1 / 28

Verilog-A is for Equation Specification, not for Modeling

Verilog-A is for Equation Specification, not for Modeling. MOS-AK Meeting Saturday December 13, 2008. Overview. A Brief History of Verilog-A for Compact Modeling A Brief Review of How Circuit Simulators Work How to Leverage Understanding of How Simulators Work to Implement Desired Equations

mary
Télécharger la présentation

Verilog-A is for Equation Specification, not for Modeling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Verilog-A is for Equation Specification, not for Modeling MOS-AK Meeting Saturday December 13, 2008

  2. Overview • A Brief History of Verilog-A for Compact Modeling • A Brief Review of How Circuit Simulators Work • How to Leverage Understanding of How Simulators Work to Implement Desired Equations • thinking outside the “equivalent network” modeling box • example 1: BJT excess phase • example 2: single formulation resistor that can handle R=0 • Summary

  3. What is Verilog-A? • Initially (mid to late 1990’s), a language for analog behavioral modeling to enable • top down AMS design at the block level • efficient top-level AMS verification • VHDL-AMS is a “competing” language developed around the same time for the same purposes • So how does Verilog-A relate to compact modeling?

  4. Automation in Compact Modeling • In the late 1980’s automation began to creep into the development of simulators • especially for the time-consuming and error-prone task of implementing compact models (symbolic derivative generation) • added impetus to the on-going migration from “diffused” model code to “modular” model code • Simulator-model interfaces of the 1980’s and 1990’s: • WATAND • Saber/MAST – major commercial success • Tektronix (very early pioneer) • ADMIT plus various compilers (AT&T) • iSMILE • CMC Type-II interface (DOA circa 1995; engineering ≠ CS)

  5. VBIC Eldo SP Spectre R3_CMC ADS Nexxim HiCUM BSIM aSPICE Mextram Nanosim PSP APLAC MM11 HSPICE EKV GoldenGate MOSVAR Ultrasim The Problem The Solution Common Language/Interface

  6. Automated Model Implementation • Mostly flopped in mid 1990’s • VBIC was the first public model defined in high level code • generated FORTRAN and C also provided • these were used • high-level pseudo-code was not! (except by Tektronix) • chasm between engineers and advanced software techniques • Many misconceptions • code is slow compared to hand-coded C • within 10% of hand coded and getting better • will be faster one day (proven already), then works for all models! • cannot use for parameter extraction • if it’s in a simulator it’s in your simulator-based extractor! • different code for different simulators will give different results • different compile flags on the same platform give different results!

  7. Enter Verilog-A • Significant issue with the concept (high-level language + compilers) was the lack of a standard high-level language! • Verilog-A was obviously the solution for this • VHDL-AMS touted as well initially • Minor deficiencies overcome by compact model additions defined in LRM2.2 • CMC accepted models defined in Verilog-A circa 2004 • Verilog-A has become the de facto standard language for defining compact models

  8. Moving Beyond “Models” • You can use Verilog-A to define “physical” compact models • But this can be very restrictive • constrained to think in terms of equivalent networks • constrained to think in terms of I(V), Q(V) relations • A circuit simulator is an equation solver • Think of what equations you want to force the simulator to solve, then develop Verilog-A constructs to force this • not thinking in terms of physical representation

  9. + – How SPICE Works: Simple BJT Model and Circuit Ibc c Qbc Icc RB x b Vc Ibe Qbe Ib e RE

  10. System Equations (DC): MNA • Unknowns are V(x), V(b), V(c), V(e), and Ic=I(Vc) x b e c • Vbe=V(b)–V(e) and Vbc=V(b) –V(c)

  11. Branch Jacobian Entry (Element Matrix Stamp) • Solve KCL SI(V)=f(V)=0 at each node, plus the “voltage equation” for voltage sources (and inductors) • nonlinear, so need iterative Newton solution • Vk+1=Vk+dVk, JkdVk=-f(Vk), Jk= ∂I/∂V|V=Vk • Easy to set up Jacobian Jk in an algorithmic fashion • rows are defined by nodes that the current flows between • +ve for flow into node, –ve for flow out-of node • columns are defined by the branch control voltages • +ve for first node, –ve for second, for Vab=V (a)-V (b) • voltage sources and inductors add a row for the voltage equation and a column (unknown system variable) for the current

  12. V(x) V(b) V(c) V(e) Ic SI(x) SI(b) SI(c) SI(e) Vc Jacobian Assembly (“Stamping”) • gbe=∂Ibe/Vbe • gce=∂Icc/Vbe, gcc=∂Icc/Vbc,gm= gce+ gcc , go= - gcc

  13. SPICE • Circuit simulators are not really “circuit simulators” • for DC they are multidimensional nonlinear equation solvers • for transient they are nonlinear ordinary differential equation (ODE) solvers • multidimensional nonlinear equation solvers at each time point • Instead of thinking of Verilog-A as a means to define equivalent network models, think of it as a means of specifying equations for numerical solution • formulate the equations you want • understand how MNA equations are set up • work out how to use Verilog-A to set up the desired equations

  14. Itxf =V(xf2) TD/3 xf1 xf2 Itzf TD 1W Weil-McNamee Excess Phase for BJTs • Goal: implement a phase shift for gm with the least possible change in the magnitude of gm • network approach leads to 2nd order Bessel (linear phase) filter • straight forward to implement as RLC circuit (L. Wagner, IBM)

  15. xf2 xf1 Itzf V(xf2) V(xf1) TD TD/3 1W How Can We Get Rid of the Pesky Inductor?

  16. Itxf =2V(xf)- Itzf xf Itzf TD/2 1W Can We Better Approximate an Ideal Phase Shift? • Only 1 added system variable!

  17. Phase Response

  18. Magnitude Response

  19. What about Resistors? p m

  20. The “Solution” ... sort of • For “reasonable” R: • natural for NA (SPICE) • efficient for NA • nasty for R=0 or small R • For “small” R: • extra MNA system variable • no worries for R=0 or small R

  21. The “... sort of” Solution `include "disciplines.h" `define rm 0.001 module r_va(p,m); inout p,m; electrical p,m; parameter real R = 1.0 from[0.0:inf); analog begin : analogBlock if (R<`rm) V(p,m) <+ I(p,m)*R; else I(p,m) <+ V(p,m)/R; end // analogBlock endmodule EASY TO DEFINE  HARD TO IMPLEMENT 

  22. Why “... sort of” is not Enough • Does work in Verilog-A • excellent feature of the language • Does not (easily) work for • built-in model implementation via ADMS • some model interfaces for some simulators • dynamic switching for the case when R varies with bias • Do not want to switch formulations during iterative solution • dynamically adds extra system variable I(p,m) • Observation: must have this current for V=RI formulation • Conclusion: explicitly include in model formulation

  23. V(p) V(m) I_r V(p,m) How do We Force Verilog-A to do What We Want? • For simplicity of implementation in model interfaces, need to get rid of voltage contribution • only want strict nodal analysis formulation • How can we do this for R=0? • Want V(p,m)=0 • Set up currentcontribution forthis as the only flowinto a node • Forces set up ofequation we want!

  24. The R=0 Solution `include "disciplines.h" module r_va(p,m); inout p,m; electrical p,m,I_r; parameter real R = 1.0 from[0.0:inf); analog begin : analogBlock I(I_r) <+ V(p,m); I(p,m) <+ 1.0e-6*V(I_r); end // analogBlock endmodule second equation forces V(I_r) to be current flowing between p and m

  25. Extension for Small Nonzero R `include "disciplines.h" module r_va(p,m); inout p,m; electrical p,m,I_r; parameter real R = 1.0 from[0.0:inf); analog begin : analogBlock I(I_r) <+ V(p,m)-1.0e-6*R*V(I_r); I(p,m) <+ 1.0e-6*V(I_r); end // analogBlock endmodule first equation forces V(p,m)=I*R (voltage on node I_r is current p→m)

  26. Final Result `include "disciplines.h" `define rm 0.001 module r_va(p,m); inout p,m; electrical p,m,I_r; parameter real R = 1.0 from[0.0:inf); analog begin : analogBlock I(I_r) <+ V(p,m)-1.0e-6*R*V(I_r); if (R<`rm) I(p,m) <+ 1.0e-6*V(I_r); else I(p,m) <+ V(p,m)/R; // I=G*V formulation end // analogBlock endmodule

  27. Final Model • Manipulated Verilog-A equations we want to solve • Resistor model that does not switch formulations from current contribution to voltage contribution • strictly nodal formulation • easy to implement in all simulator model interfaces • numerically well behaved for all R≥0 • can be adapted to use same “switch” for voltage variable R • direct bias dependence • indirect bias dependence (e.g. self-heating) • Cost is added system variable V(I_r) is added for all values of R, not just R<`rm

  28. Summary • Circuit simulators are equation, not circuit, solvers • Historical modeling approach of equivalent networks and a physical approach may not always give desired result • By thinking about what equations you want to implement or solve, and understanding how MNA is set up, you can use Verilog-A to implement “non-obvious” but useful models • Note: if “currents” are mapped to node voltages (i.e. system variables), they need to be scaled by the voltage/current tolerance ratio (default is 1.0e6)

More Related