How much do you trust your software?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Topher925
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Software
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reliability of circuit simulation software, specifically NI Multisim, in predicting results for sensitive electrical measurements involving low signal and noise. Participants explore discrepancies between simulation outputs and actual lab measurements, particularly in the context of op-amp performance and SPICE model accuracy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes significant discrepancies between Multisim predictions and actual measurements, questioning the accuracy of SPICE models for low signal applications.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of alignment between calculations, simulations, and measurements, suggesting that issues may arise from the SPICE model used.
  • There is a query about the type of analysis being performed, with one participant asking if the circuit is run using Transient or Sweep Analysis, indicating that Sweep Analysis may yield unrealistic voltage outputs.
  • A participant confirms they are using Transient Analysis and shares images of their results, highlighting that Multisim's model diverges significantly from their MATLAB calculations.
  • Some participants suggest that the simulator may struggle with very low currents and high resistances, proposing that scaling values to more nominal ranges could help identify errors.
  • One participant reports that scaling feedback resistor values and increasing photodiode current leads to more expected behavior, but notes that these adjustments are not applicable to their specific application.
  • A participant expresses a preference for using their MATLAB calculations over simulation software, citing better control and understanding of the results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of confidence in the simulation software, with some agreeing that discrepancies are likely due to model inaccuracies while others suggest potential issues with the analysis method. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the reliability of Multisim for low signal measurements.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention potential limitations of SPICE models and the impact of using extreme values in simulations, indicating that these factors may contribute to the discrepancies observed.

Topher925
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
7
I've been delving a little deeper into electrical theory in terms of noise and low signal measurement as I'm working on some rather sensitive stuff and the back of my napkin calculations isn't cutting it anymore as I need to account for things like opamp input bias, voltage offset, etc. I thought I would do some spice based circuit simulations using NI Multisim to see if I could predict the same results I get in the lab. The software is no where even close to what's actually happening on the workbench. I'm measuring a current based signal of about a few pico-amps which is then going to a low-bias op-amp and is giving me a rms voltage of about a few micro-volts with a SNR of about 1:1. Mutlisim predicts a voltage of about 9,000V with a SNR of 10:1.

My simple napkin calculations in MATLAB give a result to within about 30% of what I'm measuring on the oscilloscope in terms of signal and noise magnitude. What the hell is going on here? I double checked all my numbers and schematics in the software and everything appears to be correct. The only thing I can think of is that the spice models for the amplifier components are wrong but I took those directly from the manufacturer (Analog Devices). Are spice based software packages always this off or am I doing something wrong?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
You're doing the right things. It's important to get agreement between calculations, simulations and measurements. They should eventually be very close to each other, once all the subtleties (and sometimes software bugs) are worked out.

Are you able to post more information so that we can try to check the simulation results? There may be an issue with the SPICE model that you have downloaded -- it wouldn't be the first time that a model had issues.
 
Are you running your circuit using Transient Analysis or Sweep Analysis? Sweep analysis isn't concerned with power supply voltages and often you get voltages out that are higher than the power supply voltage.
 
skeptic2 said:
Are you running your circuit using Transient Analysis or Sweep Analysis? Sweep analysis isn't concerned with power supply voltages and often you get voltages out that are higher than the power supply voltage.

I'm running a transient analysis. I didn't think Multisim has a sweep analysis. :confused:

I attached an image of the results my code gives me (first pic) and the schematic with the simulation running (second pic). The spice models for the opamps came from Analogs Multisim free download thing on their website.

As you can see the multisim model just kind of goes off into oblivion while the MATLAB script I wrote gives more realistic results. I'm still fine tuning it a bit but its getting there. I can post code or what ever else if wanted.
 

Attachments

  • SignalModel.png
    SignalModel.png
    20.6 KB · Views: 533
  • MultisimModel.jpg
    MultisimModel.jpg
    32.4 KB · Views: 490
It does look like the simulator is having trouble with the tiny currents and huge resistances. Can you ratio the values back to more nominal values to see if the math errors stop at some point?
 
berkeman said:
It does look like the simulator is having trouble with the tiny currents and huge resistances. Can you ratio the values back to more nominal values to see if the math errors stop at some point?

Yes. If I scale the feedback resistor down to around the 1Mohm range and bump up the photodiode current to the microamp range it starts to behave normally. This range of values is of course completely useless for my application.

I think I'm just going to stick with my MATLAB calculations and not deal with any fancy software. With my code I at least know exactly what's going on what needs to be tuned in order to get the results to agree with experimental measurements.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
6K