Re: [SI-LIST] : skin effect and transmission line simulators

Torsten Maeser (
Tue, 09 Sep 1997 09:16:34 +0200

Chris Simon,

EMC-Workbench from INCASES Eng. should mostly meet your requirements. INCASES'
fast transmission line solver (named FREACS) is working in the time domain.
The calculation of frequency dependent transmission line parameters (including
skin effect and dielectric losses) is done with a tool from OptEM Engineering
(INCASES has a partnership with OptEM). A complex library of non-linear
component models is part of the package. SPICE as well as IBIS models can also
be used. Through a convenient graphical user interface, any kind of stimulus
can be defined.

Torsten Maeser

INCASES Engineering GmbH Tel: +49-5251-150-600
Vattmannstrasse 3 Fax: +49-5251-150-700
D-33100 Paderborn email:

Chris Simon wrote:

> I am looking for a time domain lossy transmission line simulator for
> digital signals with bit rates of 1Gbit/sec and higher. I would like to
> get information on simulators that you have experince with.
> The simulator I'm looking for should include all of the following:
> 1. The results can be viewed in the time domain.
> 2. Transmission line models that include series resistance and
> inductance which are functions of frequency to ACCURATELY model skin
> effect. (i.e., a frequency dependent line model that is used to get time
> domain simulation results)
> 3. SPICE CMOS models and/or IBIS type non-linear models can be used
> as drivers and receivers
> 4. Arbitrary driver data patterns can be used (i.e., not limited to
> repetative signals)
> There is one other criteria, but I'm not certain that this one is required
> for signals with 150 to 200 pSec rise and fall times. Any opinions?
> 5. Includes the effect of dielectric losses.
> I am aware of several products that claim to meet these critria. Upon
> close inspection several of the lossy line models didn't really meet number
> 2. This seems to be the tough one.
> I am going to take a detailed look at Microwave Design System (MDS) from
> Hewlett-Packard, although someone told me that the current version doesn't
> meet number 3 above.
> I would be interested in hearing which of the above criteria are met by
> other tools, or whether a future revision will incorporate these features.
> If you know how the following tools stack up, especially with regard to
> number 2, I would appreciate hearing from you.
> Quad Design, Quantic, Interconnectix/Mentor Graphics, Pacific Numerix,
> Cadence SigNoise, ApSim/Contec, EMC-workbench, others?
> Chris Simon