Design Flow Sample Clauses

Design Flow. If the Shared ▇▇▇▇▇'s Total Peak Design Flow, the Using Party's Peak Design Flow, or both, change along the length of the Shared Sewer, the Using Party's cost share must be calculated separately for each such segment. All Shared Sewers are eligible for reimbursement, including 8-inch diameter sewers. If the actual constructed sewer capacity exceeds its Total Peak Design Flow, due to topographic or other physical constraints, each Using Party's cost share must be based on its percentage of the Total Peak Design Flow, not the actual capacity.
View Source
Design Flow. Currently low power design in practise means: low voltage, small feature size, clock gating, operand isolation, and power management. Clearly low voltage is a key influence on power reduction due to its quadratic impact on the power dissipation. However, there are limits due to reduced performance and increased leakage current. Further small feature size reduces the switched capacitance and hence significantly reduces power. Usually these parameters are not at the distinction of the designer and their positive effect are assumed in the power dissipation predictions of the roadmaps anyway. Other means at the gate and circuit level provide only power reductions in the area of some 10-20%. Application specification Software Path Hardware Path Software Estimator Algorithm Estimator Compilation Memory and Datapath Mapping Control Synthesis Gate-Level Estimator Figure 1: Proposed Design Flow for Power Estimation and Optimisation SoC Architecture (Core Processors, Memories, Buses, Datapath, Control) Control Synthesis SoC Architecture (Core Processors, Memories, Buses, Datapath, Control) SoC Architecture (Core Processors, Memories, Buses, Datapath, Control) Memory and Datapath Mapping Gate-Level Estimator Hardware Path Software Path Compilation Algorithm Estimator Software Estimator Power estimation and optimisation at the system level, during software design and system architecture definition, have been addressed by prior research work. However, no seamless design flow approach through these levels - considering the main power drains - has been developed and applied so far. Within POET this flow will be defined driven by concrete product developments by the user partners ▇▇▇▇ and ARM. The flow will be coupled to industry standard commercial tools as far as available, and missing links in the tool chain will be developed by the research partners of the project (OFFIS, CEFRIEL and POLITO) and commercially made available by the EDA partner OSC. For proper power analysis and optimisation, a full characterisation of the system components is needed. In order to minimise the time-consuming characterisation procedure, the number of libraries and technology files will be kept at a minimum. Figure 1 shows a preliminary design flow for power optimisation. dark grey boxes denote new developments in POET whilst light grey indicates parts of the design flow which already exist in prototype form and will be enhanced in POET to fully support the optimisation phases.
View Source
Design Flow. All conveyance systems shall be designed to convey runoff from the 25-year storm unless otherwise approved or requested by the City. A backwater analysis is required for a proposed or existing pipe system to confirm the ability of the pipe system to convey the peak rate of runoff from the 25-year design storm event under tail water conditions anywhere in the pipe system. Structures such as catch basins (except as part of parking lot detention) and manholes for proposed pipe systems must provide a minimum of 0.5 feet of free board between the headwater surface (hydraulic grade line) and the top of the structure for flow from a 25-year storm.
View Source
Design Flow. The overall design process we have followed is shown in Figure 6.4. We start from a functional specification in the C language and a corresponding test bench. The C specification is a reimplementation of the MATLAB model that was used for the ref- erence implementation made with System Generator. By using the test bench and a representative set of test vectors, the C specification is then repeatedly refactored to reflect the desired architecture, while preserving the functionality. This refactoring process makes use of two different interpretations of the C specification. The func- tional interpretation represents the conventional semantics of the C code, describing the sequential and functional behavior. The architectural interpretation represents the HLS semantics of the C code, describing the RTL architecture at a high level. The designer makes sure that the functional interpretation of the refactored C code is still identical to that of the original C code, while the architectural interpretation is changed to satisfy non-functional requirements like resource cost and throughput. Manipulation of the architectural interpretation focuses on the coarse-grained archi- tectural aspects, such as memory porting, parallelism, and resource sharing. Fine- grained architectural aspects, such as RTL pipelining details, are handled automat- ically by the HLS tool by means of predefined characterization data of the target FPGA device. The throughput resulting from the architectural interpretation can be analyzed stat- ically or dynamically as an output of the HLS compilation. Resource cost estimates are reported after HLS compilation as well. If the various cost and performance met- rics satisfy the design requirements, the resulting RTL is synthesized using platform- specific low level synthesis tools. Since HLS tools do not have precise knowledge about e.g. routing delays, metrics reported by the HLS tool typically differ to some extent from the actual timing characteristics and resource costs obtained after RTL synthesis. At all times in the development process, the source code of the design is fully func- tional and can be verified using the C test bench using a regular C compiler and debugger. This is very different from a traditional RTL design flow, where a fully functional version of the design source code becomes available only after weeks or even months of labor. This RTL source code is developed independently of the orig- inal reference code, thereby requi...
View Source

Related to Design Flow

  • Design Phase All Basic Services set forth in the Agreement with the exception of Interdisciplinary Document Coordination Review, conducting a Card Trick session, Value-Engineering services, Estimating services. • All Basic Services set forth in the Agreement. • All Basic Services set forth in the Agreement. • All Basic Services set forth in the Agreement.

  • Design Development Phase 1.3.1 Based on the approved Schematic Design Documents, model(s) and any adjustments to the Program of Requirements, BIM Execution Plan or Amount Available for the Construction Contract authorized by the Owner, the Architect/Engineer shall prepare, for approval by the Owner and review by the Construction Manager, Design Development Documents derived from the model(s) in accordance with Owner’s written requirements to further define and finalize the size and character of the Project in accordance with the BIM Execution Plan, “Facility Design Guidelines” and any additional requirements set forth in Article 15. The Architect/Engineer shall review the Design Development documents as they are being modeled at intervals appropriate to the progress of the Project with the Owner and Construction Manager at the Project site or other location specified by Owner in the State of Texas. The Architect/Engineer shall utilize the model(s) to support the review process during Design Development. The Architect/Engineer shall allow the Construction Manager to utilize the information uploaded into Owner’s PMIS to assist the Construction Manager in fulfilling its responsibilities to the Owner. 1.3.2 As a part of Design Development Phase, Architect/Engineer shall accomplish model coordination, aggregation and “clash detection” to remove conflicts in design between systems, structures and components. Architect/Engineer shall utilize Owner’s PMIS to accomplish model coordination and collaborate with Construction Manager in the resolution of critical clashes identified by the Construction Manager. Architect/Engineer shall demonstrate and provide written assurance to Owner that conflicts/collisions between models have been resolved. 1.3.3 The Architect/Engineer shall review the Estimated Construction Cost prepared by the Construction Manager, and shall provide written comments. 1.3.4 Before proceeding into the Construction Document Phase, the Architect/Engineer shall obtain Owner’s written acceptance of the Design Development documents and approval of the mutually established Amount Available for the Construction Contract and schedule. 1.3.5 The Architect/Engineer shall prepare presentation materials including an animation derived from the model(s) as defined in “Facility Design Guidelines” at completion of Design Development and if so requested shall present same to the Board of Regents at a regular meeting where scheduled within the state. 1.3.6 The Architect/Engineer shall prepare preliminary recommended furniture layouts for all spaces where it is deemed important to substantiate the fulfillment of program space requirements, or to coordinate with specific architectural, mechanical and electrical elements. 1.3.7 Architect/Engineer shall assist the Owner, if requested, with seeking approval of the Project by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). Such assistance shall include (i) the preparation of a listing of the rooms and square footages in the Project, and (ii) the preparation of project cost information, in accordance with THECB Guidelines. This information shall be provided at the completion of the Design Development Phase when requested by the Owner. The listing of rooms and square footages shall then be updated to reflect any changes occurring during construction and provided to the Owner at Substantial Completion. 1.3.8 At the completion of the Design Development Phase, or such other time as Owner may specify to Architect/Engineer, at Owner’s sole option and discretion, Owner will furnish Architect/Engineer with a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal prepared by Construction Manager based upon the Design Development documents prepared by the Architect/Engineer and approved by the Owner. The Architect/Engineer shall assist the Owner and endeavor to further and advocate the Owner’s interests in Owner’s communications with the Construction Manager in an effort to develop a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal acceptable to Owner, in Owner’s sole option and discretion. If the Owner does not accept the Construction Manager’s Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal, the Architect/Engineer shall participate with the Owner and Construction Manager in constructability reviews and shall revise the documents as necessary in order to reach an agreement. If the Construction Manager’s Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal exceeds the Schematic Design Phase Estimated Construction Cost prepared by, or otherwise accepted by the Construction Manager due to an increase in the scope of the Project caused by further development of the design documents by the Architect/Engineer to the extent that such could not be reasonably inferred by the Construction Manager from the Schematic Design documents, and Owner directs Architect/Engineer to revise the documents, the Architect/Engineer shall revise the documents at its own expense so that the Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal for constructing the Project shall not exceed the Owner’s Amount Available for the Construction Contract and any previously approved Estimated Construction Costs. If it is determined to be in the Owner’s best interest, instead of requiring the Architect/Engineer to revise the Drawings and Specifications, the Owner reserves the right to accept a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal that exceeds the stipulated Amount Available for the Construction Contract. The Architect/Engineer shall analyze the final Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal document, together with its supporting assumptions, clarifications, and contingencies, and shall submit a detailed written analysis of the document to the Owner. Such analysis shall include, without limitation, reference to and explanation of any inaccurate or improper assumptions and clarifications. The A/E will not be required to make revisions to the documents at its own expense under the provisions of this paragraph if the Owner’s rejection of the Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal is not due to a failure of the A/E to provide the services otherwise required herein. 1.3.9 After the Guaranteed Maximum Price has been accepted, the Architect/Engineer shall incorporate necessary revisions into the Design Development documents. The A/E will not be required to make revisions to the documents at its own expense under the provisions of this paragraph if the revisions are required as the result of inaccurate assumptions and clarifications made in the development of the Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal that are not due to a failure of the A/E to provide the services otherwise required herein.

  • Design ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ Plan and Aligned Budget

  • Design Development An interim step in the design process. Design Development documents consist of plans, elevations, and other drawings and outline specifications. These documents will fix and illustrate the size and character of the entire project in its essentials as to kinds of materials, type of structure, grade elevations, sidewalks, utilities, roads, parking areas, mechanical and electrical systems, and such other work as may be required.