HR001123S0047_ASSERT_Proposers_Day_Slides.pdf

Advanced Sources for Single-event Effects Radiation Testing

(ASSERT)

Proposer’s Day Mark Rosker, MTO Director

Briefing prepared for ASSERT Proposer’s Day

13 July 2023

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

Our mission

C4ISR: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance PNT: Positioning, Navigation, and Timing

High-performance, intelligent microsystems and next-generation components

Electronics Resurgence Initiative (ERI) 2.0 timeline

Original ERI ERI 2.0: Reinventing microsystems manufacturing for a new age

FY27FY26FY25FY24FY23FY22

NGMM: Next-Generation Microelectronics Manufacturing program

NGMM Phase 0 BAA August 2022

ERI Summit 2023 August 22-24 / Seattle, WA

Progress in microelectronics Monolithic Disaggregation

3DHI

4Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

3DHI is across our current programs

A-PhI ELGAR FENCE FOCII GRYPHON H6

JUMP / JUMP 2.0 LUMOS MIDAS Minitherms3D NGMM PIPES

ReImagine SPCE THREADS 3DSoC T-MUSIC

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited3DHI: Three-dimensional heterogeneous integration

Why 3DHI?

SWaP: Size, weight, and power

Supply chain

New approaches to incorporate 3D design and assembly

Security SWaP

Domestic-based processes can be used for assembly

Minimum footprint with maximum efficiency

Source: National Association of Manufacturers

Performance

Optimized devices

Source: Adobe Stock

Disaggregation offers performance advantages

Surpasses monolithic designs in performance, cost, and time-to-market

Source: Intel

Common Heterogeneous Integration and IP Reuse Strategies (CHIPS) program Photonics in the Package for Extreme Scalability (PIPES) program

Component-level IP with AIB interface…

Standard interface (Intel’s AIB) enables modular chiplet ecosystem

…integrated into high-performance System-in-a-

Package (SiP) Assembled MCMs

SERDES

(Intel)

Optical I/O (Ayar Labs)

FPGA Core (Intel S10)

RF A/D

(Jariet or Texas

Instruments)

Integrated chiplets

A/D: Analog / digital AIB: Advanced interface bus

IP: Intellectual Property MCM: Multi-chip module

Source: Intel

NRE: Non-recurring engineering SERDES: Serializer / de-serializer

FPGA: Field-programmable gate array I/O: Input / Output

Assembled PCIe demo platform

Source: Intel / Ayar Labs

FPGA capable of over 1 Tbps and extendable to over 100 Tbps in total

3DHI enables new applications

Demonstrated millimeter wave digital beam forming and integrated arrays from 18-50 GHz

Raytheon 16 element, dual polarized 18-50 GHz scalable tile building block

Heterogeneous integration of compound semiconductors and 3D printed notch antenna array (left) cross-section of array stack (right) by Northrop Grumman

CMOS: Complementary metal-oxide semiconductor GHz: Gigahertz

Millimeter Wave Digital Arrays (MIDAS) program

Making 3DHI electronics real

3DHI technical challenges

• Multi-chip, multi-technology assembly / packaging

• 3DHI interconnects

• Thermal and power

• Tools for design, simulation, and test

• “MOSIS-like” 3DHI prototyping services

Saha et al., Science, Vol. 366, Issue 6461, pp. 105-109, 2019

3D Microelectronics: 3D Self‐Assembled Microelectronic Devices: Concepts, Materials, Applications (Adv. Mater. 15/2020)

Source: Intel

Source: Intel

Source: Gorodenkoff

• Only low-power silicon chips

• No embedded thermal management

Today

MTO thrust areas Electronics Resurgence Initiative (ERI)

3D: Three-dimensional AI: Artificial Intelligence

AC

T Increasing the effectiveness of radiation on target

NA

VI

GA

TE

Embedding accurate positioning and timing

SE

E Gaining an advantage in sensing the physical world

TA

LK Securing communications

SE

CU

RE Overcoming security threats across the entire hardware lifecycle

HA

RD

EN Developing electronics for extreme environments

BU

IL

D Manufacturing complex 3D microsystems

CO

M

PO

SE

Optimizing design and test for complex circuits

CO

M

PU

TE Increasing information processing efficiency at the edge

DE

CI

DE Accelerating innovation in AI hardware https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/offices/mto 10Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited 11

Single event radiation and 3DHI electronics

Testing at the Speed of Light, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2018

Single-event Effects (SEE) 3DHI electronics

Can advanced 3DHI electronics survive

SEE radiation?

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited 12

ASSERT provides the SEE testing for 3DHI

Reduce the time to design, test, and deploy radiation-qualified 3DHI components

ASSERT insight:

Recent technology breakthroughs enable the use of electron beam and X-ray approaches to achieve:

• Deep penetration

• High linear energy transfers

• Sub-micron scale focusing www.darpa.mil

Advanced Sources for Single-event Effects Radiation Testing (ASSERT)

HR001123S0047

Proposers Day July 13, 2023

Brian D. Nuckols Contracting Officer

DARPA Contracts Management Office

Distribution Statement A. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited.

Proposers Day Disclaimer

A copious amount of information is made available to potential proposers to clarify program goals/objectives and proposal preparation instructions.

However:

• Only the information/instructions in the BAA counts

• Proposals will only be evaluated in accordance with the instructions provided in the BAA

• Any response provided by the Government in the FAQ that’s different than what is provided in the BAA will be made formal by an amendment to the BAA

• Such responses will make note of an impending BAA amendment

Only a duly authorized Contracting Officer may obligate the Government

BAA Overview

Described in Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 35:

– For the acquisition of basic and applied research

– FAR 35.016 (a): Shall only be used when “meaningful proposals with varying technical/scientific approaches can be reasonably anticipated.”

– BAAs allow for a variety of technical solutions

– The BAA defines the problem set, the proposer defines the solution (and SOW)

DARPA Scientific Review Process

– Proposals are evaluated on individual merit and relevance as it relates to the stated research goals/objectives rather than against one another

– Selections will be made to proposers whose proposals are determined to be most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered, including potential contributions to research program and availability of funding

Government may select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received Government may accept proposals in their entirety or select only portions thereof Government may elect to establish portions of proposal as options

BAA Overview, Cont’d

Multiple Awards Anticipated Multiple award instrument types:

– Procurement contract

– Cooperative Agreement

– Other Transaction

Phase 1 (Base Period)

– Design a high energy particle source for SEE testing and to demonstrate that the approach is capable of meeting ASSERT program requirements and metrics.

– 18 months

Phase 2 (Option Period)

– Fabricate and experimentally demonstrate the source concept developed in Phase 1.

– 24 months

Phase 3 (Option Period)

– Develop a predictive SEE testing approach where ASSERT source parameters can be tuned to produce an Equivalent LET that can accurately reproduce the radiation response in a DUT without the need for pre-existing heavy-ion data.

– 12 months Supplemental Testing Options (concurrent to Phase 3 if exercised)

BAA Process/Timeline

1. BAA published: July 5, 2023

2. Proposers Day: July 13, 2023

3. Abstracts Due: August 4, 2023, 4PM EDT

4. Government Abstract Responses: mid-late August 2023

5. FAQ Submission Deadline: August 31, 2023, 4PM EDT

6. Proposals Due: September 15, 2023, 4PM EDT

7. Proposals are checked for BAA compliance

Non-conforming proposals are not reviewed (and cannot be selected)

8. Government conducts Scientific Review Process

Clarification requests may be sent to various proposers

8. Government sends out notification letters: ~ October/November 2023

9. Contracts negotiated & awarded (performance start): ~ February 2024

(can assume 1 Feb 2024 for Pricing)

See BAA for complete date/time information Monitor SAM.gov for any BAA amendment(s)

Eligibility Issues

All interested/qualified sources may respond subject to the parameters outlined in

BAA

Foreign participants/resources may participate to the extent allowed by applicable Security Regulations, Export Control Laws, Non-Disclosure Agreements, etc.

FFRDCs and Government entities:

- Are not prohibited by the BAA from proposing

- Are, however, subject to applicable direct competition limitations

- Are, however, required to demonstrate eligibility (sponsor letter)

The burden to prove eligibility for all such team members rests with the proposer

All elements of a proposal (tech and cost, prime and subs – even FFRDC team members) must be included in the prime’s submission

Real and/or Perceived Conflicts of Interest:

- Identify any conflict/s

- If any are identified, a mitigation plan must be included

Abstracts (1 of 2)

Abstracts are strongly encouraged:

1. They minimize unnecessary effort in proposal preparation and review

2. They reduce the potential expense of preparing an out of scope proposal

The abstract provides a synopsis of the proposed project (tech and budget)

Government will reply by letter with one of two possible responses:

1. Encourage full proposal, and may provide feedback

2. Discourage full proposal, and will provide feedback

Regardless of DARPA’s response to an abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal

DARPA will review all full proposals submitted without regard to abstract recommendation/feedback

Distribution Statement A. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. 8

Abstracts must include the following components:

• Cover Sheet

• Innovative Claims

• Technical Approach

• Deliverables

• Cost and Schedule

Submit UNCLASS submissions to the DARPA BAA Website (https://baa.darpa.mil) per the instructions in Section IV.C.2, “Abstract Submission Information,” of the BAA.

Abstracts (2 of 2)

Max of 5 pages

The total page limit does not include the cover sheet (required) or a submission letter (optional) https://baa.darpa.mil/

Full Proposal Ground Rules

KEY POINTS:

Two Technical Challenges: TC1 and TC2 Both technical challenges must be addressed in the proposal

All 3 Phases (Base and two priced Options) and supplemental options must be proposed

An organization/company/individual can be on multiple proposals

Submit unclassified proposals ONLY to the DARPA BAA Website (https://baa.darpa.mil)

Click “Finalize Full Proposal” button (otherwise you have not submitted)

Do not submit classified proposals/information to the DARPA BAA Website

If unsure, please follow the instructions in the BAA for inquiring

Propose to the program (goals, objectives, metrics, schedule, deliverables) the BAA has defined, not to the program you desire https://baa.darpa.mil/

Volume 1: Technical/Management Proposal

– Be mindful of the page limitations (20 pages)

– Be sure to respond to all 12 of the required “Detailed Proposal Information” items

• Technical Approach – is the centerpiece of the technical proposal

• Statement of Work – Organize by Phase/Option, then by Tasks. Define all tasks (what you are doing, not how you are doing it) and deliverables (data, software, and material items, as applicable).

– Pay attention to key technical elements in the “Funding Opportunity Description” that must be addressed in all proposals

Volume 2: Cost Proposal

– No page limitations

– DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet (required for all instrument types)

– Fully detailed cost build-ups/estimates (Prime & Subcontractors)(All instrument types)

• Summary Cost Build-up: By phase and performer fiscal year

• Detailed Cost Build-up: By phase, technical task, and month

– Subcontractor proposals are required (to include SOW)

– No Rough Order of Magnitudes (ROMs)

– Certificate of Current Cost/Pricing Data will be required for any procurement contract award meeting the prescribed threshold (i.e., the adequate price competition exemption does not apply to BAAs)

Full Proposal Preparation

Volume 2: Cost Proposal

– DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet The Government requires that proposers use the provided MS ExcelTM DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet in the development of their cost proposals. A customized cost proposal spreadsheet may be an attachment to this solicitation. If not, the spreadsheet can be found on the DARPA website at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management (under “Resources” on the right-hand side of the webpage). All tabs and tables in the cost proposal spreadsheet should be developed in an editable format with calculation formulas intact to allow traceability of the cost proposal. This cost proposal spreadsheet should be used by the prime organization and all subcontractors. In addition to using the cost proposal spreadsheet, the cost proposal still must include all other items required in this announcement that are not covered by the editable spreadsheet. Subcontractor cost proposal spreadsheets may be submitted directly to the Government by the proposed subcontractor via e-mail to the address in Part I of this solicitation. Using the provided cost proposal spreadsheet will assist the Government in a rapid analysis of your proposed costs and, if your proposal is selected for a potential award, speed up the negotiation and award execution process.

Use the single TA spreadsheet Do not make changes that are specifically prohibited by the instructions Questions are welcomed. Please direct them to costproposal@darpa.mil

Distribution Statement A. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited.

Full Proposal Preparation, cont’d http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management

Data Rights

Government desires as few restrictions as possible

If asserting less than Unlimited Rights (e.g., Restrictions):

– Provide and justify basis of assertions using the prescribed format

– Explain how each item will be used to support the proposed research project

– Explain how the Government will be able to reach its program goals (including technology transition)

The proposer (prime) must submit a Data Rights Cert covering the entire team (prime and subcontractors), as applicable

Provide a Data Rights Cert no matter the instrument type being proposed

This information is assessed during evaluations (barriers to transition)

Non-Conforming Proposal Determinations

Failure to submit proposal on time – non-conforming!

– Proposal due date and BAA closing date are the same – so, late is late!

Failure to submit using the correct mechanism – non-conforming!

– Unclassified proposals ONLY to DARPA BAA website

– Classified proposals/information ONLY per “Security Information” section of the BAA

Failure to submit both proposal volumes – non-conforming!

– OT proposals must also include a full cost volume (Cost Realism is an evaluation criterion for all proposals)

– OT proposals must also include a detailed list of payment milestones (Milestone Plan)

Pages beyond the page limitation (tech prop) – additional pages will not be reviewed

ROM/s instead of full subcontract cost proposal/s – non-conforming!

– “I didn’t have time to get the subcontract proposal(s)” will not change the outcome

– “My subcontractor/s would not give me a proposal” will not change the outcome

Missing FFRDC or Government Entity cost proposal – non-conforming!

Communications

Prior to Receipt of Proposals (Solicitation Phase): Follow instructions in

BAA

Typically handled through the FAQ, but see BAA exceptions (e.g., security)

After Receipt of Proposals/Prior to Selections (Scientific Review Phase):

Limited to Contracting Officer or BAA Coordinator (with approval) to address clarifications requested by the review team Proposal cannot be changed in response to clarification requests

After Selection/Prior to Award (Negotiation Phase): Negotiations are conducted by the Contracting Officer PM and/or COR typically tasked with finalizing the SOW (with PI) PM and/or COR typically involved in any technical discussions (i.e., partial selection discussions) Pre-award costs will not be reimbursed unless a pre-award cost agreement is negotiated prior to award

Informal Feedback Sessions (Post Selection): May be requested/provided once the selection(s) are made

– If made on a timely basis (~2 wks after letter), all requests will be accepted

Referenced Links http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#SolicitationContracting (General DARPA contract management information) (DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet) http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa (general BAA info pertaining to all instrument types) http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/procurementcontracts (info pertaining to contracts) https://acquisitioninnovation.darpa.mil/ (info pertaining to OTs) http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/reps-certs (DARPA-specific reps and certs for all instrument types)

Distribution Statement A. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#SolicitationContracting http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/procurementcontracts https://acquisitioninnovation.darpa.mil/ http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/reps-certs

Advanced Sources for Single-event Effects Radiation Testing

(ASSERT)

David K. Abe, Program Manager DARPA MTO

ASSERT Proposers’ Day

07/13/2023

Accelerating the deployment of radiation-hardened electronics for space and strategic missions

Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited

ASSERT Proposers’ Day agenda

Background: Radiation effects in electronics

High energy particles

Coronal mass ejection event https://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/home.html Testing at the Speed of Light, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2018

Single-event Effects (SEE)

Single-event effect testing today

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Texas A&M University

Michigan State University Facility for Rare Isotope Beams

Brookhaven National Laboratory:

NASA Space Radiation Laboratory

• Current SEE testing infrastructure is fragile and oversubscribed

• Heavy ions can achieve high LET or long range in Si, but not both

• Impending capacity and capability gaps for testing 3D heterogeneously integrated (3DHI) electronics

Microsystems

Today Future 2D 3D with dense interconnects

Monolithic integration Disaggregation Silicon Multi-process / multi-material

Packaged after fabrication Packaging no longer distinct

Electronics Resurgence Initiative (ERI) 2.0 timeline

Original ERI ERI 2.0: Reinventing microsystems manufacturing for a new age

FY27FY26FY25FY24FY23FY22

NGMM: Next-Generation Microelectronics Manufacturing program

TA

LK Securing communications

CO

M

PU

TE Increasing information processing efficiency at the edge

DE

CI

DE Accelerating innovation in AI hardware

BU

IL

D Manufacturing complex 3D microsystems

CO

M

PO

SE

Optimizing design and test for complex circuits

SE

CU

RE Overcoming security threats across the entire hardware lifecycle

HA

RD

EN Developing electronics for extreme environments

NGMM Phase 0 BAA August 2022

ERI Summit 2023 August 22-24 / Seattle, WA

ASSERT goals and technical approaches

TC1: Deep penetration depths with space-radiation-relevant linear energy transfers

TC2: Charge tracks with fine spatial resolution

Single Technical Area

Key insight:

Recent technology breakthroughs enable the use of electron beam and X-ray approaches to achieve:

• Deep penetration

• High linear energy transfers

• Sub-micron scale focusing

Program goal: Reduce the time to design, test, and deploy radiation-qualified components by a factor of ten

• 5 mm range

• LETs up to 100 MeV-cm2/mg (worst case space environment)

• Penetration through metallization and packaging

3DHI testing goals

State-of-the-art System-in-Package

Range / Linear Energy Transfer

0.1 mm / 90 MeV-cm2/mg

0.6 mm / 41 MeV-cm2/mg

1.8 mm / 35 MeV-cm2/mg

5 mm / 100 MeV-cm2/mg

(strategic environment)

ASSERT

Ion Beam

2.7 mm

Multiple layers, materials, and complex packaging present challenges for range and high LETs

Active Device 1

Active Device 2

Active Device 3

Shielding

Printed Circuit Board

Technical Challenge 1 (TC1):

Deep penetration depths with space-radiation-relevant linear energy transfers

Technical Challenge 2 (TC2):

Charge tracks with fine spatial resolution

New 3D devices have complex topologies and small feature sizes requiring precise spatial control

J. Chang et al, IEEE Electron Dev. Lett. 40(7), 2019

Super-lattice castellated field-effect transistor

• <0.2 µm diameter beams

• Beam placement with linear and angular precision to selectively probe sensitive areas and isolate faults

3DHI testing goals

A predictive SEE testing approach

Empirical correlation approach Predictive approach

• An alternative source is tuned to reproduce known heavy-ion response in the DUT

• Requires pre-existing heavy-ion data

• Time consuming due to large parameter space

• Source parameters are selected to produce a specified carrier distribution within the DUT

• Does not require pre-existing heavy-ion data

• Requires the ability to compute Equivalent LET (LETE) from the source parameters

ASSERT will require the accurate prediction of heavy-ion responses across a range of electronic devices

DUT: device under test

SEE sources for testing and qualification must produce effects that are comparable to those resulting from high radiation environments

ASSERT program metrics

Metric Units Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Range(1) mm 5(3) 0.5 5

Maximum Equivalent LET(2) MeV-cm2/mg 100(3) 50 100

Minimum Equivalent LET(2) MeV-cm2/mg 0.1(3) 1 0.1

Spot diameter µm < 1(3) < 1(4) < 0.2(5)

Analog correlation accuracy % -- 80 95

Digital correlation accuracy % -- 70 90

(1) In silicon

(2) At the depth specified by the phase Range metric

(3) Simulation or proof-of-concept experimental data

(4) At device surface

(5) At 5 mm penetration depth

ASSERT program structure and schedule

FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28

Final Demo Metrics Eval

Phase 2 Demo Metrics Eval

Phase 1 Demo Metrics Eval

Kickoff Design Review

Proof-of-Concept

• Source design (simulation)

• Feasibility demonstration

Fabrication and Experimental Demonstrations

• Source fabrication

• Initial correlations with heavy-ion data

Predictive Capability

• Expanded correlation studies to include more complex devices

• Develop predictive capability to achieve heavy-ion-equivalent LETs

Interim Review

Interim Review

Phase 1 (18 months)

Phase 2 (24 months)

Phase 3 (12 months)

Technical Goals Charge Penetration Depths (5 mm) Beam diameter (<0.2 µm)

IV&V: Naval Research Laboratory Code 6816 (Optoelectronics and Radiation Effects) Missile Defense Agency (Radiation Hardness Assurance for Parts and Materials)

12Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited

ASSERT program proposal guidelines

• Proposals shall consist of two volumes: Volume I – Technical and Management Proposal (3 sections), and Volume II – Cost Proposal (4 sections).

• A summary slide of the proposed effort, in PowerPoint format using the provided Proposal Summary Chart template, should be submitted with the proposal.

• Proposers should provide a technical and programmatic strategy that conforms to the entire program schedule and presents an aggressive plan to fully address all program goals, metrics, milestones, and deliverables.

• Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide the proposal cost breakdown as an editable MS Excel spreadsheet, inclusive of calculations formulae, with tabs (material, travel, ODC’s) provided as necessary.

• Proposers shall identify in their proposal any pre-existing technical data or commercial/non-commercial software that they will deliver to the Government with less than unlimited rights. Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not.

• To avoid missing deadlines, proposers should submit their abstracts and proposals in advance of the deadlines with sufficient time to receive confirmations and correct any errors in the submission process.

Some Reflections on Proposal Preparation

Breakthrough technologies and capabilities for national security

Create breakthrough, paradigm-shifting solutions

Accept and manage significant technology risk

Disrupt or massively accelerate technology roadmaps

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s

UAVs

IR Night Vision

Precision Guidance & Navigation

Stealth

M ili ta ry

C ap ab ili tie s

Investing today for the next generation

Communications/Networking

En ab lin g

Te ch no lo gi es

Materials Science Information Technology

ARPAnet/Internet Microelectronics

Nucleic Acid-Based VaccinesPAL/Siri

Artificial Intelligence Self-Driving Cars

DARPA’s Role: Pivotal early investments that change what’s possible

The Heilmeier Catechism

H1: What problem are you trying to solve?

H2: What are the key technical challenges that prevent that problem from being solved today?

H3: What is the new approach and how can it overcome these technical challenges?

H4: Why would solving that problem have a large impact (to the DoD)?

H5: What is the program plan to solve the problem?

George H. Heilmeier, Director of ARPA (1975-1977) IEEE Spectrum, June 1997

• Follow the instructions (the BAA is your friend)

• Address each of the technical challenges (TCs)

• Clearly articulate the innovation of your approach applied to the TCs

• Provide evidence of assertions within the proposal

• Use cost realism

• Use the DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet, provide traceability, and supporting documentation

• Develop a compliance matrix to ensure completeness and responsiveness

Proposal tips the…

• “a la carte”

• “miracle-multiplied”

• “unassociated favorite topic”

• “just believe me”

• “know better”

• “explorer”

• “buzzword bingo”

• “reflection”

Classic proposal missteps

Key Dates

July 05, 2023 ASSERT BAA publication

July 13, 2023 0800 - 1600 ET ASSERT Proposers’ Day

August 04, 2023 1600 ET Abstract due date

August 31, 2023 1600 ET Frequently Asked Questions deadline

September 15, 2023 1600 ET Proposal due date

August 22-24, 2023 | Seattle, WA https://eri-summit.darpa.mil

Join us in person as we focus on reinventing microelectronics manufacturing

Registration closes at 11:59 PM ET on July 31 Distribution Statement A - Approved For Public Release, Distribution Unlimited https://eri-summit.darpa.mil/ www.darpa.mil

22Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

Advanced Sources for Single-event Effects Radiation Testing (ASSERT)

Verification and Validation

Adrian Ildefonso1, Joel M. Hales2, and Dale McMorrow1

1U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6816, Washington, DC 20375 USA 2Jacobs, Inc., Herndon, VA 20171 USA

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 2

• Role of Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Team ‒ Serve as technical advisors to the DARPA Program Manager (PM) ‒ Evaluate technical reports and data to provide feedback to DARPA PM ‒ Select target DUTs that have a range of complexity and SEE types, and provide information to performers ‒ Acquire benchmark SEE data that will be provided as Government Furnished

Information to verify correlation metrics

• Performers will be expected to ‒ Deliver designs, simulation results, experimental demonstrations and test data (if applicable) to the IV&V team

Introduction – IV&V

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 3

The NRL Team has extensive experience developing experiments and analysis techniques to determine the ability for pulsed-laser sources to serve as surrogates for traditional accelerator testing

Meet the Team

Dr. Adrian Ildefonso Dr. Joel M. Hales Dr. Dale McMorrow

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 4

• Pulsed-Laser SEE (PL-SEE) testing techniques have been in use for decades ‒ Both qualitative and quantitative data have contributed to the field ‒ Decades-long history of source development (beam delivery, characterization, testing requirements, etc.)

‒ Correlation and Predictive capabilities have been relevant topics from the start

PL-SEE as an Alternative to HI Testing

But!... We can leverage lessons learned over decades of developing correlation and predictive testing approaches using PL to develop new sources better equipped to characterize 3DHI technologies

Lasers cannot penetrate metal layers, limiting their utility for 3DHI technologies

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 5

• Correlation approaches ‒ Relies on existing accelerator data on a given DUT to inform test conditions ‒ Parameters are chosen to reproduce the known heavy-ion responses ‒ Depending on the source, this parameter space can be large ‒ Much more difficult to achieve for emerging 3DHI technologies

• Predictive Approaches ‒ Does NOT rely on pre-existing accelerator data ‒ Parameters are chosen to produce specified charge generation within the DUT ‒ Requires an assigned equivalent LET

Correlation vs Predictive Approaches

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 6

Example from Pulsed-Laser Testing - Correlation

Functional Correlation

LET Prediction

Threshold Laser Energy

Threshold Ion LET

𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 3 × 𝐿𝐿

Correlation Approach

D. McMorrow, et al., TNS, vol. 47, Jun, 2000.

Use for Measurements

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 7

Example from Pulsed-Laser Testing - Prediction

LET Calculation

Use laser focusing that resembles charge profile of an ion

Predictive Approach

J. M. Hales, et al., TNS, vol. 70, Apr, 2023.

Use for Measurements

(Laser)

Measured SETs for LM124

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 8

• The ASSERT Program metrics include specifications for source characteristics and DUT response agreement ‒ There are many ways to verify source characteristics, and proposals are encouraged to develop dosimetry capabilities for their own sources

ASSERT Program Metrics

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 9

• The ASSERT Program includes two response agreement metrics that will be used to evaluate the efficacy of the developed source to predict the SEE response of DUTs

ASSERT Program Metrics – Response Agreement

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 10

• There are many types of SEE, and more have been identified through the years

• Typically classified into destructive and non-destructive

Types of SEE

D. Kobayashi, NSREC 2019 Short Course

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 11

This program classifies SEEs into analog and digital

Alternative Classification of SEEs

Analog SEEs

• Effects with responses that have continuous characteristics

• Examples: SET (amplitude, duration) and SELC (magnitude)

• Difficult to correlate and predict because response depends highly on excitation conditions

Digital SEEs

• Effects are binary in nature, i.e., they are either induced or not for a particular experiment

• Examples: SEU, SEL, and most others

• Simpler to correlate empirically, but prediction difficulty can vary depending on technology

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 12

• Accurate reproducibility of analog SEEs will be assessed and validated by performing quantitative correlation with ion data ‒ Will focus on time-domain waveforms (very sensitive to charge profiles)

Metrics for Analog SEEs

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

A m pl itu de (m

V)

Time (ns)

Peak Amplitude

Duration

FWHM

Rise Time

Collected Charge

Fall Time

0 200 400 600 800

A m pl itu de [m

V]

Time [ns]

QBB (Laser) 100x (Laser) Heavy ion

Example from Laser Testing

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 13

• Accurate reproducibility of digital SEEs will be assessed and validated by performing quantitative correlation with ion data ‒ Will focus on SEE thresholds in specific DUTs

Metrics for Digital SEEs

Example from Laser Testing

S. C. Moss, et al., TNS, vol. 42, Dec, 1995.

Empirical Correlation

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 14

• Accurate reproducibility of digital SEEs will be assessed and validated by performing quantitative correlation with ion data ‒ Will focus on SEE thresholds in specific DUTs

Metrics for Digital SEEs

Expected Measurement from ASSERT Source

Threshold Prediction

SEE

No SEE

Equivalent LET

LE

T

Th re sh ol d

DUT 1 DUT 2 …

ASSERT Source Heavy Ion

DUTs specified at program kick-off

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 15

• The IV&V will aid + advise DARPA PM during the assessment of proposed sources and developed solutions

• Performance of ASSERT sources will be validated against program metrics ‒ Source characteristics: performers are encouraged to develop their own dosimetry ‒ Response agreement: analog and digital correlation metrics will be used

• The government will specify target devices and provide heavy-ion data as GFI for comparison with ASSERT source data.

‒ In the spirit of verifying “prediction” capabilities, list of DUTs will be made available at program kickoff, and data will be made available during later phases

Summary