Cadence® system design and verification solutions, integrated under our System Development Suite, provide the simulation, acceleration, emulation, and management capabilities.
System Development Suite Related Products A-Z
Cadence® digital design and signoff solutions provide a fast path to design closure and better predictability, helping you meet your power, performance, and area (PPA) targets.
Full-Flow Digital Solution Related Products A-Z
Cadence® custom, analog, and RF design solutions can help you save time by automating many routine tasks, from block-level and mixed-signal simulation to routing and library characterization.
Overview Related Products A-Z
Driving efficiency and accuracy in advanced packaging, system planning, and multi-fabric interoperability, Cadence® package implementation products deliver the automation and accuracy.
Cadence® PCB design solutions enable shorter, more predictable design cycles with greater integration of component design and system-level simulation for a constraint-driven flow.
An open IP platform for you to customize your app-driven SoC design.
Comprehensive solutions and methodologies.
Helping you meet your broader business goals.
A global customer support infrastructure with around-the-clock help.
24/7 Support - Cadence Online Support
Locate the latest software updates, service request, technical documentation, solutions and more in your personalized environment.
Cadence offers various software services for download. This page describes our offerings, including the Allegro FREE Physical Viewer.
Get the most out of your investment in Cadence technologies through a wide range of training offerings.
This course combines our Allegro PCB Editor Basic Techniques, followed by Allegro PCB Editor Intermediate Techniques.
Virtuoso Analog Design Environment Verifier 16.7
Learn learn to perform requirements-driven analog verification using the Virtuoso ADE Verifier tool.
Exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices.
The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information.
It's not all about the technlogy. Here we exchange ideas on the Cadence Academic Network and other subjects of general interest.
Cadence is a leading provider of system design tools, software, IP, and services.
I am trying to make a calibre extraction of the R+C+CC parasitics and I am getting some strange results. The layout is DRC and LVS clean and when I extract the layout without parasitics, my simulations work well. When I extract C+CC it also works well, but then when I include the R parasitics, the simulation starts to behave strange.
To try to simplify and detect the problem, I only extracted one of the 2 nodes that are generating problems. The circuit contains 2 "pseudoresistor" connected in series, that is, 2 PMOS transistors with the BULK and SOURCE shorted. I have extracted the R parasitics (no cap) in the middle node.What is strange is that when I extract the R parasitics without any kind of parasitic reduction, the simulation of the cicuits does not work. But when I perform some reduction by combining several series resistor, the simulation works well.
I do not understand what is going on. It seems the problem is from Spectre, because the netlists for both cases seem correct to me. Please see the relevan extract of my netlist:
MM25 (MM25_d VhpP net020 net020) pch l=2e-07 w=3.5e-07 m=1 nf=1 \ sd=620.0n ad=2.114e-13 as=2.198e-13 pd=1.88e-06 ps=1.92e-06 \ nrd=1.72571 nrs=1.79429 sa=5.2e-07 sb=1.06e-06 sca=6.58985 \ scb=0.00296926 scc=1.34332e-05
MM29 (OUT VhpP MM29_s MM29_b) pch l=2e-07 w=3.5e-07 m=1 nf=1 sd=620.0n \ ad=2.114e-13 as=2.198e-13 pd=1.88e-06 ps=1.92e-06 nrd=1.72571 \ nrs=1.79429 sa=5.2e-07 sb=1.06e-06 sca=6.58985 scb=0.00296926 \ scc=1.34332e-05 rnet028_11 (net028_2 net028_7) resistor r=0.0206471 rnet028_10 (net028_2 net028_10) resistor r=0.0431024 rnet028_9 (net028_3 net028_7) resistor r=0.112412 rnet028_8 (net028_3 net028_5) resistor r=10 rnet028_7 (net028_5 MM29_s) resistor r=6.08436 rnet028_6 (net028_5 net028_16) resistor r=4.24952 rnet028_5 (net028_7 MM29_b) resistor r=11 rnet028_4 (MM29_b net028_16) resistor r=4.2219 rnet028_3 (net028_10 net028_11) resistor r=0.798652 rnet028_2 (net028_11 net028_13) resistor r=0.0345872 rnet028_1 (net028_13 net028) resistor r=10 rnet028_0 (MM25_d net028) resistor r=6.09418
MM25 (MM25_d VhpP net020 net020) pch l=2e-07 w=3.5e-07 m=1 nf=1 \ sd=620.0n ad=2.114e-13 as=2.198e-13 pd=1.88e-06 ps=1.92e-06 \ nrd=1.72571 nrs=1.79429 sa=5.2e-07 sb=1.06e-06 sca=6.58985 \ scb=0.00296926 scc=1.34332e-05 MM29 (OUT VhpP MM29_s MM29_b) pch l=2e-07 w=3.5e-07 m=1 nf=1 sd=620.0n \ ad=2.114e-13 as=2.198e-13 pd=1.88e-06 ps=1.92e-06 nrd=1.72571 \ nrs=1.79429 sa=5.2e-07 sb=1.06e-06 sca=6.58985 scb=0.00296926 \ scc=1.34332e-05 rnet028_5 (MM25_d net028) resistor r=0.01 rnet028_4 (net028_5 net028_7) resistor r=10.1124 rnet028_3 (net028_5 MM29_s) resistor r=6.08436 rnet028_2 (net028_5 MM29_b) resistor r=8.47143 rnet028_1 (net028_7 net028) resistor r=16.9912 rnet028_0 (net028_7 MM29_b) resistor r=11
For me the 2 circuits should simulate in the same way because the only difference is the combination of resistors in series. But how to make sure that it is a problem of my circuit or a problem of spectre?
Have someone seen something like that before?
Thanks and best regards,
It's fairly unlikely to be spectre, but one possibility might be that your circuit has multiple stable operating points - and it may be rolling into one or other depending on a slight change in starting conditions. I've seen that often as a root cause of such unexpected behaviour.
The best thing would be to provide the entire data to customer support so that an AE can take a look.
In reply to Andrew Beckett:
I have checked for multiple operating points and I have not detected any problem. The circuit only have one operating point, but it is wrong after the extraction.
However, my circuit is sensitive to leakage current in the 2 transistors. As these transistor are implementing a very big resistor in the order of the TOhm, then any small current flowing through the transistors can cause a large voltage drop. I have put gmin=0 to have a more accurate simulation.
When I increase the gmin to 1e-12 (default value), my simulation works again. So, my simulation works either for a "big" gmin or for bigger parasitic resistors (obtained after combining several small resistors).
So, my questions are: Is the leakage current of the transistors not well modeled in the schematic? How does the leakage current change with the parasitic resistors? Is there a gmax value specified somewhere that depends on the gmin?
In reply to whlinfei:
I was not able to solve this issue and it is still a mistery for me. I asked many experts around and they were also surprised with that.
I am still interested to solve this problem because I am facing it again, so if you have any news please let me know.
In reply to moralope: