Bridging the Simulation Tool Divide
April 12, 2021 | I-Connect007 Editorial TeamEstimated reading time: 3 minutes
Todd Westerhoff of Siemens EDA recently spoke with the I-Connect007 Editorial Team about the divide between users of high-powered enterprise simulation tools and those who need a more practical tool for everyday use, and how Siemens is working to bridge the gap. Todd also shared his views on why so many engineers do not use simulation, as well as advice for engineers just getting started with simulation tools.
Andy Shaughnessy: Hi, Todd. This is our simulation issue, and we want to get your thoughts on some of the challenges in this area. What do you see right now? What’s the biggest problem in simulation?
Todd Westerhoff: I think the biggest challenge is that there just aren’t enough people simulating. There are a lot of people who are designing to rules of thumb, manufacturer guidelines, or getting somebody else to run analysis for them—but there aren’t that many simulating themselves. I usually break simulation users into two broad groups: SI experts, who run simulations full time; and everyone else, who run simulations intermittently, if at all. The SI experts have the most advanced requirements and are also the smaller of the two groups.
The general assumption about simulation seems to be that it starts at the top—if we meet the analysis needs of the experts, knowledge and technology will trickle down over time to the broader audience. The problem is that, as an industry, we have too many designs in progress with too few experts to support all that activity. Simulation has two main purposes:
1. Providing a basis for making informed decisions about design trade-offs.
2. Validating a design before manufacture to reduce the risk of prototype spins.
How do we expect the majority of system designers to make decisions and reduce risk if they don’t have data to back up those decisions? Most of the simulation that we need to make design decisions and detect issues during layout doesn’t require expert-level attention to detail—the need is far more pedestrian. We’re not servicing those needs when we focus primarily on the state of the art. SI tools have been around for 30 years now, and we still see the majority of people not simulating, so we need to consider doing something else.
Shaughnessy: Maybe they don’t need a tool that you have to be an experienced signal integrity engineer to operate. Can a regular system designer or layout designer use the simulation tools we have today?
Westerhoff: Depending on the tools you talk about, yes and no. Let’s go back to our classes of users. Experts are looking for advanced tools with state-of-the-art performance and capacity. Ease of use is a consideration but not critical, as experts can make pretty much anything work. They have deep SI knowledge and can improvise analytical methods when the situation calls for it. To your question, the tools used by full-time SI/PI engineers are typically not usable by mainstream designers, because the tools by themselves are not enough. You need an analytical methodology, or workflow, to apply the tools to a design and determine whether the design will work, and that process is typically complicated enough (and manual enough) to preclude use by someone who isn’t performing analysis full-time.
And that’s the rub: if we’re not designing a 112-gigabit serial link or a loaded DDR5 interface, most of the issues we face during design and layout don’t require the kind of accuracy that an expert is looking for. There are a lot of design issues you want to take off the table before you put a lot of effort into modeling and simulation. You can think of it this way: Experts typically simulate at the level of accuracy needed to “sign-off” a design for fabrication, but system designers are often just trying to assess the impact of a tradeoff on design margin. In those cases, a good answer now is preferable to a great answer later. You can think of that as “trade-off” analysis. It’s less accurate, but faster to run and accessible to a wider audience. That’s the kind of analysis that needs to be accessible to regular system or layout designers. We have some of those tools in place today, but the world clearly needs more.
To read this entire interview, which appeared in the April 2021 issue of Design007 Magazine, click here.
Suggested Items
Wearable Devices Get Signal Boost from Innovative Material
05/25/2024 | Rice UniversityA new material that moves like skin while preserving signal strength in electronics could enable the development of next-generation wearable devices with continuous, consistent wireless and battery-free functionality.
Siemens Simplifies Development of AI Accelerators for Advanced System-on-chip Designs with Catapult AI NN
05/24/2024 | SiemensSiemens Digital Industries Software announced Catapult™ AI NN software for High-Level Synthesis (HLS) of neural network accelerators on Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) and System-on-a-chip (SoCs). Catapult AI NN is a complete solution that starts with a neural network description from an AI framework, converts it into C++ and synthesizes it into an RTL accelerator in Verilog or VHDL for implementation in silicon.
Listen to I-Connect007’s Latest Podcast Episode: Empowering Electrical Engineers
05/23/2024 | I-Connect007I-Connect007 is thrilled to announce the release of the latest episode in Series 3 of its popular podcast, On the Line With... , available now on Apple and Spotify.
The Thrill of Victory: IPC Design Competition
05/23/2024 | Michelle Te, I-Connect007The final heat of the 2024 IPC Design Competition took place on Tuesday, April 9, during IPC APEX EXPO. IPC’s Kris Moyer and Patrick Crawford served as judges and onsite supervisors for the event, which featured five competitors—four online and one live at IPC APEX EXPO. The grand prize winner was Dinesh G., followed by Paul Brionez in second place (he placed third last year), Ajeesh Francis in third, and runners-up Joseph Chiu and Harish G (last year’s champion).
Dana on Data: The Insane PCB DFM Process
05/22/2024 | Dana Korf -- Column: Dana on DataThis industry just doesn’t like to change. Line width/space is consistently narrowed; layer counts are now over 120 layers; via diameters constantly shrink. But a fabricator still can’t build per the supplied data package because of design, document, and capability mismatch errors. I have been writing for I-Connect007, and of the 41 articles and interviews I have done, 39 have focused on highlighting designer-to-fabricator data transfer issues with proposed solutions. Little has changed to improve the transfer. This industry seems to accept receiving erroneous PCB data.