Real Time with… AltiumLive 2020: Steven Sandler’s Simulation Keynote

Reading time ( words)

Steven Sandler, managing director at Picotest, delivered a detailed and informative keynote at AltiumLive 2020 on worst-case fault simulation. With a career built on worst-case simulation modeling, and working on such high profile projects as the ISS and the Large Hadron Collider, Sandler is a world-class expert on the subject. His presentation detailed the fundamental tenets of worst-case simulation, illustrated with lots of technical examples and anecdotal stories.

His keynote, titled “Simulation as an Essential Tool,” was interesting and informative. Sandler and Picotest have an extensive background in worst-case-scenario simulation, so it made sense to have Sandler as a keynote concurrent to Altium’s announcement of a SPICE simulation solution in its product suite. 

As I joined the virtual presentation, Sandler made the point that we can create very good simulation results with great models. Without good models, however, it’s the “garbage in, garbage out” principle. Sandler illustrated the truth to this statement with a series of modeling examples (some from the ISS and the Large Hadron Collider, or LHC) where very large projects were able to do predictive fault analysis across subsystem interfaces, relying on SPICE to simulate the system designs.

To achieve this kind of accuracy, the actual modeling must be meticulous and detailed. But accurate may not be usably fast. Sandler shared a model that was accurate but ran for up to two days. He cautioned that there is a constant tradeoff between fast and accurate when it comes to simulation models.

Sandler also described his professional distrust of models supplied from other sources. He warned engineers to start by assuming the models are wrong and validate them first. Sandler then discussed a handful of anecdotes where he had found errors in published models and reported them to the vendor, only to see the vendor never update the models.

During the keynote, Sandler said, "Vendors make models, but they aren’t always accurate. Don’t use a model you didn’t write or vet yourself.” Later, during an open Q&A, a question would lead Sandler back to this advice. When asked, “Who’s responsible for validating these models?” Sandler answered, “Nobody." 

The creation and maintenance of the published reference simulation models are typically a marketing function, not an engineering function. Models are often treated simply as a "check in the box,” created by someone junior, and often not maintained after initial publication. Sandler reminded everyone, "The user of the model must make sure the model is accurate."

In addition to modeling discipline, Sandler advised engineers not to simulate their own designs because the engineer will have a bias. Engineers, Sandler stated, like to show how fast their designs are and how well they work under expected conditions. But worst-case analysis requires an opposite mindset; he made a case for an engineer's human nature to ignore data that doesn’t match the engineer’s expectations.

All this matters in the PCB design marketplace because today, the effects on simulation performance from PCBs are no longer “in the noise.” Sandler suggested that virtually all worst-case simulations of assemblies must include the PCB effects. That wasn’t the case historically. As an example, Sandler reported regularly finding PCB issues in the low frequencies, such as under 100 Hz. The common belief is that PCB issues will be a higher frequency.

But it isn’t just the modeling, Sandler pointed out. The setup of the test equipment can be tricky, too. The measurement equipment can change the data being measured. The test equipment’s characteristics may need to be included in the model.

In his conclusion, Sandler reiterated the ongoing closed-loop system of modern design: measure, model, simulate, measure, repeat. And this closed-loop objective will require engineers to either make their own model or thoroughly validate the vendor’s model.

Visit Real Time with… AltiumLive 2020 to catch the latest video interviews and event-related content.



Suggested Items

Why We Simulate

04/29/2021 | Bill Hargin, Z-zero
When Bill Hargin was cutting his teeth in high-speed PCB design some 25 years ago, speeds were slow, layer counts were low, dielectric constants and loss tangents were high, design margins were wide, copper roughness didn’t matter, and glass-weave styles didn’t matter. Dielectrics were called “FR-4” and their properties didn’t matter much. A fast PCI bus operated at just 66 MHz. Times have certainly changed.

Alternatives to Simulation

04/23/2021 | Dan Beeker, NXP Semiconductors
We are living in an age where the demands on electronic product designs are constantly evolving. The IC technology and operating speeds continue to pose significant challenges for teams as they work to develop their products. The increased transistor switching speeds and less forgiving compliance standards make signal integrity and electro-magnetic compliance more difficult to achieve. The status quo seems to have become, “We expect to fail EMC testing.”

Bridging the Simulation Tool Divide

04/12/2021 | I-Connect007 Editorial Team
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.

Copyright © 2021 I-Connect007. All rights reserved.