Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Single Event Upsets characterization of 65 nm CMOS 6T and 8T SRAM cells for ground level environment

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 65 nm SRAM comparison shows 6T cells have a 1.45x higher single-event upset cross-section than 8T cells in a ground-level-like mixed radiation field, despite nearly equal critical charge.

desk verdict New CHARM mixed-field data for 6T vs 8T SRAM; ratio robust, absolute values need systematic uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17198 v1 pith:TZBNYEJL submitted 2024-11-26 physics.ins-det cs.ARhep-ex

Daniel Malagon (1) , Gabriel Torrens (1) , Jaume Segura (1) , Sebastia A. Bota (1) ((1) University of the Balearic Islands) This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detcs.ARhep-ex
keywords SingleEventUpsetSEUSRAM8Tmixed-fieldirradiationsoft-errorcross-section65nmCMOSradiationmonitor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper measures how often two SRAM memory cell designs, standard 6-transistor (6T) and 8-transistor (8T) cells, flip state under cosmic-ray-like radiation at ground level. In accelerated tests in a mixed hadron field built to mimic the atmospheric environment, the per-bit upset cross-section was 7.5e-13 cm2 for 6T cells and 5.2e-13 cm2 for 8T cells, a 1.45x advantage for 8T. Because the two cells have nearly identical critical charge, the result is evidence that critical charge alone does not predict radiation hardness; layout and parasitic charge-collection paths matter. The paper also argues the 6T memory is sensitive and stable enough to serve as a practical monitor of high-energy hadron fluence in accelerator environments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the per-bit soft-error cross-section, $\sigma_{SEU} = N_{SE}/\Phi_{HEHeq}$, i.e., counted upsets divided by the equivalent high-energy-hadron fluence. The fluence is obtained by monitoring the primary proton beam and converting to HEHeq through Monte Carlo simulation of the test position's mixed field, including the intermediate-energy-neutron contribution. On the device side, the distinguishing feature is the 8T cell's two extra read-port transistors: during irradiation they are off, so they do not hold state but can collect charge, functioning as parasitic guard drains that reduce the probability of flipping the storage nodes.

What would settle it

Irradiate the same 65 nm 6T and 8T arrays in a well-characterized mono-energetic neutron beam with fluence set by an independent dosimeter, measure the cross-section, and compare with the values implied by the mixed-field calibration. If the absolute values or the 1.45x ratio differ by more than the combined statistical errors (about 7-8% here), the simulated fluence conversion is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under irradiation by a mixed hadron field whose energy spectrum is chosen to resemble the sea-level cosmic-ray environment, the measured per-bit single-event upset cross-sections are 7.5e-13 cm2 for minimum-size 6T cells and 5.2e-13 cm2 for 8T cells, a ratio of 1.45. Multi-cell upsets are also more frequent in 6T cells (4.3% vs 3.5% of events in the first run; 7.6% vs 1.4% in the second), and a repeat run confirmed the 1.5x ratio of cross-sections. The two cell types have practically the same critical charge (1.96 fC vs 2.07 fC), so the paper concludes that the difference comes from the read-port transistors of the 8T cell, which float in cut-off during irradiation and act as guard drains that collect part of the deposited charge.

Load-bearing premise

All the cross-section numbers are scaled by a simulation-calculated factor that converts accelerator beam intensity into the hadron fluence the chip actually saw; if that factor is wrong, every per-bit cross-section in the paper is wrong by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measured cross-sections are right, a 16 Mbit 6T memory of this design would suffer roughly 2.5 soft errors per year at sea level, a low rate for most consumer chips but measurable enough for monitoring.
  • 8T cells, at 1.39x the layout area, buy a 1.45x lower SEU cross-section and a lower multiple-cell-upset fraction, so memory designs that can pay the area get both stability and soft-error benefit.
  • Because critical charge is nearly equal (1.96 vs 2.07 fC) yet cross-sections differ by 1.45x, the study reinforces that radiation hardness must be evaluated experimentally; critical-charge-only ranking will misrank cells.
  • The 6T SRAM's combination of thermal-neutron insensitivity and fluence resolution around 8e4 cm2/count makes it a candidate HEH fluence monitor in accelerator tunnels and high-energy physics service areas.
  • The observed multi-cell upsets all occupied adjacent physical locations, so error-correction codes that correct nearby physical neighbors will be sufficient for these cells.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the guard-drain explanation would be to add grounded dummy nMOS drains to the 6T layout (mimicking the 8T read port) and check whether its cross-section falls to the 8T level; the paper's mechanism predicts it will.
  • The absolute cross-section numbers may be revised if the facility's simulated field-to-fluence calibration is updated, so inter-facility comparisons should quote the same HEHeq normalization; a mono-energetic calibration campaign would anchor the scale.
  • Because critical charge drops with supply voltage, the 6T/8T ratio may change at lower Vdd; testing at 0.9 V or 0.8 V would show whether the guard-drain advantage grows, shrinks, or inverts.
  • If the 8T multi-cell-upset fraction advantage holds at higher statistics, 8T memories would reduce the burden on multi-bit error-correction and scrubbing in radiation-monitoring and high-energy physics readout systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports accelerated mixed-field irradiation experiments performed at CERN's CHARM facility to characterize the SEU response of minimum-sized 6T and 8T SRAM bit-cells fabricated in a 65 nm CMOS technology. From a first 60-hour run, the authors derive per-bit SEU cross-sections of 7.5e-13 cm2 for 6T cells and 5.2e-13 cm2 for 8T cells, giving a 1.45x higher sensitivity for 6T cells, and they report a second 12-hour run with a similar ratio. The paper also analyzes multiple-cell upsets and proposes that the tested SRAMs could serve as high-energy-hadron (HEH) fluence monitors in HEP environments.

Significance. If the absolute cross-sections are reliable, the data provide a useful experimental point for ground-level soft-error rate estimation and for SRAM-based radiation monitoring in accelerator environments. The 6T/8T comparison is the paper's strongest contribution because the common-mode FLUKA-derived fluence cancels in the ratio, and the first-run event counts (214 vs. 147) give reasonable statistical significance. The main weakness is that the absolute cross-sections and the proposed ground-level equivalence rest on a FLUKA-derived HEHeq fluence for which no systematic uncertainty is reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 (fluence estimation and Eq. (8))] The reported cross-sections are computed from N_SEU = sigma * Phi_HEHeq, where the HEHeq fluence is obtained by multiplying the CHARM proton beam intensity by a conversion factor from FLUKA simulations, as described in Section 4. The paper quotes only the Poisson counting uncertainty (7-8%) and gives no systematic uncertainty for the conversion factor or for the spectral-weighting correction in Eq. (6). Since any error in this factor scales all absolute cross-sections linearly, the authors should provide an uncertainty estimate or quantitative bound for the fluence and propagate it into the cross-section values in Section 4 and Table IV.
  2. [Section 4 (second irradiation period and Table III)] The text states that 105 errors were detected in 8T cells in the second run, but Table III lists 70 total events for SRAM8T. The quoted 8T cross-section of 5.6e-13 cm2 corresponds to 70 events, not 105. This internal inconsistency must be corrected; if 105 events were actually counted, the 8T cross-section would be near the 6T value, contradicting the stated 1.5x ratio.
  3. [Section 4 and Table IV] The final cross-section values are not reconciled between the two irradiation runs and Table IV. The first run gives 7.5e-13 cm2 (6T) and 5.2e-13 cm2 (8T), the second run gives 8.5e-13 cm2 and 5.6e-13 cm2, and Table IV reports 7.6e-13 cm2 and 5.2e-13 cm2 without stating which run or averaging method was used. The paper should explicitly state how the reported values were obtained and quantify the run-to-run spread as part of the uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2 and 3.2] There are small language and typographical issues: 'iso-thermal and thermal part' should presumably be 'epithermal and thermal part', and 'cooper target' should be 'copper target'.
  2. [Section 4] The phrase 'as close as possible to the atmospheric environment' should be accompanied by a caveat that the CHARM mixed field is an accelerator-based representation, not a true ground-level exposure, to avoid overstating the ground-level label.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence 'The relative uncertainty of the measurements is given by 1/sqrt(N)' would be clearer if it stated the confidence level or standard deviation implied by this expression and explicitly accounted for the separate uncertainties in the two cross-section values.
  4. [Section 4] The text describing the second run says '105 errors in 6T cells' and '105 errors in 8T cells'; using 'errors' and 'events' interchangeably can be confusing because Table III distinguishes total events from affected bits. Please align the terminology.
  5. [Table IV] The comparison with literature values in Table IV is qualitative because the referenced experiments use different particle types, energies, and technology nodes; the statement that the results are 'in agreement' should be accompanied by this caveat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SEU cross-sections are direct measurements (N/Phi) with the fluence supplied by independent FLUKA-based CHARM beam monitoring; the self-citations are background comparisons, not inputs to the derivation.

full rationale

The central quantities are measured per-bit SEU cross-sections computed from Eq. (8), sigma_SEU = N_SEU / (Phi_HEHeq), where N_SEU is the counted number of events (214/147 in the first run; 105/70 in the second) and Phi_HEHeq is the fluence estimated by CERN from proton-beam intensity and a FLUKA conversion factor. No parameter in this calculation is fitted to the SEU data, and the 6T/8T ratio is obtained by dividing the two measured cross-sections, which cancels the common fluence. The paper's self-citations, such as [34] for thermal-neutron insensitivity and [11] for alpha-particle behavior of 8T cells, are used to support auxiliary claims about monitor suitability and consistency with prior results; they are not inputs to the cross-section derivation. The FLUKA-based fluence calibration is an external modeling assumption with potential systematic uncertainty, but that is a correctness or risk concern, not a circularity: the paper does not define the fluence in terms of the measured events, nor does it predict a quantity already contained in its inputs. The reported cross-sections therefore stand as direct experimental measurements with no circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests primarily on the FLUKA-based fluence calibration and the representativeness of the CHARM field. No free parameters are fitted to data; the Qcrit values are simulation outputs, not adjustable parameters.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption HEHeq fluence at the DUT is derived from the proton beam intensity multiplied by a FLUKA-derived conversion factor.
    Section 4: the cross-section computation uses this simulated fluence; any error in the FLUKA model or conversion directly scales all reported cross-sections.
  • domain assumption The CHARM radiation field at the chosen rack position is representative of the ground-level atmospheric environment.
    Section 4: the authors selected a location with a FLUKA spectrum 'as close as possible' to atmospheric; this is not verified by in-situ measurement.
  • domain assumption Hadrons above 20 MeV are equally efficient at inducing SEUs, so a single HEH cross-section can be used.
    Section 2, equation (3) and reference [19]; the paper uses this to define the HEHeq fluence and to compare mixed-field results.
  • domain assumption The 6T and 8T memory arrays are electrically and physically identical except for the cell structure and layout.
    Section 3.1: both arrays are on the same chip and biased at 1.2 V, but layout differences (e.g., read port) may affect charge collection; the paper attributes the cross-section difference to the read port acting as a guard drain, a hypothesis from [32].
  • standard math Event counts follow a Poisson distribution, so the relative uncertainty is 1/sqrt(N).
    Section 4, cited [30][31]; standard statistical assumption for rare independent events.
  • domain assumption Qcrit values (1.96 fC for 6T, 2.07 fC for 8T) from electrical simulations correctly represent the cell's robustness.
    Section 4, where the authors use these values to argue Qcrit does not predict measured cross-sections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single Event Upsets characterization of 65 nm CMOS 6T and 8T SRAM cells for ground level environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZBNYEJL

@misc{pith2026241117198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single Event Upsets characterization of 65 nm CMOS 6T and 8T SRAM cells for ground level environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZBNYEJL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17198}
}
read the original abstract

We present experimental results of the cross-section related to cosmic-ray irradiation at ground level for minimum-sized six-transistors (6T) and eight-transistors (8T) bit-cells SRAM memories implemented on a 65 nm CMOS standard technology. Results were obtained from accelerated irradiation tests performed in the mixed-field irradiation facility of the CERN High-energy Accelerator test facility (CHARM) at the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, Switzerland. A 1.45x higher SEU cross-section was observed for 6T-cell designs despite the larger area occupied by the 8T cells (1.5x for MCU). Moreover, the trend for events affecting multiple bits was higher in 6T-cells. The cross-section obtained values show that the memories have enough sensitivity to be used as a radiation monitors in high energy physics experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Soft error rate comparison of 6T and 8T SRAM ICs using mono -energetic proton and neutron irradiation sources

    D. Malagón, S.A. Bota, G. Torrens, X. Gili, J. Praena, B. Fernández, M. Macías, J.M. Quesada, C. Guerrero Sanchez, M.C. Jiménez -Ramos, J. García López, J.L. Merino, J. Segura, “Soft error rate comparison of 6T and 8T SRAM ICs using mono -energetic proton and neutron irradiation sources ”, Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 78 pp. 3 8-45, Nov. 2017 . http...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.microrel.2017.07.093 2017

  2. [1]

    Dependable Multicore Architectures at Nanoscale: The View From Europe

    M. Ottavi, S. Pontarelli, D. Gizopoulos, A. Paschalis, C. Bolchini, M.K. Michael, L. Anghel, M. Tahoori, P. Reviriego, O. B ringmann, V. Izosimov, H. Manhaeve, C. Strydis, S. Hamdioui . "Dependable Multicore Architectures at Nanoscale: The View From Europe" in IEEE Design & Test, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 17 -28, April

    work page

  3. [2]

    Basic mechanisms and modeling of single -event upset in digital microelectronics

    P. E. Dodd and L. W. Massengill, "Basic mechanisms and modeling of single -event upset in digital microelectronics" in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 583 -602, June 2003. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2003.813129

    work page arXiv 2003

  4. [3]

    Factors that impact the critical charge of memory elements,

    T. Heijmen, D. Giot and P. Roche, "Factors that impact the critical charge of memory elements," 12th IEEE International On -Line Testing Symposium (IOLTS'06) , Lake Como, 2006, 3342-3348. https://doi.org/10.1109/IOLTS.2006.35

    work page doi:10.1109/iolts.2006.35 2006

  5. [4]

    Analysis of radiation -hardening techniques for 6 T SRAMs with structured layouts

    G. Torrens, B. Alorda, S. Bota and J. Segura, "Analysis of radiation -hardening techniques for 6 T SRAMs with structured layouts ", 2009 IEEE International Reliability Physics Sy mposium, Montreal, QC, 2009, pp. 791-795. https://doi.org/10.1109/IRPS.2009.5173351

    work page arXiv 2009

  6. [5]

    Impact of Technology Scaling on SRAM Soft Error Rates,

    I. Chatterjee, B. Narasimham, N. N. Mahatme, B. L. Bhuva, R. A. Reed, R. D. Schrimpf, J. K. Wang, N. Vedula, B. Bartz, C. Monzel, "Impact of Technology Scaling on SRAM Soft Error Rates," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 3512 -3518, Dec. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2014.2365546

    arXiv 2014

  7. [6]

    An 8T -SRAM for Variability Tolerance and Low -Voltage Operation in High -Performance 16 Caches,

    L. Chang, R.K. Montoye, Y. Nakamura, K.A . Batson, R.J. Eickemeyer, R.H. Dennard, W. Haensch, D. Jamsek, "An 8T -SRAM for Variability Tolerance and Low -Voltage Operation in High -Performance 16 Caches," in IEEE Journal of Solid -State Circuits , vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 956 -963, April 2008. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSSC.2007.917509

    work page arXiv 2008

  8. [7]

    SRAM Alpha -SER Estimation From Word -Line Voltage Margin Measurements: Design Architecture and Exper imental Results

    G. Torrens, I. d. Paúl, B. Alorda, S. Bota and J. Segura, "SRAM Alpha -SER Estimation From Word -Line Voltage Margin Measurements: Design Architecture and Exper imental Results”, in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1849-1855, Aug. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2014.2311697

    work page arXiv 2014

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    A Soft Error Tolerant 10T SRAM Bit -Cell With Differential Read Capability

    S. M. Jahinuzzaman, D. J. Rennie and M. Sachdev, "A Soft Error Tolerant 10T SRAM Bit -Cell With Differential Read Capability" in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 3768 -3773, Dec

  2. [9]

    Variability aware low leakage reliable SRAM cell design technique

    A. Islam, M. Hasan, “Variability aware low leakage reliable SRAM cell design technique ”, Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1247-1252, jun. 2012 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2012.01.003

    2012 doi

  3. [10]

    Upset hardened memory design for submicron CMOS technology,

    T. Calin, M. Nicolaidis and R. Velazco, "Upset hardened memory design for submicron CMOS technology," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 2874 -2878, Dec. 1996. https://doi.org/10.1109/23.556880

    1996 doi

  4. [11]

    Detailed 8-transistor SRAM cell analysis for improved alpha particle radiation hardening in nanometer technologies

    S.A. Bota, G. Torrens, J. Verd, J. Segura, “Detailed 8-transistor SRAM cell analysis for improved alpha particle radiation hardening in nanometer technologies ”, Solid-State Electronics, vol. 111, pp. 104-110, Sept. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sse.2015.05.036

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Autran, D

    J.L. Autran, D. Munteanu , Sof t-errors: from particles to circuits, Taylor & Francis/CRC Press, Boca Raton (FL), (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Analytical Model for Estimating Terrestrial Cosmic Ray Fluxes Nearly Anytime and Anywhere in the World: Extension of PARMA/EXPACS

    T. Sato, “Analytical Model for Estimating Terrestrial Cosmic Ray Fluxes Nearly Anytime and Anywhere in the World: Extension of PARMA/EXPACS ”, PLoS One 10(12) ( 2015). https://doi.org 10.1371/journal.pone.0144679

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Electron -Induced Single- Event Upsets in 45 -nm and 28 -nm Bulk CMOS SRAM -Based FPGAs Operating at Nominal Voltage,

    M. J. Gadlage, A. H. Roach, A. R. Duncan, M. W. Savage and M. J. Kay, "Electron -Induced Single- Event Upsets in 45 -nm and 28 -nm Bulk CMOS SRAM -Based FPGAs Operating at Nominal Voltage," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 2717 -2724, Dec. 2015. ht...

    2015

  8. [16]

    Predicting the vulnerability of memories to muon -induced SEUs with low - energy proton tests informed by Monte Carlo simulations,

    J.M. Trippe, R.A. Reed, B.D. Sierawski, R.A: Weller, R.A. Austin, L.W. Messen gill, B.L. Bhuva, K.M. Warren, B. Naramsimham, "Predicting the vulnerability of memories to muon -induced SEUs with low - energy proton tests informed by Monte Carlo simulations," 2016 IEEE Internati...

    2016

  9. [17]

    Study of atmospheric muon interactions in Si nanoscale devices

    P. Li Cavolia, G. Huberta and J. Busto, “Study of atmospheric muon interactions in Si nanoscale devices” in Journal of Instrumentation, Volume 12, December 2017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748 - 0221/12/12/P12021

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Monte Carlo Evaluation of Single Event Effects in a Deep - Submicron Bulk Technology: Comparison Between Atmospheric a nd Accelerator Environment,

    A. Infantino, R. G. Alía and M. Brugger, "Monte Carlo Evaluation of Single Event Effects in a Deep - Submicron Bulk Technology: Comparison Between Atmospheric a nd Accelerator Environment," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 596 -604, Jan. 2017. http...

    2017

  11. [19]

    SEE Measurements and Simulations Using Mono -Energetic GeV -Energy Hadron Beams,

    R. G. Alia, M. Brugger, S. Danzeca, V. Ferlet -Cavrois, C. Poivey, K. Roed, F. Saigne, G. Spiezia, S. Uznanski, and F. Wrobel, "SEE Measurements and Simulations Using Mono -Energetic GeV -Energy Hadron Beams," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 4142 ...

    2013

  12. [20]

    Impact of Thermal and Intermediate Energy Neutrons on SRAM SEE Rates in the LHC Accelerator

    M. Cecchetto, R. García Alía, S. Gerardin, M. Brugger, A. Infantino and S. Danzeca, "Impact of Thermal and Intermediate Energy Neutrons on SRAM SEE Rates in the LHC Accelerator" in IEEE Transactions on N uclear Science , vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 1800 -1806, Aug. 2018. https://doi.o...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Single Event Effe ct cross section calibration and application to quasi - monoenergetic and spallation facilities

    R. García Alía, S. Bonaldo, M. Brugger, S. Danzeca, A. Ferrari1, C. Frost,A. Infantino, Y. Iwamoto, J. Mekki, C. Theis, A. Thornton, “Single Event Effe ct cross section calibration and application to quasi - monoenergetic and spallation facilities ”, EPJ Nuclear Sci ence & Tec...

    2018

  14. [22]

    Method for measuring mixed field radiation levels relevant for SEEs at the LHC,

    K. Røed et al., “Method for measuring mixed field radiation levels relevant for SEEs at the LHC,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1040–1047, Aug. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2012.2183677

    2012

  15. [23]

    Neutron-induced 10B fission as a major source of soft errors in high density SRAMs

    R.C. Baumann, E.B. Smith, “Neutron-induced 10B fission as a major source of soft errors in high density SRAMs ”, Microelectron ics. Reliab ility, vol. 41, no. 2 pp. 211 -218, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0026-2714(00)00218-3

    2001 doi

  16. [24]

    Contribution of Ther mal Neutrons to Soft Error Rate

    C. Weulersse et al., "Contribution of Ther mal Neutrons to Soft Error Rate " in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 1851-1857, Aug. 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    On -line write margin estimator to monitor performance degradation in SRAM cores

    B. Alorda, C. Carmona, G. Torrens and S. Bota, "On -line write margin estimator to monitor performance degradation in SRAM cores ", 2016 IEEE 22nd International Symposium on On -Line Testing and Robust System Design (IOLTS), Sant Feliu de Guixols, 2016, pp. 90 -95. https://doi...

    2016

  18. [26]

    A 65-nm Reliable 6T CMOS SRAM Cel l with Minimum Size Transistors

    G. Torrens, B. Alorda, C. Carmona, D. Malagón-Periánez, J. Segura and S. Bota, "A 65-nm Reliable 6T CMOS SRAM Cel l with Minimum Size Transistors ", in IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 447-455, 1 July-Sept. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/TET...

    2019

  19. [27]

    Impacts of test factors on heavy ion single event multiple -cell upsets in nanometer -scale SRAM

    L. Yinhong, Z. Fengqi, G. Hongxia, X . Yao, Z. Wen, D. Lili, W. Yuanming, “Impacts of test factors on heavy ion single event multiple -cell upsets in nanometer -scale SRAM”, Journal of Semiconductors, vol. 36, no. 11 (2015). 114009

    2015

  20. [28]

    CHARM: A Mixed Field Facility at CERN for Radiation Tests in Ground, Atmospheric, Space and Accelerator Representative Environments

    J. Mekki, M. Brugger, R. G. Alia, A. Thornton , N. C. D. S. Mota and S. Danzeca, "CHARM: A Mixed Field Facility at CERN for Radiation Tests in Ground, Atmospheric, Space and Accelerator Representative Environments" in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , vol. 63, no. 4, pp. ...

    2016

  21. [29]

    FLUKA Simulations for SE E Studies of Critical LHC Underground Areas,

    K. Røed, V. Boccone, M. Brugger, A. Ferrari, D. Kramer, E. Lebbos, R. Losito, A. Mereghetti, G. Spienza, R. Versaci, "FLUKA Simulations for SE E Studies of Critical LHC Underground Areas," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 932 -938, June 2011. https...

    2011

  22. [30]

    Failure map functions and accelerated mean time to failure tests: New approaches from improving. the reliability stimation in systems exposed to single event upsets,

    PA. Ferreyra, C.A. Narques, R.T. Ferreira and J.P. Gaspar, “Failure map functions and accelerated mean time to failure tests: New approaches from improving. the reliability stimation in systems exposed to single event upsets,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 494 -5...

    2005

  23. [31]

    Bevington and D.K

    P.R. Bevington and D.K. Robinson, Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003

    2003

  24. [32]

    Quantifying the Effect of Guard Rings and Guard Drains in Mitigating Charge Collection and Charge Spread

    B. Narasimham, J. W. Gambles, R. L. Shuler, B. L. Bhuva and L. W. Massengill, "Quantifying the Effect of Guard Rings and Guard Drains in Mitigating Charge Collection and Charge Spread" in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 3456 -3460, Dec. 2008. https://...

    2008

  25. [33]

    Qualification and Characterization of SRAM Memories 18 Used as Radiation Sensors in the LHC,

    S. Danzeca, G. Spienza, M. Brugger, L. Dusseau, G. Foucard, R. Garcia Alia, P. Mala, A. Masi, P. Peronnard, J. Soltes, A. Thornton, L. Viererbl , "Qualification and Characterization of SRAM Memories 18 Used as Radiation Sensors in the LHC," in IEEE Transac tions on Nuclear Sci...

    2014

  26. [35]

    SRAM single event upset calculation and test using protons in the secondary beam in the BEPC

    Y. Wang, H. Guo, F. Zhang, K. Zhang, W. Chen, Y. Luo, X. Guo, “SRAM single event upset calculation and test using protons in the secondary beam in the BEPC ”, Journal of Semiconductors, vol. 32, no. 9, Sept. 2011

    2011

  27. [36]

    A commercial 65nm CMOS technology for space applications: Heavy ion, proton and gamma test results and modeling

    P. Roche, G. Gasiot, S. Uznanski, J.M. Daveau, J. Torras -Flaquer, S. Clerc, R. Harboe -Sorensen, "A commercial 65nm CMOS technology for space applications: Heavy ion, proton and gamma test results and modeling " 2009 European Conference on Radiation and Its Effects on Compone...

    2009

  28. [37]

    Low Energy Proton Single - Event-Upset Test Results on 65 nm SOI SRAM

    D.F. Heidel, P.W. Marshall, K.A. LaBel, J.R. Schwank, K.P. Rodbell, M.C. Hakey, M.D. Berg, P.E. Dodd, M.R. Friendlich , A.D. Phan , C.M. Seidleck , M.R. Shaneyfelt , M.A. Xapsos, "Low Energy Proton Single - Event-Upset Test Results on 65 nm SOI SRAM" in IEEE Transactions on Nu...

    2008

  29. [38]

    Heavy ion and proton -induced single event multiple upset,

    R.A. Reed, M.A. Carts, P.W. Marshall, C.J. Marshall, O. Musseau, P.J. McNulty, D.R. Roth, S. Buchner, J. Melinger, T. Corbiere , "Heavy ion and proton -induced single event multiple upset," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 2224 -2229, Dec. 1997. htt...

    1997 doi

  30. [39]

    Investigation of neutron and proton SEU cross-sections on SRAMs between a few MeV and 50 MeV

    D. Lambert, F. Desnoyers, D. Thouvenot, “Investigation of neutron and proton SEU cross-sections on SRAMs between a few MeV and 50 MeV ”, in 35 th European Conference on Radiat ion and Its Effects on Components and Systems (2009), 148-154. https://doi.org/10.1109/RADECS.2009.5994571

    2009

  31. [2009]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2009.2032090

    2009

  32. [2015]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/MDAT.2014.2359572

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.