Skip to content
DenseChip
Learn
PracticeCode labInterview

DenseChip

Navigate

Menu

LearnPracticeCode labInterview

Tools

All toolsSV editorCode repoResume
DenseChip

Practice, courses, and chip-design tools in one focused workspace.

LearnPracticeCode labInterviewToolsLearning paths

© 2026 DenseChip

AboutContactPrivacyTerms
Skip to lesson

Course contents

  • How to Use This Course
  • DFT Metrics Reference
  • DFT Glossary
  • Reading Path
  • Scan Fundamentals61
  • Compression & Diagnosis61
  • ATPG & Pattern Generation61
    • Fault Models
      • Fault Models: Mechanism
      • Fault Models: Inputs & Outputs
      • Fault Models: Reports & Metrics
      • Fault Models: Debug Playbook
      • Fault Models: Worked Example
      • Fault Models: Pitfalls & Red Flags
      • Fault Models: Interview Drills
      • Fault Models: Review Checklist
      • Fault Models: Theory Deep Dive
      • Fault Models: Design Space
      • Fault Models: Expanded Case Study
      • Fault Models: Step-by-Step Walkthrough
      • Fault Models: Comparison Matrix
      • Fault Models: Software / Programmer View
      • Fault Models: Silicon PPA Impact
    • ATPG Constraints
    • Pattern Signoff
    • Coverage Closure
    • ATPG & Pattern Generation: Tricky Q&A
  • MBIST & LBIST61
  • Boundary Scan & JTAG61
  • Test Timing & Power61
  • DFT Physical Integration61
  • DFT Interview Prep61
  • DFT / ATPG Cheatsheet
Loading lesson

‹Fault Models
  1. Topics
  2. Design for Test
  3. ATPG & Pattern Generation
  4. Fault Models
  5. Fault Models: Expanded Case Study

DFT / ATPG · All levels

Fault Models: Expanded Case Study

Expanded Case Study for Fault Models.

On this page

    Extended case study

    Release review: stuck-at / transition / bridge coverage, untestable fault ratio regresses after a test-flow update touching Fault Models.

    Background

    Team had prior signoff, then a new program/config introduced regressions in selected buckets.

    Symptoms observed

    • stuck-at / transition / bridge coverage, untestable fault ratio regression

    • Mismatch between simulation and tester

    • Escalation without clear owner

    Investigation timeline

    1. Hour 0: freeze pattern set, constraints, and tester program tags

    2. Hour 1: isolate first failing bucket by mode/lot

    3. Hour 2: verify legality and constraints assumptions

    4. Hour 3: correlate with physical/timing/power context

    5. Hour 4: choose minimal reversible fix

    6. Hour 5: run full signoff regression matrix

    7. Hour 6: publish decision memo and owners

    Root cause

    Root cause tied to Fault Models: Fault models define what manufacturing defects ATPG targets; model mix drives pattern count, runtime, and outgoing quality.

    Fix and validation

    • Apply bounded fix with owner

    • Re-run fault coverage report, fault class breakdown, untestable list

    • Re-validate quality, timing, and test power

    Lessons learned

    • Tag every run artifact

    • Mechanism first, command second

    • Close with explicit release decision

    Diagram
    CASE STUDY - Fault Models
    baseline metric / regressed metric / post-fix metric

    Sequence under stress

    Diagram
    DFT FLOW - Fault Models
    
    scan insertion -> chain stitch -> compression map -> ATPG -> tester apply -> diagnosis
          |                |                |            |             |
     controllability   shift balance    channel use   coverage     silicon correlation
    
    Primary metric: stuck-at / transition / bridge coverage, untestable fault ratio

    DFT deep dive

    ATPG quality comes from fault model choice plus legal constraints, not raw pattern volume alone.

    Concept diagram

    Diagram
    ATPG FLOW
    
    fault model -> constraints -> generation -> simulation -> coverage closure -> signoff

    Metric graph

    Diagram
    COVERAGE GAP
    
    target coverage
      ^
      |      o before closure
      |          o after fixes
      +---------------------> iteration

    Reports and artifacts

    • fault model coverage

    • untestable class report

    • constraint legality errors

    • pattern signoff memo

    Mini case study

    Transition coverage stalled due to clock constraints mismatch; updated at-speed capture definitions recovered target.

    Debug branches

    • Classify untestable faults

    • Diff ATPG constraints each run

    • Pair coverage with pattern budget

    Senior review question

    Ask: what evidence proves this DFT decision is safe for production?

    Key takeaways

    • State metric, lot/corner context, and pattern tag with every claim.

    • Treat timing, power, and quality as one signoff problem.

    Common pitfalls

    • Chasing coverage without legality checks.

    • Ignoring test-power side effects of pattern changes.

    • Debugging silicon without reproducible tags.

    Principal DFT review addendum

    Fault models define what manufacturing defects ATPG targets; model mix drives pattern count, runtime, and outgoing quality.

    Metric: stuck-at / transition / bridge coverage, untestable fault ratio

    This content block can't be displayed here.

    Block type: unknown

    This content block can't be displayed here.

    Block type: unknown

    This content block can't be displayed here.

    Block type: unknown

    Previous

    137 / 493

    Next: Fault Models: Step-by-Step Walkthrough

    Up next

    Up nextFault Models: Step-by-Step Walkthrough

    Sign in to save progress

    Practice this lessonReport an error

    See also

    • Fault Models: Mechanism
    • Fault Models: Inputs & Outputs
    • Fault Models: Reports & Metrics