Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 13
  • Subscribers 126
  • Views 5671
  • Members are here 0
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

IBM cms9flp & Assura QRC strange problem

jimito13

Hello all,

I will try to describe my problem the better i can.I have an op-amp design that consists of several cells (main opamp,gain boosters,cmfb,biasing).I have created the layout of all the above cells and i pass successfully from DRC and LVS runs (clean runs,no errors no warnings).The last step is to perform the parasitics' extraction and run post layout simulations.Well,here things become a little bit strange...Before i describe my problem in depth i must say that my design kit is IBM's cms9flp and the versions of cadence virtuoso and assura are IC6.1.3.500.13 and 3.2_USR2_HF11 respectively.

I run LVS for each cell successfully (clean results) and then i run successfully as well the assura QRC run (no errors-no warnings) for all my cells and the result is the well known message of assura with the av_extracted view's name and location in the library.

Next step is to simulate the av_extracted views.For this i create a schematic with all the above cells interconnected as symbols and i use the av_extracted declaration under Environment submenu of ADE L.

I run DC analysis at first and here is my issue.The currents in all branches of the circuit are far away from the designed values.From a quick thought you can say that i made mistake in transistor sizes during layout but this should be reported by LVS but in any case i double checked this by myself to be absolutely certain.Second thought is that i have not calculated correct the widths of all metals that make the interconnections in the design,i double checked this as well according to pdk's rules for metals and viases.With a more careful view in the values of the currents that dc analysis resulted i noticed that all of them are divided by the product (m*nf),where m is multiplicity and nf number of fingers!Looking at the vdd symbol i see that my circuit consumes X mA but if i add all the currents from the subcells i do not ever reach X/4 mA,so i ask myself where is the rest of the current consumed?!Another strange thing is that even though that all currents are wrong calculated the biasing voltages from the current mirrors are exact to the design values...

Has anybody else come up with such an issue with this or another IBM's pdk??Do you think that i should report this straightly in IBM's support??


Thanks in advance for any helpful answer.


PS. It is urgent for me since tape out date is close!!

Parents

  • Hello Quek,

    Well we contacted IBM and they admitted that there is an error while the total current is calculated when the av_extracted view is post simulated.They didn't give us any solution instead of proposing us to change all fets from my design to nfet_rf and pfet_rf (now i use the regular fets-nfet,pfet and the respective lvt versions)...Only in this case they said that the problem is solved...Anyway,this is the least annoying since if i multiply the multiplicity factor with the number of fingers and the simulation current i get the total correct current that i expected.So,i suppose that i am ok with it.But...

    There is another more difficult issue that hasn't been solved up to now even from IBM's support (they proposed me the same solution i wrote above for this issue as well !!).After simulating my opamp i notice severe voltage mismatches at various symmetrical branches (20mV the one and 700mV for example the other !!!).We checked the layout with my professor and he admitted as well that everything is ok and that those mismatches cannot be explained...We made all the checks (parasitic resistances,widh of interconnection cables,symmetries,distances etc...) that must be done and we didn't find any problem to my layout.My professor insists that i must change all fets to RF fets for a cell and post simulate it,if problem still exists then he says that we must report back to IBM.This is a little bit difficult to be done.Have you ever seen something like that happening during post simulation with a specific design kit and in this case what did you do to solve it??

     Thanks in advance,

     Best Regards,

    Jimito13

Reply

  • Hello Quek,

    Well we contacted IBM and they admitted that there is an error while the total current is calculated when the av_extracted view is post simulated.They didn't give us any solution instead of proposing us to change all fets from my design to nfet_rf and pfet_rf (now i use the regular fets-nfet,pfet and the respective lvt versions)...Only in this case they said that the problem is solved...Anyway,this is the least annoying since if i multiply the multiplicity factor with the number of fingers and the simulation current i get the total correct current that i expected.So,i suppose that i am ok with it.But...

    There is another more difficult issue that hasn't been solved up to now even from IBM's support (they proposed me the same solution i wrote above for this issue as well !!).After simulating my opamp i notice severe voltage mismatches at various symmetrical branches (20mV the one and 700mV for example the other !!!).We checked the layout with my professor and he admitted as well that everything is ok and that those mismatches cannot be explained...We made all the checks (parasitic resistances,widh of interconnection cables,symmetries,distances etc...) that must be done and we didn't find any problem to my layout.My professor insists that i must change all fets to RF fets for a cell and post simulate it,if problem still exists then he says that we must report back to IBM.This is a little bit difficult to be done.Have you ever seen something like that happening during post simulation with a specific design kit and in this case what did you do to solve it??

     Thanks in advance,

     Best Regards,

    Jimito13

Children
No Data

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. 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. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.