The Designer's Guide Community Forum

The Designer's Guide Community Forum
https://designers-guide.org/forum/YaBB.pl
Simulators >> Circuit Simulators >> Measuring of IP3
https://designers-guide.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1109103695

Message started by Amorn on Feb 22^nd, 2005, 12:21pm

Title: Measuring of IP3
Post by Amorn on Feb 22^nd, 2005, 12:21pm

I'm designing an IF filter and would like to find out the IP3 performance of my circuit. Firstly, I used the PSS analysis, but couldn't find +3dB/dB slop region at low power area.

After I read the article "Accurate and rapid measurement of IP2 and IP3" from the Analysis section, I started to use PSS+PAC and got a nice result. However, I was still curious why these 2 results are quite different, so I simulated and compared these 2 methods again in the same waveform viewer. I noticed that in the moderate power area, these 2 graphs were somewhat similar, while in the low and high power areas 2 graphs were different.

Reading from the manual I understand that at the low input power area, they are some error mechanisms in PSS analysis that make the graph incorrect, while in the high input power the small signal assumption of PAC is violated. (I'm using the same sweep input power parameter in both PSS and PAC)

Furthermore, I tried increasing "Number of harmonics" in PSS setup, surprisingly, the PSS graph trend to match the graph of PAC in the low power area. For a simple testing circuit like openloop opamp, 500 Number of harmonics make the PSS results almost match to PAC.

More complex circuits seem to need more number of harmonics to make PSS match to PAC, unfortunately, Spectre has a limit at 2,000 number of harmonics. After that it can't finish the simulation at all. (IC446)

My question is "what's the mechanism of this relation?" Since in SpectreRF's theory said, there is no relation between number of harmonics and the accuracy of PSS analysis. Is this an indirect effect or I just did something wrong? :-/

Thank you in advance for your help.

Amorn

Title: Re: Measuring of IP3
Post by Ken Kundert on Feb 22^nd, 2005, 5:53pm

It is indirect. By requesting more harmonics you are incidentally requesting a smaller maxstep. Accuracy increases as maxstep decreases. Once the timesteps become equally spaced, the accuracy of the Fourier analysis should be excellent, regardless of how many harmonics you requested.

-Ken

Title: Re: Measuring of IP3
Post by Amorn on Feb 23^rd, 2005, 5:24pm

Thank you very much, Ken, for pointing out this relationship. Then I read spectre documents again and found a sentence said the same like yours that maxstep is defined by number of harmonics unless there is another accuracy parameter specified.

I tried changing maxstep in PSS option and noticed the accuracy improvement by deceasing maxstep value. However, I couldn't see any maxstep change in spectre's logfile when I altered the number of harmonics. It is alway fixed at T/50 for moderate errpreset as mentioned in user guide. Does it mean that there is a change inside simulator but doesn't report in the logfile? I'm just wondering.

-Amorn

Title: Re: Measuring of IP3
Post by Ken Kundert on Feb 23^rd, 2005, 6:15pm

The change occurs in the simulator and is not reported as part of the maxstep parameter because it is only in effect when the Fourier coefficients are being measured. In this way, it is not exactly equivalent to setting maxstep directly.

-Ken