Multisim and Ultiboard

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

"Weird" result in MOSFET Capacitance calculation

Solved!
Go to solution

Hi everyone,

 

I have a problem with the simulation result for calculating N-CH Mosfet capacitance (Cgs, Cgd, and Cdb).  

In this simulation I tried to verify my manual calculation with the Spice result using Multsim 11.0. But, the result in Multism simulation is quit different either from the manual calculation or from Pspice/Hspice simulation.

 

5-4.JPG

 

Manual Calculation:

5-2.jpg5-3.jpg

Multisim Simulation:

5-1.jpg

Setting Parameters in Multisim:

5-5.JPG5-6.JPG

 

 

.DC from Multisim

5-7.JPG

 

>DC from PSPICE

5-8.jpg

From those results, it seems that Pspice gave a close value to the theoretical MOSFET calculation here.  And I got messy result in Multisim.

 

Can somebody help me solving this problem?..is Multisim not as powerful as other spice software? or I just messed up with the parameters setting form Multisim and ended with the wrong answer?

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 7
(5,770 Views)

Sant0z,

 

We'll investigate and get back to you. Thanks for the detailed report.

Max
National Instruments
0 Kudos
Message 2 of 7
(5,724 Views)

Sant0z,

 

We investigated and found a problem with the reported capacitance values. However this is only a problem with the report - the actual internal capacitance values applied in dynamic analyses (AC and Transient) are different from those reported. For your bias conditions, the internal values are practically identical to the values you cite. We will rectify this problem in the next major release.

 

Thanks for the report and sorry for the inconvenience.

Max
National Instruments
0 Kudos
Message 3 of 7
(5,718 Views)

Hi, Max

 

Thanks for replaying my question. But, I still don’t get it. Your answer looks like in between.  

Is the problem caused by user error? or it is a software error

If it is just a user error, you can point out which error that the user made in that simulation.

But, if it is caused by software error, you can explain that there is an error/bug in Multisim, so I can start using other simulator.

 

Thanks.

0 Kudos
Message 4 of 7
(5,685 Views)

sorry if I was not clear - it is a software error at the reporting stage only. Note that the values calculated internally (not the ones reported) are still correct. So for example, if you run AC analysis (which requires capacitance values at the DC operating point), Multisim will use the correct capacitance values for the actual analysis.

 

 

Max
National Instruments
0 Kudos
Message 5 of 7
(5,677 Views)

I tried to run AC analysis, but capacitance values for Cgs, Cgd, and Cdb are same with the result from .DC analysis.

And a result form Zero Poles analysis also ended up with wrong value, because PZ depends on the value of the CMOS Capacitance.

What I found from that result are:

1. Multisim doesn't calculate Extrinsic Capacitance (Overlap Cap) and calculates Intrinsic Cap only.

2. The default value of Eox (Silicon Oxide permittivity) in Multisim is 1.75fF/um.sqr instead of  3.45fF/um.sqr

 

If any mistakes occur in my analysis, please let me know.

 

Thanks

 

0 Kudos
Message 6 of 7
(5,659 Views)
Solution
Accepted by topic author Sant0z

I believe you are still accessing the device capacitances output variables. Those would be only the reported capacitances and the same as in DC - incorrect. We checked the code and the actual capacitances used for analysis are the correct ones.

 

To demonstrate this, by using actual circuit variables - voltage and current, I calculated the impedance looking into the gate for a 1Ghz range (Its a bit non-trivial to demonstrate the impedance of specific capacitances because you cannot easily pull out the current of the capacitance). The results are identical to PSpice.

 

So to reiterate- the actual circuit analysis results will not be affected. For now, we ask that you not look at the capacitance device variable as this is incorrect.

 

Hope that helps.

Max
National Instruments
0 Kudos
Message 7 of 7
(5,638 Views)