Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Microelectronics Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mejo
a r t i c l e in fo
abstract
Article history:
Received 18 February 2008
Accepted 22 February 2008
Nonideal factors which play a key role in performance and yield in high-precision operational ampliers
are rigorously investigated. Expressions for the offset voltage (Vos) and the common-mode rejection
ratio (CMRR) are derived and correlated. The mismatch accuracy is analyzed for different transistor
geometries in a CMOS OTA (operational transconductance amplier) in 0.35 mm technology by using the
Monte Carlo approach.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
CMOS differential operational amplier
MOSFET mismatch modeling
Offset
CMRR
Common-mode gain
Differential gain
1. Introduction
Since the beginning of 2007 when INTEL and IBM announced
that the 45 nm CMOS technology node went into production for
major consumer electronics products [1,2], statistical device
variability became a fundamental consideration in the design of
high-performance integrated circuits for deep-submicron CMOS
technologies [3,4]. Sani Nassif, manager of IBMs Austin Research
Lab, in an EE Times article stated [5]: The problem isnt the amount
of variability. Its that we tend to turn variability into uncertainty by
not modeling it. That means we end up vastly overguard-banding our
designs. Hence, the problem is that for designers, mismatch (i.e.
intra-die component variations) can be usually circumvented just
by using dribbling techniques such as common-centroids and
guard-banding layouts. However, potential improvement in
matching devices may be overcome from handling statistical
design aspects as a standardized step in the design ow.
Moreover, without an accurate transistor mismatch model,
substantial margins and risk yield loss are forced to be included
in the nal design given to the foundry [6]. In analog integrated
circuits, the designer had to deal with the random variability of
identical devices since it directly affects the performance of the
overall fabricated circuits and systems. Mismatches between
identically designed transistors lead to offsets in circuits such as
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 51 3308 7749; fax: +55 51 3308 7308.
E-mail addresses: juanbrito@gmail.com, juanpablo_735@yahoo.com.br, juanbrito@ieee.org (J.P. Martinez Brito), bampi@inf.ufrgs.br (S. Bampi).
0026-2692/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
converters [21], all digital phase locked loops [22], etc., are some
circuit examples that heavily depend on the matching for their
accurate AC regime operation.
This paper focuses on a rigorous formulation of the relationship between these parameters and the performance of highprecision nite-gain ampliers. Simple mathematical expressions
of the common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR) and the offset
voltage are developed and related to the overall performance of
high-precision nite-gain ampliers. In Section 2 the transistor
mismatch parameters are demonstrated. A review of statistical
analysis on operational amplier is described in Section 3. The
design procedure of the differential amplier is in Section 4. In
Section 5 the random DC offset is analyzed. The CMRR is analyzed
in Section 6. The relation between the offset voltage and CMRR is
demonstrated in Section 7. And nally in Section 8 the conclusions
are drawn.
s2
s DV TH
(1)
s2
b
IDS
IDS
s2 DV GS s2
Db
b
IDS
gm
2
s2 DV TH
(2)
The above equations are valid for all regions of operations and
Eq. (1) is used for equal voltage biased transistors and Eq. (2) for
equal current biased transistors, which are illustrated in Figs. 1
and 2, respectively.
2.1. Voltage biasing
In practice, it is clear that in most circuits, the VTH mismatch is
dominant over the b mismatch [25]. So, Eq. (1) in terms of
standard deviation and for strong inversion can be approximated
by:
DIDS
1
2AV TH
s
(3)
p
IDS
W L V GS V TH
sDV GS p
W L
(4)
(5)
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi / Microelectronics Journal ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
Table 1
Equations that models the DC behavior
DC characteristic Denition
I5
PDISS
Slew rate (SR)
VCMRmax
VCMRmin
Bias current
Static power consumption
Maximum output voltage rate
Maximum common-mode voltage
Minimum common-mode voltage
Equation
I5
I5(VDDVSS)
I5/CL
(VDDVDS5VSG1)ICMR+
(VSS+VGS3+VSD1VSG1)ICMR
(6)
P DISS
) I5 p303 mA
V DD V SS
(7)
1
) Rout p318:31 kO ) I5 X88:7 mA
2pF 3 dB C L
(8)
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
Table 4
Transistor size for each circuit block
Table 2
Equations that models the AC behavior
Circuit
AC characteristic
Denition
Equation
Ad
Rout
F3 dB
GBW
Differential gain
Output resistance
Cutoff frequency
Gain bandwidth product
gm1 Rout
ro2//ro4 (2VAn/I5)//(2VAp/I5)
1/(2 p Rout CL)
gm1/2pCL
Table 3
Op Amp specications
Specications
Denition
Value
Ad (dB)
F3dB (KHz)
GBW (MHz)
SR (V/ms)
Pdiss (mW)
VCMR max (V)
VCMR min (V)
VDD (V)
VSS (V)
CL (pF)
Differential gain
Cutoff frequency
Gain bandwidth product
Slew rate
Power comsuption
Voltage common mode range max
Voltage common mode range min
Positive power source
Negative power source
Output load
40
X100
15
410
p1
1
0.5
1.65
1.65
5
(10)
The size of the PMOS transistors of the current mirror (M3 and
M4) will be calculated by the VCMRmax specication:
W
W
V GS3 1:115 V )
L 3
L 4
n ID3
)
25
mo C OX V GS3 V TP 2
Op Amp05
M1/M2
M3/M4
5
12.5
0.5
0.5
10
25
Op Amp1
M1/M2
M3/M4
10
25
1
1
10
25
Op Amp2
M1/M2
M3/M4
20
50
2
2
10
25
Op Amp3
M1/M2
M3/M4
30
75
3
3
10
25
Op Amp4
M1/M2
M3/M4
40
100
4
4
10
25
Op Amp5
M1/M2
M3/M4
50
125
5
5
10
25
(11)
Ratio, W/L
(9)
10
L 1
L 2 mo C OX =nID2
Length, L (mm)
Width, W (mm)
(12)
(13)
On the other hand, since the current mirror is voltage biased, the
contribution to the offset voltage will be the current error
multiplied by IDS1/gm1
IDS1
DIDS
V OS34
s
(14)
gm1
IDS 34
Since in strong inversion gm/ID 2/(VGSVTH) and by using Eq. (4)
thus
V OS34
V GS V TH 1 2sDV TH
V GS V TH 34
2
(15)
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi / Microelectronics Journal ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
V GS V TH 1
sDV TH 34
V GS V TH 3
(16)
V GS V TH 1
sDV TH 12
sDV TH 34
V GS V TH 3
(17)
V OS
!
AV THNMOS
V GS V TH 1
p
W L 12 V GS V TH 3
!
AV THPMOS
p
W L 34
(18)
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6
Table 5
Offset voltages for different transistor sizing
Vos (mV)
Op
Op
Op
Op
Op
Op
Amp05
Amp1
Amp2
Amp3
Amp4
Amp5
Calculated
Monte Carlo
7.558227
3.779113
1.889557
1.259704
0.944778
0.755823
7.74718
3.84391
1.87029
1.28195
1.00129
0.792677
V OS p
W L 12
!
p
2IDS =mo C OX L=W 1 AV THPMOS
p
p
2IDS =mo C OX L=W 3
W L 34
As the current at the branch is the same, we can rewrite the above
equation as
!
AV THNMOS
V OS p
W L 12
s
!
AV THPMOS
1
L
mo C OX W
p
(21)
mo C OX W 1
L 3
1
W L 34
V GS V TH
s
2IDS
L
mo C OX W
(20)
(19)
V OS p
W 1 L 3
bN
W L 12
W L 34
(22)
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi / Microelectronics Journal ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
AD
jAC j
or
(23)
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
8
gm1
gm3
(24)
gds5
gm3
gm1 =gm3
gm1 rds5
j gds5 =gm3 j
(25)
AD
(26)
(27)
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi / Microelectronics Journal ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
10
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi / Microelectronics Journal ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
11
same way, the CMRR value does not obey the Pelgroms law. This
is because the common-mode gain plays a key role to obtain this
value.
1
jAC j
qV OS
CMRR
jAD j qV CM
(28)
DV os out
DV cm in
(29)
AD
AD
DV cm in
(30)
Since DVos out/AD is dened as the input offset voltage (DVos in)
then:
CMRR
DV cm in
DV os in
(31)
By combining Eqs. (22) and (27) we may see the relation between
Vos and CMRR [43] as
V os CMRR
V GS1 V TH
2gm1 R5
2
(32)
(33)
CMRR
(34)
Therefore, the offset voltage (Vos) and the CMRR are unambiguously correlated. Hence, techniques that are applied to reduce the
offset voltage will automatically increase the CMRR, and vice
versa.
7.1. Evaluation of CMRR and offset relation
The method to obtain the CMRR Vos relation is given by the
schematic in Fig. 21. The second op amp, which is an ideal op amp,
will not be affected by process variations. Its output is applied to
the op amp under test (DUT) through a 1000:1 V divider, so that
the voltage at the output of the second amplier is 1000 times the
voltage at the input of the DUT required to produce Va through the
feedback conguration. Since Va in this case is 0 V, the output
voltage VOUT will be just 1000 times of the offset voltage of the
DUT.
From a static viewpoint, to simulate a change in the common
mode input voltage, it is necessary to produce a symmetrical
change in the VSET sources. That is, vary VSET from 1 to +1 V, for
example. This change (DVSET) will cause a variation at the output
and the power supplies to the DUT. As a result of this voltage
variantion, vi will appear at the input of the DUT. In this case, vi
will be equal to the common-mode output voltage (VCM) of 1 V
2000
jDV SET j
(35)
DV icm
DV os
(36)
Using this approach, one could apply VICM and sweep the
frequency to measure VOS and the CMRR as a function of
frequency.
8. Conclusion
Mathematical relationships between the CMRR and the offset
voltage were developed and correlated to the overall performance
of differential ampliers. Some inherent parameters in the OTA do
not follow Pelgroms law, for example the offset voltage (Vos). In
our case, the common-mode gain (AC) demonstrates that its
probability distribution has the form of an exponential distribution. However, the correlation between the offset voltage and
CMMR is well demonstrated. It seems to be easy to predict
statistical behavior for devices and their interaction with
technology. Nevertheless, the ways to predict these effects by
statistical simulations (Monte Carlo approach) on a system level
are much more complex to accomplish.
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029
ARTICLE IN PRESS
12
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the CAPES NSF Brazilian
Agency for the support of the PGMICRO Graduate Program and the
scholarship of CNPq/PNM Program. Thanks also to the anonymous
reviewers for their helpful suggestions.
References
[1] Hafnium-based Intels 45 nm Process Technology, /http://www.intel.com/
technology/45nmS (accessed 17.04.08).
[2] IBM ASIC Solutions Brochure, Publication Number: TGB03004-USEN-00,
Revision date: 4.06.07, /http://www-01.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/
products/ASIC_Cu-45HPS (accessed 17.04.08).
[3] M.J.M. Pelgrom, SE2 circuit design in the year 2012, in: Solid-State Circuits
Conference 2007, ISSCC 2007, Digest of Technical Papers, IEEE International,
1115 February 2007, pp. 1415.
[4] J. Hartmann, Towards a new nanoelectronic cosmology, in: Solid-State
Circuits Conference 2007, ISSCC 2007, Digest of Technical Papers, IEEE
International, 1115 February 2007, pp. 3137.
[5] R. Wilson, The dirty little secret: engineers at design forum vexed by rise in
process variations at the die level, EE Times, 25 March 2002, /http://
www.eetimes.com/issue/fp/OEG20020324S0002S, p. 1.
[6] P.G. Drennan, C.C. McAndrew, Understanding MOSFET mismatch for analog
design, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 38 (3) (2003) 450456.
[7] J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, H. Klimach, A 4-bits trimmed CMOS bandgap
reference with an improved matching modeling design, in: Circuits and
Systems 2007, ISCAS 2007, IEEE International Symposium, 2730 May 2007,
pp. 19111914.
[8] K.R. Lakshmikumar, R.A. Hadaway, M.A. Copeland, Characterisation and
modeling of mismatch in MOS transistors for precision analog design, IEEE
J. Solid-State Circuits 21 (6) (1986) 10571066.
[9] J.-B. Shyu, G.C. Temes, F. Krummenacher, Random error effects in matched
MOS capacitors and current sources, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 19 (6) (1984)
948956.
[10] C. Galup-Montoro, M.C. Schneider, H. Klimach, A. Arnaud, A compact model of
MOSFET mismatch for circuit design, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 40 (8) (2005)
16491657.
[11] T. Mizuno, J. Okamura, A. Toriumi, Experimental study of threshold voltage
uctuation due to statistical variation of channel dopant number in MOSFETs,
IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 41 (11) (1994) 22162221.
[12] M.J.M. Pelgrom, A.C.J. Duinmaijer, A.P.G. Welbers, Matching properties of MOS
transistors, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 24 (5) (1989) 14331439.
[13] A. Perrotin, D. Gloria, S. Danaie, F. Pourchon, M. Laurens, High frequency
mismatch characterization on 170 GHz HBT NPN bipolar device, in: IEEE
International Conference on Microelectronic Test Structures (ICMTS), March
2006, pp. 163168.
[14] L.J. Choi, R. Venegas, S. Decoutere, High-frequency measurements of the
mismatch on the Y-parameters of high-speed SiGe:C HBTs, in: IEEE
International Conference on Microelectronic Test Structures (ICMTS), 2006,
pp. 163168.
[15] K. Waheed, R.B. Staszewski, Digital RF processing techniques for device
mismatch tolerant transmitters in nanometer-scale CMOS, in: Circuits and
Systems 2007, ISCAS 2007, IEEE International Symposium, 2730 May 2007,
pp. 12531256.
[16] R. Thewes, C. Linnenbank, U. Kollmer, S. Burges, U. Schaper, R. Brederlow, W.
Weber, Mismatch of MOSFET small signal parameters under analog operation,
Electron Device Lett. IEEE 21 (12) (2000) 552553.
[17] B. Razavi, RF Microelectronics, rst ed., Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River,
NJ, 1998.
[18] T.H. Lee, Design of CMOS Radio-Frequency Integrated Circuits, second ed.,
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Please cite this article as: J.P. Martinez Brito, S. Bampi, A DC offset and CMRR analysis in a CMOS 0.35 mm operational transconductance
amplier using Pelgroms area/accuracy tradeoff, Microelectron. J (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mejo.2008.02.029