Section 1: The intrinsic commonsource MOS gain stage.
In order to clearly introduce the fundamentals, originality and potential of our analog design
methodology, as well as its requirements, this first chapter will focus on an elementary case of study, i.e. the synthesis of the intrinsic MOS commonsource gain stage. This nevertheless practical example will enable a complete illustration of the four main aspects combined in our approach:
 the opamp synthesis technique based on the transconductancetodrain current ratio of the MOS transistor;
 the need for the continuous functional modelling of the analog transistor characteristics used in our methodology;
 the derivation of a smallsignal analytical model of the amplifier performance from a socalled symbolic analysis;
 the MATLAB implementation of the MOSFET and amplifier functional models, whose adequacy and potential regarding our purpose will be discussed.
The first part will present the study case and the classical methodology usually followed to solve the problem. In the second part, we will introduce our systematical approach based on behavioral analysis, gm/ID concept and continuous modelling. Extended design analyses which can hardly be implemented in SPICEbased approaches will stress the interest of our methodology. Practical MATLAB implementations will support our discussion [MATLAB].
1.1. Classical approach.
The intrinsic commonsource MOS gain stage is an elementary amplifier consisting in a
MOS transistor in commonsource configuration, biased by an ideal current source and loaded by an output capacitor (Fig. 1.1). The major specifications of this stage are:
 the lowfrequency amplification gain between input and output nodes, noted A _{v}_{0} ,
 the transition or unitygain frequency, noted f _{T} ,
 and the external load capacitor C _{L} . The main unknowns are:
 the active MOSFET size, in terms of the width over length ratio, noted W / L,
 and the stage bias current I _{D}_{0} .
In addition, the gate and drain saturation voltages are also of interest in order to evaluate the input and output dynamic swing performance.
 1

^{V} in
^{V} out
^{C} L
Fig. 1.1: MOS commonsource intrinsic gain stage.
The standard methodology which is used to link the specifications to the unknowns lies on an approximated intuitive physical approach of the problem [Laker '94]. The first step is to derive the equations which characterize the circuit behaviour and performance by circuit inspection. An expert designer will directly link the lowfrequency amplifier gain to the ratio of the circuit equivalent input transconductance to output conductance and relate the poles of the transfer function to the circuit capacitive nodes. In our study case, we may then straightforwardly write:
(1.1)
and
f _{T} =
^{g} ^{m}
2. π.C _{L}
(1.2),
where g _{m} and g _{d} are the transconductance and output conductance of the active MOS transistor, respectively.
In order to determine the problem unknowns, simplified expressions of the smallsignal MOS electrical parameters are commonly used. In the saturation strong inversion regime, we have:
g m =
(1.3)
and
g _{d} =
^{I} ^{D} .L
^{V} eal
(1.4),
where I _{D} is the MOSFET drain current and n, µ, C _{o}_{x} and V _{e}_{a}_{l} are technological parameters fixed by the MOS fabrication process, named the linearised body effect, the inversionlayer minority carrier mobility, the gate oxide capacitance per unit area and the equivalent Early voltage per µm of width of the MOS transistor, respectively. From (1.2) and (1.3), we derive a direct relation between the device sizing and the drain current equalled to I _{D}_{0} , for given transition frequency and technology specifications:
W
L
_{=}
(
n. 2. π.f
T
.C
L
) ^{2}
2. µ .C _{o}_{x} .I _{D}_{0}
 2 
(1.5).
A numerical and graphical illustration of this first design approach can be implemented on MATLAB by the two following files given here for the sake of illustration only; 'ex1.m' executes equation (1.5), including the physical and technological parameters defined in 'param.m'.
% 'ex1.m' EXAMPLE 1
% Commonsource intrinsic MOS gain stage synthesis
% by approximated strong inversion intuitive approach
clear
load parameters
% load variables from 'parameters.mat'
% common source specifications
fT = 10e6;
CL = 10e12;
% transition frequency [Hz]
% load capacitance [F]
%s.i. ID0 = logspace(5,3,50); WsLsi = (2*pi*fT*CL)^2/2/Kn./ID0*n;
% plot
semilogx(ID0,WsLsi,'')
axis('square'); axis([1e5 1e3 0 300]); title ('Fig. 1.2: Strong inversion synthesis') xlabel ('Bias current ID0 [A]') ylabel ('Width/length ratio W/L []')
% 
'param.m' PARAMETER DEFINITIONS 

% 
physical constants 

T 
= 300; 
% temperature [K] 
UT0 = .0259; epsOx = .345e10; 
% thermal voltage (300°K) [V] % permittivity of oxide [F/m] 
% technology (canal N) tox = 30e9; Cox = epsOx/tox; Lmin = 2;
n = 1.35;
VTo = 0.7;
µ = 550e4;
Veal = 8;
Kn = µ*Cox;
% gate oxide thickness [m] % gate oxide capacitance [F/m2] % minimum channel length [µm]
% body effect factor [V/V] % threshold voltage [V]
% effective mobility [V2/cm.s] % Early voltage [V/µm]
save parameters T UT0 epsOx tox Cox Lmin n VTo µ Veal Kn % create file 'parameters.mat'
 3 
Fig. 1.2: Strong inversion synthesis
Fig. 1.3: Strong inversion synthesis
One can note that this first MATLAB example already takes advantage of direct matrix formulation. For example, the implementation of equation (1.5) only requires a single line for a large set of bias currents uniformly spread on a log scale. Figure 1.2 depicts the locus of (W/L, I _{D}_{0} ) pairs achieving the target specification, here 10 MHz. The selection of a particular solution within this large acceptable set must be based on further criteria, for example, the dc openloop gain. This can be straightforwardly derived from equations (1.1) and (1.4) if the device length is fixed. The optimal length determination lying beyond the scope of the present preliminary study, our example will use a length equal to the minimum channel length of the technology (Fig. 1.3):
% EXAMPLE 1  cont.
Av0 = 20*log10((2*pi*fT*Cout)./(ID0/(Veal*Lmin)));
semilogx(ID0,Av0,'')
axis('square'); axis([1e5 1e3 0 60]); title ('Fig. 1.3: Strong inversion synthesis') xlabel ('Bias current ID0 [A]') ylabel ('DC openloop gain [dB]')
The exact numerical result corresponding to a given gain is obtained by interpolation of the solution tables using a predefined MATLAB spline function:
% EXEMPLE 1  cont
[spline(Av0,ID0,50),spline(Av0,WsLsi,50)]
For example, for A _{v}_{0} = 50 dB with L = 2 µm, we find I _{D}_{0} = 32 µA and W/L = 132.
 4 
The computation can be easily restarted for other specifications, for example, f _{T} = 100 kHz (Fig. 1.4). This clearly shows that allowable solutions spread over orders of magnitude which can make the initial guess quite uneasy, as announced in the introduction. In the present elementary case, this difficulty is examplified by the a priori choice of the I _{D}_{0} range which depends on the f _{T} specification.
Fig. 1.4: Strong inversion synthesis: fT = 100 kHz
It is not easy, nor efficient, to try to perform even such a basic analog synthesis using conventional SPICElike softwares. The latters are indeed analysis tools, not synthesis. Any SPICE simulation starts by specifying the device terminal voltages, width and length which are in fact the unknowns of our problem. Moreover these unknowns may not be independently chosen. For example, when describing in SPICE the circuit of figure 1.1, the value of the ideal bias current source must exactly match the DC current flowing through the transistor as computed using the SPICE MOS model, terminal voltages and sizes, otherwise the DC operating point can not even be established and any further AC or transient simulation run. An AC simulation is yet required to compute the complete frequency response of the amplifier from which the lowfrequency openloop gain and transition frequency are eventually extracted. It is obvious that all the SPICE analysis flow, i.e. firstly establishing a DC operating point, then running an AC simulation, must be iterated, varying both device biases and sizes, until the computed A _{v}_{0} and f _{T} converge towards the specification. Such a synthesis procedure is cumbersome, even using an automatic optimizer software since the initial point still has to be guessed adequatly.
 5 
1.2. Systematical approach.
In practical complex opamp architectures, the derivation of the smallsignal equivalent circuit and performance equations will not be as trivial as in the present case and it will be useful to identify the degrees of freedom of the problem as well as initial guess values. A systematical approach is therefore preferable.
The systematical approach we propose here, as the physical approach, starts with a behavioural analysis of the analog circuit at the symbolic level, with the aim to establish unambiguous relationships between the application target specifications and the unknown electrical parameters of the circuit. The accuracy of this analysis is of major importance to ensure the quality of the subsequent synthesis. Therefore, on the contrary to standard approaches, we will not rely on an approximated intuitive analysis of the topology, nor on simplified MOSFET models. On one hand, a complete circuit analysis will systematically be attempted. Depending on the target performance, smallsignal as well as largesignal analyses may be required: smallsignal for performance such as gain, transition frequency, stability…, largesignal for slew rate, distortion… ISAAC is one of the few softwares dealing with the smallsignal symbolic simulation of complex architectures [Gielen '89]. Concerning the largesignal case, more complex since often non linear, several theoretical research works are underway with the aim to develop efficient analysis softwares. On the other hand, we will use a precise modelling of analog characteristics of MOS transistors. The EKV model originally developed at the EPFL in Lausanne presently appears as the best suited model for opamp design, combining physical accuracy with equation simplicity [Enz '95].
1.2.1. Behavioural analysis.
The systematical investigation of the elementary commonsource MOS gain stage starts with the derivation of its behavioural model which restricts here to the analysis of the small signal equivalent circuit (Fig. 1.5). In addition to already defined g _{m} , g _{d} and C _{L} elements, we consider the gatetosource, gatetodrain and gatetosubstrate capacitances of the MOS transistors, noted C _{g}_{s} , C _{g}_{d} and C _{g}_{b} , respectively.
^{v} out
Fig. 1.5 : Small signal equivalent circuit of the commonsource MOS stage.
 6 
The inputoutput transfer function A _{v} (s) = v _{o}_{u}_{t} / v _{i}_{n} can obtained running ISAAC or, in such a simple case, by direct derivation of the Kirchoff equations:
A _{v} (s) =
s.C _{g}_{d} − g _{m}
s.
(
C _{L} + C
gd ) ^{+} ^{g} d
(1.6).
We verify that at low frequency, A _{v} tends to the dc openloop gain previously given by (1.1) and that neglecting C _{g}_{d} , the denominator of A _{v} yields a single pole p1 in agreement with the unitygain transition frequency f _{T} given by (1.2):
p1 =
^{−}^{g} ^{d} π.(C _{L} + C _{g}_{d} )
2.
(1.7).
Furthermore, the A _{v} numerator features a zero, z1, associated with direct inputoutput transfer through C _{g}_{d} capacitor,
z1 =
^{g} ^{m}
2. π.C
_{g}_{d}
(1.8).
In a first step, we will neglect both C _{g}_{d} and z1, so that to be able to compare the results of the previous approach with the results we will compute now introducing the EKV model.
1.2.2. g _{m} /I _{D} concept and EKV model.
The usefulness of EKV model can be conveniently introduced in combination with our design methodology based on the transconductancetodrain current or g _{m} /I _{D} ratio. For that sake,
a) the behavioural equations can be easily reformulated to emphasize the g _{m} /I _{D} terminology. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) are thus written:
(1.9)
and
f _{T} = ^{g} ^{m} I D
^{I} D0
_{.}
2. π.C _{L}
(1.10).
b) the EKV model provides a simple expression for the g _{m} /I _{D} ratio of the MOS transistor in the saturation regime. This formula is precise and continuous throughout the weak, moderate and strong inversion regimes:
g _{m} / I _{D} =
(1.11),
where U _{T} is the thermal potential equal to 26 mV at room temperature and IC, named the inversion coefficient, is an adimensional number, lower than 1 in weak inversion and higher than 1 in strong inversion. IC is linked to the drain current by:
 7 
IC =
^{I} ^{D}
2. n. µ .C _{o}_{x} . ^{W} .U _{2} _{T}
L
(1.12).
The quality of this empirical g _{m} /I _{D} modelling is demonstrated on figure 1.6 by the excellent agreement with an experimental characteristic measured on a typical MOS transistor.
log of Drain Current / (W/L) [A]
Fig. 1.6: Transconductanceoverdrain current ratio vs normalized drain current.
c) relations (1.111.12) clearly show that the g _{m} /I _{D} characteristics as a function of the normalized current I' = I _{D} /(W/L) only depends on the technological parameters, not on the exact transistor dimensions. It thus constitutes a universal characteristic common to all transistors of similar type, i.e. nMOS or pMOS, realized in a given fabrication process. In all the following MATLAB examples, this characteristic will be implemented as a matrix
table of g _{m} /I _{D} values associated to I' values, i.e. [[g _{m} /I _{D} ],[I']], calculated using the EKV model. From figure 1.6, we may also deduce that, in a given technology, the model can be substituted by
a table derived from experimental characteristics without any loss of generality. Such an
experimental lookup table modelling may prove extremely efficient in practical cases of special operating conditions or devices for which reliable models are not available.
d) consequently, the g _{m} /I _{D} analog parameter turns out to be the key parameter for the synthesis
of MOS operational amplifiers.
The g _{m} /I _{D} formulation of the behavioural symbolic opamp equations allows to eliminate, from these expressions, an unknown of the problem which is difficult to a priori estimate, i.e. W/L, whereas g _{m} /I _{D} values always fall within a limited range of wellknown values. The MOS transistor physics constraints g _{m} /I _{D} between 0 and 38 V 1 at room temperature. Practically, the maximum value hardly excess 25 V 1 for conventional bulk Si MOSFETs. Furthermore, a clear link exists between the g _{m} /I _{D} ratio and the major analog device performance. This ratio intuitively conditions the efficiency of the transistor, on one hand, to amplify a signal and on the other hand, to transform static current into dynamic transconductance and hence gainbandwidth product for a given power consumption. In practical cases, acceptable g _{m} /I _{D} values will often be constrained by the specifications. It proves to be an unknown for which initial guess values may be conveniently chosen, thereby reducing the
 8 
number of degrees of freedom in a complex system and allowing its iterative optimization if necessary. Finally, since g _{m} /I _{D} does not depend on the a priori unknown dimensions of the transistor, but is unambiguously linked to the adimensional current I' = I _{D} /(W/L), the evaluation of the bias current and of the g _{m} /I _{D} univoquely imposes the W/L aspect size.
e) a topdown synthesis methodology eventually emerges, starting from the specifications to deduce the problem unknowns in a logical way.
The formulation of a design flow plan or synthesis algorithm for our simple common source example clarifies these different concepts (Fig. 1.7):
Fig. 1.7: Design flow plan for the commonsource MOS gain stage.
1° equation (1.2) directly yields g _{m} from the given transition frequency and capacitive load, while g _{m} /I _{D} is derived from the specified dc openloop gain and the chosen technology using equation (1.9); 2° g _{m} and g _{m} /I _{D} yield the bias current I _{D}_{0} and furthermore g _{m} /I _{D} gives I' by equation (1.11
1.12);
3° W/L is finally given by I _{D}_{0} /I'.
This approach proves to be deductive or topdown. The MATLAB implementation is given hereafter for sake of illustration. The technological [[g _{m} /I _{D} ],[I']] table is obtained from an external EKV routine given in Annex. For each of these pairs, the gain is computed considering minimal channel length and a related [[W/L],[I _{D}_{0} ]] locus is obtained.
Numerically we obtain a W/L aspect ratio which in this case significantly differs for the result of the approximated strong inversion synthesis, for the same gain and transition frequency specifications, i.e. for 50 dB and 10 MHz respectively, we get W/L = 444.
To explain this result, we compare in figure 1.7, the locus of acceptable (W/L,I _{D}_{0} ) pairs for a given transition frequency as well as the g _{m} /I _{D} vs I' characteristics used in both approaches.
 9 
% 'ex2.m' EXAMPLE 2
% Commonsource intrinsic MOS gain stage synthesis
% for a given dc openloop gain using the topdown approach
% based on gm/ID and EKV model clear
load parameters
% 
common source specifications 

fT 
= 10e6; 
% transition frequency [Hz] 
CL 
= 10e12; 
% load capacitance [F] 
Av0 = 50; 
% dc openloop gain [dB] 

% 
gm/ID vs I' table in saturation from EKV model 

VS 
= 0; VD = 2.5; VG = 0.2 : .05 : 2.5; 
m = ekv([n VTo UT0],VS,VD,VG); Iprim = m(:,2)*Kn; GmoverId = m(:,3);
% 
design flow 
gm 
= 2*pi*fT*CL; 
gmonID = (10^(Av0/20))/(Veal*Lmin); ID0 = gm/gmonID;
Ip = spline(GmoverId,Iprim,gmonID);
WovrL = ID0/Ip
% EXAMPLE 2  cont.
% ekv vs s.i.
ID0si = logspace(5,3,50); WsLsi = gm^2/2/Kn./ID0si*n;
WsLekv = (GmoverId.*Iprim).^(1)*gm; ID0ekv = Iprim.*WsLekv;
% plot
subplot(121);
semilogx(ID0si,WsLsi,'',ID0ekv,WsLekv,'')
axis('square'); axis([1e5 1e3 0 300]); xlabel ('Bias current ID0 [A]') ylabel ('Width/length ratio W/L []') title ('Fig. 1.7: Strong inversion () vs EKV (
) syntheses')
subplot(122);
semilogx(ID0si./WsLsi,gm./ID0si,'',Iprim,GmoverId,'')
axis('square'); axis([1e10 1e5 0 30]); xlabel ('Normalized current I`=ID0/(W/L) [A]') ylabel ('gm/ID [V1]')
subplot(111);
 10 
The MATLAB implementation clearly illustrated the topdown property of the systematical approach when compared to the strong inversion one. The latter requires the a priori knowledge of the adequate bias current range which depends on f _{T} , whereas the g _{m} /I _{D} approach is general to any specification. The two graphs highlight the discrepancy between the results of the two synthesis approaches (Fig. 1.7). The strong inversion model dramatically overestimates the g _{m} /I _{D} values for low normalized current, i.e. when the strong inversion regime obviously gives way to moderate or even weak inversion for which the model does not apply. Subsequently, in our study case, the commonsource amplifier is synthesized for a specified gain, and hence g _{m} /I _{D} , with a much higher normalized current when using the strong inversion approach, which results for a given f _{T} , and hence g _{m} and I _{D}_{0} , in a much lower W/L aspect ratio. In our numerical example, a 50 dB gain was achieved with g _{m} /I _{D} and L equal to 20 V 1 and 2 µm respectively. We easily verify that this g _{m} /I _{D} value lies in moderate inversion yielding an identical difference factor of 3 between the two model results for both the normalized current and W/L. Solutions from the strong inversion approach do not correspond to any physical reality for g _{m} /I _{D} values larger than 10, which drastically limits the validity of this approach. Furthermore, we observe that the strong inversion g _{m} /I _{D} model tends to infinite values for low currents, whereas physically, in weak inversion, g _{m} /I _{D} reaches a plateau maximum value. This significates that, for a given f _{T} , and hence gm, there exists a minimal current value under which the frequency specification can not be achieved. The EKVbased design approach clearly shows that limit, annihilating the illusion for achieving indefinitely low power consumption through device size increase.
 11 
Next chapters will discuss into further details the potential and limitations of different MOS models and their implications on analog circuit design, as well as the application of our synthesis methodology to more practical amplifier design cases.
1.2.3. Extended analyses.
We will now investigate two typical extended analyses of the basic commonsource design case which can be run in reasonable computation time thanks to the combination of g _{m} /I _{D} methodology, EKV model and MATLAB environment. Such analyses can on the contrary hardly be implemented in SPICEbased approaches. These two syntheses incorporate and illustrate various limitations of the architecture which were previously neglected.
We must first consider that the total capacitive load does not reduce to the external load C _{L} , but also includes the intrinsic device load related to the draintosubstrate capacitance C _{d}_{b} . The latter adds to C _{L} in parallel and is proportional to the device width:
C _{d}_{b} ≈ C _{j}_{b}_{x} .W
(1.13)
where C _{j}_{b}_{x} denotes the draintosubstrate junction capacitance per unit of device width. The total load charge is then given by C _{o}_{u}_{t} = C _{L} +C _{d}_{b} which changes the amplifier transition frequency achieved for a given g _{m} . The influence of the transistor size on C _{o}_{u}_{t} should therefore be taken into account during the synthesis, either directly when determining W, or a posteriori, recomputing f _{T} , verifying the specification and adapting the sizing if required. In both cases, a coupled equation system should be solved by iterations or by another numerical method. Several predefined MATLAB functions could serve this purpose. By simplicity, we will only consider here the a posteriori recomputation of the gainbandwidth product we will note GBW and compare to the initial f _{T} specification for reasons to be discussed later:
GBW =
^{g} ^{m}
2. π.C _{o}_{u}_{t}
(1.14).
Secondly, the zero of the extended transfer function given by eq. (1.6) depends on the gate todrain MOSFET capacitance C _{g}_{d} (Fig. 1.5). This has two components, a physical one resulting from the technological overlap of the gate and diffused drain region and another linked to the variations of the internal MOSFET charges with the terminal voltages. The latter is one of the socalled intrinsic MOSFET capacitances which model smallsignal dynamic effects taking place within the MOSFET structure. Their modelling is rather complex and thus beyond the scope of this introductive chapter. It is however a very important topic which will be more extensively covered in section 3 of this course. As a first approximation, but without any loss of generality, we will only model here the overlap capacitance component as follows:
C _{g}_{d} ≈ C _{r}_{e}_{c} .W
(1.15)
where C _{r}_{e}_{c} is the overlap capacitance per unit of MOSFET width.
a) Polezero analysis, transfer function, phase margin and settling time.
 12 
In this first extended analysis of the commonsource stage, we will further investigate its poles and zeros, transfer function, phase margin and settling time performance as a function of g _{m} /I _{D} , incorporating the previously neglected output and overlap capacitances.
The 'ex3.m' MATLAB file given in Annex illustrates and compares the computation of the polezero locus either numerically from the implementation of the complete transfer function, here given by eq. (1.6), or analytically from the derivation of the symbolic pole and zero expressions, here given in eq. (1.71.8). Such an analysis is an important preliminary step towards a systematic synthesis approach as demonstrated in chapter 5.
Figure 1.8 clearly illustrates the here obvious agreement between the numerical (lines) and
analytical (symbols) polezero loci, as well as for practical g _{m} /I _{D} values, the negligible impact of
C _{d}_{b} on the transition frequency specification (i.e. f _{T} = 10 MHz) and the very highfrequency
position of the zero, which validates our previous approximated synthesis. For g _{m} /I _{D} values larger than 20, C _{d}_{b} and, hence, C _{o}_{u}_{t} significantly rise with the increase of W, thereby reducing GBW for fixed g _{m} .
Fig. 1.8: Polezero locus and GBW for fixed gm = fT.CL
p1 (+,), GBW (), z1 (o,.) [Hz]
 13 
We will now verify, using the bode diagram plot of the A _{v} (s) transfer function that the variation of the pole position with g _{m} /I _{D} for fixed f _{T} obviously correlates with an increase of the dc openloop gain. Two g _{m} /I _{D} values are chosen for sake of comparison, with g _{m} /I _{D} = 20 V 1 corresponding to our gain specification of 50 dB and g _{m} /I _{D} = 5 corresponding to a strong inversion case. The transfer function calculations may conveniently be implemented in MATLAB, as given in Annex.
Fig. 1.9: Bode diagram: gm/ID = 20 (_), 5 ( )
Frequency [Hz]
Frequency [Hz]
In both cases of figure 1.9, we may observe that
 on one hand, the transition frequency recomputed in A _{v} (s) = 1 or 0 dB is less than a few
% away from the initial specification (i.e. f _{T} = 10 MHz) and very close to the GBW estimated from g _{m} and C _{o}_{u}_{t} by eq. (1.14),
 and, on the other hand, the phase margin between 180° and the transfer function phase
value at the transition frequency, which guarantees stability in closed loop, keeps close to ideal, i.e. 90°. This justifies the simplifying assumption of a firstorder system for which f _{T} is also equal to the gainbandwidth product GBW given by the dc openloop gain times the dominant pole frequency, which does not hold for higher order systems. We may further verify the system stability in closed loop by calculating the temporal response to an input step voltage. The MATLAB implementation is given in Annex. When observing the input and output signals in a linear scale diagram like on an oscilloscope, the two g _{m} /I _{D} cases may not be discriminated. Since they have almost identical f _{T} values, they present similar exponential behaviour towards the final value. A log scale representation of the error signal, i.e. the difference between input and
 14 
output values refered to input, more conveniently shows the direct influence of the dc openloop gain on the final error in closed loop as expected from linear circuit theory (Fig. 1.10). The settling time of the output signal to a few % of the input step can easily be extracted.
Fig. 1.10: Step response error : gm/ID = 20 (_) and 5 ()
b) Analysis of maximum transition frequency for a given gain.
The following important analysis illustrates a fundamental limitation of any amplifier architecture in a given technology, i.e. for a given dc openloop gain and hence fixed g _{m} /I _{D} , the transition frequency may not be indefinetely raised by increasing the bias current. The reason is that increased bias current implies larger transistor width and hence, larger intrinsic drain load capacitance. When the latter dominates the total output load capacitance, it impairs any f _{T} increase from larger transistor and size. The 'ex4.m' MATLAB file given in Annex implements such phenomenon, in our basic commonsource stage design case, for the two g _{m} /I _{D} values previously considered. It should be noted that SPICElike electrical simulation softwares hardly enable such analyses again.
 15 
Bias current ID0 [A]
The results are clearly illustrated in Figure 1.11: a larger g _{m} /I _{D} yields a lower current consumption for a targeted f _{T} , provided the latter is not too high, whereas lower g _{m} /I _{D} achieves higher f _{T} , but reducing the gain. This is a very important general conclusion: any amplifier architecture has its own fundamental performance limitations whose exact values depend on technology. Although it is clear that such limitations can not be exceeded, this is not so obvious when blindly using automated optimisation softwares based on SPICE. These ignore basic physical limitations and will just not reach convergence for unpractical specifications, leaving the designer without any valuable information.
Figure 1.11 also shows that our basic amplifier can, in theory, achieve fairly high frequency performance. For simple it is, the basic commonsource stage has therefore numerous practical applications, in particular in the range of very high frequencies for which the intrinsic stability provided by its firstorder behaviour is a must. However the transition frequency can not be indefinetely increased by lowering g _{m} /I _{D} because another physical limit will be reached, i.e. the transit time of the carriers in the channel which depend on the device length and other technological parameters. Nevertheless, this time constant can also be expressed as a function of g _{m} /I _{D} [Enz '95] and therefrom easily incorporated in our approach. This once more justifies the need for accurate and reliable device modelling as well as systematic amplifier performance evaluation.
 16 
1.3. Conclusion.
At this point, our systematical design methodology may be summarized as follows.
We have demonstrated that a basic opamp synthesis can be based on functional models of both opamp and transistor behaviours, thereby reducing a large number of technological and architectural parameters to a limited set of key electrical performances.
Analytical expressions relating circuit specifications to electrical device parameters are first derived using symbolic analysis techniques. The original reformulation of these relations using the universal g _{m} /I _{D} vs I' characteristics eases the identification of the degrees of freedom of the problem. Some of them can be conveniently fixed by the limited range of g _{m} /I _{D} values in order to reduce the problem complexity. A design plan or synthesis algorithm may therefrom be established, incorporating the technological data. The problem unknowns are thus finally obtained from a topdown synthesis.
The implementation of our methodology requires the use of models or experimental data describing the major analog MOS parameters continuously from weak to strong inversion, in order to guarantee the reliability of the synthesis results. These parameters are, to the first order, as presented here, the g _{m} /I _{D} vs I' characteristics, as well as the Early voltage and the intrinsic device capacitances. In chapter 3, their extended formalization will be detailed.
 17 
References
[Enz '95] C. Enz, F. Krummenacher and E.A. Vittoz, "An analytical MOS transistor model valid in all regions of operation and dedicated to lowwoltage and lowcurrent applications", Analog Integrated Circuit and Signal Processing, vol. 8, n°1, pp. 83114, 1995.
[Gielen '89] 
G.G.E. Gielen, H.C.C. Walscharts and W.M.C. Sansen, "ISAAC: A symbolic simulator for 
analog integrated circuits, IEEE Journal of SolidState Circuits, vol. 24, pp. 15871597, Dec. 

1989. 

[Laker'94] 
K. Laker, W. Sansen, Design of analog integrated circuits and systems, Mc GrawHill, 1994. 
[MATLAB] 
MATLAB 4.2.c, The Mathworks, Inc. (Natick MA, USA). 
 18 
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.