Do you have any comment for modeling package and board for
multidrop/T-junction nets and pwr/gnd ring, I have difficulties on that,
thanks for any input.
Very Innovative Architecture -- The PC chipset company.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dima Smolyansky [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 1998 11:34 AM
> To: 'Scott McMorrow'; Charles W. Martin
> Cc: 'Si-list@silab.Eng.Sun.COM'
> Subject: [SI-LIST] : RE: Models & EDA Vendors
> Charles, Scott:
> I believe you can model packages and boards very accurately using TDR
> measurements. If you can deconvolve the true impedance profile from
> the TDR waveform, you can create a pretty good limited only by the
> incident rise time of your TDR instrument (which can be under 20ps).
> We have developed software that does exactly that - models the
> interconnects from TDR measurements, and verifies the model through
> integrated interface to a circuit simulator. We currently are SPICE
> based, but it is my understanding that there are very good SPICE to
> IBIS converters.
> If you want more information, check out our web site or e-mail me.
> Dima Smolyansky
> TDA Systems, Inc.
> 7465 SW Elmwood St.
> Portland, OR 97223
> (503) 977-3629
> (503) 245-5684 (fax)
> The Interconnect Modeling Company(tm)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott McMorrow [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 11:07 AM
> To: Charles W. Martin
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Models & EDA Vendors
> Generally, all models from component vendors, whether IBIS,
> Quad, or Spice, should be considered suspect until used and
> correlated against actual in-circuit operation. Oftentimes
> models are not given the care that they deserve at the IC vendor.
> They are often "extracted" by someone who doesn't understand
> the problem. And the problem is multifold ....
> Are the IV curves and waveform tables modeled accurately? If
> care is taken, the accuracy of an IBIS model can correlate with
> high precision to original HSPICE simulations or physical
> If not, you might be in the right ballpark, you might not.
> ICX/Zeelan models are based upon physical measurements, and so have
> highly accurate characteristics. However, these are not worst case
> measurements. They are based upon a sampling of typical
> silicon. Care must be taken by the design engineer to insure that
> worst case behavior is taken into account. However, in the absence
> of manufacturer's models, these are the best you'll get ... and they
> are very good. I use ICX/Zeelan models in my work when
> manufacturer models are not available.
> Are packages modeled correctly? In order to correctly model package
> effects with high performance silicon devices with sub 500 ps
> rise times, it is necessary to model the package in detail. This
> usually requires a 3D field solver and results in numerous sections
> of transmission line. Detailed package analysis by vendors is
> rarely provided. Intel is an exception to this rule. There may be
> other vendors which also provide this data in Ibis or Quad format,
> I am aware of few. It is generally next to impossible to get this
> from a manufacturer in any format, even Spice.
> So are we totally out of the ballpark for most manufacturers? Well,
> that depends. If you are concerned about tight timing margins
> in the sub 500 ps range, then highly accurate model and package
> characterization are absolutely necessary. You must work with
> your chip suppliers to provide you accurate data. This often takes
> multiple iterations to "help" them understand your problem.
> Intel is an example of a vendor who has "generally" taken care in
> characterizing their devices for worst case margin analysis.
> However, if you are concerned about signal integrity effects alone,
> (non-monotonicity, overshoot, undershoot, ringback, and crosstalk)
> and their effect upon correct device operation and timing, and have
> a bit of timing margin to spare, then the IBIS models which are
> available from ICX/Zeelan, other independent model vendors, and
> IC manufacturers will fit the bill. Using these models one can
> perform very good board signal integrity analysis.
> In my work, I use both options. I am often called upon to analyze
> systems that have sub 500 ps and even sub 150 ps timing margins.
> In these cases, I work closely with the manufacturers to obtain
> IBIS and HSPICE device and package models. I often have to
> perform my own HSPICE to IBIS conversions and correlations in order
> to "know" that the data I am getting from simulations are accurate.
> In other cases, I perform analysis on designs that are not pushing
> the state of the art in performance, but are pushing the density
> and complexity boundaries of a pc board. Here I am concerned about
> noise, overshoot, undershoot, crosstalk and non-monotonicity
> of asynchronous signals and clocks. I do complete board analysis
> across worst case device corners. However, I usually have at least
> 1 ns or more of timing margins on most busses. In these cases
> I have had incredible success with using manufacturer's, and
> ICX/Zeelan based IBIS models. I still have to check them for
> reasonableness, and I have to run them through IBIS parser
> checks to ready them for my ICX simulation environments, but
> these are minor nuisances compared to having no simulation
> models at all.
> I hope my comments have helped.
> "Charles W. Martin" wrote:
> > I've recently seen a demo for MGC's ICX tools (Including Tau for
> > verification). There software uses native IBIS models for timing and
> > signal integrity estimations on the fly, and simulation.
> > ICX mentions a library of 10K parts, as a first tier, afterwards
> > are two-tiers which cost the end-user progressively more for ICX to
> > ibis models.
> > ICX mentions that they are working with ic vendors providing them
> > tools which would allow them to develop accurate ibis models
> > I'd like some feedback from anyone (ICX users, IC Vendors, etc..)
> > have worked with ICX on developing IBIS models.
> > Secondly, we've found that many of the parts we'd like to simulate
> > don't exist in their library. While it's expected that newer
> > technologies might not have models, some of the models that are
> > are typical everyday parts/technologies. What's the preferred
> > to obtaining and verifying accuracy of these parts?
> > Lastly, IBIS is a great idea, and the people behind the scenes
> > deserve a round of applause. However, I'm interested in people's
> > on how widely available _accurate_ models are from component
> > Thanks for your feedback,
> > Chuck
> > Charles Martin
> > Cabletron Systems, Inc.
> > EDA Tools
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Phone: (603) 337-2973
> > Fax : (603) 337-1764
> Scott McMorrow
> Principal Engineer
> **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
> email@example.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
> si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at
> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list ****
**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list ****