The Designer's Guide Community
Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register. Please follow the Forum guidelines.
May 12th, 2024, 5:04pm
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB (Read 8432 times)
aaron_do
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1398

IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB
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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 13th, 2010, 3:14am by aaron_do »  

IIP3.png

there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment - Nikola Tesla
View Profile   IP Logged
sheldon
Community Fellow
*****
Offline



Posts: 751

Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB
Reply #1 - 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
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
aaron_do
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1398

Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB
Reply #2 - 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
Back to top
 
 

there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment - Nikola Tesla
View Profile   IP Logged
sheldon
Community Fellow
*****
Offline



Posts: 751

Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB
Reply #3 - 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
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
pancho_hideboo
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1424
Real Homeless
Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB
Reply #4 - Oct 13th, 2010, 9:09am
 
sheldon wrote on Oct 13th, 2010, 8:18am:
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.
I can't find out any superior point in Shooting-Newton-PSS for LC Oscillators such as Colpitt's Oscillator.

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-simu...

Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW Top+Secret Top+Secret   IP Logged
RFICDUDE
Community Fellow
*****
Offline



Posts: 323

Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB
Reply #5 - 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.

Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
Frank Wiedmann
Community Fellow
*****
Offline



Posts: 678
Munich, Germany
Re: IM3 curve not 3 dB/dB
Reply #6 - Oct 14th, 2010, 12:46am
 
RFICDUDE wrote 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.

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.
Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Copyright 2002-2024 Designer’s Guide Consulting, Inc. Designer’s Guide® is a registered trademark of Designer’s Guide Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Send comments or questions to editor@designers-guide.org. Consider submitting a paper or model.