EE214 Advanced Analog Integrated Circuit Design: - Winter 2011 - Boris Murmann Stanford University Murmann@stanford - Edu
EE214 Advanced Analog Integrated Circuit Design: - Winter 2011 - Boris Murmann Stanford University Murmann@stanford - Edu
- Winter 2011 -
Boris Murmann
Stanford University
[email protected]
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 BJT Devices
Chapter 3 MOS Devices and Gm/ID-based Design
Chapter 4 Review of Elementary Circuit Configurations
Chapter 5 Two-Port Feedback Circuit Analysis
Chapter 6 Frequency Response of Feedback Circuits
Chapter 7 Wideband Amplifiers
Chapter 8 Noise Analysis
Chapter 9 Distortion Analysis
Chapter 10 Opamps and Output Stages
Chapter 1
Introduction
B. Murmann
Stanford University
EE314 —
RF Integrated
Circuit Design
EE315B — VLSI
Data Conversion
Circuits
Analog Design
EE 114
Bandwidth
Power Dissipation
EE 214
Signal-to-Noise
g Ratio
2
Psignal Vsignal
SNR = ∝ 2
Pnoise Vnoise
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~htakeda/kernelreg/kernelreg.htm
p g g
Th
The "fidelity"
"fid lit " off electronic
l t i systems
t is
i often
ft determined
d t i d by
b their
th i SNR
– Examples
• Audio systems
• Imagers,
Imagers cameras
• Wireless and wireline transceivers
Electronic noise directly trades with power dissipation and speed
– In
I mostt circuits,
i it lowl noise
i di
dictates
t t llarge capacitors
it ((and/or
d/ smallll R
R,
large gm), which means high power dissipation
Noise has become increasingly important in modern technologies with
reduced supply voltages
– SNR ~ Vsignal2/Vnoise2 ~ (αVDD)2/Vnoise2
Designing a low-power, high-SNR circuit requires good understanding of
electronic
l t i noise i
Distortion
vo
vi
Small-signal approximation
For a single tone input, the nonlinear terms in a circuit’s transfer function
primarily result in signal harmonics
Main objective
– Acquire the basic tools and intuition needed to analyze noise and
distortion in electronic circuits
– Look at a few specific circuit examples to “get a feel” for situations
where noise and/or distortion may matter
EE114
EE214
*A
A. O
Ong, ett al.,
l ISSCC 2003
Radar Sensor
R
Ragonese ett al.,
l ISSCC 2009
In modern CMOS
technology, millions of
l i gates
logic t can b be
integrated on a chip
– Together with
moderate- to high
moderate
performance analog
blocks
Steve Cowden
THE OREGONIAN
July 2007
Vdd
Molecular devices
A B
Transport-enhanced FET
Out
Strained Si, Ge, SiGe, III-V
A
B
buried oxide
Gnd
isolation
Nanodevice Spintronics
Silicon Substrate
Self-assembled array
device fabrication
top-gate
channel
Nanotube
channel
3D, heterogeneous back-gate Quantum
i t
integration
ti
isolation
cascade
buried oxide
Time
B. Murmann EE214 Winter 2010-11 – Chapter 1 19
F
Feedback
db k circuits
i it can b be studied
t di d iin severall ways
– Return ratio analysis (EE114)
– Two-port analysis (EE214)
Both methods have their own merits and demerits, and a good circuit
designer should understand both approaches
Two-port analysis nicely captures a number of practical scenarios in
which the forward amplifier (“a”) and feedback network (“f”) can be
intuitively identified and separated (while maintaining loading effects)
– Shunt-shunt, shunt-series, series-shunt, series-series configurations
Example:
Shunt series feedback circuit
Shunt-series
Provides intuitive guidance on “where the poles move” when the loop
gain is varied
Valuable for stability analysis and frequency compensation
Instructors
– Boris Murmann, Drew Hall
Teaching assistants
– Kamal Aggarwal, Pedram Lajevardi
Administrative support
– Ann Guerra, CIS 207
Lectures are televised
– But please come to class to keep the discussion interactive!
Web page: http://ccnet.stanford.edu/ee214
– Check regularly, especially bulletin board
– Register for online access to grades and solutions
EE214 C
Course reader
d
– Hardcopies available at Stanford Bookstore (~1/3)
Required textbook
– Gray, Hurst, Lewis and Meyer, Analysis and Design of Analog
Integrated Circuits, 5th ed., Wiley
Reference text
– B. Razavi, Design of Integrated Circuits for Optical Communications,
McGraw-Hill, 2002
Course p
prerequisite:
q EE114 or equivalent
q
– Basic device physics and models
– Frequency response, dominant pole approximation, ZVTC
– Biasing,
g, small-signal
g models
– Common source, common gate, and common drain stages
– Port impedance calculations
– Feedback basics
Homework (20%)
– Handed out on Wed, due following Wed in class
– Lowest
L t HW score will
ill b
be d
dropped
d
– Policy for off-campus students
• Fax or email to SCPD before deadline stated on handout
Midterm
Midt E
Exam (30%)
Design Project (20%)
– Design of an amplifier using HSpice (no layout)
– Work
W k ini tteams off two
t
– OK to discuss your work with other teams, but no file exchange!
Final Exam (30%)
Honor Code
B. Murmann
Stanford University
Reading Material: Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.11, 2.12
History
W. Shockley,
W Shockley M.M Sparks,
Sparks and G G. KK. Teal
Teal, “P
P-N
N junction
transistors,” Phys. Rev. 83, pp. 151–162, Jul. 1951.
VBE
Device acts as a voltage
IC ∝ e kT / q controlled current source
– VBE controls IC
The base-emitter junction is
forward biased and the base-
base
collector junction is reverse
IB << IC n- C
biased
p B VCE The device is built such that
– The base region is very thin
VBE n+ E
– The emitter doping is much
higher than the base doping
– The collector doping is much
lower than the base doping
Outline of Discussion
Built-in Potential
The built in potential sets up an electric field that opposes the diffusion of
mobile holes and electrons across the junction
dp
(Drift ) qμppE = qDp (Diffusion)
dx
⎛p ⎞ ⎛n ⎞ ⎛N N ⎞ kT
⇒ ψ 0 = VT ln⎜⎜ p0 ⎟⎟ = VT ln⎜ n0 ⎟ ≅ VT ln⎜⎜ A 2 D ⎟⎟ VT =
⎜ ⎟
⎝ pn0 ⎠ ⎝ np0 ⎠ ⎝ ni ⎠ q
⎛ n ⎞ ⎛ N ⎞ ND
VBE
VT
VBE
VT n2 BE
V
Th
The result
lt on the
th previous
i slide
lid shows
h th
thatt fforward
d bi
biasing
i iincreases
the concentration of electrons at the “right” edge of the depletion region
by a factor of exp(VBE/VT)
The
Th same h
holds
ld ffor h
holes
l att th
the “l
“left”
ft” edge
d off th
the d
depletion
l ti region
i
VBE VBE
ni2
pn (0) = pn0 ⋅ e VT ≅ ⋅ e VT
ND
Since ND >> NA, it follows that pn(0) << np(0), i.e. the concentration of
minority carriers is much larger at the lightly doped edge
Th
The carriers
i would
ld “like”
“lik ” tto diff
diffuse ffurther
th iinto
t th
the neutral
t l regions,
i b
butt
quickly fall victim to recombination
The number of minority carriers decays exponentially, and drops to 1/e
off the
th att the
th so-called
ll d diff
diffusion
i llength
th (Lp or Ln, on the
th order
d off microns)
i )
n+ Total Current p
Jp
Jn
Hole current (recombination)
Jn
Jp Electron diffusion current ( dnp/dx)
Lots of electrons being injected into the p-region, not all that many holes
get injected into the n+ region
– The heavier n-side doping, the more pronounced this imbalance
becomes
The electrons injected in the p region cause a diffusion current that
d
decays iin th
the x-direction
di ti d due tto recombination
bi ti
The recombination necessitates a flow of holes to maintain charge
neutrality; as the diffusion current decays, the hole current increases,
yielding
i ldi a constantt t currentt d
density
it along
l th
the d
device
i
Near the edge of the depletion region, the electron diffusion current
dominates over the hole current that supplies carriers for recombination
– This is a very important aspect that we will come back to
n+ Total Current p
Jp
Jn
Hole current (recombination)
Jn
Jp Electron diffusion current ( dnp/dx)
“cut here”
n+ p n-
Text, p. 9
BJT Currents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar
p p g p _jjunction_transistor
VBE q nni2
qAD
∴ IC ≅ IS e VT IS =
WBNA
Base Current
IB1 follows
f ll ffrom dividing
di idi ththe minority
i it carrier
i charge
h iin th
the b
base (Qe) b
by it
its
“lifetime” (τB)
1 VBE
Qe 2 np (0)WBqA 1 WBqAni2 VT
IB1= = = e
τb τb 2 τbNA
IB2 depends on the gradient of minority carriers (holes) in the emitter. For a
long emitter (all minority carriers recombine)
“long”
⎡ ⎛ 2 VBE − x ⎞⎤ VBE
dpn (x) d n qADp ni2 V
= −qADp ⎢ ⎜ i e VT e p ⎟⎥
L
IB2= −qADp = e T
dx x =0 ⎢ dx ⎜ N ⎟⎟ ⎥ Lp ND
⎢⎣ ⎝⎜ D ⎠ ⎥⎦ x =0
Text, p. 9
IE = − (IC + IB )
IC
βF (ideally infinite)
IB
IC β
αF = F (ideally one)
( −IE ) 1 + βF
Th
The subscript
b i t “F” iindicates
di t th thatt th
the d
device
i iis assumed
d tto operate
t iin th
the
forward active region (BE junction forward biased, BC reverse biased, as
assumed so far)
– More on other operating regions later
later…
Text, p. 13
Side note:
BJT inherently has better (higher)
Text, p. 14 ro than MOS since lower doping
on n-side (collector) has most of
the depletion region inside the
collector
∂ ⎛ qADnni2 ⎞
VBE
∂IC I dWB
= ⎜ e VT ⎟=− C (See eq. (1.18) for dWB/dVCE term)
∂VCE ∂VCE ⎜⎝ WB (VCE ) ⋅ NA ⎟
⎠ W B dVCE
Text, p. 15
IC WB
VA =− = const. (independent of IC )
∂IC dWB
∂VCE dVCE
VBE
VT ⎛ VCE ⎞
IC ≅ ISe ⎜1+ ⎟
⎝ VA ⎠
BE V
dIC d I
gm = = ISe VT = C
dVBE dVBE VT
⎛I ⎞
d⎜ C ⎟
1 dIB β 1 IC g
gπ = = = ⎝ F⎠= = m (assuming βF = const.)
rπ dVBE dVBE βF VT βF
⎡ VBE ⎤
1 dIC d ⎢ VT ⎛ VCE ⎞ ⎥ IC
go = = = ISe ⎜1+ ⎟ ≅
r0 dVCE dVCE ⎢ ⎝ VA ⎠ ⎥ VA
⎣ ⎦
Intrinsic Gain
IC VA VA
gmro ≅ ⋅ = VT ≅ 26mV (at room temperature)
VT IC VT
90V
gmro ≅ = 3460
26mV
Discussed so far
BE = forward biased
CE = reverse biased
Text, p. 17
Text, p. 16
Gummel Plot
A Gummel
G l plot
l t iis a semi-log
i l plot
l t off IC and
d IB versus VBE (linear
(li scale)
l )
It reveals the regions for which high βF is maintained (region II below)
What happens
pp in regions
g I and III?
Text, p. 24
Text, p. 24
≅ 7000 ppm / °C
Text, p. 97
Big mess!
First focus on intrinsic elements
Charge Storage
IIn the
th intrinsic
i t i i transistor,
t i t charge
h is
i stored
t d in i the
th jjunction
ti capacitances,
it
Cje and Cjc = Cμ, and as minority carriers in the base and emitter
Both minority carrier charge injected into the base and into the emitter,
are proportional
ti l to
t exp(V(VBE/VT)
– But the charge in the base is much larger, as discussed previously
Text, p. 26
Junction Capacitance
C j0 2C j0
Cj = n
⎛ VD ⎞
⎜1− ⎟
⎝ ψ0 ⎠
Text, p. 6
Cμ
B C
v1 rπ Cπ gmv1 ro
–
E
Cπ = Cb + C je = Cb + 2C je0
C jc0
Cμ = C jc = n
⎛ VCB ⎞
⎜1+ ⎟
⎝ ψ 0c ⎠
Neglect
Text, p. 32
Range of numbers
re ~1-3Ω
rb ~ 50-500Ω
50 500Ω Values at high end of these ranges may have large
rc ~ 20-500Ω impact on performance Æ Try to minimize through
advanced processing & technology
CCS ~ 3-200fF
Text, p. 107
Oxide isolated
Self-aligned structure (base and emitter align automatically)
Very thin base (~100nm or less) through ion implantation
Reduced breakdown voltages compared to more traditional structures
qADnnp0 qADnnp0 2
qADnniB
DnNDLp 2
WB WB WBNA niB
βF = 2
≅ 2
= 2
= 2
⋅
1 np0 WBqA qADpniE qADpniE qADpniE DpNA WB niE
+
2 τb LpND LpND LpND
Added degree of
freedom for HBT
300
2
90
3x smaller device
3.2x10-17A
1pA 5x bigger IS
2.0V
5 5V
5.5V
3.3V
0.56ps 18x smaller τF
10ps
25Ω 16x smaller rb
60
60Ω
2.5Ω
6.26fF
0.8V
0.4
3.42fF
0.6V
0.33 Oxide isolation vs.
3.0fF
Junction isolation
0 6V
0.6V
0.33
CMOS
Text, p. 154
[Texas Instruments]
[Texas Instruments]
rπ
v1 = i io = gmv1
(AC circuit; DC biasing not shown) (
1 + rπs Cπ + Cμ )i
io gmrπ 1
= ≅ gmrπ = βF for ω << = ωβ
(
ii 1 + rπ jω Cπ + Cμ ) (
rπ Cπ + Cμ )
io gm
≅ for ω >> ωβ
ii (
jω Cπ + Cμ )
|io/ii| gm
(asymptote)
(
ω Cπ + Cμ )
≅ βF
Note that rπ “matters” only for
frequencies up to ωβ = ωT/βF
Text, p. 36
gm gm
1= ⇒ ωT =
(
ωT Cπ + Cμ ) Cπ + Cμ
1 C C je Cμ C je Cμ
τT = = b+ + = τF + +
ωT gm gm gm gm gm
“peak fT”
gm = IC/VT increases
EE214 Technology
Assumed to be similar to a 0
0.18 μm BiCMOS technology featuring a
18-μm
high-performance SiGe npn device
– VCC = 2.5V (BJT), VDD=1.8V (MOS)
See e
e.g.
g
– Wada et al., BCTM 2002
– Joseph et al., BCTM 2001
– IBM 7HP documentation
• https://www-01.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/products/BiCMOS_7HP)
NPN PMOS/NMOS Poly resistor
http://fuji.stanford.edu/events/spring01/slides/harameSlides.pdf
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/class/ee/synopsys/B-2008.09-SP1/hspice/docs_help
PDF files:
home.pdf hspice_cmdref.pdf hspice_integ.pdf hspice_relnote.pdf hspice_sa.pdf
hspice_devmod.pdf hspice_mosmod.pdf hspice_rf.pdf hspice_si.pdf
* C B E
q1 c b 0 npn214
Vc c 0 1.25
ib 0 b 1u
.op
.dc ib dec 10 10f 100u
.probe ib(q1) ic(q1) ie(q1) CC
.probe gm = par('gm(q1)')
.probe
b go = par('g0(q1)')
(' 0( 1)')
.probe cpi = par('cap_be(q1)')
.probe cmu = par('cap_ibc(q1)')
.probe beta = par('beta(q1)')
Transit Frequency
150
Hz]
100
fT [GH
50
0 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10
IC [A]
ee215 npn
4000
3500
3000
2000
1500
1000
500
0 -8 -6 -4 -2
10 10 10 10
IC [A]
gm/IC
Important to realize that gm will not be exactly equal to IC/VT at high currents
NPN (1x, AE=0.7μm2, I B=0.2, 0.4, ..., 1μA NMOS 2/0.18, VGS=0.6, 0.8, ..., 1.4V
300 800
700
250
600
200
500
I C [μA]
I D [μA]
150 400
300
100
200
50
100
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
VCE [V] VDS [V]
Text, p. 116
B. Murmann
Stanford University
Text,, p.41
p
ID = Qn ⋅ v ⋅ W
v = μ ⋅E
W⎡ VDS ⎤
ID = μCox ⎢( VGS − Vt ) − ⎥ ⋅ VDS
L ⎣ 2 ⎦
– VGS +
+ VDS –
N N
Qn(y), V(y)
VGS-V
Vt
VDS
W⎡ VDS ⎤
Triode Region: ID = μCox ⎢( VGS − Vt ) − ⎥ ⋅ VDS
L ⎣ 2 ⎦
W⎡ (V − V )
Saturation Region: ID = μCox ⎢ ( VGS − Vt ) − GS t ⎤⎥ ⋅ (VGS − Vt )
L ⎣ 2 ⎦
1 W
= μCox (VGS − Vt )2
2 L
ID
Vt
VGS
VOV
dID W W
gm = = μCox ( VGS − Vt ) = μCox VOV
dVGS L L
W 2I
= 2IDμCox = D
L VOV
Saturation
Triode Region
Region
go= dID/dVDS ≠ 0
ID
VGS-Vt
VDS
dID d ⎡1 W 2 ⎤
go = = ⎢ 2 μCox L (VGS − Vt ) (1 + λVds )⎥
dVDS dVDS ⎣ ⎦
1 W λID
= μCox (VGS − Vt )2 ⋅ λ = ≅ λID
2 L 1 + λVDS
Text, p. 54
EE 214 Technology
Parameter (0.18μm)
NMOS PMOS
ε
Cox = ox
t ox Cox 8.42 fF/μm2 8.42 fF/μm2
gd
gs gs m gs o
gb sb db
2
bsub (Cj0 = 0.2 fF/μm , “dwell” model)
.MODEL
MODEL nmos214 nmos
+acm = 3 hdif = 0.32e-6 LEVEL = 49
+VERSION = 3.1 TNOM = 27 TOX = 4.1E-9
+XJ = 1E-7 NCH = 2.3549E17 VTH0 = 0.3618397
+K1 = 0.5916053 K2 = 3.225139E-3 K3 = 1E-3
+K3B = 2.3938862 W0 = 1E-7 NLX = 1.776268E-7
+DVT0W
+DVT0
= 0
= 1.3127368
DVT1W
DVT1
= 0
= 0.3876801
DVT2W
DVT2
= 0
= 0.0238708
The HSpice
p model for an NMOS
+U0
+UC
= 256.74093
= 5.182125E-11
UA
VSAT
= -1.585658E-9
= 1.003268E5
UB
A0
= 2.528203E-18
= 1.981392
device in our technology is shown
+AGS
+KETA
= 0.4347252
= -9.888408E-3
B0
A1
= 4.989266E-7
= 6.164533E-4
B1
A2
= 5E-6
= 0.9388917
to the left
+RDSW = 128.705483 PRWG = 0.5 PRWB = -0.2
+WR
+XL
= 1
= 0
WINT
XW
= 0
= -1E-8
LINT
DWG
= 1.617316E-8
= -5.383413E-9
BSIM 3v3 model
+DWB = 9.111767E-9 VOFF = -0.0854824 NFACTOR = 2.2420572
+CIT
+CDSCB
= 0
= 0
CDSC
ETA0
= 2.4E-4
= 2.981159E-3
CDSCD
ETAB
= 0
= 9.289544E-6
110 parameters
+DSUB = 0.0159753 PCLM = 0.7245546 PDIBLC1 = 0.1568183
+PDIBLC2 = 2.543351E-3
+PSCBE1 = 8E10
PDIBLCB = -0.1
PSCBE2 = 1.876443E-9
DROUT
PVAG
= 0.7445011
= 7.200284E-3
KP and LAMBDA nowhere to be
+DELTA
+PRT
= 0.01
= 0
RSH
UTE
= 6.6
= -1.5
MOBMOD
KT1
= 1
= -0.11
found
found…
+KT1L = 0 KT2 = 0.022 UA1 = 4.31E-9
+UB1 = -7.61E-18 UC1 = -5.6E-11 AT = 3.3E4
+WL = 0 WLN = 1 WW = 0
+WWN = 1 WWL = 0 LL = 0
+LLN = 1 LW = 0 LWN = 1
+LWL = 0 CAPMOD = 2 XPART = 1
+CGDO = 4.91E-10 CGSO = 4.91E-10 CGBO = 1E-12
+CJ = 9.652028E-4 PB = 0.8 MJ = 0.3836899
+CJSW = 2.326465E-10 PBSW = 0.8 MJSW = 0.1253131
+CJSWG = 3.3E-10 PBSWG = 0.8 MJSWG = 0.1253131
+CF = 0 PVTH0 = -7.714081E-4 PRDSW = -2.5827257
+PK2 = 9.619963E-4 WKETA = -1.060423E-4 LKETA = -5.373522E-3
+PU0 = 4.5760891
4 5760891 PUA = 1.469028E
1 469028E-14
14 PUB = 1.783193E
1 783193E-23
23
+PVSAT = 1.19774E3 PETA0 = 9.968409E-5 PKETA = -2.51194E-3
+nlev = 3 kf = 0.5e-25
Bias MOSFET at constant VDS>VOV, sweep VGS and plot μCox estimate
300
NMOS 5/0.18
250 NMOS 20/0.72
200
μnCox [μA/V ]
2
2ID
μCox =
W 2 150
V
L OV 100
50
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
V [V]
OV
Which physical effects explain the large deviation from the basic square
law model?
How can we design with such a device?
– Is there another “simple” equation that describes its behavior?
Square Law
Transconductance efficiency
gm 2
– Want
W t large
l gm, for
f as little
littl currentt =
as possible ID VOV
Intrinsic gain gm 2
– Want large gm, but no go ≅
go λVOV
* NMOS characterization
.param gs=0.7
.param dd=1.8
vds d 0 dc 'dd/2'
vgs g 0 dc 'gs'
mn d g 0 0 nmos214 L=0.18um W=5um
.op
.dc gs 0.2V 1V 10mV DD
.probe ov = par('gs-vth(mn)')
.probe
b gm_id
id = par('gmo(mn)/i(mn)')
(' ( )/i( )')
.probe ft = par('1/6.28*gmo(mn)/cggbo(mn)')
.probe gm_gds = par('gmo(mn)/gdso(mn)')
.options
options post brief dccap
.inc /usr/class/ee214/hspice/ee214_hspice.sp
.end
gm/ID Plot
40
35 0.18um NMOS
2/VOV
30
BJT (q/kT)
25
A]
gm/I D [S/A
20
15
10
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
VOV [V]
Subthreshold Operation
-1
0.8 10
-2
0.6 10
A]
A]
I D [mA
I D [mA
-3
0.4 10
-4
0.2 10
-5
0 10
-0.5 0 0.5 1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
V [V] V [V]
VOV [V] VOV [V]
Questions
– What determines the current when VOV< 0, i.e. VGS< Vt?
– What
Wh t iis th
the d
definition
fi iti off Vt?
6.E-07
Fixed Charge
5.E-07 Mobile Charge
T t l Charge
Total Ch
4.E-07
harge [C]
3.E-07
Ch
2.E-07
1.E-07
0.E+00
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
VOV [V]
O
On a log
l scale,
l we see th
thatt there
th are mobile
bil charges
h b f
before we reach
h
the threshold voltage
– Fundamental result of solid-state physics, not short channels
1.E-06
1.E-07
1 E-08
1.E 08
Mobile Charge [C]
1.E-09
1.E-10
1.E-11
1.E-12
1.E-13
1.E-14
1.E-15
1.E-16
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00
VOV [V]
BJT Similarity
We have
– An NPN sandwich,
sandwich mobile minority carriers in the P region
This is a BJT!
– Except that the base potential is here controlled through a capacitive
divider,, and not directlyy byy an electrode
C js + Cox C js
n= = 1+
Cox Cox
Vt
dID 1I gm 1
gm = = D =
dVGS n VT ID nVT
40
35 0.18um NMOS
~1.5x 2/VOV
30
BJT (q/kT)
25
A]
gm/I D [S/A
20
15
10
0
-0.2
02 -0.1
01 0 0.1
0 1 02
0.2 03
0.3 04
0.4 05
0.5
VOV [V]
Moderate Inversion
IIn the
th transition
t iti region
i between
b t subthreshold
bth h ld and
d strong
t inversion,
i i we
have two different current mechanisms
Drift (MOS) ν = μE
dn kT dn
Diffusion ((BJT)) ν = D = μ
dx q dx
Subthreshold
Operation
Transition to
Strong Inversion
We will limit the discussion in EE214 to the first two aspects of the above
list, with a focus on qualitative understanding
IIn the
th derivation
d i ti off theth square llaw model,
d l it iis assumed
d th
thatt th
the carrier
i
velocity is proportional to the lateral E-field, v=μE
Unfortunately, the speed of carriers in silicon is limited (vscl ≅ 105 m/s)
– At very high fields (high voltage drop across the conductive channel),
the carrier velocity saturates
Text, p. 60
μE
ν d (E) ≅ ≅ μEc = v scl for E >> Ec
E
(approximation) 1+
Ec
v scl
= for E = Ec
2
It is
i important
i t t to
t distinguish
di ti i h various
i regions
i iin th
the above
b plot
l t
– Low field, the long channel equations still hold
– Moderate field, the long channel equations become somewhat
inaccurate
– Very high field across the conducting channel – the velocity saturates
completely and becomes essentially constant (vscl)
T
To gett some feel
f l for
f latter
l tt two
t cases, let's
l t' first
fi t estimate
ti t the
th E field
fi ld using
i
simple long channel physics
In saturation, the lateral field across the channel is
VOV 200mV V
E = e.g. = 1.11⋅ 106
L 0.18μm m
This means that for VOV on the order of 0.2V, the carrier velocity is
somewhat reduced,, but the impairment
p is relatively
y small
The situation changes when much larger VOV are applied, e.g. as the
case in digital circuits
A simple equation that captures the moderate deviation from the long
channel drain current can be written as (see text, p. 62)
1 W 2 1
ID ≅ μCox VOV ⋅
2 L ⎛ VOV ⎞
⎜1+ ⎟
⎝ Ec L ⎠
1 W E L ⋅ VOV
≅ μCox VOV ⋅ c
2 L (EcL + VOV )
V
Minimum-length
Minimum length NMOS: Ec L = 6 7 ⋅ 106
6.7 ⋅0 18μm = 1
0.18 1.2V
2V
m
V
Minimum-length PMOS: EcL = 16.75 ⋅ 106 ⋅ 0.18μm = 3V
m
Assuming VOV << EcL, we can show that (see text, pp. 63-64)
gm 2 1
≅ ⋅
ID VOV ⎛ VOV ⎞
⎜1+ ⎟
⎝ Ec L ⎠
E.g.
E forf an NMOS device
d i with
ith VOV=200mV
200 V
gm 2 1 2
≅ ⋅ = ⋅ 0.86
ID VOV ⎛ 0.2 ⎞ VOV
⎜ 1 + ⎟
⎝ 1.2 ⎠
1 gm
fT =
2π Cgg
Observations - fT
gm 1 3μ
Square Law: ⋅ fT ≅
ID 2π L2
Short channel
Square law predicts effects
too much gm/ID
VDS = VOV
“VDSsat” defined
(arbitrarily) as VDS at
which 1/g gds is equal
q
to ½ of the value at
VDS = VDD/2 = 0.9V
≅4kT/q
The Problem
Pl
Plott the
th following
f ll i parameters
t ffor a reasonable
bl range off gm/ID and
d
channel lengths
– Transit frequency (fT)
– Intrinsic gain (gm/gds)
– Current density (ID/W)
In addition, may want to tabulate relative estimates of extrinsic
capacitances
it
– Cgd/Cgg and Cdd/Cgg
Parameters are (to first order) independent of device width
– Enables "normalized design" and re-use of charts
– Somewhat similar to filter design procedure using normalized
coefficient tables
Do hand calculations using the generated technology data
– Can use Matlab functions to do table-look-up on pre-computed data
L=0.18um
L=0.5um
L=0.5um
L 0 18
L=0.18um
L=0.18um
L 05
L=0.5um
VDS dependence
is relatively weak
Typically
yp y OK to
work with data
generated for
VDD/2
NMOS, L=0.18um
1
Cdd/Cgg
Cgd/Cgg
0.8 Again, usually OK
to work with
0.60
estimates taken at
06
0.6
VDD/2
0.4
0 24
0.24
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
VDS [V]
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
L [μm]
05
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
L [μm]
4 gm 4mS S
A v (0) ≅ gmRL = 4 ⇒ gm = = 4mS = = 13.3
1kΩ ID 300μA A
A v (0) = gm (RL || ro )
−1
⎛ 1 1⎞
= gm ⎜ + ⎟
⎝ RL ro ⎠
1 1 1
= +
A v (0) gmRL gmro
1 1 1
= +
4 gmRL gmro
gm
High frequency zero ωz ≅ >> ωT
(negligible) Cgd
1
Dominant pole ωp1 ≅
(see Chapter 4) Ri ⎡⎣Cgs + Cgbb + (1 + gmRL ) ⋅ Cgdd ⎤⎦
1 1
Nondominant pole ωpp2 ≅
(see Chapter 4) ⎣ (
ωp1 Ri RL ⎡Cgs + Cgb ⎤ CL + ⎡Cgs + Cgd ⎤ Cdb + CLCgd
⎦ ⎣ ⎦ )
L=0 18um
L=0.18um
16.9 GHz
1 gm 1 4mS
Cgg = = = 37.7fF
37 7fF
2π fT 2π 16.9GHz
Cgd
Cgd = Cgg = 0.24 ⋅ 37.7fF = 9.0fF
Cgg
Cdd
Cdd = Cgg = 0.60 ⋅ 39.4fF = 23.6fF
Cgg
Device Sizing
ID 300μA
Device width W= = = 18.5μm
ID 16.2A / m
W
Simulation circuit
B o
1F
Simulated AC Response
213 MHz
11.5 dB (3.8)
5.0 GHz
Netlist statement
.pz v(vo) vi
Output
***************************************************
****** pole/zero analysis
input = 0:vi output = v(vo)
zeros (rad/sec)
( d/ ) zeros ( h
hertz)
t )
real imag real imag
458.247g 0. 72.9323g 0.
Observations
F. Silveira 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,
OTA," IEEE J. Solid State Circuits, Sep. 1996, pp.
Solid-State
1314-1319.
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
El t i
Electronics, Circuits
Ci it and dS Systems
t , pp. 1179-1182,
1179 1182 SSep. 2002
2002.
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 htm
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/ssc/May1905.htm
P. Jespers, The gm/ID Methodology, a sizing tool for low-voltage analog
CMOS Circuits, Springer, 2010.
T. Konishi, K. Inazu, J.G. Lee, M. Natsu, S. Masui, and B. Murmann,
“Optimization of High-Speed and Low-Power Operational
Transconductance Amplifier Using gm/ID Lookup Table Methodology,”
IEICE Trans. Electronics, Vol. E94-C,
E94 C, No.3, Mar. 2011.
B. Murmann
Stanford University
y
Reading Material: Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.6, 3.3.8, 3.5, 7.2.3, 7.2.4.1, 7.3.2,
7.3.4, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4
MOS
Bipolar
MOS
Bipolar
p
N
Nodal
d l analysis
l i (KCL
(KCL, KVL)
– Write KCL for each node, solve for desired transfer function or port
impedance
– Most general method
method, but conveys limited qualitative insight and
often yields high-entropy expressions
Miller theorem
http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~fff/eBook/MDA/Teo_Miller.html
Miller approximation
pp
− Approximate the gain across Z as frequency independent, i.e. K(s) ≅ K
for the frequency range of interest
− This approximation
pp requires
q a check ((or g
good intuition))
Dominant
D i t pole
l approximation
i ti
1 1 1
= ≅
⎛ s ⎞⎛ s⎞ s s s2
s s2
⎜1 − ⎟⎜ 1 − ⎟ 1 − p − p + p p 1− +
p1 p1p2
⎝ p1 ⎠⎝ p2 ⎠ 1 2 1 2
1 1 b
Given 2
⇒ p1 ≅ − , p2 ≅ − 1
1 + b1s + b2s b1 b2
Common-Emitter Stage
VCC
Vo IB
RL VCC
RS +
Q1 VO+vo
vi ~ –
VI
Vi Vi
IB IC = βFIB
RS + + R
VI VBE Vo L VCC
– –
Is e qVBE kT
VI − VBE(on) RL
IB ≅ VO = VCC − ICRL = VCC − βFIBRL = VCC − βF
RS
( VI − VBE(on) )
RS
RS rb 1 Cμ 2
+ +
vi ~ v1 rπ Cπ gmv1 ro RL CL vo
– –
vo ⎛ r ⎞
A V (0) = − ⎜ * π ⎟⋅ gmRLtot Lt t = ro || RL
RLtot
vi ω=0 ⎝ RS + rπ ⎠
=1 for MOS
MOSFET
MOSFETs with ith extremely
t l thin
thi gate
t oxide
id draw
d a gate
t currentt due
d tot
direct tunneling
This leads to a finite current gain and input resistance
– Similar to BJT!
A Annema
A. Annema, et al
al., “Analog
Analog circuits in ultra-deep-submicron
ultra deep submicron CMOS
CMOS,” IEEE J.
J Solid
Solid-State Circuits pp.
State Circuits, pp 132-143
132 143, Jan.
Jan 2005
2005.
Frequency Response
⎛ s⎞
⎜ 1− ⎟
v o (s) ⎛ r ⎞ z1 ⎠
= − ⎜ * π ⎟⋅ gmRLtot ⎝
v i (s) ⎝ RS + rπ ⎠ 1 + b1s + b2s2
gm gm
z1 = + >> = ωT
Cμ Cπ + Cμ
If a dominant
d i t pole
l condition
diti exists,
i t we can write
it
1 1
p1 ≅ − =− *
b1 RS (Cπ + Cμ ) + RLtot (CL + Cμ ) + gmRS* RLtotCμ
1
=−
RS* ⎡⎣Cπ + (1 + gmRLtot ) Cμ ⎦⎤ + RLtot (CL + Cμ )
Emitter Degeneration
VCC
RL
RS VO+vo
gm
Ro Gm ≅
1 + gmRE
vi ~
Ri Ro ≅ ro (1 + gmRE )
RE
VI
ve RE g R
K= ≅ = m E
1
vb + RE 1 + gmRE
gm
rπ rπ
Ri = ≅ = rπ (1 + gmRE )
1− K ⎛ gmRE ⎞
⎜1− ⎟
⎝ 1 + gmRE ⎠
Alternative Calculation of Ri
it it RE( +1)
+ +
+ v1 + v1
- ( +1)it -
vt vt
- RE -
Ri ≅ rπ + RE (1 + β ) = rπ + RE (1 + gmrπ ) ≅ rπ (1 + gmRE )
R S* Cμ
+ +
vi ~ v1 rπ Cπ gmv1 ro RL vo
– –
+
vE RE
R*S = RS + rb –
Deriving the transfer function of this circuit requires solving a 3x3 system
of equations
In order to obtain an estimate of the circuit’s bandwidth, it is more
convenient (and intuitive) to perform a zero-value time constant analysis
Useful Expressions
R C + RE
Ro ≅ ro (for β → ∞ )
(f
1 + gmRE
C
RB + RE
B R π ≅ rπ
o
1 + gmRE
R S* Cμ
+ +
vi ~ v1 rπ Cπ gmv1 ro RL vo
– –
+
vE (neglect)
RE
R*S = RS + rb –
RS* + RE RS* + RE
R π ≅ rπ ≅
1 + gmRE 1 + gmRE
RE
1+ 1
RS* ω−3dB ≅
τ = ⎣⎡RS* (1 + A v (0) ) + RC ⎦⎤ Cμ + RS* Cπ τ
1 + gmRE
1
τ ≅ ⎡⎣RS* (1 + A v (0) ) + RC ⎤⎦ Cμ + RS* Cπ ω−3dB ≅
τ
Adding RE can help improve the bandwidth, provided that gm > 1/RS*
− Note,, however,, that gm ((and hence the p
power dissipation
p must be
increased) to maintain the same Av(0)
Consider another special case where gmRE>>1 and the time constant
due to Cμ is negligible
⎛ R* ⎞ C ⎛ C + Cμ ⎞ ⎛ RE ⎞
τ ≅ ⎜1+ S ⎟ π ω−3dB ≅ ωT ⎜ π ⎟⎜ * ⎟
⎝ RE ⎠ gm ⎝ C π ⎠ ⎝ RE + R S ⎠
VCC
RS
Q1
vi ~
VO+vo
VI IB RL CL
Input
I t resistance
i t (by
(b inspection)
i ti )
Ri ≅ rπ (1 + gmRL )
Output
O resistance
i ((using
i push-through
h h h trick)
i k)
RS* = RS + rb
1 R* 1 ⎛ RS* ⎞
Ro ≅ + S ≅ ⎜1+ ⎟
gm β + 1 gm ⎝ rπ ⎠
RS* vb
vi
vo
Ri ≅ rπ (1 + gmRL ) RL
vo vb vo rπ (1 + gmRL ) gmRL
A v0 = = ≅
vi v i v b rπ (1 + gmRL ) + Rs* 1 + gmRL
gmRL
≅ for rπ (1 + gmRL ) >> Rs*
1 + gmRL
≅1 for gmRL >> 1 and rπ (1 + gmRL ) >> R s*
Frequency Response
vo vb vo Zi v
= ⋅ = ⋅ o
vi v i v b Zi + R S v b
Zi
Detailed analysis gives a very complex result for the general frequency
response expression
i
Must typically apply approximations based on given component values
Assuming that RS is large (often the case, and the reason why the stage
is used), we expect that the dominant pole is introduced at node vb
For the frequency
q y range
g up
p until the dominant p
pole,, we can therefore
approximate
vo gmRL 1 1
≅ =K Zi ≅ =
v b 1 + gmRL s ( Cπ [1 − K ] + Cμ ) sCi
1
ωp ≅
(Rs Rin ) Ci
See text, pp. 503 for a more detailed analysis, which also captures the
feedforward zero introduced by Cπ
VCC
io iC β
RL Ai = Ai (0) = =
ii iE β + 1
VO+vo
io Ro
Neglecting rb, rc, re and rπ, we have
Ri Ro ≅ ro (1 + gmRS )
Ii + ii RS (large) 1 ⎛ RL ⎞ 1
Ri ≅ ⎜1 + ⎟≅
gm ⎝ ro ⎠ gm
vo RL gm Cπ + Cμ 1
= ωp2 = = ωT ωp1 =
ii ⎛ s ⎞⎛ s ⎞ Cπ Cπ RL CL
⎜ 1 − ⎟⎜ 1 − ⎟
⎝ p1 ⎠⎝ p2 ⎠
The time constant associated with the load usually dominates the
frequency response, i.e. ωp1 < ωp2
Note, however, that ωp2 can be important in feedback circuits (phase
margin)
Cgb Cgb
Csb Csb
Cgs Cgs
ii ii
gm gm + gmb
ωp2,a = ωp2,b =
Cggs + Cggb + Cbsub + Cdb [1 − K(s)] Cggs + Csb
ωp2,a is always less than ωp2,b Æ Usually a bad idea to connect source to
bulk in a common g gate stage
g
IC1 IC2 ⎛ I ⎞
IIN = IC1 + IB1 + IB2 = IC1 + + ≅ IC2 ⎜ 1 + 2 C2 ⎟ for IS1 = IS2
β β ⎝ β ⎠
IOUT 1 2
≅ ≅ 1−
IIN ⎛ 2⎞ β
⎜1+ β ⎟
⎝ ⎠
IIN VCC
IOUT
Q3
+ IC1 IC2 I
IE3 − IE3 = + ≅ 2 C2 assumin g IS1 = IS2
Q1 Q2 VOUT β β β
IOUT 1 2
≅ ≅ 1−
IIN ⎛ 2 ⎞ β2
1+ ⎜ 2 ⎟⎟
⎜β +β
⎝ ⎠
IIN IOUT
Vi1 + – Vo1
Vi2 – + Vo2
VCC
RC1
Differential Input Voltage
RC2
Vid Vi1 − Vi2
Vo1 Vo2
IC1 IC2 Differential Collector Current
Icd Ic1− Ic2
Vi1 Q1 Q2 Vi2
Differential Output Voltage
VEE
The following large signal analysis neglects rb, rc, re, finite REE and
assumes that the circuit is perfectly symmetric
Vbe1 Vbe2
VT VT
Vi1 − Vbe1 + Vbe2 − Vi2 = 0 IC1 ≅ IS1 e IC2 ≅ IS2 e
1 αITAIL αITAIL
ITAIL = − (Ie1+ Ie2) = (Ic1+ Ic2) ⇒ Ic1 = V
Ic2 = V
α − id
VT
+ id
VT
1+ e 1+ e
⎡ ⎤
⎢ 1 1 ⎥ ⎛ Vid ⎞
Icd = Ic1 − Ic2 = αFITAIL ⎢ Vid
− V ⎥ = αFITAIL tanh ⎜ 2V ⎟
⎢ −
VT
+ id
⎥ ⎝ T⎠
⎣1 + e 1 + e VT ⎦
⎛ V ⎞
Vod = IodRL = αITAILRL tanh ⎜ id ⎟
⎝ 2VT ⎠
C
Can use emitter
itt degeneration
d ti resistors
i t tto iincrease th
the range off iinputt
voltage over which the transfer characteristic of the pair is linear
For large RE, linear range is approximately equal to ITAILRE
VCC
RC RC Text, p. 217
Vo1 Vo2
Vi1 Q1 Q2 Vi2
RE RE
ITAIL
VEE
Voltage Decomposition
Common-Mode Voltages
VCC
1
Vic (Vi1 + Vi2 )
2 RC1 RC2
1
Voc (Vo1 + Vo2 ) Voc+Vod/2
2 Voc–Vod/2
Q1 Q2
Inputs Vi1 and Vi2 can be
decomposed into a combination
of differential-
differential and common
common-mode
mode Vid/2 ITAIL –V
Vid/2
voltage sources
VEE
1
Vi1 = Vic + Vid
2
Vic
1
Vi2 = Vic − Vid
2
Text, p. 224
v od
Define differential mode gain as A dm
v id vic = 0
Text, p. 225
v od v v od
= −gmR id A dm = = −gmR
2 2 v id
Text, p. 227
v od
Define common mode gain as A cm
v id vid = 0
Text, p. 227
v oc gmR
v oc = −GmRv ic A cm = = −GmR = −
v ic 1 + 2gmRTAIL
v od v oc
A cdm and A dcm
v ic v id vic = 0
i vid = 0
Common-Mode Rejecton
A dm
CMRR
A cdm
A dm
CMRR Text
T
A cm
This latter definition is appropriate for circuits with a differential input and
single-ended output, such as operational amplifiers.
In
I a perfectly
f tl symmetric
t i circuit,
i it Vid = 0 yields
i ld Vod = 0
Imbalances can be modeled as input referred offsets
VCC VCC
RC1 RC2 RC RC
IB1 Vos
– +
Vi1 Q1 Q2 Vi1 Q1 Q2
Ios/2
Vi2 Vi2
IB2
IEE IEE
OFFSETS
VEE VEE
Analysis
If Vod = 0, then
IC1RC1 = IC2RC2
IC1 RC2
∴ =
IC2 RC1
Thus
⎡⎛ R ⎞ ⎛ I ⎞ ⎤
Vos = VT ln ⎢⎜ C2 ⎟ ⎜ S2 ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣⎝ RC1 ⎠ ⎝ IS1 ⎠ ⎥⎦
For small mismatches ΔRC << RC and ΔIS << IS, it follows that
−1
⎛ ΔRC ΔIS ⎞ ⎛ gm ⎞ ⎛ ΔRC ΔIS ⎞
Vos ≅ VT ⎜ − − ⎟=⎜ ⎟ ⎜− − ⎟
⎝ RC IS ⎠ ⎝ ID ⎠ ⎝ RC IS ⎠
And similarly
IC ⎛ ΔRC Δβ ⎞
Ios ≅ − ⎜ + ⎟ (see text, pp. 231)
β ⎝ RC β ⎠
Example
– VOS was determined
d t i d tto b
be 2 mVV th
through h a measurementt att 300°K
– Means that the offset voltage will drift by 2 mV/300°K = 6.6 μV/°C
For a MOS differential pair, the offset drift is less predictable and turns
outt to
t be
b a complex
l function
f ti off severall process parameters t
−1
⎛ g ⎞ ⎛ ΔR ΔIS ⎞
VOS,BJT ≅ ⎜ m ⎟ ⎜− − ⎟
⎝ ID ⎠ ⎝ R IS ⎠
−1
⎛g ⎞ ⎛ ΔR Δ ( W / L ) ⎞
VOS,MOS ≅ ΔVt + ⎜ m ⎟ ⎜⎜ − − ⎟
⎝ ID ⎠ ⎝ R ( W / L ) ⎟⎠
Numerical Example
Ignoring
I i resistor
i t mismatch
i t h ffor simplicity
i li it
Assume (gm/ID)MOS = 10 S/A, W = 5 μm, L= 0.2 μm
⎡⎛ g ⎞−1 ⎛ ΔI ⎞ ⎤
std ( VOS,BJT ) ≅ std ⎢⎜ m ⎟ ⎜ S ⎟ ⎥ = 26mV ⋅ 5% = 1.3mV
⎢⎝ ID ⎠ ⎝ IS ⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎛ gm ⎞ ⎛ Δ ( W / L ) ⎞ ⎤
−1
std ( VOS,MOS ) ≅ std ΔVt + ⎜
⎢ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎢
⎣
I
⎝ D ⎠ ⎝ ( W / L ) ⎠ ⎥⎦
2
⎛ 5mV − μm ⎞ 2
⎜ 5μm ⋅ 0.2μm ⎟⎟ (
≅ ⎜ + 100mV ⋅ 5% )
⎝ ⎠
B Murmann
B. M
Stanford University
Reading Material: Sections 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.8
Benefits
Costs
• Lower gain
• Potential instability
+ Sε
Si Σ a So
–
Sfb
f
So = a ⋅ Sε
Sfb = f ⋅ So ⇒ So = (Si − Sfb ) = a(Si − f ⋅ So )
Sε = Si − Sfb
If T >> 1, then
a 1
A≅ =
T f
The feedback loop acts to minimize the error signal, Sε, thus forcing
Sfb to
t track
t k Si. In
I particular,
ti l
⎛ a ⎞ ⎛ af ⎞
Sε = Si − f ⋅ So = Si − f ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ Si = ⎜ 1 − ⋅S
⎝ 1 + aff ⎠ ⎝ 1 + aff ⎟⎠ i
Sε T 1 Sfb ⎛S ⎞ T
∴ = 1− = and = a⋅f⎜ ε ⎟ =
Si 1+ T 1+ T Si ⎝ Si ⎠ 1+ T
Th
The ffeedback
db k network
t k is
i ttypically
i ll a precision
i i passivei network
t k with
ith an
insensitive, well-defined transfer function f. The forward amplifier gain is
generally large, but not well controlled.
F
Feedback
db k acts t to
t reduce
d nott only
l the
th gain,
i b butt also
l ththe relative,
l ti or
fractional, gain error by the factor 1+T
dA d ⎛ a ⎞ 1 d ⎛ 1 ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟ = +a ⎜
da da ⎝ 1+ af ⎠ 1+ af da ⎝ 1+ af ⎟⎠
(1+ af) − af 1 1
= 2
= 2
=
(1+ af) (1+ af) (1+ T)2
For a change δa in a
dA δa
δ =
δa δ =
δa
da (1+ T)2
δA δa ⎛ 1+ T ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ δa
∴ = =
A (1+ T)2 ⎜⎝ a ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1+ T ⎟⎠ a
IIn the
th two-port
t t approachh to
t feedback
f db k amplifier
lifi analysis
l i ththere are ffour
possible amplifier configurations, depending on whether the two-port
networks are connected in SHUNT or in SERIES at the input and output
p
of the overall amplifier
At the OUTPUT
– A shunt connection senses the output voltage
– A series connection senses the output current
At the INPUT
– A shunt connection feeds back a current in parallel with the input
– A series connection feeds back a voltage in series with the input
Series-Shunt Feedback
+ +
+ vε a vo
– –
vi
+ +
vfb f
– – –
vo v
a= , f = fb
vε vo
vo a a
A= = =
v i 1+ af 1+ T
iε
+
ii a vo
–
ifb
vo i
a= , f = fb
iε vo
vo a a
A= = =
ii 1+ af 1+ T
Shunt-Series Feedback
iε
ii a io
ifb
io i
a= , f = fb
iε io
io a a
A= = =
ii 1+ af 1+ T
+ +
vε a io
–
vi
+ +
–
vfb f
– –
io v
a= , f = fb
vε io
io a a
A= = =
v i 1+ af 1+ T
Note: T = af is always
y dimensionless
T
To illustrate
ill t t theth influence
i fl off feedback
f db k on the
th input
i t and
d output
t t impedances
i d off an
amplifier, consider the following:
– Include finite input and output impedances in a simple, idealized two-port
model of the forward amplifier
– Assume that the feedback network has ideal input and output impedances so
as not to load the forward amplifier
Consider two examples, series-shunt and shunt-series amplifiers
SERIES-SHUNT
io
vε avε
vi vo
Zi Zo
ii io = 0 io
vi = 0
With io = 0 With vi = 0
v o = av ε v ε + fv o = v i = 0
v i = v ε + fv o = (1+ af)v ε v o − av ε 1
= (1+ T)v ε
io =
zo
=
zo
( )
1+ af v o
vε 1⎛ 1 ⎞ 1
ii = = v = (1+ T)v o
zi zi ⎜⎝ 1+ T ⎟⎠ i zo
vi vo z
Zi = = (1+ T)z i Zo = = o
ii io 1+ T
vo
ifb
f io
–
Input Impedance
vi
Zi
ii
v o =0
With vo = 0
io = aiε
i i= iε + fio = (1+ af) iε = (1+ T)iε vi zi
⇒ Zi = =
⎛ i ⎞ i i (1+ T)
v i = iε zi = ⎜ i ⎟ zi
⎝ 1+ T ⎠
B. Murmann EE214 Winter 2010-11 – Chapter 5 14
O t t Impedance
Output I d
vo
Zo
io
i i= 0
With ii = 0
iε + fio = 0
vo
v o = (io + aiε )zo = (io + afio )zo ⇒ Zo = = (1+ T)zo
io
= io (1+ T)zo
In general:
• Negative feedback connected in series increases
the driving point impedance by (1+T)
• Negative feedback connected in shunt reduces the
driving point impedance by (1+T)
Consider
C id ththe ffollowing
ll i ffeedback
db k circuit
i it
Analysis methods
− Closed loop transfer function using nodal analysis
− Return ratio analysis (see EE114)
− Two-port feedback circuit analysis
Given
v1 − vo
0 − ii
RF
vo − v1 vo
0 + g m⋅ v 1 +
RF RL
No information about loop gain (which we need e.g. for stability analysis)
⎛ R ⎞
⎛1− ⎞
⎜ g m⋅ RL − L ⎟ ⎜
1
⎟
g m⋅ RL RL ⎜ RF⎟ g m⋅ RF
−RF + −RF⎜ −RF⋅ ⎜ ⎟
1 + g m⋅ RL ⎟
A
1 + g m⋅ RL 1 + g m⋅ RL
⎝ ⎠ ⎜ 1 ⎟
⎜1+ g m⋅ RL ⎟
⎝ ⎠
The result for the closed loop gain (A) matches the nodal analysis perfectly
In addition,
addition we have determined (along the way) the loop gain (RR)
– This is useful for stability analysis
The return ratio method is accurate and general
The two-port method aims to sacrifice some of this accuracy and generality
in exchange for better intuition and less computational effort
– The involved approximations follow from the typical design intent for
each of the four possible approximations
iε
+
ii a vo
–
ifb
1 1
y11f = y12f = −
RF RF
1 1
y 21f = − y 22f =
RF RF
Final steps
– Absorb y11 and y22 into forward amplifier
– Neglect feedforward through feedback network (y21)
• This is justified by the usual design intent: we do not want the
feedforward through the feedback network to be significant!
iε
+
ii a vo
–
ifb
1 vo v1 RL⋅ RF RL⋅ RF
f − a ⋅ −g m⋅ ⋅ RF af g m⋅
RF v 1 ie RL + RF RL + RF
1 1 1
A ⋅ RF
f
1+
1 1 RF + RL
aff 1+ ⋅
g m RF⋅ RL
Forward amplifier
p
iS
Define
yi y S + y11a + y11f
yo yL + y 22a + y 22f
Then
yo
vi = − v
y21a + y21f o
⎛ −yo ⎞
iS = yi ⎜ ⎟ v o + (y12a + y12f )v o
⎝ y21a + y21f ⎠
⎛ 1 ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ ⎡⎣ −yiyo + (y21a + y21f )(y12a + y12f ) ⎤⎦ v o
⎝ y21a + y21f ⎠
vo −(y
(y21a + y21f )
∴ =
iS yiyo − (y21a + y21f )(y12a + y12f )
⎛ y + y21f ⎞
− ⎜ 21a ⎟
⎝ yiyo ⎠
=
⎛ y + y21f ⎞
1− ⎜ 21a ⎟ (y12a + y12f )
⎝ yiyo ⎠
y 21a + y 21f
a −
yi y o
f y12a + y12f
and
y21a >> y21f
in which case
⎛ −y21a ⎞
⎜ yy ⎟ y21a
vo ⎝ i o ⎠ a=−
A= = ⇒ yiyo
iS ⎛ −y ⎞
1+ ⎜ 21a ⎟ y12f f = y12f
⎝ yiyo ⎠
iS
yi = yS + y11a + y11f
yo = yL + y22a + y22f
New feedback network
The admittances yS, y11a, y22f and yL have been “pulled” into the forward
amplifier. Basically, the “loading” of the feedback network, as well as the
source and load admittances, is absorbed in the equivalent forward
amplifier.
iS
ro
iS ri
I order
In d to d determine
i theh lloading
di off the
h ffeedback
db k networkk on the
h fforward
d
amplifier, the y parameters of the feedback network are first determined
using the following circuit :
i1 1
y11f = =
v1 RF
v 2 =0
i2 1
y22f = =
v2 RF
v1 =0
i1 1
y12f = =− =f
v2 RF
v1 =0
Forward amplifier
f
ro
iS ri
⎛ r i ⎞ ⎛ R PR ⎞ ⎛ ri ⎞ ⎛ RLRF ⎞
F L
T = av ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ = av ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ r i + RF ⎠ ⎝ RF PRL + ro ⎠ ⎝ r i + RF ⎠ ⎝ RLRF + roRF + roRL ⎠
zia = RF || ri
zoa = ro || RF || RL
Since the feedback network is connected in shunt at both the input and
output of the forward amplifier, the closed-loop input and output
impedances are
zia
i
RF || ri
Zi = =
1+ T 1+ T
zoa ro || RF || RL
Zo = =
1+ T 1+ T
Series-Series Feedback
In a series-series feedback amplifier,
p the forward amplifier
p and feedback
network share common currents at the input and output. Therefore, open
circuit impedance parameters (z parameters) are used to characterize the
two-port networks.
v1 = z11 i1 + z12 i2
v 2 = z 21 i1 + z 22 i2
where
v1 v1
z11 z12
i1 i i2 i
2 =0 1=0
v2 v2
z21 z22
i1 i2 = 0
i2 i1 = 0
ii
vS
Define
zi zS + z11a + z11f
zo zL + z22a + z22f
Again,
g , neglect
g reverse transmission through
g the forward amplifier
p and
feedforward through the feedback network; that is, assume
⎛ −z ⎞
21a
⎜ ⎟
io ⎝ z i zo ⎠ a
A= = =
vS ⎛ −zz ⎞ 1+ af
1+ ⎜ 21a ⎟ z12f
⎝ z i zo ⎠
where
z 21a
a=−
z i zo
f = z12f
Equivalent two
two-port
port networks can now be identified for a and f in which the
loading of the feedback network is included in the forward amplifier
vS
RF
RE1 RE2
Feedback Network
Begin
g byy representing
p g the feedback network as a two-port
p network.
io
Q3 RL
RS Q2
RC2
Q1 iE3
+ RC1
ii iE1
vS ~
–
z11f z22f
+ +
~ z12f iE3 z21f iE1 ~
– –
At the output, simply recognize that the feedback network “senses” iE3
rather than io, and that
i
iE3 = o
α3
From this equation it is apparent that, although the z12f feedback voltage
generator is in the emitter of Q1, it is still in series with, and subtracts
from, the input voltage source, vS. Thus, the z12f generator can be moved
f
from the
th emitter
itt tot the
th base
b off Q1
Next,
N t to
t determine
d t i the
th z parameters
t for
f the
th feedback
f db k network,
t k consider
id the
th
following circuit
RF v1
z 11f = = RE1 || (RF + RE2 )
+ + i1
i2 =0
i1 v1 RE1 RE2 v2 i2
– – v2
z 22f = = RE2 || (RF + RE1)
i2
i1 =0
⎛ ⎞
v ⎛ RE1 ⎞ v 2 ⎛ RE1 ⎞
z 12f = 1 =⎜ ⎜ ⎟= z
⎟ ⎟ ⎜⎝ RE1 + RF ⎟⎠ 22f
i2 ⎝ RE1 + RF ⎠ ⎜ i 2
i1 =0 ⎝ i1 =0 ⎠
Q3 RL
RS Q2
RC2
Q1 iE3
RC1
–
~ vfb=vf
+
+
vS ~ RE1 RF RF RE2
–
+
RE2 vf RE1
–
In this circuit we have managed to “break” the loop at the output of the
feedback network.
network Thus
Thus, the circuit can be used to determine a
a, f and T
T.
Note that a and f for the series-series triple can be defined in terms of
either io or iE3. If
io i
A= = α 3 E3
vS vS
z12f 1 ⎛ RE1RE2 ⎞
f= =
α3 α 3 ⎝ RE1 + RE2 + RF ⎟⎠
⎜
As T = af becomes large
1 ⎛ R + R + RF ⎞
A≅ = α3 ⎜ E1 E2 ⎟
f ⎝ RE1RE2 ⎠
v1 = h11 i1 + h12 v 2
i2 = h21 i1 + h22 v 2
where
v1 v1
h11 h12
i1 v 2 =0
v2 i1 = 0
i2 i2
h21 h22
i1 v 2 =0
v2 i1 = 0
Forward amplifier
ii
vS
Define
zi zS + h11a + h11f
yo yL + h22a + h22f
⎛ −h ⎞
21a
⎜ ⎟
vo z y
⎝ i o ⎠ a
A= = =
vS ⎛ −hh ⎞ 1+ af
1+ ⎜ 21a ⎟ h12f
⎝ z i yo ⎠
where
h21a
a=−
z i yo
f = h12f
Equivalent
E i l t ttwo-portt circuits
i it can now b be id
identified
tifi d for
f a and
d f in
i which
hi h th
the
loading of the feedback network is included in the forward amplifier
+
zi yo vo
–
vS
Shunt-Series Feedback
In a shunt-series feedback circuit,
circuit the forward amplifier and feedback
network share the same input voltage and output current. Thus, a hybrid g-
parameter representation is used for the two-port networks.
i1 = g11v1 + g12 i2
v 2 = g21v1 + g22 i2
where
i1 i1
g11 g12
v1 i i2
2 =0 v1 = 0
v2 v2
g21 g22
v1 i2 =0
i2 v1=0
Forward amplifier
iS
Define
yi y S + g11a + g11f
zo zL + g22a + g22f
⎛ −g21a ⎞
⎜ yz ⎟
i ⎝ i o ⎠ a
A= o = =
iS ⎛ −gg ⎞ 1+ af
1+ ⎜ 21a ⎟ g12f
⎝ yi zo ⎠
where
g21a
a=−
y i zo
f = g12f
N
New fforward
d amplifier
lifi
zo
+ io
iS vi yi
–
RF
RE
Feedback network
io
Q2 RL
Q1
+ RC1
iS vi iE2
RS
–
g22f
+
g11f g12f iE2 ~ g21f vi
–
The g parameters for the feedback network can be determined from the
following circuit :
i1 RF
+ +
v1 ~ RE v2 i2
– –
v2
g 22f = = RE || RF
i2
v1 = 0
i1 RE
g12f = =−
i2 RE + RF
v1 = 0
v2
g21f = = − g12f
v1
i2 = 0
The shunt-series p
pair can then be redrawn as follows :
io
Q2 RL
Q1
+ RC1
iS vi iE2
RF+RE RS
–
iE2 = –iiF iF RF RE
A i we’ve
Again, ’ managed d tto b
break
k th
the lloop att th
the output
t t off th
the ffeedback
db k
network. If a and f are defined in terms of io, then
io i
A= = α 2 E2
iS iS
ifb iF g 1 ⎛ RE ⎞
f= = − = 12f = −
io io α2 α 2 ⎜⎝ RE + RF ⎟⎠
B. Murmann
Stanford University
y
+
vi – a(s) vo
–
vfb
f
a0
a(s) =
1− s p1
where
T(s) a(s) ⋅ f = "Loop
Loop Gain
Gain"
Thus, feedback reduces the gain by (1+T0) and increases the –3dB
bandwidth by (1+T0) for a “one-pole” forward-path amplifier.
The Gain x Bandwidth (GBW) product remains constant.
20 log10 a0
20 log10 |a(jω)|
20 log10 (1+T0)
20 log10 |A(jω)|
20 log10 A0
|p1|
(1+T0)|p1|
s plane
s-plane
x x σ
(1+T0)p1 p1
Note that
⎛a ⎞
20 ⋅ log
g10 a0 − 20 ⋅ log g10 ⎜ 0 ⎟
g10 A0 = 20 ⋅ log
⎝ A0 ⎠
= 20 ⋅ log10 (1+ T0 )
≅ 20 ⋅ log
g10 T0 when T0 >> 1
a(jω 0 ) = A0
and therefore
a0 f
T(jω 0 ) = a(jω 0 ) ⋅ f = A 0 f =
1+ a0 f
≈1
y of a feedback amplifier
The stability p can be assessed from:
– Bode
B d plot
l t (plot
( l t off loop
l gain
i and
d phase
h as ffunctions
ti off ffrequency))
Phase margin
1 Æ ω0
– Defined at the frequency where |T(jω)| =1
Gain margin
– Defined at the frequency where Phase[T(jω)] = -180° Æ ω180
1
GM =
T ( jω180 )
20 log10 A0
Gain Margin
ω0 | p2 |
Phase Margin
P
Practical
ti l circuits
i it ttypically
i ll use phase
h margins
i greater
t 45°
– For continuous time amplifiers, a common target is ~60°
– For switched capacitor circuits, a phase margin of ~70° is desirable
• See
S EE315A
In order to see the need for phase margin >45°, investigate the closed-
loop behavior of the circuit at ω = ω0
1
T( jω0 ) = a( jω0 ) ⋅ f = 1 ⇒ a( jω0 ) = (assuming f is real)
f
a( jω0 )
A( jω0 ) =
1 + a( jω0 ) a( jω0 )
a( jω0 ) a( jω0 )
= jφ[a( jω0 )]
=
1+ e 1 + e j(PM−180°)
a(jω 0 ) a(jω 0 )
(jω 0 ) =
A(jω − j135°
=
1+ e 1− 0.7 − 0.7j
a(jω 0 )
=
0.3 − 0.7j
a(jω 0 ) 1.3
∴ A(jω 0 ) = = ≅ 1.3A0
0.76 f
PM = 60o
a(jω 0 ) a(jω 0 )
A(jω 0 ) = − j120°
=
1+ e 1− 0.5 − 0.87j
a(jω 0 )
=
0.5 − 0.87j
1
∴ A(jω 0 ) = a(jω 0 ) = ≅ A0
f
PM = 90o
a(jω 0 ) a(jω 0 )
A(jω 0 ) = − j90°
=
1+ e 1− j
a(jω 0 ) 0.7
∴ A(jω 0 ) = = ≅ 0.7A0
1.4 f
Text, p. 632
Several types
yp of frequency
q y compensation
p are used in p
practice,, e.g.
g
Narrowbanding (lag compensation)
Feedforward (lead compensation)
Pole splitting (Miller compensation, cascode compensation)
Feedback (phantom) zero compensation
C
Create
t addominant
i t pole
l iin a(s)
( ) tto rollll off
ff |T(j
|T(jω)|
)| att a frequency
f low
l
enough to ensure adequate phase margin
(f=1)
Text, p. 634
Narrowbanding (2)
N
Note
t th
thatt in
i the
th example
l off the
th previous
i slide
lid ((with
ith ff=1,
1 and
d PM
PM=45°),
45°) the
th
closed-loop bandwidth is limited to approximately ωp1, the frequency of the
closest non-dominant pole
Thi
This can b t bl if ωp1 is
be acceptable i sufficiently
ffi i tl llarge, as th
the e.g. case ffor th
the
pole introduced by a cascode
Consider e.g. the amplifier below
– Cp introduces
i t d a non-dominant
d i t pole
l att hi
high
h ffrequencies
i
– CL is adjusted until the circuit achieves the desired phase margin
• Therefore, this type of narrowbanding is called “load compensation”
But, what if we would like to stabilize an amplifier that has two poles at
relatively low frequencies?
Consider e.g. the two-stage amplifier shown below, and assume that
ωp1=1/R1C1 and ωp2=1/R2C2 are comparable
R1 R2
Cc vo
vi C1 C2
gm1 gm2
F
From the
th generall CS/CE stage
t analysis
l i off Ch
Chapter
t 4
4, we can
approximate resulting poles and zeros as follows
– See also text, section 9.4.2
1 gm2CC gm2
p1 ≅ − p2 ≅ − z=+
gm2R2 R1CC C1C2 + CC (C1 + C2 ) CC
Text, p. 642
c
c c
gm2R2R1
a(s) = − f(s) = −sCf
(1 + sR1 [C1 + Cc ]) (1 + sR2 [C2 + Cc ])
Mag ( jω)
a(s)
1
f(s)
ω
Text,, p.
p 655
gm1, gm2
|a(jω)|
Parallel path through gm3 dominates
transfer function at high frequencies
and returns the circuit behavior back
to first order
ω
|pd| |p1| |z1| The doublet p1, z1 can make it
φ(jω) difficult to achieve a fast transient
ω response
– π/2
– See Kamath, JSSC 12/1974
–π
Example:
Mag ( jω)
a(s)
( ) Due to the zero introduced in the
feedback network
network, T(j
T(jω)) behaves like a
first order system near unity crossover
1
f(s) Closed-loop bandwidth is approximately
equal to the frequency of the zero in the
ω feedback network
– Can be far beyond second pole
C
Consider
id a ffeedback
db k network
t k consisting
i ti off a fforward
d amplifier
lifi with
ith th
three
identical poles, and a feedback network with a constant transfer function f
a0
3
⎛ s⎞
⎜1− ⎟
a0 a(s) ⎝ p 1⎠ a0
a(s) = A(s) = = = T0 = a0 f
⎛ s⎞
3
1 + a(s)f a0 ⎛ s⎞
3
1+ a f
⎜1− ⎟ ⎛ s⎞
3
⎜ 1 − ⎟ + T0
⎝ p1 ⎠ ⎜ 1 − ⎟ ⎝ p1 ⎠
⎝ p 1⎠
3
⎛ s⎞
⎜ 1 − ⎟ + T0 = 0
⎝ p1 ⎠
3
⎛ s⎞
⎜ 1 − ⎟ = −T0
⎝ p1 ⎠
⎛ s⎞ ⎛ s⎞ ⎛ s⎞
⎜ 1 − ⎟ = 3 −T0 = − 3 T0 or ⎜ 1 − ⎟ = 3 T0 e j60° or ⎜ 1 − ⎟ = 3 T0 e− j60°
⎝ p1 ⎠ ⎝ p1 ⎠ ⎝ p1 ⎠
(
s1 = p1 1 + 3 T0 )
s2 = p (1 −
1
3 T0 e j60° ) “root locus”
s3 = p (1 −
1
3 T0 e − j60°
)
0 = 1 − Re ( 3 T0 e j60° )
0 = 1 − 3 T0 cos(60°)
⇒ T0 = 8
We can generalize the above example to gain insight into the frequency
response of any feedback amplifier by examining the “movement” of the closed-
loop poles in the s-plane as a function of the low-frequency loop gain, T0.
Consider a generalized feedback amplifier with both a and f dependent on
frequency.
+
vi – a(s) vo
–
vfb
f(s)
In general,
and
1+ c1s + c 2s2 + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Nf (s)
f(s) = f0 2
= f0
1+ d1s + d2s + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ D f (s)
Thus,
a0 Na (s)D f (s)
A(s) =
Da (s)D f (s) + T0 Na (s)Nf (s)
where T0 = a0f0 .
Th poles
The l off A(s)
A( ) are the
th roots
t off :
Thus
(1− s za1)(1− s za2 ) ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (1− s z f1)(1− s z f 2 ) ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
T0 ⋅ = −1
)( s pa2 ) ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ((1− s p f1)(1−
((1− s pa1)(1− )( s p f 2 ) ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
where
za1,za2 ,... = zeros of a(s)
zeros of T(s)
z f1,zf2 ,... = zeros of f(s)
pa1,pa2 ,... = poles of a(s)
poles of T(s)
pf1,pf2 ,... = poles
l off f(s)
f( )
⎡ p p ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ p f1 p f 2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⎤
T0 ⋅ ⎢ a1 a2 ⎥
⎢⎣ z a1 z a2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ z f1 z f 2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⎥⎦
⎡(s − za1)(s − za2 ) ⋅⋅⋅ (s − zf1)(s − zf 2 ) ⋅⋅⋅⎤
×⎢ ⎥ = −1
⎣(s − pa1)(s − pa2 ) ⋅⋅⋅ (s − pf1)(s − pf 2 ) ⋅⋅⋅⎦
Phase Condition
Magnitude Condition
⎡ p p ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ p f1 p f 2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⎤ ⎡ s − z a1 s − z a2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ s − z f1 s − z f 2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⎤
T0 ⋅ ⎢ a1 a2 ⎥ ⋅⎢ ⎥ = +1
⎢⎣ z a1 z a2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ z f1 z f 2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ s − pa1 s − pa2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ s − p f1 s − p f 2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⎥⎦
⎡ p p ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ p f1 p f 2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⎤ ⎡ s − z a1 s − z a2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ s − z f1 s − z f 2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⎤
T0 ⋅ ⎢ a1 a2 ⎥ ⋅⎢ ⎥ = +1
⎢⎣ z a1 z a2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ z f1 z f 2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ s − pa1 s − pa2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ s − p f1 s − p f 2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⎥⎦
and
The rules for constructing the root locus are based on the phase
condition. The magnitude condition determines where, for a
given T0, the poles of A(s) actually lie on along the locus.
Rule 1:
Branches of the root locus start at the poles of T(s), where
T0 = 0,
0 and terminate on the zeros of T(s)
T(s), where T0 = ∞.
If T(s) has more poles than zeros, some branches
terminate at infinity.
Rule 2:
The root locus is located along the real axis whenever
there is an odd number of poles and zeros of T(s) between
that portion of the real axis and the origin of the s-plane.
Rule 3:
All segments of the locus on the real axis between pairs of
poles, or pairs of zeros, must branch out from the real
axis
axis.
Rule 4:
Locus is symmetric with respect to the real axis because
complex roots occur only in conjugate pairs.
Rule 5:
Branches leaving the real axis do so at right angles to it.
Rule 6:
Branches break away from the real axis at points where
the vector sum of reciprocals of distances to the poles of
( ) equals
T(s) q the vector sum of reciprocals
p of distances to
the zeros of T(s).
Rule 7:
Branches
B h th thatt terminate
t i t att infinity
i fi it do
d so asymptotically
t ti ll tto
straight lines with angles to the real axis of
(2n –1)π/(Np – Nz),
where Np = # of poles of T(s) and Nz = # of zeros of T(s)
T(s).
σa =
[ ] [
Σ poles of T(s) − Σ zeros of T(s) ]
Np − Nz
2-Pole Example
jω
p2 p1 σ
Assume
T0
T(s) =
(1− s / p1)(1− s / p 2 )(1− s / p3 )
where
p2 = −2 × 106 sec−1
p3 = −4 × 106 sec−1
σa
σi
From Rule 6
1 1 1
+ + =0
σi + 1 σi + 2 σi + 4
2
∴ 3σ
3 i + 14σ
14 i + 14 = 0
2
⎛ 7⎞
7
σi = − ± ⎜ ⎟ −
3 ⎝ 3⎠
14
3
1
= − 7± 7
3
( )
= −3.22 or − 1.45
Asymptote Intercept, σa
From Rule 8
(−1− 2 − 4) − 0
σa = 2 33 × 106 sec−1
= −2.33
3
To find the loop gain, T0, at which the poles moving from p1 and p2
b
become complex,
l substitute
b tit t th
the b
breakaway
k i t s = σi = –1.45,
point, 1 45
into the magnitude condition and solve for T0.
p1 p 2 p3
T0 =1
s − p1 s − p 2 s − p3
−1 45 + 1 −1
1.45 45 + 2 −1
1.45 45 + 3
1.45
∴ T0 =
(1)(2)(4)
(0.45)(0.55)(2.55)
= = 0.08
8
s = ± j(2.33)
j(2 33) tan(60 ) = ±4j
s − p1 s − p2 s − p3
T0 =
p1 p2 p3
4j + 1 4j + 2 4j + 4
=
(1)(2)(4)
=
( 42 + 1 )( 4 2 + 22 )( 42 + 42 )= 17 ⋅ 20 ⋅ 32
8 8
(4.1)(4.5)(5.7)
= = 13.2
8
2
Axis
Imaginary A
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-14
14 -12
12 -10
10 -8
8 -6
6 -4
4 -2
2 0 2 4
Real Axis
jω
p2 p1 σ
Matlab Plot
% root locus example
s = tf('s');
z=-5; p1=-1; p2=-2; p3=-4;
a = (1-s/z) / [(1-s/p1)*(1-s/p2)*(1-s/p3)]
rlocus(a)
ocus(a)
Root Locus
15
10
5
Axis
Imaginary A
-5
-10
-15
-66 -5
5 -4
4 -3
3 -2
2 -1
1 0 1
Real Axis
B. Murmann
Stanford University
Overview
A0
A(jω) = GBW = A 0ωB
1+ jω ωB
N
⎛ A0 ⎞
AN (jω) = ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 1+ jω ωB ⎠
In this case
A 0N = AN0
Th –3dB
The 3dB b
bandwidth
d idth off th
the cascade
d iis the
th frequency,
f ωBN, att which
hi h
A 0N
AN (jωBN ) =
2
N
Thus, ⎡ ⎤ N
⎢ A0 ⎥ = A0
⎢ 1+ (ω ω B )2 ⎥ 2
⎣ BN ⎦
2
1+ (ωBN ωB ) = 21 N
0.8
1
N 0.6
2 −1
0.4
0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10
N
|A(jω)|
A0
⇒ GBWN = A N0 ωB
ωB ω
The MFM response provides a magnitude (gain) that is flat over as much
of the passband as possible and decreases monotonically with frequency
(i no peaking).
(i.e. ki ) It iis obtained
bt i d bby setting
tti as many dderivatives
i ti off th
the
magnitude with respect to frequency as possible to zero at ω = 0.
dk H(jω)
=0 for 1 ≤ k ≤ 2n − 1
dω k
ω =0
Th resulting
The lti magnitude
it d response iis
1
H(jω) =
( B)2n
1+ (ω
n=2
n=1
n=3
B
ω
2
H(jω) = H(jω) ⋅H(− jω)
= H(s) ⋅H(−s)
s= jω
1 j2n
H(s) ⋅H(−s) = =
1+ (s jB)2n j2n + (s B)2n
(−1)n
=
(−1)n + (s B)2n
2n
⎛ s⎞
⎜⎝ B ⎟⎠ = −(−1)n = (−1)n+1
Th
These roots
t lie
li equally
ll spaced
d on a circle
i l ini th
the s-plane
l centered
t d att
the origin with radius B.
The LHP roots are taken to be the poles of H(s), while those in the
RHP are regarded
d d as th
the poles
l off H(
H(–s).
)
n=1
jω
p1 = − B
σ
–B
n=2
pi = Be j3π 4 , Be j5π 4
jω
B
45º
n=3
pi = Be j2π 3 , Be jπ , Be j4π 3
jω
60º
Vo(t) n=3
3
n=1
n=2
n = 2 Æ 4% overshoot
n = 3 Æ 8% overshoot
Coincident
0° 0.64B 0 3.4/B
poles
MFM
45° B 4% 2.2/B
(Butterworth)
Chebyshev
60° 1.3B 16% 1.6/B
(1-dB ripple) More in
EE315A
Bessel 30°
30 0 8B
0.8B 0 4%
0.4% 2 7/B
2.7/B
At most three gain stages can be effectively used within a single feedback
loop. Therefore, there are four basic configurations.
+
+
vo
–
+
vi ~
– RF
RE
v o RF
Series-Shunt Pair A V0 = ≈
v i RE
io
i o RF
ii AI0 = ≈
ii RE
RF
RE
Shunt-Series Pair
io
+
vi ~
–
RF
RE1 RE2
i o RF + RE1 + RE2
A0 = ≈
vi RE1 ⋅RE2
Series-Series Triple
+
vo
–
ii
RF
vo
A0 = ≈ RF
ii
Shunt-Shunt Triple
RC1 RC2 io
Q2
ZL
Q1
ii
RF
RE
Assume ZL ≈ 0 and RS ≈ ∞
Ohhata,
JSSC 1/1999
io
RC1
Q2
Q1 iE2
ifb
ii ifb
RF
RE RF RE
iE2
a(s)
ii
ifb
f(s)
iE2
io ⎛ a(s) ⎞
A(s) = −α 2 ⎜
ii ⎝ 1+ a(s)f(s) ⎟⎠
ifb RE
f(s) = =−
iE2 RE + RF
Cμ1 Cμ2 io
+ + +
ii R1 v1 RC1 v rπ2
Cπ1 2 vb Cπ2
– gm1v1 – – gm2vb
RE* iE2
R1 = (RF + RE ) || rπ1
RE* = RE || RF
where
Yπ22 gπ22 + sC π22
Thus,
iE2 ⎡1+ ( m2 + Yπ 2 ) ⎤ = v 2 (g
1 RE* (g ( m2 + Yπ 2 )
⎣ ⎦
iE2 gm2 + Yπ 2
∴ =
v 2 1+ RE* (gm2 + Yπ 2 )
gm2
gm2 + Yπ 2 = gm2 + + sC π 2 ≅ gm2 + sC π 2
β0
⎛ C ⎞
= gm2 ⎜ 1+ s π 2 ⎟ = gm2 1+ sτ T2
⎝ gm2 ⎠
( )
Therefore,
Therefore
⎛ 1+ g R* ⎞
m2 E
−ω T2 ⎜ * ⎟
⎝ gm2RE ⎠
iE2 gm2
≅ gm2eq
v 2 1+ gm2RE*
+
v2 Cμ2 rπ2eq Cπ2eq
–
where
Cμ1
+ +
ii R1 v1 Cπ1 gm1v1 RL1 CL1 v2
– –
where
R1 = rπ1 || (RF + RE )
Since
iE2 ⎛ iE2 ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞
a(s) =⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
ii ⎝ v 2 ⎠ ⎝ ii ⎠
iE2 gm2 1
and ≅ gm2eq
2
= ≅ *
v2 *
1+ gm2RE RE
we find
⎡ ⎛ R ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ 1− s z1 ⎤
a(s) = − ⎢gm1R1 ⎜ L1 ⎥⎢
( ⎥
)
* ⎟ 2
⎢⎣ ⎝ RE ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1+ b1s + b 2s ⎥⎦
1
p1 ≅ −
b1
1
=−
R1C π1 + RL1CL1 + gm1R1RL1Cμ1
and
In the s-plane
jω
p2 p1 σ
CF
ifb
RF
RE iE2
⎛ RE ⎞ ⎛ 1 − s zF ⎞
f(s) = − ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ RE + RF ⎠ ⎝ 1 − s pF ⎠
where
1
zF = −
RFCF
1 R + RE
pF = − =− F
(RF || RE )CF RFRECF
Since A 0 ≅ (RF + RE ) RE
pF = A0 zF
σi
zF p2 σ
45º p1
p1 + p 2
σi =
2
The root locus is a circle of radius |zF – σi| centered at zF. For each
branch of the locus there are two intersections with the two lines at
45° to the negative real axis that correspond to an MFM response
45 response.
B = 2 zF
B
s1,s2 ≅ zF (−1± j) = (−1± j)
2
s1 − p1 s2 − p 2 B2
T0 = =
p1 p 2 p1 p 2
2
2 zF 2R1C π1RL1CL1
= =
p1 p 2 (RFCF )2
Advantages
• No
N iinstability
bili
• Lower gain sensitivity to component and device parameter
variations than amplifiers without local feedback
Disadvantages
• Hi
Higher
h gaini sensitivity
iti it (less
(l lloop gain)
i ) th
than multi-stage
lti t
feedback amplifiers (i.e. multi-stage amplifiers with global
feedback)
• Bandwidth obtainable is typically slightly less than that
possible in multi-stage feedback amplifiers
BW ~ 6 GHz
RF
RE
Shunt F/B
Series F/B Stage
Stage
Analysis
vo ⎛ 1 ⎞ RF
A(0) = ≅ ⎜− ⎟ ( −RF ) =
v in ⎝ RE ⎠ RE
RS Cμ io
+
vi ~ v1 rπ Cπ gmv1 ZL
–
+
vE RE
–
Include transistor rb in RS
Define
1
Yπ + sC π
rπ
Then
v i − (v1 + vE )
= v1Yπ
RS
vE
v1Yπ + gmv1 =
RE
v1 1
∴ =
v i 1+ (gm + Yπ ) RE + YπRS
io gm
=−
vi 1+ gmRE + (RS + RE )Yπ
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎛ gm ⎞ ⎢ 1 ⎥
= −⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎛ R +R ⎞ ⎛ ⎥
⎝ 1+ g R
m E⎠ 1 ⎞
⎢ 1+ ⎜ S E
⎟⎜ + sC π⎟
⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 1+ gmRE ⎠ ⎝ rπ ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎛ gm ⎞ ⎢ 1 ⎥
= −⎜ ⎟ ⎢
⎝ 1+ gmRE ⎠ ⎛ R + RE ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ RS + RE ⎞ ⎥
⎢ 1+
1 ⎜ S ⎟⎜ ⎟ + sC
C π⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ rπ ⎠ ⎝ 1+ gmRE ⎠ ⎝ 1+ gmRE ⎠ ⎦⎥
Usually,
Usually
⎛ RS + RE ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ gm (RS + RE ) ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ r ⎟ ⎜ 1+ g R ⎟ = β0 ⎜ ⎟ << 1
⎝ π ⎠⎝ m E⎠ ⎝ 1+ gmRE ⎠
Then
io ⎛ 1 ⎞
≅ −gmeq ⎜ ⎟
vi ⎝ 1− s p1 ⎠
where
gm
gmeq =
1+ gmRE
⎛ 1+ gmRE ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
p1 = − ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ C π ⎠ ⎝ RE + RS ⎠
and
gm ⎛ RE ⎞ ⎛ Cπ + Cμ ⎞⎛ RE ⎞ ⎛ RE ⎞
p1 ≅ − ⎜ ⎟ = − ωT ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ≅ − ωT ⎜ ⎟
Cπ ⎝ RE + RS ⎠ ⎝ Cπ ⎠⎝ RE + RS ⎠ ⎝ RE + RS ⎠
Emitter Peaking
io
RS
+ Q1
vi ~ N a large
Not l b
bypass
– capacitor
RE CE
io gm
=−
vi 1
1+ gmZE + (RS + ZE )( + sC π )
rπ
gm
=−
RS ⎛ RE ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
1+ + sC πRS + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ gm + + sC π ⎟
rπ ⎝ 1+ sτE ⎠ ⎝ rπ ⎠
gm
−
R ⎛ g R ⎞⎛ C ⎞
1+ S + sC πRS + ⎜ m E ⎟ ⎜ 1+ s π ⎟
rπ ⎝ 1+ sτE ⎠ ⎝ gm ⎠
1
since gm >>
rπ
io gm
∴ ≅−
vi RS ⎛ 1+ sτ T ⎞
1+ + sC πRS + gmRE ⎜ ⎟
rπ ⎝ 1+ sτE ⎠
If CE is chosen so that
τE = τ T
Then
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
io ⎛ gm ⎞ ⎢ 1 ⎥
≅ −⎜ ⎟⎢
vi ⎝ 1+ g R ⎛ ⎞ ⎥
m E⎠ RS
⎢ 1+ sC π ⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 1+ gmRE ⎠ ⎥⎦
1+ gmRE ⎛R ⎞
p1 = − ≅ −ω T ⎜ E ⎟
RSC π ⎝ RS ⎠
jjω
p1 z1 σ
p2
|io/vi|
CF
RF
+ +
ii v1 rπ Cπ gmv1 RL CL vo
– –
Include transistor Cμ in CF
Neglect RS or include it in rπ
Neglect rb, rc, re, and rμ
Include ro and Ccs in RL and CL
D fi
Define
τF RFCF
τL RLCL
and
1 1 1
YF = + sCF = (1+ sCFRF ) = (1+ sτF )
RF RF RF
1 1
YL = + sCL = ((1+ sτL )
RL RL
1
Yπ = + sC π
rπ
Substituting in (1)
⎡ ⎛ Y + YF ⎞ ⎤
ii + v o ⎢ YF + ⎜ L ⎟ (Yπ + YF ) ⎥ = 0
⎣⎢ ⎝ gm − YF ⎠ ⎦⎥
vo gm − YF
∴ =−
ii (gm − YF )YF + (YL + YF )(Yπ + YF )
Then
vo gm − sCF
≅−
ii ( L + CF ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣(gπ + GF ) + s(C
)(GF + sCF ) + ⎡⎣((GL + GF ) + s(C
(gm − sCF )( ( π + CF ) ⎤⎦
Thus
vo gm − sCCF
≅−
ii a0 + a1s + a 2s2
where
a0 = gmGF + (GL + GF )(gπ + GF )
a1 = (gm − GF )CF + (GL + GF )(C π + CF ) + (gπ + GF )(CL + CF )
a 2 = CLC π + CLCF + C π CF
Then
vo R (1− s z1)
≅− F
ii 1+ b1s + b 2s2
where
⎛ R + RL ⎞ R
b1 = a1 a0 ≅ RFCF + ⎜ F ⎟ τ T + F (CL + CF )
⎝ RL ⎠ β0
b 2 = a 2 a1 ≅ RF (CL + CF )τ T
z1 = + gm CF
Often b1 ≅ RFCF
p1
45º
σ
–B
p2
1 1 1
b2 = = = 2
p1p 2 p 2
B
1
Thus,
1 1
ω−3dB = =
b2 RF (CF + CL )τT
If CF << CL
1
ω−3dB ≅
RFCL τT
Further insight can be gained from this result by considering the input
capacitance of the overall Cherry-Hooper amplifier, which is
approximately
i t l Cπ/(g/( mRE). th t CL ≅ k·C
) If we assume that k Cπ/(g
/( mRE) = kk·τT/RE
⎛ 1 RE ⎞ 1 ⎛ 1 RE ⎞ ωT
ω−3dB ≅ ⎜ =⎜ ⎟⎟ ωT =
⎜ k R ⎟⎟ τ ⎜ kR k ⋅ A(0)
⎝ F ⎠ T ⎝ F ⎠
RF
A 02 =
RE
the p
per-stage
g ggain-bandwidth p
product, GB2, is
⎛ 1 1⎞ p + p2
b1 = − ⎜ + ⎟ = − 1
⎝ p1 p 2 ⎠ p1p 2
p1 = σ1 + jω1
p 2 = σ1 − jω1
where
B
−σ1 = ω1 =
2
b1 ≅ RFCF =
2 B( 2 )= 2
2 B
B
1 1
B= ≅
b2 RFCL τT
Therefore
1 ⎛ 2⎞ 2RFCL τT 2CL
CF = ⎜ ⎟= = ⋅ τT
RF ⎝ B ⎠ RF RF
B. Murmann
Stanford University
Reading Material: Sections 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.9
Types of Noise
Signal-to-Noise
g Ratio
2
Psignal Vsignal
SNR = ∝ 2
Pnoise
i Vnoise
Th
The "fidelity"
"fid lit " off electronic
l t i systems
t is
i often
ft determined
d t i d by
b their
th i SNR
– Examples
• Audio systems
• Imagers,
Imagers cameras
• Wireless and wireline transceivers
Electronic noise directly trades with power dissipation and speed
Noise has become increasingly important in modern technologies with
reduced supply voltages
– SNR ~ Vsignal2/Vnoise2 ~ (αVDD)2/Vnoise2
Topics
− How to model noise of circuit components
− How to calculate/simulate the noise performance of a complete circuit
• In which circuits and applications does thermal noise matter?
i(t)
()
1V/1kΩ
Physical Resistor
i(t)
1V/1kΩ
Average Power
For
F a deterministic
d t i i ti currentt signal
i l with
ith period
i dTT, th
the average power iis
T /2
1
Pav = ∫ i2 ( t ) ⋅ R ⋅ dt
T −T /2
T /2
1
in2 = lim ∫ in ( t ) ⋅ dt
2
T →∞ T
− T /2
Th
The so-called
ll d power spectral
t ld density
it (PSD) shows
h h
how much
h power a
signal caries at a particular frequency
In the case of thermal noise, the power is spread uniformly up to very
hi h ffrequencies
high i ((about
b t 10% d drop att 2
2,000GHz)
000GH )
PSD(f)
n0
PSD ( f ) = n0 = 4 ⋅ kT
Pn 1
v n2 = Pn ⋅ R = 4kT ⋅ R ⋅ Δf in2 = = 4kT ⋅ ⋅ Δf
R R
v n2 V2 in2 A2
= 16 ⋅ 10−18 = 16 ⋅ 10−24
Δf Hz Δf Hz
v n2 in2
= 4nV / Hz = 4pA / Hz
Δf Δf
( )
2
v n2 = v n1 − v n2 2
= v n1 2
+ v n2 − 2 ⋅ v n1 ⋅ v n2
v n2 = v n1
2 2
+ vn2 = 4 ⋅ kT ⋅ (R1 + R2 ) ⋅ Δf
Al
Always remember
b to t add
dd iindependent
d d t noise
i sources using
i mean
squared quantities
– Never add RMS values!
i2d = 4kT ⋅ γ ⋅ gm ⋅ Δf
[Scholten]
γ ≅ 0.85
γ ≅ 0.7
vd
d dd 0 0.9
0 9
vm dd d 0
vg g 0 dc 0.7 ac 1
mn1 d g 0 0 nmos214 L=0.18u W=10u
h1 c 0 ccvs vm 1
.op
.ac dec 100 10k 1gig
.noise v(c) vg
(gm=3.14mS)
1/f Noise
2
2 K f gm Δf
i1/ f =
Cox W ⋅ L f
B
By definition,
d fi iti the
th frequency
f att which
hi h the
th flicker
fli k noise
i density
d it equals
l th
the
thermal noise density
2
K f gm Δf
= 4kTγ ⋅ gm ⋅ Δf
Cox W ⋅ L fco
Kf 1 gm Kf 1 1 ⎛ gm ⎞ ⎛ ID ⎞
⇒ fco = = ⎜ ⎟
4kTγ Cox W ⋅ L 4kTγ Cox L ⎝ ID ⎠ ⎝⎜ W ⎠⎟
For a given gm/ID (e.g. based on linearity considerations), the only way to
achieve lower fco is to use longer channel devices
− In the above expression, both 1/L and ID/W are reduced for
increasing L
Example
– EE214 NMOS, L = 0.18μm, gm/ID = 12 S/A , ⇒ID/W = 20 A/m
⇒fco = 560 kHz
In
I newer technologies,
t h l i fco can be
b on th
the order
d off 10 MH
MHz
JJustt as with
ith white
hit noise,
i th
the ttotal
t l 1/f noise
i contribution
t ib ti isi found
f d by
b
integrating its power spectral density
f2 2
K f gm Δf
∫ Cox W ⋅ L f
2
i1/ f,tot =
f
1
2 2
K f gm ⎛ f ⎞ K gm ⎛f ⎞
= ln ⎜ 2 ⎟ = f 2.3log ⎜ 2 ⎟
Cox W ⋅ L ⎝ f1 ⎠ Cox W ⋅ L ⎝ f1 ⎠
Noiseless!
(merely a modeling
resistor that lets us
account for finite
i2d 2
K f gm 1 dID/dVDS)
= 4kT ⋅ γ ⋅ gm ⋅ +
Δf Cox W ⋅ L f
G
Gate
t noise
i
– "Shot noise" from gate leakage current
– Noise due to finite resistance of the gate material
– Noise
N i due
d tto randomly
d l changing
h i potential/capacitance
t ti l/ it b
between
t th
the
channel and bulk
• Relevant only at very high frequencies
• See EE314
Bulk noise
Source barrier noise in very short channels
– Shot noise from carriers injected across source barrier
– R. Navid, C. Jungemann, T. H. Lee and R. W. Dutton, “High-
frequency noise in nanoscale metal oxide semiconductor field effect
transistors,” Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 101(12) , pp. 101-108,
June 15, 2007
i2 = 2qID ⋅ Δf
Constant
(“white”)
PSD
In a bipolar transistor, the flow of DC current into the base and collector
causes shot noise
The noise can be modeled via equivalent
q current g
generators
Circuit Example
2 ⎛ 1 ⎞
v out = ⎜ 4kT Δf + 2qIC Δf ⎟ ⋅ R2
⎝ R ⎠
(
= 2kTΔf 2R + gmR2 )
⎛ 2 ⎞
= 2kTgm Δf ⋅ R2 ⎜ + 1⎟
⎝ gmR ⎠
Shot noise due to base current is absorbed by the input source and does
not contribute to noise at the output
For large gain (gmR), the collector shot noise dominates
2
v out = A 2v v in
2
where A v = gmR
We can write
⎛ 2 ⎞
2kTgm Δf ⋅ R2 ⎜ + 1⎟
2
v in = ⎝ gmR ⎠ = 2kT 1 Δf ⎛ 2 + 1⎞
⎜ ⎟
( gmR )2 gm ⎝ gmR ⎠
.op
.ac dec 100 100 10e9
.noise v(vo) vi
.options post brief
.inc ‘ee214_hspice.sp'
.end
d
2
2 ⎛ 1 ⎞ 1
v out = ⎜ 4kT Δf + 2qIC Δf ⎟ ⋅ R ||
⎝ R ⎠ jωC
2
⎛ 1 ⎞ 1
= ⎜ 4kT Δf + 2qIC Δf ⎟ ⋅ R2
⎝ R ⎠ 1 + jωRC
2
⎛ 2 ⎞ 1
= 2kTgm Δf ⋅ R2 ⎜ + 1⎟ ⋅
⎝ gmR ⎠ 1 + jωRC
S
Same calculation
l l ti as b
before,
f exceptt th
thatt th
the voltage
lt gain
i iis now
frequency dependent
2
2
v out ( ω) 2 1
2
vin ( ω) = 2
where A v ( jω ) = A v (0)
A v ( jω ) 1 + jωRC
2
⎛ 2 ⎞ 1
2kTgm Δf ⋅ R2 ⎜ + 1⎟ ⋅
g
⎝ m R ⎠ 1 + j ω RC
= 2
1
A 2v ( 0 )
1 + jωRC
2 1 ⎛ 2 ⎞
∴ vin = 2kT Δf ⎜ + 1⎟
gm ⎝ gmR ⎠
Spice Simulation
.op
.ac dec 100 100 10e9
.noise v(vo) vi
.options post brief
.inc 'ee214_hspice.sp'
.end
∞ 2
1
2
v out,tot = ∫ 4kTR ⋅ df
0
1 + j2 πf ⋅ RC
∞
df du −1
= 4kTR ∫ 2
; ∫ 1 + u2 = ttan u
0 1+ ( 2πfRC )
1
= 4kTR ⋅
4RC
kT
=
C
Interesting result
– The total integrated noise at the output depends only on C (even
g R is g
though generating
g the noise))
Effect of Varying R
Increasing R increases
the noise power spectral
density, but also
decreases the
bandwidth
– R drops out in the
end result
For C=1pFp ((examplep to
the right), the total
integrated noise is
approximately 64μVrms
1 1
Cv out 2 = kT
2 2
kT
v out 2 =
C
2 kT ⎫
v out,tot = ⎪
C
⎪
2 ⎪ π
v out,tot 4kTR ⋅ ΔfENBW ⎬ ΔfENBW = f−3dB
⎪ 2
1 ⎪
f−3dB = ⎪
2πRC ⎭
∞ 2
∫( )
2 1
v out,tot = 4kTR + 2kTgmR2 ⋅ df
0
1 + jj2πf ⋅ RC
2 kT 4kTR + 2kTgmR2
v out,tot = ⋅
C 4kTR
kT ⎛ 1 ⎞
= ⎜ 1 + gmR ⎟
C⎝ 2 ⎠
Taking the BJT’s collector shot noise into account, the total integrated
noise becomes a multiple of kT/C
Assumptions
– Output carries a sinusoid with 1V peak amplitude
– We observe the output without significant band limiting and thus use
th total
the t t l integrated
i t t d noise
i ini the
th SNR expression
i
1 2
v̂ out
Psignal 2 0.5V 2 0.5V 2
SNR = = = = 2
8 59 ⋅ 106
= 8.59
kT ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
1 + 3.67mS ⋅ 10kΩ ⎟ ( 763μV )
Pnoise 1 kT 1
1+ g R
C ⎜⎝ 2 m ⎟⎠ 10pF ⎜⎝ 2 ⎠
(
SNR [ dB] = 10log 8.59 ⋅ 106 = 69.3dB )
Typical system requirements
– Audio: SNR ≅ 100dB
– Video: SNR ≅ 60dB
– Gigabit Ethernet Transceiver: SNR ≅ 35dB
Assuming that we're already using the maximum available signal swing,
improving the SNR by 6dB means
– Increase C by 4x
– Decrease R by 4x to maintain bandwidth
– Increase gm by 4x to preserve gain
– Increase collector current by 4x
Bottom line
– Improving the SNR in a noise limited circuit by 6dB ("1bit")
QUADRUPLES power dissipation !
MDS and DR
Psignal,max
DR =
MDS
If the noise level in the circuit is independent of the signal level (which is
often, but not always the case), it follows that the DR is equal to the
"
"peak k SNR
SNR,"" i.e.
i theth SNR withith the
th maximum
i signal
i l applied
li d
Rules of thumb
– Up to SNR ~ 30-40dB, integrated circuits are usually not limited by
thermal noise
– Achieving SNR >100dB is extremely difficult
• Must usually rely on external components, or reduce bandwidth
and remove noise by a succeeding filter
• See
S e.g. oversampling
li ADC
ADCs iin EE315B
Short
Short-circuit
circuit both inputs and equate output noise
– This yields vi2
Open-circuit both inputs and equate output noise
– This yields ii2
This representation is valid for “any” source impedance
Sometimes need to consider correlation between equivalent voltage and
current generator, but often times only one of the two generators matters
in the target application
If both generators matter (and they are correlated), it is usually best
to avoid working with input referred noise representations
Datasheet Example
Text, p. 757
2
io1 ≅ ic2 + gm (
2 2 2
ib ⋅ rb + v b2 )
2 2 2
io2 ≅ gm vi
2 2 ic2
io1 = io2 ⇒ v i2 ≅ v b2 + 2
+ ib2 ⋅ rb2
gm
vi2 2qI
≅ 4kTrb + 2C + 2qIBrb2
Δf gm
2qIC ⎡ gm 2 2⎤
rb
≅ 4kTrb + 2 ⎢1 + ⎥
gm ⎢⎣ β ⎥⎦
qC
2qI
≅ 4kTr
4kT b + 2
gm
⎛ 1 ⎞
≅ 4kT ⎜ rb + ⎟
⎝ 2gm ⎠
To find input referred current generator, open circuit the input of both
circuit models and equate output noise
Text, p. 757
2 2
io1 = ic2 + gm
2 2
⋅ ib ⋅ z π
2 2 2 2
io2 = gm ⋅ ii ⋅ z π
2 2 ic2
io1 = io2 ⇒ ii2 = ib2 + 2
2
gm zπ
2qIC
= 2qIB + 2
β ( jω )
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ ⎞
2
⎜ 1+ ⎜ ω ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎜ ωβ ⎟ ⎟ 1 ω
= 2qIB ⎜ 1 + ⎝ ⎠ ⎟ where ωβ = ≅− T
⎜ β0 ⎟ rπCπ β0
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
The term due to IC is negligible at low frequencies
frequencies, but becomes
comparable to the base current contribution at
ωT
ωb = ωβ β0 ≅
β0
Text, p. 760
N l t (f
Neglect (for BJT)
2
io1 = ic2
Text, p. 762
2 2 2
io2 = gm vi
ic2 v i2 1 Kf 1
v i2 = 2
= 4kTγ +
gm Δf gm WLCox f
2
2 1 ⎛ω ⎞
io1 = ic2 2
+ gm ⋅ i2g ⋅ ≅ ic2 + i2g ⋅⎜ T ⎟
ω2C2gs ⎝ ω ⎠
2
2 ⎛ω ⎞
io2 ≅ ii2 ⋅⎜ T ⎟
⎝ ω ⎠
2 2
⎛ ω ⎞ 2 ii2 ⎛ f ⎞ ⎛ 2
K f gm 1⎞
ii2 = i2g +⎜ ⎟⎟ ic ≅ 2qIG + ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ 4kT γg + ⎟
⎜ Δf ⎜ m
WLCox f ⎠⎟
⎝ ωT ⎠ ⎝ fT ⎠ ⎝
Noiseless
Transistor
⎡ v2 ⎤ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎡ v2 ⎤ 1 Kf 1
⎢ i ⎥ ≅ 4kT ⎜ rb + ⎟ ⎢ i ⎥ ≅ 4kTγ +
⎢⎣ Δf ⎥⎦ ⎝ 2gm ⎠ ⎢⎣ Δf ⎦⎥ gm WLCox f
BJT MOS
BJT is usually
y superior
p
– Need less gm for approximately same noise
– gm/I is higher, making it easier to achieve low noise at a given current
budget
⎡ i2 ⎤ ⎛ ⎞ ⎡ i2 ⎤ 2
⎛ f ⎞ ⎛
IC ⎟ K g2 1⎞
⎢ i ⎥ ≅ 2q ⎜ IB + ⎢ ⎥
i ≅ 2qIG + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 4kTγgm + f m ⎟
⎜ ⎜ f ⎟⎠
β ( jω) ⎠⎟
Δf 2 Δf
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥BJT ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥MOS ⎝ fT ⎠ ⎝ WLCox
⎝
1
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ 4kT
vi2 1 1 ⎞ ii2 I
≅ 4kT ⎜ rb + + 2 ⎟ = 2q ⎜ IB + C ⎟+ R
Δf ⎜ 2gm gmR ⎟⎠ Δf ⎜ 2⎟ 2
⎝ ⎝ β ( jω ) ⎠ β ( j ω )
v 2s = vRs
2
+ v i2 + R2s ii2
⎡ ⎛ ⎞ 4kT ⎤⎥
1
v 2s ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 2⎢ I
= 4kTRS + 4kT ⎜ rb + + 2 ⎟ + Rs ⎢2q ⎜ IB + C ⎟+ R
2⎥
Δf ⎜ 2g ⎟ ⎜ 2⎟
⎝ m g R
m ⎠ ⎢ ⎝ β ( jω ) ⎠ β ( jω ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
v out zπ
H(s) = = −gmR
vs z π + Rs
gmR
=−
g R
1+ m s
β ( jω )
2
v out 2 ⎛ 1 ⎞
= 4kTRS* H(s) + ⎜ 4kT + 2qIC ⎟ ⋅ R2 (neglecting base shot noise for simplicity)
Δf ⎝ R ⎠
2
v out ⎛ 1 ⎞ 2
v 2s ⎜ 4kT R + 2qIC ⎟ ⋅ R
= Δf 2 = 4kTRS* + ⎝ 2
⎠
Δf H(s) H(s)
2
⎛ 1 ⎞ 2 gmRs
⎜ 4kT R + 2qIC ⎟ ⋅ R 1 + β jω
v 2s ⎝ ⎠ ( )
= 4kTRS* +
Δf ( gmR )2
⎛ ⎡ 1
2⎞
⎜ 1 ⎤ gmRs ⎟
= 4kTRS + 4kT rb + ⎢ + 2 ⎥ ⋅ 1+
⎜ ⎢⎣ 2gm gmR ⎥⎦ β ( jω ) ⎟
⎝ ⎠
This result does not match what we would expect from the analysis with
BJT input referred generators:
⎡ 1 ⎤
⎛ 4kT ⎥
v 2s 1 1 ⎞ ⎢ 2qI R
= 4kTRS + 4kT ⎜ rb + + 2 ⎟ + Rs2 ⎢ C
+ 2⎥
Δf ⎜ 2g ⎟ 2
⎝ m gmR ⎠ ⎢ β ( jω ) β ( jω ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
It turns
t outt that
th t the
th resultlt obtained
bt i d using
i the
th BJT input
i t referred
f d
generators is not quite correct
⎡ 1 ⎤
⎛ 4kT ⎥
v 2s 1 1 ⎞ 2 ⎢ 2qIC R
= 4kTRS + 4kT ⎜ rb + + 2 ⎟ + Rs ⎢ + 2⎥
Δf ⎜ 2
2g ⎟ 2
⎝ m g R
m ⎠ ⎢ β ( jω ) β ( jω ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
In this expression,
expression we are adding the powers of correlated noise currents
without taking the correlation into account!
This leads to an expression that overestimates the noise
W
Working
ki withith input
i t referred
f d noise
i generators
t saves time
ti and
d works
k wellll
if the input source can be modeled close to a an ideal voltage source (RS
is small) or an ideal current source (RS is large)
– In this case,
case either the input referred noise voltage or current will
clearly dominate and only one of the two generators must be
considered
– Note that for RS=0, the two expression on slide 65 match perfectly
For any scenario in-between, working with input referred generators can
still work as long as the input referred current and voltage generators are
statistically independent, i.e. they are due physically distinct noise
mechanisms
– This is not the case for the expressions of slide 65
When all of these conditions fail, it is a must to analyze
y the circuit from
first principles, i.e. consider all noise sources at their root and refer them
to the point(s) of interest via their individual transfer functions
vi2 = via
2
Input Open
ii2 = iia
2
For the idealized example studied on the previous slides, we see that
the equivalent input noise generators of the amplifier can be moved
unchanged
h d outside
t id th
the ffeedback
db k lloop
– Applying feedback has no effect on the circuit’s noise performance
– Note that this is very different from the effect of feedback on
distortion performance
This results holds for all four possible (ideal) feedback configurations
– Prove this as an exercise
In practical feedback configurations, the input referred generators must
be computed while taking loading effects into account
– Loading makes the calculations more complicated, and generally
worsens the
th noise
i performance
f
– In the best possible design outcomes, the noise performance can
approach (but not surpass) that of an idealized configuration
Th
The mostt generall way off including
i l di loading
l di and d noise
i ffrom th
the ffeedback
db k
network is to apply the same procedure as before
– Short-circuit the input, find input noise voltage generator that yields
the same output noise in both circuits
– Open-circuit the input, find input noise current generator that yields
the same output noise in both circuits
A more convenient way to include loading and noise from the feedback
network is to use the same two-port approximations we have already
utilized for transfer function analysis
Procedure
– Absorb loading effects into the basic amplifier and work with ideal
feedback network
– Re
Re-compute
compute the input referred noise generators of the basic amplifier
in presence of loading
– Using the previous result, the re-computed noise generators of the
basic amplifier can now be moved outside the feedback loop
Step 1
– Redraw the basic amplifier with loading included
Step 2
– Compute input referred current noise
– The result corresponds to the desired ii
ii2 = iia
2
Step 3
– Compute input referred voltage noise
– The result corresponds to the desired vi
via2 iia2
RE||RF
2
vi2 = v ia
2 2
+ iia ⋅ (RE || RF ) + 4kT (RE || RF ) Δf
4kT(RE||RF)
v i2 = via
2
2
via 1
ii2 2
= iia + + 4kT Δf
RF2 RF
At low
l ffrequencies,
i it iis ttypically
i ll nott h
hard
d tto minimize
i i i ththe iinputt noise
i
current contribution due to via
However, at high frequencies, any shunt capacitance at the input tends
t make
to k the
th via contribution
t ib ti more significant
i ifi t
Means that via must be minimized in high speed circuits, typically by
increasing gm of the input device Æ higher power dissipation
2
1 1
ii2 2
= iia 2
+ v ia + jωCi + 4kT Δf (assuming iia and via are uncorrelated)
RF RF
vo g R io gm io g R
Av = = m Gm = = Ai = = m
vi 1 + gmR vi 1 + gmR ii 1 + gmR
Neglecting finite ro, backgate effect and flicker noise for simplicity
Source Follower
Th
The noise
i performance
f can be
b analyzed
l d by
b treating
t ti theth circuit
i it as a
series feedback stage (see text, sections 8.6.2 and 11.7.2)
– We will do a direct analysis instead
2
⎛ ⎞
(
v o2 = i2d + ir2 ) ⎜ 1 ⎟
⋅⎜
i2d + ir2 2
⎟ = 2 ⋅ Av
⎜ gm + 1 ⎟ gm
⎝ R⎠
Often negligible
i2d ir2 1 ⎛ 1 ⎞
v i2 = 2
+ 2
= 4kT Δf ⎜ γ + ⎟
gm gm gm ⎝ gmR ⎠
gm
io = id + ( ir − id )
1
gm +
R
gmR 1
= ir + id
1 + gmR 1 + gmR
Gm
= ir GmR + id
gm
⎛ i2 ⎞ i2d 1
io2 = ⎜ d2 + ir2R2 ⎟ ⋅ Gm
2
v i2 = + ir2R2 = 4kTγ Δf + 4kTRΔf
⎜ gm ⎟ 2
gm gm
⎝ ⎠
The input referred voltage noise consists of drain current noise, reflected
through gm, plus the resistor’s voltage noise
gmR 1
io = ir + id
1 + gmR 1 + gmR
Ai
= ir A i + id
gmR
Often negligible
⎛ i2 ⎞ i2d 1 ⎛ γ ⎞
io2 = ⎜ d + ir2 ⎟ ⋅ A i2 ii2 = + ir2 = 4kT Δf ⎜ 1 + ⎟
⎜ gm
2 2 ⎟ 2 2 R ⎝ gmR ⎠
⎝ R ⎠ gm R
Th
The input
i t referred
f d currentt noise
i from
f the
th transistor
t i t isi often
ft negligible
li ibl (at
( t
low frequencies)
The noise tends to be dominated by the devices providing the source
and
dddrain
i bi
bias currents
t ((resistors
i t or currentt sources))
2
1
+ j ωC
2 1 R
ii = 4kT Δf + 4kTγgm Δf 2
R gm
2
1 ⎛ ωC ⎞
≅ 4kT Δf + 4kTγgm Δf ⎜ ⎟
R ⎝ gm ⎠
The input referred current noise from the transistor can be significant at
high frequencies (near the cutoff frequency of the current transfer)
Applying ideal feedback around an amplifier does not alter its input
referred noise performance
In practical circuits, loading and noise from the feedback network tend to
deteriorate the circuit’s overall noise performance
– This is especially true at high frequencies, where parasitic
capacitances
it can increase
i th
the noise
i ttransfer
f from
f sources that
th t are
typically negligible at low frequencies
Loading effects can be considered by applying the same two-port
approximation
i ti methodsth d used d iin th
the ttransfer
f ffunction
ti analysis
l i off practical
ti l
feedback amplifiers
– Absorb loading and feedback network noise sources into forward
amplifier and work with idealized feedback result
Covered in EE314
– RF-centric metrics
• Noise figure
• Receiver sensitivity
– Phase noise in oscillators
Covered in EE315A,B
– Noise in filters and switched capacitor circuits
Other
– Cyclostationary noise
• Noise in circuits that are driven by a periodic waveform that
modulates the power spectral densities
• E.g. mixers
B. Murmann
Stanford University
Overview
All electronic
l t i circuits
i it exhibit
hibit some llevell off nonlinear
li b
behavior
h i
– The resulting waveform distortion is not captured in small-signal
models
In the first section of this chapter, we will begin by looking at the basic
tools needed to analyze “memoryless” nonlinearities, i.e. nonlinearities
that can be represented by a frequency independent model
– Such models are valid in a frequency range where all capacitances
and inductances in the circuit of interest can be ignored
As a driving example, we will analyze the nonlinearity in the V-I
transduction of BJTs and MOSFETs
The general approach taken is to model the nonlinearities via a power
series that links the input and output of the circuit
– This approach is useful and accurate for the case of “small
small distortion”
distortion
and cannot be used to predict the effect of gross distortion, e.g. due
to signal clipping
Small-Signal AC Model
Io = IOQ + io io
+ gm⋅vi
+
Vi = VIQ + vi vi
- dIo -
gm =
dVi V = V
i IQ
Io = f(Vi) = f '(VIQ ) io
gm gm
vi
Vi
VIQ
(3)
f '(VIQ ) f ''(VIQ ) 2 f (VIQ )
f(Vi ) = f(VIQ ) + (Vi − VIQ ) + (Vi − VIQ ) + (Vi − VIQ )3 + ...
1! 2! 3!
f2(Vi)
f3(Vi)
f(Vi)
f2(Vi)
Vi
VIQ
f3(Vi)
f (m) (VIQ
Q)
where am =
m!
1 ' 1 ''
Note that a1 ≡ gm a2 ≡ gm a3 ≡ gm
2 6
n=2
vi
n→∞
n=3
A model that relates the incremental signal components (vi, io) though a
nonlinear expression is sometimes called “large-signal AC model”
The accuracy of a truncated power series model depends on the signal
range and the curvature of the actual transfer function
– Using a higher order series generally helps, but also makes the
analysis more complex
– As we will see, using a third order series is often sufficient to model
th relevant
the l t distortion
di t ti effects
ff t in
i practical,
ti l weaklykl nonlinear
li circuits
i it
Apply a sinusoidal signal and collect harmonic terms in the output signal
v i = vˆ i ⋅ cos ( ωt )
2 3
io = a1vˆ i cos ( ωt ) + a2 ⎡⎣ vˆ i cos ( ωt ) ⎤⎦ + a3 ⎡⎣ vˆ i cos ( ωt ) ⎤⎦ + ...
1 1
cos2 ( α ) = ⎡cos ( 2α ) + 1⎤⎦ cos3 ( α ) = ⎡cos ( 3α ) + 3 cos ( α ) ⎤⎦
2⎣ 4⎣
⎡1 ⎤
∴ io = ⎢ a2 vˆ i2 ⎥ DC shift
⎣2 ⎦
⎡ 3 ⎤
+ ⎢a1vˆ i + a3 vˆ i3 ⎥ cos ( ωt ) Fundamental
⎣ 4 ⎦
⎡1 ⎤ ⎡1 ⎤
+ ⎢ a2 vˆ i2 ⎥ cos ( 2ωt ) + ⎢ a3 vˆ i3 ⎥ cos ( 3ωt ) + ... Harmonics
⎣2 ⎦ ⎣4 ⎦
Th
The quadratic
d ti tterm ((a2) give
i rises
i tto an undesired
d i d second
dhharmonic
i ttone
and a DC shift
The cubic term (a3) give rises to an undesired third harmonic tone and it
also
l modifies
difi th
the amplitude
lit d off th
the ffundamental
d t l
– a3 < 0 Æ “gain compression”
– a3 > 0 Æ “gain expansion”
y x + 0.3x3
x
x - 0.3x
0 3x3
m
⎛m⎞
1
( ) 1
m − j( m − k ) α
cosm ( α ) = m
e jα + e − j α = m ∑ ⎜ k ⎟e jkα e
2 2 k =0 ⎝ ⎠
1
cos4 ( α ) = ⎡cos ( 4α ) + 4 cos ( 2α ) + 3 ⎤⎦
8⎣
1
cos5 ( α ) = ⎡cos ( 5α ) + 5cos ( 3α ) + 10 cos ( α ) ⎤⎦
16 ⎣
⎡1 3 ⎤ As long as
∴ io = ⎢ a2 vˆ i2 + a4 vˆ i4 ⎥
⎣2 8 ⎦
a 4 vˆ i4 << a2 vˆ i2 and a5 vˆ i5 << a3 vˆ i3
⎡ 3 5 ⎤
+ ⎢a1vˆ i + a3 vˆ i3 + a5 vˆ i5 ⎥ cos ( ωt )
⎣ 4 16 ⎦
or equivalently
⎡1 1 ⎤
+ ⎢ a2 vˆ i2 + a4 vˆ i4 ⎥ cos ( 2ωt )
⎣ 2 2 ⎦ a2 a3
vˆ i << and vˆ i <<
⎡1 5 ⎤ a4 a5
+ ⎢ a3 vˆ i3 + a5 vˆ i5 ⎥ cos ( 3ωt )
⎣4 16 ⎦
the 4th and 5th order terms can
⎡1 ⎤ be neglected
+ ⎢ a 4 vˆ i4 ⎥ cos ( 4ωt )
⎣8 ⎦
This condition is usually met in
⎡1 ⎤
+ ⎢ a5 vˆ i5 ⎥ cos ( 5ωt ) practical, weakly nonlinear
⎣ 16 ⎦ circuits
IIncluding
l di only
l contributions
t ib ti ffrom tterms up tto 3rdd order,d th
these quantities
titi
become
1
a2 vˆ i2
2 1 a2
HD2 ≅ ≅ vˆ i
3 3 2 a
ˆ
a1v i + a3 vi ˆ 1
4
1
a3 vˆ i3
4 1 a3 2
HD3 ≅ ≅ vˆ i
3 3 4 a
a1vˆ i + a3 vˆ i 1
4
2
+a2 ⎣⎡ vˆ i1 ⋅ cos ( ω1t ) + vˆ i2 ⋅ cos ( ω2 t ) ⎦⎤
3
+a3 ⎡⎣ vˆ i1 ⋅ cos ( ω1t ) + vˆ i2 ⋅ cos ( ω2 t ) ⎤⎦ + ...
2a2 ⎡⎣ vˆ i1vˆ i2 ⋅ cos ( ω1t ) cos ( ω2 t ) ⎤⎦ = a2 vˆ i1vˆ i2 ⎡⎣cos ({ω1 + ω2 } t ) + cos ({ω1 − ω2 } t ) ⎤⎦
The output will contain tones at the sums and differences of the applied
frequencies
We define the fractional second-order intermodulation as
a2 vˆ i2 a2
= = vv̂ i
a1 vˆ i a1
= 2HD2
3 3
a3 ⎡⎣ vˆ i1 ⋅ cos ( ω1t ) + vˆ i2 ⋅ cos ( ω2 t ) ⎤⎦ = a3 ⎡⎣ vˆ i1 ⋅ cos ( ω1t ) ⎤⎦
Causes HD
3
+a3 ⎡⎣ vˆ i2 ⋅ cos ( ω2 t ) ⎤⎦
+3a3 ⎡ vˆ i1vˆ i2
2
⋅ cos ( ω1t ) cos2 ( ω2 t ) ⎤
⎣ ⎦
New
+3a3 ⎡ vˆ i1
⎣
2ˆ
v i2 ⋅ cos 2
( ω1t ) cos ( ω2t )⎤⎦
3 3 ⎡ vˆ i1vˆ i2
3a 2
⋅ cos ( ω1t ) cos2 ( ω2 t ) ⎤
⎣ ⎦
3
⎣2cos ( ω1t ) + cos ({2ω2 − ω1} t ) + cos ({2ω2 + ω1} t ) ⎦
2 ⎡ ⎤
= a3 vˆ i1vˆ i2
4
3 a3 vˆ i3 3 a3 2
= = v̂ i = 3HD3
4 a1 vˆ i 4 a1
Vbe Vbe
kT dIc I
Ic = Ise VT VT = a1 = = s e VT
q dVbe VT
Vbe = VBEQ
Vbe = VBEQ
ICQ
= ≡ gm
VT
1 d2Ic 1 ICQ
a2 = 2
=
2 dVbe 2 VT2
Vbe = VBEQ
1 ICQ
am =
m! VTm
2
1 a2 1 vˆ be 1 a3 2 1 ⎛ vˆ be ⎞
HD2 ≅ vˆ be = HD3 ≅ vˆ be = ⎜ ⎟
2 a1 4 VT 4 a1 24 ⎜⎝ VT ⎟⎠
Low distortion in the collector current quires the B-E voltage excursion to
be much smaller than VT ≅ 26mV
Checking for the valid range of a third order model yields
a2 a3
vˆ be << = 12VT and vˆ be << = 20VT
a4 a5
dId W
Id =
1
2
μCox
W
L
(
Vgs − Vt )
2
a1 =
dVgs
= μCox
L
(
Vgs − Vt )
Vgs = VGSQ Vgs = VGSQ
W 2I
= μCox VOV = DQ ≡ gm
L VOV
1 d2Id 1 W IDQ
a2 = 2
= μCox = 2
2 dVgs 2 L VOV
Vgs = VGSQ
a3 = 0
1 a2 1 v̂ gs
HD2 ≅ vˆ gs = HD3 = 0
2 a1 4 VOV
Small second harmonic distortion in the drain current requires the G-S
voltage excursion to be much smaller than the quiescent point gate
overdrive
d i (VOV=VVGS-VVt)
An idealized square-law device does not introduce high order distortion
– However, this is not true for a real short-channel MOSFET
Relevant effects
– Velocity saturation, mobility reduction due to vertical field
– Biasingg in moderate or weak inversion
– Nonlinearity in the device’s output conductance
– …
⎛ V ⎞
Icd = Ic1 − Ic2 = αIEE tanh ⎜ id ⎟
⎝ 2VT ⎠
c1 c2
1 3 2 5
tanh ( x ) = x − x + x − +...
3 15
id
αIEE αIEE αIEE
a1 = ≡ Gm a3 = − a5 =
2VT 24VT3 240VT5
EE
a3
v̂ id << = 10VT
a5
2 2
1 a3 2 1 ⎛ vˆ id ⎞ 1 ⎛ vˆ be ⎞
HD3,BJTdiff ≅ vˆ id = ⎜ ⎟ HD33,BJT ≅ ⎜ ⎟
48 ⎜⎝ VT ⎟⎠ 24 ⎜⎝ VT ⎟⎠
3 BJTdiff BJT
4 a1
2
⎛ V ⎞ ⎛ V ⎞
Iod = Id1 − Id2 = ISS⎜ id ⎟ 1 − ⎜ id ⎟
⎝ VOV ⎠ ⎝ 2VOV ⎠
d1 d2
2
⎛x⎞ 1 1 5
x 1 − ⎜ ⎟ = x − x3 − x + ...
⎝2⎠ 8 128
id
ISS ISS ISS
a1 = ≡ Gm a3 = − 3
a5 = 5
VO
OV 8VOV 128VOV
SS
a3
v̂ id << = 4VOV
a5
Vout
Vin
+ Sε
Si – a So
–
Sfb
f
Substitute this expression for So into the result on the previous page and
compare coefficients to find bi
a1
b1 =
1+ a1f
Second-order terms
Third-order terms
An Interesting Example
VCC
IC = ICQ+ iC
So = iC = a1Sε + a 2S2ε + a3S3ε + L
Sε = vBE = v i − f ⋅ iC
Q
vi
~
1 IC 1 IC
Vi RE f = RE a1 = gm a2 = a3 =
2 V2 6 V3
T T
a1 gm 1 IC 1
b1 = = b2 =
1+ a1f 1+ gmRE 2
2 V (1+ g R )3
T m E
1 IC 1 IC
(1+ gmRE ) − g R
6 V3 2 V3 m E 1
b3 = T T gmRE = ⇒ b3 = 0 ⇒ HD3 = 0
(1+ gmRE )5 2
Example 1
vi = vˆ i cos ( ωt )
1 1
ic = a1vˆ i cos ( ωt ) + a2 vˆ i2 cos ( 2ωt ) + a3 vˆ i3 cos ( 3ωt ) + ...
2 4
The output voltage consists of the same tones, with their magnitude and
phase altered by the linear filter K(jω)
1 φmω = ∠K ( m ⋅ jω)
+ K ( 2jω) ⋅ a2 vˆ i2 cos ( 2ωt + φ2ω )
2
1
+ K ( 3jω) ⋅ a3 vˆ i3 cos ( 3ωt + φ3ω ) + ...
4
Two-Tone Input
1
cos ( α ) cos ( β ) = ⎡cos ( α + β ) + cos ( α − β ) ⎤⎦
2⎣
1
cos ( α ) cos ( β ) cos ( γ ) = ⎡cos ( α + β + γ ) + cos ( α + β − γ )
4⎣
+ cos ( α − β + γ ) + cos ( α − β − γ ) ⎤⎦
a2 ⎡ 2
+ vˆ 1 cos ([ ω1 ± ω1] t ) + vˆ 22 cos ([ ω2 ± ω2 ] t ) 0, 2ω1, 2ω2
2 ⎣
Filtered Output
( ) (
v o = a1 ⎡ vˆ 1 K ( jω1 ) cos ω1t + φω1 + vˆ 2 K ( jω2 ) cos ω2 t + φω2 ⎤
⎣ ⎦ )
a2 ⎡
+
2 ⎣ ( )
K ( 2jω1 ) ⋅ vˆ 12 cos 2ω1t + φ2ω1 + vˆ 12 K ( 0 )
( )
+ K ( 2jω2 ) ⋅ vˆ 22 cos 2ω2 t + φ2ω2 + vˆ 22 K ( 0 )
(
+ K ( j [ ω1 − ω2 ]) ⋅ 2vˆ 1 vˆ 2 cos [ ω1 − ω2 ] t + φω1−ω2 )
(
+ K ( j [ ω1 + ω2 ]) ⋅ 2vˆ 1 vˆ 2 cos [ ω1 + ω2 ] t + φω1+ω2 ⎤
⎦ )
a3
+
4
[...]
v o = a1K ( jωa ) v i + a2K ( jωa + jωb ) v i2 + a3K ( jωa + jωb + jωc ) v i3 + ...
H1( jωa ) H2 ( jωa + jωb ) H3 ( jωa + jωb + jωc )
Hm ( jωa, jωb,...)
and shift phase by
∠Hm ( jωa, jωb,...)
The arguments ωa, ωb, ωc, … are auxiliary variables taking on all
permutations of ω1, ±ω2, … ±ωm
For the circuit example discussed previously, the coefficients are given
as follows
−a1R
H1(jωa ) =
1 + jωaRC
−a2R
H2 (jωa , jωb ) =
1 + ( jωa + jωb ) RC
−a3R
H3 (jωa , jωb , jωc ) =
1 + ( jωa + jωb + jωc ) RC
1 a2 1 H2 ( jω1, jω1 )
HD2 v̂ i
v v̂ i
v
2 a1 2 H1 ( jω1 )
1
1 H2 ( jω, jω) 1 a2 1 + 2jωRC 1 a2 1 + jωRC
HD2 = vˆ i = vˆ i = vˆ i
2 H1 ( jω) 2 a1 1 2 a1 1 + 2jωRC
1 + jωRC
VT
ICQ = 1mA vˆ i =
5
ICQ = 1mA
VT
vˆ i1 = vˆ i2 =
5
For ω2 → ω1, the IM3 distortion product is close to the fundamental tone
ω1, and therefore IM3 becomes nearly frequency independent
2 3
ic = a1vbe + a2 vbe + a3 vbe + ...
vo −R
K(jω) = =
ic 1 + jωRC
vbe 1
K in (jω) = =
vi 1 + jωRinCin
Two-Tone Input
The two input tones are now processed by a linear filter before being
sent through the nonlinearity
At the base of the BJT, we have
( ) (
v be = K in ( jω1 ) ⋅ vˆ 1 cos ω1t + ψ ω1 + K in ( jω2 ) ⋅ vˆ 2 cos ω2 t + ψ ω2 )
ψmω = ∠K in ( m ⋅ jω)
v be = K in ( jωa ) v i
2
+ a2K ( jωa + jωb ) ⎡⎣K in ( jωa ) v i ⎦⎤
3
+ a3K ( jωa + jωb + jωc ) ⎡⎣K in ( jωa ) v i ⎤⎦
2 2
⎡⎣K in ( jωa ) v i ⎤⎦ = ⎡⎣K in ( jωa ) {vˆ 1 cos ( ω1t ) + vˆ 2 cos ( ω2t )}⎤⎦
2
( ) (
= ⎡ K in ( jω1 ) ⋅ vˆ 1 cos ω1t + ψ ω1 + K in ( jω2 ) ⋅ vˆ 2 cos ω2 t + ψ ω2 ⎤
⎣ ⎦ )
2
(
= K in ( jω1 ) ⋅ vˆ 12 cos {ω1 ± ω1} t + ψ ω1 ± ψ ω1 )
2
(
+ K in ( jω2 ) ⋅ vˆ 22 cos {ω2 ± ω2 } t + ψ ω2 ± ψ ω2 )
i ( jω1 ) K iin ( jω2 ) ⋅ v
+ K in (
ˆ 1 vˆ 2 cos {ω1 ± ω2 } t + ψ ω ± ψ ω
1 2 )
= K in ( jωa ) K in ( jωb ) v i2
1 −a1R
H1( jωa ) =
1 + jωaRC 1 + jωaRC
1 1 −a2R
H2 ( jωa , jωb ) =
1 + jωaRC 1 + jωbRC 1 + ( jωa + jωb ) RC
1 1 1 −a3R
H3 ( jωa , jωb , jωc ) =
1 + jωaRC 1 + jωbRC 1 + jωcRC 1 + ( jωa + jωb + jωc ) RC
Example 3
ij
C j0 C j0 1
Cj = M
= M M
⎛ VOQ + v o ⎞ ⎛ ψ0 + VOQ ⎞ ⎛ ψ0 + VOQ + v o ⎞
⎜1+ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ψ0 ⎠ ⎝ ψ0 ⎠ ⎝ ψ0 + VOQ Q ⎠
C j0
Using C jQ =
⎛ VOQ ⎞
M
1
(1 + x ) M
= 1 − Mx +
1
2
( )
M + M2 x 2 + ...
⎜1+ ⎟
⎝ ψ0 ⎠
M M + M2
VR = VOQ + ψ0 b1 = − b2 =
VR 2VR
we can write C jQ
Cj = = C jQ ⎡1 + b1v o + b2 v o2 + ...⎤
M ⎣ ⎦
⎛ vo ⎞
⎜1+ ⎟
⎝ VR ⎠
Circuit Analysis
dv o dv ⎡ dv 1 dv 2 1 dv 3 ⎤
ij = Cj = C jQ ⎡1 + b1v o + b2v o2 + ...⎤ o = C jQ ⎢ o + b1 o + b3 o ⎥
dt ⎣ ⎦ dt ⎢⎣ dt 2 dt 3 dt ⎥⎦
⎡ 2 3⎤
(
i = C jQ + CI ) dvdto + C jQ ⎢ 21 b1 dvdto + 31 b3 dvdto ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
dv o ⎡ 1 dv 2 1 dv 3 ⎤
(
vi = v o + i ⋅ R = v o + R C jQ + CI ) dt
+ RC jQ ⎢ b1 o + b3 o ⎥
⎢⎣ 2 dt 3 dt ⎥⎦
d d d
vi = v o + RC0 v o + RC1 v o2 + RC2 v o3
dt dt dt
C0 = C jQ + CI
b
C1 = 1 C jQ = −
MC jQ b1
C2 = C jQ = −
M + M2 C jQ( )
2 2VR 3 6VR2
We
W are looking
l ki ffor a Volterra
V lt series
i representation
t ti off the
th form
f
d⎡
+ RC0 H1 ( jωa ) vi + H2 ( jωa , jωb ) vi2 + H3 ( jωa , jωb , jωc ) vi3 ⎤
dt ⎣ ⎦
d⎡ 2
+ RC1 H1 ( jωa ) vi + H2 ( jωa , jωb ) vi2 + H3 ( jωa , jωb , jωc ) vi3 ⎤
dt ⎣ ⎦
d⎡ 3
+ RC2 H1 ( jωa ) vi + H2 ( jωa , jωb ) vi2 + H3 ( jωa , jωb , jωc ) vi3 ⎤
dt ⎣ ⎦
First order
⎡ d⎤
1 vi = ⎢1 + RC0 ⎥ H1 ( jωa ) vi
⎣ dt ⎦
⎡ d⎤
1 = ⎢1 + RC0 ⎥ H1 ( jωa ) = ⎡⎣1 + RC0 jωa ⎤⎦ H1 ( jωa )
⎣ dt ⎦
1
∴ H1 ( jωa ) =
1 + RC0 jωa
Second order
⎡ d⎤ d 2
0 vi2 = ⎢1 + RC0 ⎥ H2 ( jωa , jωb ) vi2 + RC1 ⎡H1 ( jωa ) vi ⎤
⎣ dt ⎦ dt ⎣ ⎦
d
H2 ( jωa , jωb ) = ( jωa + jωb ) H2 ( jωa , jωb )
dt
2
⎡H1 ( jωa ) vi ⎤ = H1 ( jωa ) H1 ( jωb ) vi2
⎣ ⎦
d
⎡H1 ( jωa ) H1 ( jωb ) ⎤⎦ = ( jωa + jωb ) H1 ( jωa ) H1 ( jωb )
dt ⎣
0 = ⎡⎣1 + RC0 ( jωa + jωb ) ⎤⎦ H2 ( jωa , jωb ) + RC1 ( jωa + jωb ) H1 ( jωa ) H1 ( jωb )
Third order
⎡ d⎤
0 vi3 = ⎢1 + RC0 ⎥ H3 ( jωa , jωb , jωc ) vi3
⎣ dt ⎦
+ RC1
d⎡
dt ⎣
(
2 H1 ( jωa ) vi ) (H ( jω , jω ) v )⎤⎦
2 a b
2
i
Second-order
Interaction Term
d⎡ 3
+ RC2 H1 ( jωa ) vi ⎤
dt ⎣ ⎦
∴ H3 ( jωa , jωb , jωc ) = −RC2 ( jωa + jωb + jωc ) H1 ( jωa ) H1 ( jωb ) H1 ( jωc )
2
RC1 ( 2jω) ⎡⎣H1 ( jω) ⎤⎦ H1 ( 2jω)
1 H2 ( jω, jω) 1
HD2 = vˆ i = vˆ i = ωRC1 H1 ( jω) H1 ( 2jω) vˆ i
2 H1 ( jω) 2 H1 ( jω)
1 ⎛ v̂ ⎞
∴ HD2 = MωRC jQ H1 ( jω) H1 ( 2jω) ⎜ i ⎟
2 ⎜ VR ⎟
⎝ ⎠
3 2
= ωRC2 H1 ( jω) H1 ( 3jω) vˆ i2
4
2
⎛ v̂ ⎞
1
( )
∴ HD3 = M + M2 ωRC jQ H1 ( jω) H1 ( 3jω) ⎜ i ⎟
8 ⎜ VR ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Plot
v̂ i = 0.5V
v 0 5V
R = 25Ω
CI = 0
C jQ = 1pF
M = 0.3
03
VR = VOQ + ψ0 = 2.2V
An
A RC circuit
i it with
ith a lilinear capacitor,
it b butt nonlinear
li resistor
i t
The circuit below implements a track-and-hold circuit used in switched
capacitor circuits (filters, A/D converters, etc.)
– More in EE315A,B
The MOSFET is used as a switch and operates in the triode region,
exhibiting nonlinear resistive behavior
Analysis (1)
K 2
ID ≅ K ( VGS − Vt ) VDS − VDS
2
dVo K 2
C = K ( ϕ − Vo − Vt )( Vi − Vo ) − ( Vi − Vo )
dt 2
Solving for the coefficients of the Volterra series linking vo and vi, and
evaluating HD2 and HD3 yields
1 ⎛ v̂ i ⎞
HD2 = ωRC ⎜ ⎟
2 ⎝ VGS − Vt ⎠
2
1 ⎛ v̂ i ⎞
HD3 = ωRC ⎜ ⎟
4 ⎝ VGS − Vt ⎠
1 1 ⎫
ω= ⎪
10 RC
⎪
vˆ i = 0.2V
0 2V ⎪
⎪
V ⎪⎪ 1 1 ⎛ 0.2 ⎞
2
VOQ = VIQ = DD = 0.9V ⎬ HD3 = = −46dB
2 ⎪ 4 10 ⎜⎝ 0.45 ⎟⎠
VGS − Vt = VDD − VOQ − Vt ⎪
⎪
⎪
= 1.8V − 0.9V − 0.4V = 0.45V ⎪
⎪⎭
Example 5
Covered in EE314
– RF-centric metrics
• Intercept points
• 1-dB gain compression point
Other
– Nonlinearities in passive components
– Distortion cancelation techniques
– Cascading nonlinearities
– Series reversion
– Distortion in clipped or amplitude limiting waveforms
• E.g. in oscillators
References (2)
W
W. Rugh,
R h Nonlinear
N li S
System
t Theory,
Th
http://rfic.eecs.berkeley.edu/ee242/pdf/volterra_book.pdf
R. G. Meyer and M. L. Stephens, "Distortion in variable-capacitance
di d " IEEE J.
diodes," J Solid-State
S lid St t Circuits,
Ci it pp. 47-54,
47 54 F Feb.
b 1975
K. L. Fong and R.G. Meyer, "High-frequency nonlinearity analysis of
common-emitter and differential-pair transconductance stages," IEEE J.
Solid State Circuits,
Solid-State Circuits pp
pp.548-555,
548 555 Apr
Apr. 1998
M. T. Terrovitis and R. G. Meyer, "Intermodulation distortion in current-
commutating CMOS mixers," IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, pp.1461-
1473 Oct
1473, Oct. 2000
J. Chun and B. Murmann, "Analysis and Measurement of Signal
Distortion due to ESD Protection Circuits," IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits,
pp 2354-2358
pp. 2354-2358, Oct
Oct. 2006
W. Yu, S. Sen and B. H. Leung, "Distortion analysis of MOS track-and-
hold sampling mixers using time-varying Volterra series," IEEE Trans.
Circuits and Syst
Syst. II
II, pp
pp. 101-113
101 113, Feb
Feb. 1999
B. Murmann
Stanford University
Architecture
IBIAS V 600mV
gm1R1 = R1 = R1 = = 23
2VT VT 26mV
26 V
Text, p. 449
v od R3
= gm1 R
v id 1 o
R3 +
gm
Ro ≅ ro6 (1 + gm6R6 ) ro3 (1 + gm3R3 )
~0.9V
Second Stage
0.5V 0.5V
0.5V
~0.9V
+ 0.4V -
Issues
– Output
p voltageg cannot ggo
higher than VCC – VBE
– Need large quiescent current
IQ to provide good current
sinking capability
– IQ flows even if no signal is
present, i.e. Io=0
Cl
Class-A
A
– Output devices conduct for entire cycle of output sine wave
Class-B
– Output devices conduct for ≅50% of sine wave cycle
Class-AB
– Output
p devices conduct for >50%,, but <100% of cycle
y
Analysis
Is2 Is4
IC2 = IREF
Is6 Is8
Output transistors
never turn off
Quiescent current set
Iout by transistor ratios
Current [A]
ID(M26)
Large drive capability
ID(M25)
Iin1=Iin2 [A]
Nested Miller
Compensation
Wasted BW
P
Previous
i analyses
l h
have been
b concernedd with
ith th
the small-signal
ll i lbbehavior
h i
of feedback amplifiers at high frequencies
Sometimes the behavior with large input signals (either step inputs or
sinusoidal
i id l signals)
i l ) iis also
l off interest
i t t
– See e.g. switched capacitor circuits in EE315A
General Analysis
Slew Rate