The Designer's Guide Community Forum
https://designers-guide.org/forum/YaBB.pl Simulators >> RF Simulators >> IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB https://designers-guide.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1286953333 Message started by aaron_do on Oct 13th, 2010, 12:02am |
Title: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB Post by aaron_do on Oct 13th, 2010, 12:02am Hi all, I guess this has been asked at some point, but I was unable to find any post so here goes. I am trying to plot an IIP3 curve, and I find that for small values of the input power, the results are very strange (the IM3 is not 3 dB/dB: see the red curve). My thinking is that it is due to the accuracy of the simulator (SpectreRF). Is this the case? Alternatively it could be due to higher order harmonics, but I wouldn't expect them to kick in until the input power becomes large. thanks, Aaron EDIT: ok after some experimentation, it seems to be an accuracy setting problem. |
Title: Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB Post by sheldon on Oct 13th, 2010, 4:07am Aaron, First, my guess is that you are using Shooting Newton with the moderate error preset. If so the issue is the following: - At moderate signal levels, the distortion is above the numerical noise floor and the slope is 3dB/dB - At lower signal levels, the distortion is below the numerical noise floor. The numerical noise floor is set by reltol, possibly reltol* fundamental. In this region the distortion has a slope of roughly 1dB/dB just like the fundamental. The issue is not simulator accuracy. The issue is that your simulation setup is not appropriate for the accuracy you are asking the simulator to provide. Some solutions: 1) Use harmonic balance 2) Use a tighter error preset, for example, conservative - This change will increase simulation and degrade convergence in saturation 3) Use higerorder=yes, - This change will significantly increase simulation and may degrade convergence in saturation Shooting Newton is based on transient analysis and transient analysis does not have infinite accuracy and that improving the accuracy of transient analysis costs time. In general, if you are interested in the results for low levels, try harmonic balance. Best Regards, Sheldon |
Title: Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB Post by aaron_do on Oct 13th, 2010, 5:27am Hi Sheldon, thanks a lot. When I said simulator accuracy, I meant given my settings, so when I changed reltol, I did see the results improve at lower levels. I tried using flexible balance but the results were weird. I'm going to try and work on those tomorrow. Could you explain what is the basic difference between transient analysis , PSS shooting, and PSS flexible balance? It seems that PSS will start off with a transient simulation, and then it will try and solve the circuit somehow using either shooting or harmonic balance...but i'm a little confused about it. Any good reference would be helpful too. thanks, Aaron |
Title: Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB Post by sheldon on Oct 13th, 2010, 8:18am Aaron, Some circuits can be analyzed using their quiescent, dc, operating point, some can be analyzed using their periodic operating point, and some circuits do not have a steady-state. Shooting Newton and Harmonic Balance are algorithms for calculating the periodic steady- state of circuits. Shooting Newton calculates the periodic steady-state response in the time domain. Harmonic Balance calculates the periodic steady-state response in the frequency domain. Shooting Newton uses transient analysis to calculate the periodic steady-state. Harmonic Balance calculates the frequency domain response directly. Shooting Newton and Harmonic Balance complement each other. Shooting Newton is useful when time domain waveform changes quickly, for example, switched capacitor circuits, and when the circuit is dependent on an instantaneous event, for example, Colpitt's Oscillators. Shooting Newton is also efficient for single tone periodic steady-state analysis. Harmonic Balance is useful when time domain waveforms do not change quickly or the circuit is dependent on instantaneous events. Harmonic Balance is also useful when the circuit characteristics can be more effectively described in the frequency domain. Most RF applications fall into this category. Harmonic Balance is more efficient than Shooting Newton for multiple tone periodic steady- state analysis. Transient analysis is prior to the steady-state calculation is used to improve convergence. For Shooting Newton, circuits often have start-up transients and these need to settle (somewhat) before starting the periodic analysis. For Harmonic Balance, some circuits have fast changing waveforms, for example, dividers and running transient analysis first can help the HB analysis converge. It might be useful to think about it as there a set of tools available to you and transient analysis is the hammer. You can do anything with it, but it is not also the most efficient tool. DC/small signal and PSS/small signal are not as generally applicable, however, they are very good at the things they can do. Hope this helps! Best Regards, Sheldon |
Title: Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB Post by pancho_hideboo on Oct 13th, 2010, 9:09am sheldon wrote on Oct 13th, 2010, 8:18am:
If Shooting-Newton-PSS can have advantage for "Colpitt's Oscillator", how about "Hartley Oscillator" ? Is there any superior point in Shooting-Newton-PSS ? http://www.cadence.com/Community/blogs/rf/archive/2008/08/26/guidelines-for-simulating-oscillators-phase-noise-simulations.aspx?postID=10863 |
Title: Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB Post by RFICDUDE on Oct 13th, 2010, 5:58pm I have seen this issue with BSIM CMOS models that have not been properly extracted. Unfortunately, I am not experienced with BSIM model extract, so I really do not know what the differences are. Shooting methods is an iterative time domain solver for finding the steady-state periodic time domain solution to circuit problem. Periodic is defined as the be first point and last point are the same value (I'm pretty sure this is the only restriction). Flexbalance is a harmonic balance solver that essentially solves the circuit in the frequency domain. All sources are defined as sinusoids (harmonic series for squarish signals), all linear components are defined by their respective frequency response, and intrinsic nonlinear functions are described by their time domain I-V characteristic. Flexbalance deals with nonlinearities using an IFFT to go from frequency domain to time domain (to apply signals to the intrinsic nonlinearity) and FFT to go back to the frequency domain. The solver iteratively goes back and forth until the harmonics at the interface stop changing (balance). QPSS is even different in the sense that this solver can decouple large signal responses from so called moderate signal responses. QPSS flexbalance really speeds up mixer and amplifier IM2 and IM3 measurements. For mixers you make the LO the large signal and for amplifier one of the two-tone input signals. My position is that I always trust transient first. If there is a problem with transient then there is either a model or a simulation setup problem. Then I progress to the other techniques as needed after establishing a transient baseline. |
Title: Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB Post by Frank Wiedmann on Oct 14th, 2010, 12:46am RFICDUDE wrote on Oct 13th, 2010, 5:58pm:
This has been discussed at http://www.designers-guide.org/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1207474039. This is a fundamental problem of the model equations, so all BSIM3/4 models will show it. However, I don't think that this is the problem that Aaron is seeing here. |
The Designer's Guide Community Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.2.2! YaBB © 2000-2008. All Rights Reserved. |