Business Requirements Document
ThermalATE: Coupled Physics DVT Simulation Platform
| Document ID |
BRD-001 |
| Version |
1.1.0 |
| Status |
Draft |
| Author |
Kai Chappell |
| Created |
2025-12-01 |
| Last Updated |
2025-12-01 |
Purpose
This document defines what the ThermalATE system must do. It specifies the functional and non-functional requirements, constraints, and success criteria.
For why decisions were made, see 03_architecture_decisions.md.
For how to implement the system, see 02_technical_specification.md.
Related Documents
| Document |
Purpose |
01_requirements.md |
Defines what the system must do (this document) |
02_technical_specification.md |
Specifies how to implement the system |
03_architecture_decisions.md |
Explains why decisions were made |
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary
- Problem Statement
- Business Objectives
- Stakeholders
- Scope
- Functional Requirements
- Non-Functional Requirements
- Constraints
- Assumptions
- Success Criteria
- Risks
- Glossary
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Purpose
ThermalATE is a coupled-physics Device Validation Test (DVT) simulation platform that enables engineers to develop, validate, and debug characterisation test sequences without physical access to laboratory equipment.
1.2 Background
DVT engineers require access to expensive Automated Test Equipment (ATE) to develop and validate characterisation algorithms. Physical equipment is a shared resource with limited availability, creating bottlenecks in the development process.
1.3 Proposed Solution
A software simulation environment that accurately models the physical coupling between thermal and electrical domains, allowing complete test sequence development and validation without hardware access.
2. Problem Statement
2.1 Current Challenges
| Challenge |
Impact |
| Limited Equipment Access |
ATE racks cost $100k+ and are shared resources; engineers must schedule lab time |
| Slow Development Iteration |
Cannot iterate on test algorithms without physical equipment reservation |
| Difficult Edge Case Testing |
Testing failure modes or boundary conditions risks damaging equipment |
| Training Barriers |
New engineers cannot practise without supervision on expensive equipment |
| Remote Work Limitations |
Engineers cannot develop tests without physical lab presence |
2.2 Gap Analysis
| Need |
Current State |
Desired State |
| Algorithm Development |
Requires physical equipment |
Fully offline development |
| Thermal-Electrical Coupling |
Not modelled in simple mocks |
Realistic coupled physics |
| Hardware Transition |
Separate code for simulation vs real |
Single codebase, configuration-driven |
| Test Validation |
Only possible in lab |
Complete validation before lab time |
3. Business Objectives
3.1 Primary Objectives
| ID |
Objective |
Measurable Outcome |
| BO-1 |
Enable offline DVT algorithm development |
Engineers can develop complete characterisation tests without equipment access |
| BO-2 |
Reduce equipment contention |
Test code validated before consuming lab time |
| BO-3 |
Demonstrate professional software engineering |
Portfolio-quality project following industry best practices |
3.2 Secondary Objectives
| ID |
Objective |
Measurable Outcome |
| BO-4 |
Provide training platform |
Safe environment for learning ATE concepts |
| BO-5 |
Enable remote development |
Full DVT development capability without lab presence |
4. Stakeholders
| Stakeholder |
Role |
Interest |
| DVT Engineer (Primary User) |
Develops characterisation tests |
Needs realistic simulation for algorithm validation |
| Test Manager |
Oversees test development |
Wants reduced equipment contention, faster delivery |
| New Engineers |
Learning ATE workflows |
Needs safe practice environment |
| Portfolio Reviewer |
Evaluates project quality |
Assesses software engineering competence |
5. Scope
5.1 In Scope
| Category |
Items |
| Simulated Instruments |
Thermal Chamber, Programmable Power Supply, Digital Multimeter |
| DUT Models |
Voltage Regulator (LDO) with thermal-electrical coupling |
| Test Types |
Temperature Coefficient characterisation, Load Regulation |
| User Interfaces |
Command-line interface, Streamlit dashboard, Programmatic API |
| Data Management |
Test result persistence, Data export |
| Reporting |
Automated test reports (future phase) |
5.2 Out of Scope
| Category |
Items |
Rationale |
| Additional Instruments |
Oscilloscope, Signal Generator |
Future phase |
| Additional DUT Models |
Op-Amp, ADC, MOSFET |
Future phase |
| Multi-user Operation |
Concurrent users, access control |
Not required for portfolio |
| Cloud Deployment |
Hosted service |
Local execution sufficient |
| Legacy Protocols |
GPIB, USB-TMC hardware |
Focus on TCP/IP simulation |
5.3 Boundaries
The system SHALL:
- Operate as a standalone local application
- Simulate instrument behaviour, not replicate specific vendor implementations
- Model physics at a level sufficient for algorithm validation, not device design
6. Functional Requirements
6.1 Physics Simulation
| ID |
Requirement |
Priority |
| FR-PS-1 |
The system SHALL simulate thermal chamber temperature control with realistic ramp and settling behaviour |
Must |
| FR-PS-2 |
The system SHALL model thermal coupling between chamber ambient and DUT case temperature |
Must |
| FR-PS-3 |
The system SHALL model DUT self-heating based on power dissipation |
Must |
| FR-PS-4 |
The system SHALL calculate DUT junction temperature from case temperature and thermal resistance |
Must |
| FR-PS-5 |
The system SHALL compute DUT electrical parameters as functions of junction temperature |
Must |
| FR-PS-6 |
The system SHALL update physics state at a rate sufficient for realistic transient behaviour |
Must |
| FR-PS-7 |
The system SHALL model thermal time constants for chamber and DUT thermal mass |
Should |
6.2 Instrument Simulation
| ID |
Requirement |
Priority |
| FR-IS-1 |
The system SHALL provide a simulated Thermal Chamber with temperature setpoint and readback |
Must |
| FR-IS-2 |
The system SHALL provide a simulated Power Supply with voltage/current control and measurement |
Must |
| FR-IS-3 |
The system SHALL provide a simulated Multimeter with DC voltage measurement |
Must |
| FR-IS-4 |
All simulated instruments SHALL respond to industry-standard SCPI commands |
Must |
| FR-IS-5 |
Instruments SHALL communicate over TCP/IP network sockets |
Must |
| FR-IS-6 |
Instruments SHALL maintain state between commands within a session |
Must |
| FR-IS-7 |
Instruments SHALL return measurement values derived from the physics simulation |
Must |
| FR-IS-8 |
Instruments SHALL simulate realistic timing (settling, acquisition delays) |
Should |
6.3 Hardware Abstraction
| ID |
Requirement |
Priority |
| FR-HA-1 |
The system SHALL provide abstract interfaces for each instrument type |
Must |
| FR-HA-2 |
Test code SHALL interact only with abstract interfaces, not concrete implementations |
Must |
| FR-HA-3 |
The system SHALL support swapping between simulated and real instruments via configuration |
Must |
| FR-HA-4 |
The abstraction layer SHALL not expose simulation-specific or hardware-specific details |
Must |
6.4 Test Execution
| ID |
Requirement |
Priority |
| FR-TE-1 |
The system SHALL support defining multi-step test sequences |
Must |
| FR-TE-2 |
The system SHALL execute test sequences with proper instrument coordination |
Must |
| FR-TE-3 |
The system SHALL log all measurements during test execution |
Must |
| FR-TE-4 |
The system SHALL evaluate measurements against defined limits |
Must |
| FR-TE-5 |
The system SHALL determine overall pass/fail status for tests |
Must |
| FR-TE-6 |
The system SHALL support Temperature Coefficient characterisation test |
Must |
| FR-TE-7 |
The system SHALL support Load Regulation vs Temperature test |
Should |
6.5 Data Management
| ID |
Requirement |
Priority |
| FR-DM-1 |
The system SHALL persist test run metadata (test name, timestamp, status) |
Must |
| FR-DM-2 |
The system SHALL persist all measurements with timestamps and conditions |
Must |
| FR-DM-3 |
The system SHALL persist calculated results with pass/fail status |
Must |
| FR-DM-4 |
The system SHALL support querying historical test results |
Should |
| FR-DM-5 |
The system SHALL support exporting data in common formats (CSV) |
Should |
6.6 Reporting
| ID |
Requirement |
Priority |
| FR-RP-1 |
The system SHALL generate test reports containing results and pass/fail status |
Could |
| FR-RP-2 |
Reports SHALL include data visualisation (charts/graphs) |
Could |
| FR-RP-3 |
Reports SHALL be exportable in portable format (PDF or HTML) |
Could |
6.7 User Interface
| ID |
Requirement |
Priority |
| FR-UI-1 |
The system SHALL provide a command-line interface for test execution |
Must |
| FR-UI-2 |
The system SHALL provide a programmatic API for integration |
Must |
| FR-UI-3 |
The system SHALL provide a Streamlit dashboard for real-time monitoring |
Should |
| FR-UI-4 |
Real-time instrument status SHALL be observable during test execution |
Should |
7. Non-Functional Requirements
7.1 Performance
| ID |
Requirement |
Metric |
| NFR-P-1 |
Physics simulation SHALL run in real-time or faster |
Update rate ≥ 100 Hz |
| NFR-P-2 |
Instrument command latency SHALL be negligible |
< 50 ms round-trip (localhost) |
| NFR-P-3 |
Data logging SHALL not impact test execution |
No dropped measurements |
7.2 Reliability
| ID |
Requirement |
Metric |
| NFR-R-1 |
System SHALL handle instrument communication errors gracefully |
Clear error messages, no crashes |
| NFR-R-2 |
Data SHALL be persisted before system exit |
No data loss on normal shutdown |
| NFR-R-3 |
System SHALL recover from transient connection failures |
Auto-reconnect capability |
7.3 Maintainability
| ID |
Requirement |
Metric |
| NFR-M-1 |
Code SHALL follow consistent style and formatting |
Automated linting passes |
| NFR-M-2 |
Public interfaces SHALL be documented |
All public APIs have docstrings |
| NFR-M-3 |
Code SHALL have automated test coverage |
≥ 80% coverage on core modules |
| NFR-M-4 |
Architecture SHALL support adding new instruments without modifying existing code |
Open/closed principle demonstrated |
| NFR-M-5 |
Architecture SHALL support adding new DUT models without modifying physics engine |
Open/closed principle demonstrated |
7.4 Portability
| ID |
Requirement |
Metric |
| NFR-PT-1 |
System SHALL run on Windows 10+ |
Tested and documented |
| NFR-PT-2 |
System SHALL run on Linux |
Tested and documented |
| NFR-PT-3 |
System SHALL require only standard package manager installation |
pip install sufficient |
7.5 Usability
| ID |
Requirement |
Metric |
| NFR-U-1 |
System SHALL start with a single command |
Documented quick-start |
| NFR-U-2 |
Error messages SHALL clearly indicate the problem and suggested resolution |
Actionable error messages |
| NFR-U-3 |
Configuration SHALL use human-readable format |
YAML or similar |
8. Constraints
8.1 Technical Constraints
| ID |
Constraint |
Rationale |
| C-T-1 |
Implementation SHALL be 100% Python |
Target role alignment; industry standard for test automation |
| C-T-2 |
System SHALL not require external service dependencies (database servers, message brokers) |
Simplify deployment; portfolio reviewability |
| C-T-3 |
All dependencies SHALL be open-source |
Avoid licensing issues |
| C-T-4 |
System SHALL run without requiring physical instruments |
Core purpose of the project |
8.2 Project Constraints
| ID |
Constraint |
Rationale |
| C-P-1 |
Single developer |
Portfolio project |
| C-P-2 |
No budget for commercial tools or services |
Personal project |
9. Assumptions
| ID |
Assumption |
Impact if Invalid |
| A-1 |
Users have Python 3.11+ installed |
Must document installation requirements |
| A-2 |
Users have basic familiarity with ATE concepts |
May need to add tutorial documentation |
| A-3 |
Localhost network performance is sufficient |
May need to optimise for slower systems |
| A-4 |
Single-user operation is acceptable for MVP |
Multi-user would require significant redesign |
| A-5 |
Simplified physics models are acceptable for algorithm validation |
May need to increase model fidelity |
10. Success Criteria
10.1 Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
The project is successful if:
| ID |
Criterion |
Verification Method |
| SC-1 |
Can execute a complete Temperature Coefficient characterisation test against simulated instruments |
End-to-end test demonstration |
| SC-2 |
Physics coupling is evident: DUT self-heating affects measurements |
Comparison of low-power vs high-power test results |
| SC-3 |
Same test code runs against simulated and real instruments via configuration change |
Demonstrate with PyVISA backend (if hardware available) or mock |
| SC-4 |
Test results are persisted and retrievable |
Query historical results |
| SC-5 |
Code follows SOLID principles with clear module boundaries |
Architecture review |
| SC-6 |
Core modules have ≥ 80% test coverage |
Coverage report |
10.2 Full Project Success
| ID |
Criterion |
Verification Method |
| SC-7 |
Streamlit dashboard provides real-time instrument visualisation |
Dashboard demonstration |
| SC-8 |
System deployable with single command |
Docker Compose demonstration |
| SC-9 |
Complete documentation (README, architecture, API) |
Documentation review |
| SC-10 |
Demonstrates portfolio-quality engineering |
External code review |
11. Risks
| ID |
Risk |
Probability |
Impact |
Mitigation |
| R-1 |
Physics model too simplistic for realistic behaviour |
Medium |
High |
Research real component datasheets; validate against published specifications |
| R-2 |
Scope creep delays completion |
High |
Medium |
Strict MVP definition; defer features to future phases |
| R-3 |
SCPI implementation incompatible with real instruments |
Low |
Medium |
Reference IVI Foundation standards |
| R-4 |
Over-engineering delays delivery |
Medium |
Medium |
Focus on working software over architectural perfection |
| R-5 |
UI development consumes excessive time |
Medium |
High |
CLI-first approach; Streamlit for rapid iteration |
12. Glossary
| Term |
Definition |
| ATE |
Automated Test Equipment - systems for testing electronic devices |
| Characterisation |
Process of measuring device parameters across operating conditions |
| DUT |
Device Under Test - the component being characterised |
| DVT |
Design Validation Test - testing to verify design meets specifications |
| HAL |
Hardware Abstraction Layer - interface isolating code from hardware specifics |
| LDO |
Low Dropout Regulator - type of linear voltage regulator |
| NPLC |
Number of Power Line Cycles - integration time unit for DMMs |
| SCPI |
Standard Commands for Programmable Instruments - IEEE 488.2 command syntax |
| TempCo |
Temperature Coefficient - rate of parameter change with temperature (ppm/°C) |
| Thermal Coupling |
Physical interaction between thermal and electrical domains |
| θ (theta) |
Thermal resistance, measured in °C/W |
End of Business Requirements Document
Kai Chappell
2ca5144eaf
