Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Analog Design With Gmid Based Methods
Analog Design With Gmid Based Methods
References
1. F. Silveria et al. A gm/Id based methodology for the design of CMOS analog circuits and its application to the synthesis of a silicon-on-insulator micropower OTA, IEEE Journal of SolidState Circuits, Sep. 1996, pp 1314-1319. 2. D. Foty, M. Bucher, D. Binkley, Re-interpreting the MOS transistor via the inversion coefficient and the continuum of gms/Id, Proc. Int. Conf. on Electronics, Circuits and Systems, pp. 1179-1182, Sep 2002. 3. B.E. Boser, Analog Circuit Design with Submicron Transistors, IEEE SSCS Meeting, Santa Clara Valley, May 19, 2005, http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/ssc/May1905.pdf. 4. H.D. Dammak, et al. Design of Folded Cascoe OTA in Different Regions of Operation through gm/ID Methodology, World Academy of Science, Engineering, and Technology, 45, 2008. 5. P. Jespers, The gm/Id Methodology, a sizing tool for low-voltage analog CMOS Circuits, Springer, 2010. 6. T. Konishi, et al, Design Optimization of High-Speed and Low-Power Operational Transconductance Amplifier Using gm/ID Lookup Table Methodology, IEICE Trans. Electron., Vol.E94-C, NO.3 March 2011. 7. B. Murmann, MOS Transistor Modeling Gm/ID-based Design, EE214 Course Reader, Stanford University, Stanford CA, 2011.
SPICE
Reality
EKV
design term
1 = 2
1 + ()
process constants
Triode
design term
=
process constant
2 2
SPICE Model
Found One!
Process constants handled by curve fitting BSIM 3v3 uses 110 parameters!
EKV
The purpose of any model: To give you the right answer! Square Law Model: SPICE Model: Useful for hand calculations Useful for computer simulation Oversimplifies process constants Curve Fitting for process constants 20%-80% Error Excellent accuracy (if done properly) Gm/ID Model: Useful for hand calculations <10% Error Two approaches to process constants
Experimental
Lookup table approach, storing device characteristics generated by SPICE simulation or measurement results The gm/ID lookup table methodology enables an analytical design optimization by overwhelming the inaccuracy observed in the square-law MOS transistor model
gm/ID-Based Design
Set of normalized figures of merit to describe FET transistors
Transconductance Efficiency
FET Operating Point Want large gm for as little current as possible
Current Density
How wide does the device need to be?
Transit Frequency
Want large gm, with as little Cgg as possible
Intrinsic Gain
Want large gm, with large ro (small go)
What is gm/ID?
A way of representing the FET operating point
Overdrive voltage ( = ) is only valid in strong inversion
can represent an equivalent bias condition for strong, moderate, and weak inversion, with smooth transitions between each. A design parameter that couples small signal transconductance and large signal bias current. How much bias current do I need to achieve a required amount of transconductance?
4. Repeat for various lengths (fixed W) Notes: To a first order, the measurement is independent of Vds Body effects are neglected and thus measurements are independent of W
Moderate Inversion
Strong Inversion
Favors DC Gain
Favors BW
Strong Inversion
Weak Inversion
Useful for:
Quick lookup while doing hand calculations Design optimization scripts
2 =
2 =
3 = 2 2 2 3 2 =
1 = 1 2
2 =
Gm/ID-Based Design
Replaces a set of equations to solve with a set of figures of merit to balance Complex process parameters are overwhelmed with lookup charts (or lookup table functions) Accurately models operation over weak, moderate, and strong inversion Avoids over-dependence on SPICE simulations
Simple Example
Specs and Objectives:
= 10
4 = = 0.4 10
Id/W=7.33
Simple Example
= 7.33
Test Circuit
Simulation Results
Parameter Av(DC) gm gm/ID Hand Calc 4.0 V/V 4 mS 10.0 S/A Sim 3.953 V/V 4.089 mS 10.15 S/A % error 1% 2.2% 1.5%
1 + 1+
+ + +
1 2
1 +
= ?
Normalized Capacitance
1 + 1+
+ + +
1 2
1 +
= =
ft = 7.01GHz
1 +
1 +
+ + +
1 = 90.8 2 = 0.17 90.8 = 15.4
= =
Simulation Results
Gm/ID-Based Design
Replaces a set of equations to solve with a set of figures of merit to balance Complex process parameters are overwhelmed with lookup charts (or lookup table functions) Accurately models operation over weak, moderate, and strong inversion Avoids over-dependence on SPICE simulations
M31
M41
M4
= 4 ||5 () =
Vm
M1
M2
Vp CL
() = 2 1 2 4 ||5
M51
1:K
3 =
M5
Design Choices: K and gm set DC gain K and gm set unity gain frequency So which should I use? K or gm? Why not try both
Limitations
Lookup tables extracted from SPICE simulations
Only as accurate as the SPICE curve fitting
Appendix
Simple Current Mirror Cascode Current Mirror
= 328
2 () = 0.4
125
2.6
250
() 2 = 0.2 = 1.65
gmro
matching
1.2% = 0.6