Review Reports - Soft Error Simulation of Near-Threshold SRAM Design for Nanosatellite Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Before a detailed analysis and a decision on possible acceptance, the authors must make a real effort and correct unacceptable errors that currently exist in the text. Currently there are two figures 6 and also two figures 12. Therefore, the description of them and the analysis and evaluation of the text is almost impossible. Other figures should be renumbered accordingly. It is necessary to correct other technical deficiencies after detailed reading. Also, to make the text more readable, the abstract should be expanded as well as the conclusions. Unfortunately, I cannot give a positive evaluation of the text in current form.

Author Response

First, I would thank the reviewer for his or her time. The remarks have been considered in the revised paper. The paper has been read proof to improve the English quality.

Reviewer 2 Report

(1)The first paragragh of section 1 is part of the template content. The author was careless for writing.

(2)In line 55 of page 2, "the pa-per" should be typo.

(3)The contribution of the paper must be clearly stated in the introduction section.

(4)In line 125 page 4, there is error.

(5)The cited reference should be in order, such as in line 181 of page 7.

(6)How is to define the SER performance index? or How is to compute the SER？

(7)There are many abbreviations. You can use a table to summary these words.

(8)In line 323 of page 11, the word "highlight" should be highlighted.

The writing should be further improved.

Author Response

First I would thank the reviewer for his or her time. The remarks have been considered in the revised paper.

Please find below the different changes:

(1)The first paragraph of section 1 is part of the template content. The author was careless for writing.

It has been corrected
(2)In line 55 of page 2, "the pa-per" should be typo.

The typo has been corrected

(3)The contribution of the paper must be clearly stated in the introduction section.

The contribution of the paper has been clarified: “Specific circuits are designed in order to improve their reliability at low-power, such as the Schmitt Trigger (ST) circuit [2]. However, no work has demonstrated their operational used for nanosatellites. […] The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that SRAM cell based on near threshold design are promising for nanosatellite application.”

(4)In line 125 page 4, there is error.

It has been corrected

(5)The cited reference should be in order, such as in line 181 of page 7.

It has been corrected

(6)How is to define the SER performance index? or How is to compute the SER？

The SER can be defined as the following equation:

SER =

With σSEU is the SEU cross section of the memory, ΦLET is the flux heavy ions with a given LET.

(7)There are many abbreviations. You can use a table to summary these words.

An acronyms table has been added at the end of the paper

(8)In line 323 of page 11, the word "highlight" should be highlighted.

It has been corrected

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: Soft Error Robustness of Optimized Schmitt Trigger Near Threshold SRAM Memory for Nanosatellite Applications

Comments:

Title is not attractive.

Abstract is short and not informative.

Please define the research gap in the introduction section.

How this paper fills the research gap

State specific contributions

please correct this typo in line 125 “Error! Reference source not found”.

What optimized ST SRAM is obtained.

Enrich the list of reverence with recent publications.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

First, I would thank the reviewer for his or her time. The remarks have been considered in the revised paper. Please find below the answers to the reviews

Title is not attractive.

The title has been clarified: ” Soft Error Simulation of Near Threshold SRAM design for Nanosatellite Applications”

Abstract is short and not informative.

The abstract has been updated

Please define the research gap in the introduction section.

State specific contributions
_please correct this typo in line 125 “Error! Reference source not
found”._

It has been corrected

What optimized ST SRAM is obtained.

The design has been obtained from a previous work from the reference [3] J. P. Kulkarni, K. Kim and K. Roy, "A 160 mV Robust Schmitt Trigger Based Subthreshold SRAM," in IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 2303-2313, Oct. 2007, doi: 10.1109/JSSC.2007.897148.

Reviewer 4 Report

Please follow the recommendations indicated in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

- There are many errors in the use of “-”, for example de-creasing (line 41), pa-per (line 56), de-pending (86), con-tents (89), in-crease (90), volt-age (92), in-creased (104), robust-ness (108), de-fined (154),rang-es (166), Pre-diction (170), Monte-Carlo (172), inter-action (173), oc-currence (173), ana-lytical (184), process-es (187), in-jections (189), be-cause (193), oth-er (194), high-lighted (229), fac-tor (253), high-lighted (326).

- In line 50, please change “This aim of this work is to highlight the interest of the used” to “The aim of this work is to highlight the interest in the use”.

- In line 53, please change “SCAle” to “Scale”.

- In line 323, please change "highlight" to "highlighted".

- In lines 334 and 335, the word “critical” is repeated, please use a synonym.

Author Response

First, I would thank the reviewer for his or her time. The remarks have been considered in the revised paper. Please find below the answers to the reviews:

* General recommendations:

- In line 3, “Memory” is redundant since it is implicit in the “M” of “SRAM”.

This point has been correct the paper

- Please define the acronyms “LEO” and “MEO” in line 14.

The acronyms have been defined. Moreover, a table of the acronyms has been added at the end of the paper.

- In line 15, please remove “simulation”; it is not an appropriate keyword since it is a general concept.

It has been considered

- Please remove lines from 19-27; these are directions for the authors.

It has been done

- In line 29, “very high integrated circuits technologies” probably sounds better than “very integrated

technologies”.

It has been done

- Lines 36 and 37-38 are the same, “at very low core voltage, the cross coupled inverter pair stability is of concern”, please correct this.

It has been done

- In line 55, it is unnecessary to write “the soft error rate (SER)”, since the acronym (SER) was defined in line 42.

It has been done

- In Line 125, there is a reference error to a Figure “Error! Reference source not found”.

It has been corrected

- No single equation is found in the paper; they must be included to support it.

The equation of the SER computation has been added

With σSEU is the SEU cross section of the memory, ΦLET is the flux heavy ions with a given LET.

- Please improve the Conclusions; the first lines seem like the abstract. Just focus on highlighting the results and the contributions, which are not founded in other papers.

The conclusion has been reworked

- In line 376, please change “EEE” to “IEEE”.

It has been corrected

- Probably more information is needed for reference 13.

- Please add one or two more up-to-date references; if possible, consider including references from the journal Electronics.

* English recommendations:

It has been corrected

- In line 50, please change “This aim of this work is to highlight the interest of the used” to “The aim of this work is to highlight the interest in the use”.

It has been corrected

- In line 53, please change “SCAle” to “Scale”.

It has been corrected

- In line 323, please change “highlight” to “highlighted”.

It has been corrected

- In lines 334 and 335, the word “critical” is repeated, please use a synonym

It has been corrected

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors read and corrected the text in detail. I think that the paper can be accepted after the correction of some small issues. for example in Author contribution should stand initials, etc..

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have completed the paper revisions.

The writing should be further improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accepted

Moderate editing of English language required

Reviewer 4 Report

All recommendations have been fulfilled