Dear SunnyB and Andrew, [quote userid="4936" url="~/cadence_technology_forums/f/custom-ic-design/46926/picking-corner-dependent-variables-for-monte-carlo-simulation/1369876"]The pre-run script approach[/quote] Thank you, Andrew, for explicitly mentioning this to SunnyB! [quote userid="483209" url="~/cadence_technology_forums/f/custom-ic-design/46926/picking-corner-dependent-variables-for-monte-carlo-simulation/1369874"] However, what I do now is that I run a monte carlo (e.g. 60 points) at nominal corner and save the 5 bit codes in a global variable. (I use calcVal for this) Then I run the same monte carlo (60 points) with same seed (so each iteration represents the same silicon wafer as before). But this time, I run it at 8 different corners (varying voltage and temp) using the code from the previous monte carlo. [/quote] Thank you, SunnyB, for having the patience to read through my note and consider its contents! Your updated approach sounds much more realistic given the "continuous" spectrum of process cases provided by the process and mismatch corner - great! If I may mention one other item with regard to your methodology - and you may be doing this already. I don't know the explicit voltage and temperature variations of your circuit, but in some calibrated circuits that I have been responsible for I have found the most stressful condition from a calibration perspective is when calibrated at the minimum or maximum temperature and then operated at the opposite temperature extreme (I term these the "inverted" temperature cases). Hence, I run two calibration with a total of four operation simulations as follows: 1. Calibrate at minimum operating temperature, save and load calibration code and operate at minimum and maximum temperature to verify sufficient performance at both temperatures. 2. Calibrate at maximum operating temperature, save and load calibration code and operate at maximum and minimum temperature to verify sufficient performance at both temperatures This methodology, in my experience, is more stressful than running a calibration simulation at a nominal temperature and then set the temperature to its maximum and minimum value with the calibration code corresponding to the nominal temperature. Perhaps this is not an issue for your circuit, but wanted to at least mention it. Thank you, again, for letting us know your thoughts and new approach SunnyB! Shawn
↧