Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

difference on the post-layout and pre-post-layout simulation

Status
Not open for further replies.

kDaniu

Junior Member level 3
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
27
Helped
1
Reputation
2
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1,281
Location
UA->Korea
Activity points
1,456
pre post simulation

hello all
I have some strange results in post-layout hspice simulation and can not understand the problem. maybe you know more about ...
so, f,e, I have a simple ring oscillator
when I making a hspice simulation, the oscillation frequency is 7.8ns
but when I making the post-layout hspice simulation (of 'the same' ring oscillator) I have a 10.8ns oscillation period.
I understand, that difference between the simple (schematic) hspice simulation and post-layout hspice simulation in the nodes (last one take account the resistance and capacitance of interconnections, but why the period of oscillation changed so much (~30% ) ?
any ideas ?

thanks,
Dan
 

sorry community, but up
because the question is still actual
 

I guess it's because of the para cap.
 

Re: difference on the post-layout and pre-post-layout simula

turtleden said:
I guess it's because of the para cap.
I wrote about that in my first post, but imho the 30% of difference it's too much betweeen the schematic and post-layout hspice simulation...
any other reasons?
or in real you guys saw similar effect after post-layout ?
 

add cap yourself or by rc ext
 

    kDaniu

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Re: difference on the post-layout and pre-post-layout simula

layes2 said:
add cap yourself or by rc ext
added.... values were related to the real caps values between the cascades...
the difference was not so much :(
 

Make sure you are simulating on same process/vlotage/temp corener.
 

Re: difference on the post-layout and pre-post-layout simula

Hi,

My method may not be direct but it is worth 2 try

1. Check delay of individual cell in the ring oscillator for the post layout netlist against prelayout.

My 2nd suggestion might be bit deviating but it has a fair chance of finding the cause.

I think u are aware of Back Annotation flow where U will have extracted parasitics (SPF r SPEF) and it will BA to prelayout netlist.

IF u have SPF r SPEF then
1. BA only the interconnect part ( don't BA instance part) check the period oscillation. if the period is close 2 prelayout then problem is with u r MOS layout
2. do BA for only instance part check the period of oscillation


Wish i m explicit. Please let me know for any clarification.

thanks,
 

    kDaniu

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Re: difference on the post-layout and pre-post-layout simula

I used to have a output buffer simulation before and post layout extraction, easily the difference could be 0.4ns for a total delay of 6-7ns, so layout parasitic RC could be bigger than you expected.
 

Re: difference on the post-layout and pre-post-layout simula

There is always the difference and always post-layout result shows longer delays. The reason lays in different models and in parasitics. When you do your first simulation try to include as much element modeling and parasitic as you can. In next round of simulation you may correct these values. Something between 5 and 25 % of the difference can be considered as normal. As more you are experienced as less will be this difference. I am sure you will see it soon.

Best regards,
RF-OM
 

    kDaniu

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Re: difference on the post-layout and pre-post-layout simula

mdcui said:
I used to have a output buffer simulation before and post layout extraction, easily the difference could be 0.4ns for a total delay of 6-7ns, so layout parasitic RC could be bigger than you expected.
that is just cleaning an output
but for me the clear work of every cascade is important ..
in real I found the problem (in the middle components between the RO inverter - in my case that is not clear RO)
thanks for all for your help and respond

best,
Dan
 

Re: difference on the post-layout and pre-post-layout simula

Before simulation of Ur RO try to take a inverter as a simple testcase and try ti run pre/post simulation.

Beginning from 90 nm technology process and deeper (65nm and 45nm), well proximity effect becomes more significant in alteration of MOS device characteristics

•Pre-layout simulation (schematic + NoRC mode)
•Post-layout simulation
•Post-layout simulation with extracting SCA, SCB and SCC parameters

A+
 

Re: difference on the post-layout and pre-post-layout simula

I have to point
Blackuni said:
IF u have SPF r SPEF then
1. BA only the interconnect part ( don't BA instance part) check the period oscillation. if the period is close 2 prelayout then problem is with u r MOS layout
2. do BA for only instance part check the period of oscillation
that info was realy helpful and we found more bugs then expected :D. I'm newbie in that are so that is why so simple things were new for me.

anyway, it's working now and I thnx for all for your attention and help


b.t.w. some bugs happened not from the schematic/functionality (my responsibility) reason but through the layout; that is why I'm interested right now in some information about layout of parallel inverters with an increased width and length; path gate (mux)
if anybody has any metherial related to that kinds of layout that will be very helpul
thanks for all

regards,
Dan
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top