nical Information Center (DTIC), phone 800-225-3842. tors by Radioactivation Techniques.
FLEETWOOD AND EISEN: TOTAL-DOSE RADIATION HARDNESS ASSURANCE 561
• E665, Practice for Determining Absorbed Dose Versus • EIA/JEP-133, Guideline for the Production and Acquisi-
Depth in Materials Exposed to the X-Ray Output of Flash tion of Radiation-Hardness Assured Multichip Modules
X-Ray Machines. and Hybrid Microcircuits.
• E666, Practice for Calculating Absorbed Dose from • EIA/TIA-455-64 (FOTP-64), Procedure for Measuring
Gamma or X Radiation. Radiation-Induced Attenuation in Optical Fibers and
• E668, Practice for Application of Thermoluminescence Cables.
Dosimetry Systems for Determining Absorbed Dose in Some EIA/JEDEC standards can be obtained from Global
Radiation-Hardness Testing of Electronics. Engineering Documents, 15 Inverness Way East, Engle-
• E720, Guide for Selection of a Set of Neutron-Activation wood CO 80112-5704. Phone 800-854-7179. Otherwise see
Foils for Determining Neutron Spectra Used in Radiation- http://www.jedec.org or http://www.eia.org.
Hardness Testing of Electronics.
• E721, Method for Determining Neutron Energy Spectra ESA Test Methods and Guides
with Neutron-Activation Foils for Radiation Hardness
Testing of Electronics. • ESA/SCC Basic Specification no. 22900, Total Dose
• E722, Practice for Characterizing Neutron Energy Fluence Steady-State Irradiation Test Method.
Spectra in Terms of an Equivalent Monoenergetic Neutron • ESA/SCC Basic Specification no. 25100, Single Event Ef-
Fluence for Radiation-Hardness Testing of Electronics. fects Test Method and Guidelines.
• E1026, Methods for Using the Fricke Dosimeter to Mea- • ESA PSS-01-609, The Radiation Design Handbook.
sure Absorbed Dose in Water. ESA documents can be obtained from ESA/SCC Secretariat
• E1249, Practice for Minimizing Dosimetry Errors in Ra- (TOS-QCS), ESTEC P.O. Box 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The
diation Hardness Testing of Silicon Electronic Devices Netherlands.
Using Co-60 Sources.
• E1250, Test Method for Application of Ionization Cham- ACKNOWLEDGMENT
bers to Assess the Low Energy Gamma Component of
Cobalt-60 Irradiators Used in Radiation-Hardness Testing The authors would like to thank L. Cohn of the Defense
of Silicon Electronic Devices. Threat Reduction Agency for sustained support of hardness
• E1854, Practice for Assuring Test Consistency in Neutron- assurance activities, as well as their professional colleagues
Induced Displacement Damage of Electronic Parts. and the many members of the DoD, ASTM, EIA, and ESA
• E1855, Method for Use of 2N2222 Silicon Bipolar Tran- committees who have devoted their time and efforts in support
sistors as Neutron Spectrum Sensors and Displacement of defining hardness assurance standards.
Damage Monitors.
• E1894, Guide for Selecting Dosimetry Systems for Appli- REFERENCES
cation in Pulsed X-Ray Sources. [1] D. M. Fleetwood, P. S. Winokur, and J. R. Schwank, “Using labora-
The following are fiber optic test standards. They are tory X-ray and Co-60 irradiations to predict CMOS device response in
strategic and space environments,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 35, pp.
under the oversight of ASTM Subcommittee E13.09, Optical 1497–1505, 1988.
Fibers for Molecular Spectroscopy; Chairman, Tuan Bo-Dinh, [2] E. A. Wolicki, I. Arimura, A. J. Carlan, H. A. Eisen, and J. J. Halpin,
423-574-6249. “Radiation hardness assurance for electronic parts: Accomplishments
and plans,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 32, pp. 4230–4236, 1985.
• E1614, Guide for Procedure for Measuring Ionizing Radi- [3] G. C. Messenger and M. S. Ash, The Effects of Radiation on Electronic
ation-Induced Attenuation in Silica-Based Optical Fibers Systems. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992.
[4] R. L. Pease, A. H. Johnston, and J. L. Azarewicz, “Radiation testing of
and Cables for Use in Remote Fiber-Optic Spectroscopy semiconductor devices for space electronics,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 76, pp.
and Broadband Systems. 1510–1526, 1988.
• E1654, Guide for Measuring Ionizing Radiation-Induced [5] H. L. Hughes, “Historical perspective,” in Ionizing Radiation Effects on
MOS Devices & Circuits, T. P. Ma and P. V. Dressendorfer, Eds. New
Spectral Changes in Optical Fibers and Cables for Use in York: Wiley, 1989, pp. 47–86.
Remote Raman Fiber-Optic Spectroscopy. [6] A. Holmes-Seidle, “Predicting end-of-life performance of microelec-
tronics in space,” Radiat. Phys. Chem., vol. 43, pp. 57–77, 1994.
ASTM standards can be purchased from ASTM, 100 Barr [7] V. A. J. van Lint, “Radiation effects before 1960,” IEEE Trans. Nucl.
Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA. Phone Sci., vol. 41, pp. 2642–2647, 1994.
[8] E. E. Conrad, “Radiation effects research in the ‘60’s,” IEEE Trans.
610-832-9585. Portions of each standard can be viewed at Nucl. Sci., vol. 41, pp. 2648–2659, 1994.
http://www.astm.org. [9] J. R. Srour, “Radiation effects R&D in the 1970’s: A retrospective view,”
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 41, pp. 2660–2664, 1994.
[10] R. L. Pease and D. R. Alexander, “Hardness assurance for space system
EIA Test Methods and Guides microelectronics,” Radiat. Phys. Chem., vol. 43, pp. 191–204, 1994.
[11] W. E. Price, “The simulation of space radiation damage to spacecraft
• EIA/JESD-57, Procedures for the Measurement of Single- systems,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 6, pp. 2–7, Dec. 1965.
[12] P. S. Winokur, K. G. Kerris, and L. Harper, “Predicting CMOS inverter
Event Effects in Semiconductor Devices from Heavy Ion response in nuclear and space environments,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.,
Irradiation. vol. 30, pp. 4326–4332, 1983.
• JESD-89, Measurement and Reporting of Alpha Particles [13] A. A. Abou-Auf, D. F. Barbe, and H. A. Eisen, “A methodology for
the identification of worst-case test vectors for logical faults induced
and Terrestrial Cosmic Ray-Induced Soft Errors in Semi- in CMOS circuits by total dose,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 41, pp.
conductor Devices. 2585–2592, 1994.
562 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, VOL. 50, NO. 3, JUNE 2003
[14] A. A. Abou-Auf, “Gate-level modeling of leakage current failure in- [40] , “A logical methodology for determining electrical endpoints for
duced by total dose for the generation of worst-case test vectors,” IEEE multilot and multiparameter data,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 34, pp.
Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 42, pp. 3189–3195, 1996. 1726–1729, 1987.
[15] A. A. Abou-Auf, D. F. Barbe, and M. M. Rushdi, “Worst-case test [41] A. Namenson, “Lot uniformity and small sample sizes in hardness as-
vectors for functional failure induced by total dose in CMOS micro- surance,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 35, pp. 1506–1511, 1988.
circuits with transmission gates,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 44, pp. [42] A. Namenson and D. R. Myers, “One hundred percent abrupt failure
2013–2017, 1997. between two radiation levels in step-stress testing of electronic parts,”
[16] P. S. Winokur, F. W. Sexton, D. M. Fleetwood, M. D. Terry, M. R. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 40, pp. 1709–1713, Dec. 1993.
Shaneyfelt, P. V. Dressendorfer, and J. R. Schwank, “Implementing [43] J. H. Scofield, T. P. Doerr, and D. M. Fleetwood, “Correlation of preir-
QML for radiation hardness assurance,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. radiation 1=f noise and postirradiation threshold voltage shifts due to
37, pp. 1794–1805, 1990. oxide-trapped charge in MOS transistors,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol.
[17] D. R. Alexander, “Implications of qualified manufacturers list reliability 36, pp. 1946–55, 1989.
procedures for radiation hardness assurance,” in IEEE NSREC Short [44] J. H. Scofield and D. M. Fleetwood, “Physical basis for nondestructive
Course, Reno, NV, July 16, 1990.
tests of MOS radiation hardness,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 38, pp.
[18] M. R. Shaneyfelt, P. S. Winokur, T. L. Meisenheimer, F. W. Sexton, S.
1567–1577, 1991.
B. Roeske, and M. G. Knoll, “Hardness variability in commercial tech-
[45] D. M. Fleetwood, T. L. Meisenheimer, and J. H. Scofield, “1=f noise
nologies,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 41, pp. 2536–2543, 1994.
[19] R. L. Pease, “Total dose issues for microelectronics in space systems,” and radiation effects in MOS devices,” IEEE Trans. Electron Dev., vol.
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 43, pp. 442–452, 1996. 41, pp. 1953–1964, 1994.
[20] C. I. Lee, B. G. Rax, and A. H. Johnston, “Total dose hardness assurance [46] V. Danchenko and U. Desai, “Characteristics of thermal annealing of
techniques for next generation COTS devices,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., radiation damage in MOSFETs,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 39, p. 2417, 1968.
vol. 42, pp. 3145–3150, 1996. [47] P. J. McWhorter, S. L. Miller, and W. M. Miller, “Modeling the anneal
[21] K. A. LaBel, A. H. Johnston, J. L. Barth, R. A. Reed, and C. E. Barnes, of radiation-induced trapped holes in varying thermal environments,”
“Emerging radiation hardness assurance issues: A NASA approach for IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 37, pp. 1682–1689, 1990.
space flight programs,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 45, pp. 2727–2736, [48] L. Dusseau, T. L. Randolph, R. D. Schrimpf, K. F. Galloway, F. Saigne, J.
1998. Fesquest, J. Gasiot, and R. Ecoffet, “Prediction of low dose-rate effects
[22] P. S. Winokur, G. K. Lum, M. R. Shaneyfelt, F. W. Sexton, G. L. in power MOSFET’s based on isochronal annealing experiments,” J.
Hash, and L. Scott, “Use of COTS microelectronics in radiation Appl. Phys., vol. 81, pp. 2437–2441, 1997.
environments,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 46, pp. 1494–1503, 1999. [49] F. Saigne, L. Dusseau, J. Fesquet, J. Gasiot, R. Ecoffet, J. P. David,
[23] G. C. Messenger, “Hardness assurance considerations for the neutron R. D. Schrimpf, and K. F. Galloway, “Experimental validation of an
environment,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 22, pp. 2308–2313, 1975. accelerated method of oxide-trap-level characterization for predicting
[24] B. L. Gregory, “Process controls for radiation-hardened Al-gate bulk Si long-term thermal effects in MOS devices,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol.
CMOS,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 22, pp. 2295–2302, 1975. 44, pp. 2001–2006, 1997.
[25] K. L. Aubuchon, “Radiation hardening of pMOS devices by optimiza- [50] C. Chabrerie, J. L. Autran, P. Paillet, O. Flament, J. L. Leray, and J. C.
tion of the thermal SiO gate insulator,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 18, Boudenot, “Isothermal and isochronal annealing methodology to study
pp. 117–125, Dec. 1971. postirradiation temperature activated phenomena,” IEEE Trans. Nucl.
[26] G. F. Derbenwick and B. L. Gregory, “Process optimization of radiation- Sci., vol. 44, pp. 2007–2012, 1997.
hardened CMOS ICs,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 22, pp. 2151–2156, [51] D. M. Fleetwood, P. S. Winokur, M. R. Shaneyfelt, L. C. Riewe, O.
1975. Flament, P. Paillet, and J. L. Leray, “Effects of isochronal annealing
[27] F. W. Sexton, R. E. Anderson, W. T. Corbett, A. E. Giddings, J. L. Jor- and irradiation temperature on radiation-induced trapped charge,” IEEE
gensen, W. S. Kim, T. M. Mnich, T. V. Nordstrom, A. Ochoa, Jr., M. A. Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 45, pp. 2366–2374, 1998.
Sobelewski, R. K. Treece, and T. F. Wrobel, “Radiation testing of the
[52] D. M. Fleetwood, “A first principles approach to total dose hardness
CMOS 8085 microprocessor family,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 30,
assurance,” in IEEE NSREC Short Course, Madison, WI, July 17,
pp. 4235–4239, 1983.
1995.
[28] P. V. Dressendorfer, “Radiation-hardening technology,” in Ionizing
Radiation Effects on MOS Devices & Circuits, T. P. Ma and P. V. [53] O. Flament, P. Paillet, J. L. Leray, and D. M. Fleetwood, “Consideration
Dressendorfer, Eds. New York: Wiley, 1989, pp. 333–400. on isochronal anneal technique: From measurement to physics,” IEEE
[29] F. B. McLean, H. E. Boesch, Jr., and T. R. Oldham, “Electron-hole gener- Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 46, pp. 1526–1533, 1999.
ation, transport, and trapping in SiO ,” in Ionizing Radiation Effects on [54] L. J. Palkuti and J. J. LePage, “X-ray wafer probe for total dose testing,”
MOS Devices & Circuits, T. P. Ma and P. V. Dressendorfer, Eds. New IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 29, pp. 1832–1837, 1982.
York: Wiley, 1989, pp. 87–192. [55] C. M. Dozier and D. B. Brown, “Photon energy dependence of radi-
[30] P. S. Winokur, “Radiation-induced interface traps,” in Ionizing ation effects in MOS structures,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 27, pp.
Radiation Effects on MOS Devices & Circuits, T. P. Ma and P. V. 1694–1699, 1980.
Dressendorfer, Eds. New York: Wiley, 1989, pp. 193–255. [56] C. M. Dozier and D. B. Brown, “Effect of photon energy on the response
[31] D. M. Fleetwood, P. S. Winokur, C. E. Barnes, and D. C. Shaw, “Ac- of MOS devices,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 28, pp. 4137–4141, 1981.
counting for time-dependent effects on CMOS total-dose response in [57] T. R. Oldham and J. M. McGarrity, “Comparison of Co-60 and 10-keV
space environments,” Radiat. Phys. Chem., vol. 43, pp. 129–138, 1994. X-ray response in MOS devices,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 30, pp.
[32] D. M. Fleetwood, P. S. Winokur, L. C. Riewe, and R. L. Pease, “An 4377–4381, 1983.
improved standard total-dose test for CMOS space electronics,” IEEE [58] C. M. Dozier and D. B. Brown, “The use of low-energy X-rays for device
Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 36, pp. 1963–1970, 1989. testing—A comparison with Co-60 radiation,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.,
[33] J. S. Browning and J. E. Gover, “Hardness assurance based on system re- vol. 30, pp. 4382–4387, 1983.
liability models,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 34, pp. 1775–1780, 1987. [59] C. M. Dozier, D. B. Brown, D. L. Throckmorton, and D. I. Ma, “Defect
[34] L. Henderson, L. Simpkins, A. Namenson, A. Campbell, J. Ritter, and E. production in SiO by X-ray and Co-60 radiations,” IEEE Trans. Nucl.
Wolicki, “A practical system hardness assurance program,” IEEE Trans. Sci., vol. 32, pp. 4363–4368, 1985.
Nucl. Sci., vol. 40, pp. 1725–1734, Dec. 1993. [60] D. M. Fleetwood, P. S. Winokur, R. W. Beegle, P. V. Dressendorfer, and
[35] P. A. Robinson, Jr., “Packaging, testing, and hardness assurance,” in B. L. Draper, “Accounting for dose-enhancement effects with CMOS
IEEE NSREC Short Course, Snowmass, CO, July 27, 1987. transistors,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 32, pp. 4369–4375, 1985.
[36] R. L. Pease, A. H. Johnston, and J. L. Azarewicz, “Radiation testing [61] R. N. Hamm, “Dose calculations for Si-SiO layered structures irradi-
of semiconductor devices for space electronics,” in IEEE NSREC Short ated by X-rays and Co-60 gamma rays,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 33,
Course, NV, July 16, 1990.
pp. 1236–1239, 1986.
[37] A. I. Namenson, “Hardness assurance and overtesting,” IEEE Trans.
[62] D. B. Brown, “The phenomenon of electron rollout for energy deposition
Nucl. Sci., vol. 29, pp. 1821–1825, 1982.
and defect generation in irradiated MOS devices,” IEEE Trans. Nucl.
[38] , “Statistical analysis of step stress measurements in hardness as-
surance,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 31, pp. 1398–1401, 1984. Sci., vol. 33, pp. 1240–1244, 1986.
[39] A. I. Namenson and I. Arimura, “Estimating electronic end points for [63] J. M. Benedetto and H. E. Boesch, Jr., “The relationship between Co-60
devices which suffer abrupt functional failure during radiation testing,” and 10-keV X-ray damage in MOS devices,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.,
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 32, pp. 4250–4253, 1985. vol. 33, pp. 1318–1323, 1986.
FLEETWOOD AND EISEN: TOTAL-DOSE RADIATION HARDNESS ASSURANCE 563
[64] D. M. Fleetwood, R. W. Beegle, F. W. Sexton, P. S. Winokur, S. L. Miller, [88] S. L. Kosier, R. D. Schrimpf, R. N. Nowlin, D. M. Fleetwood, R.
R. K. Treece, J. R. Schwank, R. V. Jones, and P. J. McWhorter, “Using L. Pease, M. DeLaus, W. E. Combs, A. Wei , and F. Chai, “Charge
a 10-keV X-ray source for hardness assurance,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., separation for bipolar transistors,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 40, pp.
vol. 33, pp. 1330–1336, 1986. 1276–1277, Dec. 1993.
[65] C. M. Dozier, D. M. Fleetwood, D. B. Brown, and P. S. Winokur, “An [89] E. W. Enlow, R. L. Pease, W. Combs, R. D. Schrimpf, and R. N. Nowlin,
evaluation of low-energy X-ray and Cobalt-60 irradiations of MOS tran- “Response of advanced bipolar processes to ionizing radiation,” IEEE
sistors,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 34, pp. 1535–1539, 1987. Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 38, pp. 1342–1351, 1991.
[66] D. M. Fleetwood, D. E. Beutler, L. J. Lorence, Jr., D. B. Brown, B. L. [90] R. N. Nowlin, E. W. Enlow, R. D. Schrimpf, and W. E. Combs, “Trends
Draper, L. C. Riewe, H. B. Rosenstock, and D. P. Knott, “Comparison in the total dose response of modern bipolar transistors,” IEEE Trans.
of enhanced device response and predicted X-ray dose-enhancement ef- Nucl. Sci., vol. 39, pp. 2026–2035, 1992.
fects on MOS oxides,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 35, pp. 1265–1271, [91] R. N. Nowlin, D. M. Fleetwood, R. D. Schrimpf, R. L. Pease, and W.
1988. E. Combs, “Hardness assurance and testing issues for bipolar/BiCMOS
[67] D. M. Fleetwood, S. S. Tsao, and P. S. Winokur, “Total dose hardness devices,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 40, pp. 1686–1693, 1993.
assurance issues for SOI MOSFETs,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 35, [92] A. H. Johnston, G. M. Swift, and B. G. Rax, “Total dose effects in con-
pp. 1361–1367, 1988. ventional bipolar transistors and linear integrated circuits,” IEEE Trans.
[68] M. R. Shaneyfelt, D. M. Fleetwood, J. R. Schwank, and K. L. Hughes, Nucl. Sci., vol. 41, pp. 2427–2436, 1994.
“Charge yield for 10-keV X-ray and Cobalt-60 irradiation of MOS de- [93] S. McClure, R. L. Pease, W. Will, and G. Perry, “Dependence of total
vices,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 38, pp. 1187–1194, 1991. dose response of bipolar linear microcircuits on applied dose rate,” IEEE
[69] ASTM-F1467, “Standard guide for the use of X-ray tester ( 10-keV Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 41, pp. 2544–2549, 1994.
photons) in ionizing radiation effects testing of microelectronic [94] A. H. Johnston, B. G. Rax, and C. I. Lee, “Enhanced damage in linear
devices,”, June 1993. bipolar IC’s at low dose rate,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 42, pp.
[70] J. L. Titus and D. G. Platteter, “Wafer mapping of total dose failure 1650–1659, 1995.
thresholds in a bipolar recessed field oxide technology,” IEEE Trans. [95] J. L. Titus, D. Emily, J. F. Krieg, T. Turflinger, R. L. Pease, and A. Camp-
Nucl. Sci., vol. 34, pp. 1751–1756, 1987. bell, “Enhanced low dose rate sensitivity of linear circuits in a space en-
[71] M. R. Shaneyfelt, K. L. Hughes, J. R. Schwank, F. W. Sexton, D. M. vironment,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 46, pp. 1608–1615, 1999.
Fleetwood, P. S. Winokur, and E. W. Enlow, “Wafer-level radiation [96] R. L. Pease, S. McClure, A. H. Johnston, J. Gorelick, T. L. Turflinger,
testing for hardness assurance,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 38, pp. M. Gehlhausen, J. Krieg, T. Carriere, and M. R. Shaneyfelt, “An updated
1598–1605, 1991. compendium of enhanced low dose rate sensitive bipolar linear circuits,”
[72] A. H. Johnston, “Super recovery of total dose damage in MOS devices,” in 2001 IEEE Radiation Effects Data Workshop, Vancouver, BC, pp.
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 31, pp. 1427–1433, 1984. 127–133.
[73] J. R. Schwank, P. S. Winokur, P. J. McWhorter, F. W. Sexton, P. V. [97] D. M. Fleetwood, S. L. Kosier, R. N. Nowlin, R. D. Schrimpf, R. A.
Dressendorfer, and D. C. Turpin, “Physical mechanisms contributing to Reber, Jr., M. DeLaus, P. S. Winokur, A. Wei, W. E. Combs, and R.
device rebound,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 31, pp. 1434–1438, 1984. L. Pease, “Physical mechanisms contributing to enhanced bipolar gain
[74] D. M. Fleetwood, P. S. Winokur, and T. L. Meisenheimer, “Hardness degradation at low dose rates,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 41, pp.
assurance for low-dose space applications,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 1871–1883, 1994.
38, pp. 1552–1559, 1991. [98] D. M. Fleetwood, L. C. Riewe, J. R. Schwank, S. C. Witczak, and
[75] C. E. Barnes, D. M. Fleetwood, D. C. Shaw, and P. S. Winokur, “Post R. D. Schrimpf, “Radiation effects at low electric fields in thermal,
irradiation effects (PIE) in integrated circuits,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., SIMOX, and bipolar-base oxides,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 43, pp.
vol. 39, pp. 328–341, June 1992. 2537–2546, 1996.
[76] F. W. Sexton, D. M. Fleetwood, C. C. Aldridge, G. Garrett, J. C. Pelletier, [99] S. C. Witczak, R. C. Lacoe, D. C. Mayer, D. M. Fleetwood, R. D.
and J. I. Gaona, Jr., “Qualifying commercial IC’s for space total-dose Schrimpf, and K. F. Galloway, “Space charge limited degradation of
environments,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 39, pp. 1869–1875, 1992. bipolar oxides at low electric fields,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 45,
[77] P. S. Winokur, “Limitations in the use of linear system theory for the pp. 2339–2351, 1998.
prediction of hardened-MOS device response in space satellite environ- [100] S. N. Rashkeev, C. R. Cirba, D. M. Fleetwood, R. D. Schrimpf, S. C.
ments,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 29, pp. 2102–2106, 1982. Witczak, A. Michez, and S. T. Pantelides, “Physical model for enhanced
[78] P. S. Winokur, F. W. Sexton, J. R. Schwank, D. M. Fleetwood, P. V. interface-trap formation at low dose rates,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol.
Dressendorfer, T. F. Wrobel, and D. C. Turpin, “Total-dose radiation and 49, pp. 2650–2655, 2002.
annealing studies: Implications for hardness assurance testing,” IEEE [101] V. S. Pershenkov, V. B. Maslov, S. V. Cherepko, I. N. Shvetzov-
Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 33, pp. 1343–1351, 1986. Shilovsky, V. V. Belyakov, A. V. Sogoyan, V. I. Rusanovsky, V. N.
[79] D. H. Habing and B. D. Shafer, “Room temperature annealing of ioniza- Ulimov, V. V. Emelianov, and V. S. Nasibullin, “The effect of emitter
tion-induced damage in CMOS circuits,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. junction bias on the low dose-rate radiation response of bipolar
20, pp. 307–314, Dec. 1973. devices,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 44, pp. 1840–1848, 1997.
[80] J. R. Schwank, F. W. Sexton, D. M. Fleetwood, M. R. Shaneyfelt, K. [102] A. Wei, S. L. Kosier, R. D. Schrimpf, D. M. Fleetwood, and W. E.
L. Hughes, and M. R. Rodgers, “Strategies for lot acceptance testing Combs, “Dose-rate effects on radiation-induced bipolar junc-
using CMOS transistors and ICs,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 36, pp. tion transistor gain degradation,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 65, pp.
1971–1980, 1989. 1918–1920, 1994.
[81] J. M. Benedetto, H. E. Boesch, Jr., F. B. McLean, and J. P. Mize, “Hole [103] S. L. Kosier, A. Wei, R. D. Schrimpf, D. M. Fleetwood, M. DeLaus, R.
removal in thin-gate MOSFET’s by tunneling,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., L. Pease, and W. E. Combs, “Physically-based comparison of hot-car-
vol. 32, pp. 3916–3920, 1985. rier-induced and ionizing-radiation-induced degradation in BJTs,” IEEE
[82] N. S. Saks and M. G. Ancona, “Generation of interface states by ionizing Trans. Electron. Devices, vol. 42, pp. 436–444, 1995.
radiation at 80 K measured by charge pumping and subthreshold slope [104] R. D. Schrimpf, R. J. Graves, D. M. Schmidt, D. M. Fleetwood, R. L.
techniques,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 34, pp. 1348–1354, 1987. Pease, W. E. Combs, and M. DeLaus, “Hardness assurance issues for
[83] J. M. McGarrity, “Considerations for hardening MOS devices and lateral PNP bipolar junction transistors,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol.
circuits for low radiation doses,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 27, pp. 42, pp. 1641–1649, 1995.
1739–1744, 1980. [105] D. M. Schmidt, D. M. Fleetwood, R. D. Schrimpf, R. L. Pease, R. J.
[84] T. R. Oldham, A. J. Lelis, H. E. Boesch, Jr., J. M. Benedetto, F. B. Graves, G. H. Johnson, K. F. Galloway, and W. E. Combs, “Comparison
McLean, and J. M. McGarrity, “Post-irradiation effects in field-oxide of ionizing-radiation-induced gain degradation in lateral, substrate, and
isolation structures,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 34, pp. 1184–1189, vertical PNP BJTs,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 42, pp. 1541–1549,
1987. 1995.
[85] M. R. Shaneyfelt, P. E. Dodd, B. L. Draper, and R. S. Flores, “Challenges [106] S. C. Witczak, R. D. Schrimpf, K. F. Galloway, D. M. Fleetwood, R. L.
in hardening technologies using shallow-trench isolation,” IEEE Trans. Pease, J. M. Puhl, D. M. Schmidt, W. E. Combs, and J. S. Suehle, “Ac-
Nucl. Sci., vol. 45, pp. 2584–2592, 1998. celerated tests for simulating low dose rate gain degradation of lateral
[86] A. B. Hart, J. B. Smyth, Jr., and V. A. J. van Lint, “Hardness assurance and substrate PNP bipolar junction transistors,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.,
considerations for long-term ionizing radiation effects on bipolar struc- vol. 43, pp. 3151–3160, 1996.
tures,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 25, pp. 1502–1507, 1978. [107] D. M. Schmidt, A. Wu, R. D. Schrimpf, D. M. Fleetwood, and R. L.
[87] R. D. Schrimpf, “Physics and hardness assurance for bipolar Pease, “Modeling ionizing radiation induced gain degradation of the lat-
technologies,” in IEEE NSREC Short Course, Vancouver, BC, July eral PNP bipolar junction transistor,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 43, pp.
16, 2001. 3032–3039, 1996.
564 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, VOL. 50, NO. 3, JUNE 2003
[108] A. H. Johnston, C. I. Lee, and B. G. Rax, “Enhanced damage in bipolar [122] M. R. Shaneyfelt, J. R. Schwank, D. M. Fleetwood, and P. S. Winokur,
devices at low dose rates: Effects at very low dose rates,” IEEE Trans. “Effects of irradiation temperature on MOS radiation response,” IEEE
Nucl. Sci., vol. 43, pp. 3049–3059, 1996. Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 45, pp. 1372–1378, 1998.
[109] R. K. Freitag and D. B. Brown, “Low dose rate effects on linear bipolar [123] T. Carriere, R. Ecoffet, and P. Poirot, “Evaluation of accelerated total
IC’s: Experiments on the time dependence,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. dose testing of linear bipolar circuits,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 47,
44, pp. 1906–1913, 1997. pp. 2350–2357, 2000.
[110] A. Wu, R. D. Schrimpf, H. J. Barnaby, D. M. Fleetwood, R. L. Pease, [124] L. Bonora and J. P. David, “Attempt to define conservative conditions
and S. L. Kosier, “Radiation-induced gain degradation in lateral PNP for total dose evaluation of bipolar ICs,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 44,
BJT’s with lightly and heavily doped emitters,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., pp. 1974–1980, 1997.
vol. 44, pp. 1914–1921, 1997. [125] J. F. Krieg, J. L. Titus, D. Emily, M. Gehlhausen, J. Swonger, and D.
[111] S. C. Witczak, R. D. Schrimpf, D. M. Fleetwood, K. F. Galloway, R. C. Platteter, “Enhanced low dose rate sensitivity in a voltage comparator
Lacoe, D. C. Mayer, J. M. Puhl, R. L. Pease, and J. S. Suehle, “Hardness that only utilizes complementary vertical NPN and PNP transistors,”
assurance testing of bipolar junction transistors at elevated irradiation IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 46, pp. 1616–1619, 1999.
temperatures,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 44, pp. 1989–2000, 1997. [126] J. Boch, F. Saigne, T. Maurel, E. Giustino, L. Dusseau, R. D. Schrimpf,
[112] R. K. Freitag and D. B. Brown, “Study of low-dose-rate radiation effects K. F. Galloway, J. P. David, R. Ecoffet, J. Fesquet, and J. Gasiot, “Dose
on commercial linear bipolar ICs,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 45, pp. and dose-rate effects on NPN bipolar junction transistors irradiated at
2649–2658, 1998. high temperature,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 49, pp. 1474–1479, 2002.
[113] S. C. Witczak, R. D. Schrimpf, H. J. Barnaby, R. C. Lacoe, D. C. Mayer, [127] D. W. Emily, “Total dose response of bipolar microcircuits,” in IEEE
K. F. Galloway, R. L. Pease, and D. M. Fleetwood, “Moderated degrada- NSREC Short Course, Indian Wells, CA, July 15, 1996.
tion enhancement of lateral PNP transistors due to measurement bias,” [128] R. A. Kohler, R. A. Kushner, and K. H. Lee, “Total dose radiation hard-
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 45, pp. 2644–2648, 1998. ness of MOS devices in hermetic ceramic packages,” IEEE Trans. Nucl.
[114] H. J. Barnaby, C. R. Cirba, R. D. Schrimpf, D. M. Fleetwood, R. L. Sci., vol. 35, pp. 1492–1496, 1988.
Pease, M. R. Shaneyfelt, T. L. Turflinger, J. F. Krieg, and M. C. Maher, [129] M. R. Shaneyfelt, D. M. Fleetwood, J. R. Schwank, T. L. Meisenheimer,
“Origins of total-dose response variability in linear bipolar microcir- and P. S. Winokur, “Effects of burn-in on radiation hardness,” IEEE
cuits,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 47, pp. 2342–2349, 2000. Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 41, pp. 2550–2559, 1994.
[115] M. R. Shaneyfelt, J. R. Schwank, S. C. Witczak, D. M. Fleetwood, R. [130] S. D. Clark, J. P. Bings, M. C. Maher, M. K. Williams, D. R. Alexander,
L. Pease, P. S. Winokur, L. C. Riewe, and G. L. Hash, “Thermal-stress and R. L. Pease, “Plastic packaging and burn-in effects on ionizing dose
effects and enhanced low dose rate sensitivity in linear bipolar ICs,” response in CMOS microcircuits,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 42, pp.
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 47, pp. 2539–2545, 2000. 1607–1614, 1995.
[116] V. S. Pershenkov, A. Y. Slearev, A. V. Sogoyan, V. V. Belyakov, V. B. [131] M. R. Shaneyfelt, P. S. Winokur, D. M. Fleetwood, J. R. Schwank, and
Kekukh, A. Y. Bashin, D. V. Ivashin, V. S. Motchkine, V. N. Ulimov, R. A. Reber, Jr., “Effects of reliability screens on MOS charge trapping,”
and V. V. Emelianov, “Effect of aging on radiation response of bipolar IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 42, pp. 865–872, 1996.
transistors,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 48, pp. 2164–2169, 2001. [132] M. R. Shaneyfelt, P. S. Winokur, D. M. Fleetwood, G. L. Hash, J. R.
[117] M. R. Shaneyfelt, R. L. Pease, J. R. Schwank, M. C. Maher, G. L. Hash, Schwank, F. W. Sexton, and R. L. Pease, “Impact of aging on radiation
D. M. Fleetwood, P. E. Dodd, C. A. Reber, S. C. Witczak, L. C. Riewe, hardness,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 44, pp. 2040–2047, 1997.
H. P. Hjalmarson, J. C. Banks, B. L. Doyle, and J. A. Knapp, “Impact [133] R. L. Pease, M. R. Shaneyfelt, P. S. Winokur, D. M. Fleetwood, J. Gor-
of passivation layers on enhanced low-dose-rate sensitivity and preirra- lick, S. McClure, S. Clark, L. Cohn, and D. Alexander, “Mechanisms
diation elevated-temperature stress effects in linear bipolar ICs,” IEEE for total dose sensitivity to preirradiation thermal stress in bipolar linear
Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 49, pp. 3171–3179, 2002. microcircuits,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 45, pp. 1425–1430, 1998.
[118] R. L. Pease, L. M. Cohn, D. M. Fleetwood, M. A. Gehlhausen, T. L. [134] A. P. Karmarkar, B. K. Choi, R. D. Schrimpf, and D. M. Fleetwood,
Turflinger, D. B. Brown, and A. H. Johnston, “A proposed hardness “Aging and baking effects on the radiation hardness of MOS capacitors,”
assurance test methodology for bipolar linear circuits and devices in a IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 48, pp. 2158–2163, 2001.
space ionizing radiation environment,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 44, [135] A. Y. Kang, P. M. Lenahan, and J. F. Conley, Jr., “The radiation response
pp. 1981–1988, 1997. of the high dielectric constant hafnium oxide/Si system,” IEEE Trans.
[119] R. L. Pease, M. Gehlhausen, J. Krieg, J. Titus, T. Turflinger, D. Emily, Nucl. Sci., vol. 49, pp. 2636–2642, 2002.
and L. Cohn, “Evaluation of proposed hardness assurance method for [136] J. A. Felix, D. M. Fleetwood, R. D. Schrimpf, J. G. Hong, G. Lucovsky,
bipolar linear circuits with enhanced low dose rate sensivity,” IEEE J. R. Schwank, and M. R. Shaneyfelt, “Total dose radiation response
Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 45, pp. 2665–2672, 1998. of hafnium silicate capacitors,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 49, pp.
[120] R. N. Nowlin, D. M. Fleetwood, and R. D. Schrimpf, “Saturation of 3191–3196, 2002.
the dose-rate response of single-poly BJT’s below 10 rad(SiO )/s: Im- [137] T. R. Oldham, K. W. Bennett, J. Beaucour, T. Carriere, C. Poivey, and P.
plications for hardness assurance,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 41, pp. Garnier, “Total dose failures in advanced electronics from single ions,”
2637–2641, 1994. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 40, pp. 1820–1830, Dec. 1993.
[121] J. R. Schwank, F. W. Sexton, D. M. Fleetwood, R. V. Jones, R. S. Flores, [138] D. M. Fleetwood, “Hydrogen-related reliability issues for advanced mi-
M. S. Rodgers, and D. T. Sanders, “Temperature effects on the radi- croelectronics,” Microelectron. Reliab., vol. 42, pp. 1397–1403, 2002.
ation response of MOS devices,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 35, pp.
1432–1437, 1988.