Calculation of the Transconductance for a MOSFET

  • Context: Engineering 
  • Thread starter Thread starter icesalmon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation Mosfet
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of transconductance for a MOSFET, particularly in the context of small signal equivalent circuits and the body effect. Participants explore various equations for transconductance, the implications of the body effect, and the small signal model's parameters.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about calculating the small signal gate-source voltage (vgs) and the relevance of the body effect in the problem, noting that the problem states λ = 0, suggesting the Early effect is negligible.
  • Another participant questions the connection of the body terminal and suggests looking for equations related to the body effect.
  • Multiple equations for transconductance (g_m) are proposed, including g_m = μ_n C_{ox} (W/L) and g_m = 2I_D/V_{OV}.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of having r_0 = 0, with one participant stating that while it may increase |A_v|, it could also reduce the accuracy of the device.
  • There is a discussion about the body effect equation and its implications, with one participant noting that if V_{SB} goes to zero, the body effect may not be significant.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the definitions of overdrive voltage (V_{OV}) and the relationship between r_0 and g_{ds}.
  • One participant mentions the importance of understanding conductance (g_{ds}) instead of resistance (r_0) for future calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the body effect and its applicability to the problem. While some agree on the equations for transconductance, there is no consensus on the implications of r_0 = 0 and the significance of the body effect in this specific context.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential confusion regarding the small signal model and the body effect, as well as the need for clarity on the connection of the body terminal. There are also unresolved aspects regarding the calculations of small signal parameters and the assumptions made about the body effect.

icesalmon
Messages
270
Reaction score
13
Homework Statement
Calculate the transconductance, gm, for the MOSFET shown.
Relevant Equations
gm = id/vgs
This problem was included as an exercise for a section on the small signal equivalent circuit for a MOSFET under the body effect. The problem states ##λ =0## so I believe the Early effect is negligible and ro = 0. I don't see how the body effect would be negated so for part (b). I believe the circuit should look as the picture I've drawn and attached. My issues are the following: I don't really understand how to calculate the small signal gate-source voltage vgs and i am not sure whether or not the problem actually is neglecting the body effect as this would include another VCCS gmb*vbs. I have calculated the DC bias drain current to be ID = 0.2mA and the DC bias drain-source voltage to be VDS = 3V which are correct according to the solutions, essentially when I switch to small signal analysis and redraw the equivalent circuit I am a bit lost on how to proceed.
 

Attachments

  • 2332.PNG
    2332.PNG
    3.5 KB · Views: 265
  • 95BA8984-A4C1-4C54-8335-ADF115D20238.png
    95BA8984-A4C1-4C54-8335-ADF115D20238.png
    16.6 KB · Views: 224
  • 2242.PNG
    2242.PNG
    34.2 KB · Views: 306
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What causes the body effect and is it applicable to your problem? I don't see where your body terminal is connected, but where would you assume it's connected. Maybe there's a body effect equation it might be able to tell you a little more about the body effect.

Hint: What happens to threshold voltage ##V_{th}## if ##V_B = V_S##?

What are some equations for ##g_m##? There are a few of them. I won't give you the full equation... should look for it in your notes or book.

$$\begin{align}& g_m = \mu_n C_{ox} \frac{W}{L}... \\
& g_m = \sqrt{2 \mu_n C_{ox}...} \\
& g_m = \frac{2I_D}{...}\end{align}$$

Can you draw on the small-signal model where ##r_0## would be and what that would be mean if it were ##0 \Omega##... is it typically desirable for an amplifier?

They have a rule here that you have to make a attempt to solve problem before people can answer questions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: icesalmon
Joshy said:
What causes the body effect and is it applicable to your problem? I don't see where your body terminal is connected, but where would you assume it's connected. Maybe there's a body effect equation it might be able to tell you a little more about the body effect.

##V_t## = ##V_t##0 + ##\gamma##[sqrt(2##\phi_f## + VSB) - sqrt(2##\phi_f##)]
I mostly forgot everything I learned about the body effect, so i'll have to read it over again as it was in a previous chapter I haven't seen in years.
Joshy said:
Hint: What happens to threshold voltage ##V_{th}## if ##V_B = V_S##?
vBS = vB - vS = 0
vOV = VBS - Vth = -Vth
This doesn't seem to make sense, having a ##negative## overdrive voltage.

Joshy said:
Can you draw on the small-signal model where ##r_0## would be and what that would be mean if it were ##0 \Omega##... is it typically desirable for an amplifier?
In the picture I attached there is a portion where ##r_o## is and I wrote ## \lambda = 0## and ##r_o = 0##
If ##r_o = 0## then the accuracy of the device goes down, but ##|A_v|## increases, this is a good thing for an amplifier. I would say this is desirable.
 
icesalmon said:
##V_t## = ##V_t##0 + ##\gamma##[sqrt(2##\phi_f## + VSB) - sqrt(2##\phi_f##)]
I mostly forgot everything I learned about the body effect, so i'll have to read it over again as it was in a previous chapter I haven't seen in years.

vBS = vB - vS = 0
vOV = VBS - Vth = -Vth
This doesn't seem to make sense, having a ##negative## overdrive voltage.

Alright. Sorry I crossed some of it out on my own. You got some of it right. Good job. You got the right body effect equation too. If you see ##V_{SB}## go to zero, then those two square root terms they cancel out too and so ##V_t=V_{t0}##; therefore: You have no body effect :). For an NMOS you'll want to tie your body to the source. What I've usually seen is if you don't draw the body terminal in an NMOS, then it's inferred tied to the ground reference. In your drawing your source is also tied to ground, and so you probably don't have to worry about body effect. This'll help you out a bit because now you don't have to worry about that second VCCS in your drawing.

For a PMOS the assumption if the body terminal isn't drawn, then it's tied to ##VDD##. Your source is typically connected high ##VDD## and so that's usually what you'll want.

Some of this might change a little bit when you start looking at a common source with degeneration or cascoded amplifiers; however: different fabrication process might still allow you to tie the body to source. For example: A deep n-well process can help solve that problem.

Of course: It's always a good idea to clarify or double check with your professor so that you don't unnecessarily lose points.

By the way: ##V_{OV} \neq V_{BS}-V_t##

icesalmon said:
In the picture I attached there is a portion where ##r_o## is and I wrote ## \lambda = 0## and ##r_o = 0##
If ##r_o = 0## then the accuracy of the device goes down, but ##|A_v|## increases, this is a good thing for an amplifier. I would say this is desirable.

A professor use to say to me "hear what I mean; not what I say!" The resistance of an ideal wire is zero, and so the problem with saying that ##r_0## is ##0\Omega## is you've shorted your drain and source. In your drawing I don't see a short or a resistor (it's open circuit) and so I think what you meant to say is ##r_0## is ##\infty##. I think I heard what you meant, but wanted to cover that. What that ##\lambda=0## means that you have no channel length modulation... the slope on your IV curve when it's in saturation is ##g_{ds}## which is ##1/r_0## you'll want the slope to be more horizontal or zero and so you want ##r_0## to be ##\infty##.

slope.png


A quick note: You might want to think of conductance ##g_{ds}## instead of ##r_0## in the future. I recommend practicing with that instead. A reminder that ##g_{ds}## is ##1/r_0##. The reason this will be helpful in the future is you'll be dealing with a lot of parallel resistance. Equivalent resistance for parallel resistors can be a pain when there are a lot of resistors (lots of multiplication), but conductance you can simply add together.

Regarding the original question and sorry for straying a bit... you'll want those equations for ##g_m##, which is not ##i_d/v_{gs}## as you put for relevant equations. Any chance you can fill in the blanks for post #2 regarding equations for ##g_m##? I confess I have a very hard time memorizing these equations. While I took the class I had to spend a lot of time trying to memorize it and if I was allowed some notes those were definitely some equations I wrote down.

The problem is staging you for success by asking for you to solve for ##I_D##. Once you've solved that it's given you everything else you can plug and chug into one of those three equations in #2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: icesalmon
Joshy said:
What are some equations for ##g_m##? There are a few of them. I won't give you the full equation... should look for it in your notes or book.
$$\begin{align}& g_m = \mu_n C_{ox} \frac{W}{L}... \\
& g_m = \sqrt{2 \mu_n C_{ox}...} \\
& g_m = \frac{2I_D}{...}\end{align}$$

##g_m = \mu_n C{ox} \frac{W}{L}V_{OV}##
##g_m## = sqrt(2kn')*sqrt(W/L)*sqrt(ID)
##g_m## = 2ID/VOV
these are the ones I was looking for earlier.
 
There we go :)

I think you solved for everything that you needed or are there anything else that is a little bit shaky?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: icesalmon

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K