1989
DOI: 10.1109/23.45444
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Variation in SEU sensitivity of dose-imprinted CMOS SRAMs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1991
1991
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…None of these cases can be represented with cross section as a smooth function of LET. The devices that led to the discontinuities shown in figure two are the following: a) 6504RH, CMOS on epi (18) The structure was discussed by McNulty (17) and in many earlier papers. b) GaAs complementary heterostructure insulated gate FET(5).…”
Section: Data Discontinuitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…None of these cases can be represented with cross section as a smooth function of LET. The devices that led to the discontinuities shown in figure two are the following: a) 6504RH, CMOS on epi (18) The structure was discussed by McNulty (17) and in many earlier papers. b) GaAs complementary heterostructure insulated gate FET(5).…”
Section: Data Discontinuitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Past work on older technologies exploring the combined effects of total dose and single event effects showed that exposing devices to ionizing radiation can degrade the proton [9], [10] and heavy-ion single-event upset (SEU) hardness [11], [12]. Axness et al [11] attributed the increase in SEU sensitivity with total dose for these technologies with relatively thick gate oxides to large transistor threshold voltage cell imbalances in the memory cells.…”
Section: Proton-induced Single-event Upsetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of the Weibull function to parameterize the experimental data removes questions about considerations of discontinuities and scatter in the data. Integration approaches have been used by several previous authors [17,20,37,38]. None of these authors recognized that the integration variable corresponded to a range of device sensitivities.…”
Section: Determination Of Sensitive Volume Dimensionsmentioning
confidence: 99%