• Skip to main content
  • Skip to search
  • Skip to footer
Cadence Home
  • This search text may be transcribed, used, stored, or accessed by our third-party service providers per our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

  1. Community Forums
  2. Custom IC Design
  3. Problems encountered in the simulation of ultra-low-power...

Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1
  • Subscribers 127
  • Views 12737
  • 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

Problems encountered in the simulation of ultra-low-power energy harvester

MenghanSun
MenghanSun over 9 years ago

Hi all,

I am a PhD candidate and I've stuck on this problem for a few months already. I've been simulating ultra-low-power energy harvester. Basically, it is a rectifier where the input is a very small AC signal and this very small AC signal is rectified, and the output of the rectifier is a DC signal. Typical architecture of such a low power rectifier is variations of Dickson charge pump, such as the topologies in the following paper,

"A 90-nm CMOS Threshold-Compensated RF Energy Harvester", JSSC, Sept 2011

I have stimulated several of these (I used transient simulation), and found many problems with such circuits. One common problem is that the output of the rectifier typically starts from 0, gradually increases as the ac input is being rectifier, eventually reaches a steady state DC output voltage. When I simulated them(transient simulation), the output droops after it reaches a certain output DC value. This happens to a few of the topologies published in JSSC, it's unlikely for all of them to be wrong, so I suspect that there's probably something wrong with my simulation.

In my transient simulation, in the ADE environment, choosing analysis window, I used "conservative" as accuracy defaults, and there's also an "options" button in the transient simulation window. I clicked on it, a window called "Transient Options" opened up. And, there are a few tabs, "Time Step", "Algorithm", "State File", "Output", "EM/IR Output", "Misc". I left all of them blank. Shall I try to set some of them, will that make a difference??? I thought by setting accuracy defaults to "conservative", all those things are already set by cadence automatically.

I would greatly appreciate if anyone could give hint/explanation as to what is going on.

Thank you very much

Menghan

  • Cancel
  • Quek
    Quek over 9 years ago

    Hi Menghan

    It is ok not to modify the settings in "Transient" options form. Using the default simulation settings is usually fine. Actually reproducing published results might also require you to use the same PDK, model files, etc.

    - Are you using the same PDK as the author of the design?
    - Are you using the same testbench setting?

    If you are already using the same input data (PDK, model files, testbench, etc) but is still unable to get the same results, it might be good to contact the author of the design for more information.

    Best regards
    Quek

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel

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.

© 2025 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Cookie Policy
  • US Trademarks
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information