Designer’s Guide Community

aaron_do Senior Fellow Offline Posts: 1398	IIP3 without PAC Jul 01^st, 2008, 12:36am Hi, i've run into a problem where PAC and QPAC analysis don't work. Does anybody know a simple way to simulate IIP3 without using these two? I know it can be done with PSS alone but i think it would take ages to run with more than one input signal... thanks, Aaron
Back to top	there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment - Nikola Tesla IP Logged

pancho_hideboo Senior Fellow Offline Posts: 1424 Real Homeless	Re: IIP3 without PAC Reply #1 - Jul 1^st, 2008, 1:34am aaron_do wrote on Jul 1^st, 2008, 12:36am: i've run into a problem where PAC and QPAC analysis don't work. Why PSS/PAC and QPSS/QPAC don't work ? Which do you invoke shooting or HB ? How many tones do you apply as large signal ?
Back to top	Kita━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!!! http://www7.plala.or.jp/ungeromeppa/flash/kita.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjIxGh55bMM&feature=related IP Logged

aaron_do

Senior Fellow

Offline

Posts: 1398

Re: IIP3 without PAC
Reply #2 - Jul 1^st, 2008, 1:41am

Hi,

there were no errors, and the simulation completed normally, but the output was garbage...

For the simulation i basically just used the default settings. PSS was on shooting option. I don't know too much about the inner workings...

Basically I used a single transistor with common source configuration and check the drain current. PSS has a single tone at 1 MHz and PAC has a input at 1.1 MHz. I compared the PSS output at 1 MHz with the PAC output at 1.1 MHz and the difference was over 100 dB. Normally the difference is close to zero.

Anyway I think this is a PDK problem as i recently converted to a new PDK. I am currently talking to the foundry guys to see if they can solve it.

I've tried the exact same simulation in my old PDK and there were no problems. Both are 0.18 CMOS.

Back to top

there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment - Nikola Tesla

IP Logged

pancho_hideboo Senior Fellow Offline Posts: 1424 Real Homeless	Re: IIP3 without PAC Reply #3 - Jul 1^st, 2008, 1:51am aaron_do wrote on Jul 1^st, 2008, 1:41am: Anyway I think this is a PDK problem as i recently converted to a new PDK. Are the any model descripted by Verilog-A in your PDK ? For example, ESD diode, varactor, etc. Often we face troubles in Verilog-A models when they are used in small signal analsys such as AC/SP, PAC.
Back to top	Kita━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!!! http://www7.plala.or.jp/ungeromeppa/flash/kita.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjIxGh55bMM&feature=related IP Logged

aaron_do Senior Fellow Offline Posts: 1398	Re: IIP3 without PAC Reply #4 - Jul 1^st, 2008, 1:54am No, just a single transistor. Passive devices seem to be working fine so i guess there is some issue with the MOSFET model. However, its strange but other simulations seem to working fine: DC, AC, XF... Aaron
Back to top	there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment - Nikola Tesla IP Logged

pancho_hideboo

Senior Fellow

Offline

Posts: 1424
Real Homeless

Re: IIP3 without PAC
Reply #5 - Jul 1^st, 2008, 2:04am

aaron_do wrote on Jul 1^st, 2008, 1:54am:

No, just a single transistor.

In Current transistor model, model is composed of macromodel where intrinsic MOS and Verilog-A model sub block are combined.
Especially to express current dependent resistance and voltage dependent capacitance, etc., Verilog-A sub blocks are used.

So I think Verilog-A models are used in MOS model file.

Originally Verilog-A(AMS) is oriented to Transient Analysis.
So We have to take care of description scheme for small signal analysis.
Sometimes Verilog-A models can work in Transient Analsys but they give extraordinally results in small signal analysis. In this case we have to rewrite or reformulate Verilog-A model so that it can work for small signal analysis.

Back to top

Kita━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!!!
http://www7.plala.or.jp/ungeromeppa/flash/kita.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjIxGh55bMM&feature=related

IP Logged

Frank Wiedmann Community Fellow Offline Posts: 678 Munich, Germany	Re: IIP3 without PAC Reply #6 - Jul 1^st, 2008, 5:21am This problem reminds me of a very similar one discussed at http://www.designers-guide.org/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1204016124.
Back to top	IP Logged

aaron_do Senior Fellow Offline Posts: 1398	Re: IIP3 without PAC Reply #7 - Jul 1^st, 2008, 6:30am Yes it does seem to be a similar problem. But unsolved... My circuit works for Pnoise analysis (including the transfer function plot in pnoise), but not PXF. Very strange... I'll have a look tomorrow to see if the new PDK model is BSIM 3v3... Aaron
Back to top	there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment - Nikola Tesla IP Logged

Ken Kundert Global Moderator Offline Posts: 2384 Silicon Valley	Re: IIP3 without PAC Reply #8 - Jul 1^st, 2008, 10:23am You could carefully check your setup. In particular, check pacmag and you sideband settings. -Ken
Back to top	IP Logged

aaron_do Senior Fellow Offline Posts: 1398	Re: IIP3 without PAC Reply #9 - Jul 1^st, 2008, 6:45pm Hi all, thanks for all the suggestions. It turned out to be the same problem as the one Frank Wiedmann pointed to. The versions were different. (3.3 and 3.2). When i changed the version to 3.2, the output was correct. I will pass this info back to the foundry guys... thanks again, Aaron
Back to top	there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment - Nikola Tesla IP Logged

Frank Wiedmann Community Fellow Offline Posts: 678 Munich, Germany	Re: IIP3 without PAC Reply #10 - Jul 1^st, 2008, 11:15pm You might also want to check with Cadence if they changed something in their BSIM3 model implementation from 3.2 to 3.3 that interferes with the small-signal PSS analyses.
Back to top	IP Logged