Diff gain of a push pull degenerated differential pair

  • Context: Engineering 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arhzz
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the small signal differential gain of a push-pull degenerated differential pair circuit. Participants explore the circuit's design, including its core components and the integration of a push-pull stage, while considering the implications of various circuit parameters and configurations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines their approach to analyze the core part of the circuit separately, using the half circuit technique from Razhavi's book to calculate the differential gain.
  • Another participant questions the absence of the output capacitor's value in the transfer function and discusses the implications of crossing over mirror circuits in the design.
  • Concerns are raised about the circuit's balance and the potential amplification of uncontrolled parameters due to unbalanced MOSFET channel parameters.
  • A participant describes the output of a transconductance amplifier as the difference of two nearly identical currents and presents two methods for performing the necessary subtraction to achieve a desired output.
  • There is mention of a previous thread discussing low output current in a similar transconductance amplifier cell, suggesting a connection to the current discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the circuit's design and analysis, with no consensus reached on the best approach to incorporate the push-pull stage or the implications of the output capacitor. Multiple competing perspectives remain regarding the circuit's balance and the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the circuit design, including the effects of thermal parameters and the necessity of maintaining balance among the MOSFETs. There are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the integration of the push-pull stage into the overall analysis.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and professionals interested in analog circuit design, particularly those working with differential amplifiers and transconductance circuits.

arhzz
Messages
284
Reaction score
58
Homework Statement
Find the differential gain
Relevant Equations
-
Hello; (this is going to be lengthy post)

So im trying to find the small signal differential gain of this circuit

punjabi.webp


The input is at the 2 NMOS's above the degeneration resistor and the output is where the capacitors are hanging (excuse that I didnt label them, the program where I drew the circuit doesnt have that option).
My approach was divide and conquer; I first wanted to look only at the "core" part of the circuit (excluding the Push-pull stage) and find the diff. gain of that part and than combine it all together;

This is the core part of the circuit
hehexd.webp


You notice that this has external biasing for the bottom two transistors that create a current mirror. This is not included in the original circuit since I wanted to preserve readibilty; but basically im biasing with an ideal current source with a diode connected NMOS. An equivalent, but simpler circuit is this
1750549275038.webp


The bottom two NMOS transistors are as ideal current sources. The reason I prefer the core circuit to look like this is since something rather similar can be found in the book of Razhavi (design of analog CMOS circuits) and I have been able to understand how he tackles problems similar to this.
My simulation of the circuit has shown that I have perfecty symmetry so I opted to use the half circuit technique described in the Razhavi book. I just look at one side of the circuit and calculate the gain; the total gain is just that times 2.

So thats what I did; The top diode connected PMOS active load will act as an resistor with an value 1/gm (we neglect gds since it is significantly smaller) the current source will go to a virtual ground (explained in Razhavi) and the degeneration resistor will be "split" to Rs/2 on both sides.

Than we do the small signal analysis (if needed I can post the circuit diagramm) and I get the following result;

$$ \frac{Vout}{Vin} = \frac{-gm_N}{gm_P(1+\frac{gm_NRS}{2})} $$

where ## gm_N ## is the gm of the NMOS in the middle and ## gm_P ## the transcondutance of the diode connected PMOS

Now this is where I get stuck; I cannot incorporate the push-pullstage. I am not sure if I should draw the push pull stage seperatly and simplify as much as possible and add to my existing core circuit or do I have to do it in one swoop so to say?

Any insights?

Also what do you think of my plan to do the small signal analysis? And how is this looking so far.

Excuse the lengthy post and thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
arhzz said:
Now this is where I get stuck; I cannot incorporate the push-pullstage.
The use of an output capacitor suggests you are building a low-pass filter or an integrator. Why does the value of C not show up in the transfer function?
arhzz said:
Any insights?
In an earlier thread, we discussed why the currents in each output stage exactly cancelled, appearing to be only nanoamps in an output load resistor.

By crossing over the mirror circuits above the input resistor, the circuit came to life and produced the expected output current and voltage. That cross-over is not implemented in the circuit you post here, so there will be no differential output current to integrate into the load capacitor.

I believe the book you are using is: "Design Of Analog CMOS Integrated Circuits". Behzad Razavi. McGraw Hill. 2003.

arhzz said:
Also what do you think of my plan to do the small signal analysis?
That is a sensible approach, however the cross-connection necessary between the sides will require a negative sign be introduced into part of the one-sided analysis.
 
Baluncore said:
The use of an output capacitor suggests you are building a low-pass filter or an integrator. Why does the value of C not show up in the transfer function?

In an earlier thread, we discussed why the currents in each output stage exactly cancelled, appearing to be only nanoamps in an output load resistor.

By crossing over the mirror circuits above the input resistor, the circuit came to life and produced the expected output current and voltage. That cross-over is not implemented in the circuit you post here, so there will be no differential output current to integrate into the load capacitor.

I believe the book you are using is: "Design Of Analog CMOS Integrated Circuits". Behzad Razavi. McGraw Hill. 2003.


That is a sensible approach, however the cross-connection necessary between the sides will require a negative sign be introduced into part of the one-sided analysis.
For the C; I first tried finding the transfer function without the push pull stage and since the caps are "hanging" at the output of the push pull stage I neglected them.

Now for the circuit itself; (I find it cool you remember my earlier post). I actually never crossed the mirror currents, the solution was adjusting the W/L ratio of the mirror currents in the push pull stage and implementing a degeneration resistor for the DC simulation.

In fact I have simulated the result I am looking for (the differential pair with push-pull stage and caps)
1750590780465.webp

Here it is for a certain value of C and Ibias.

So the circuit I posted (now with NMOS at the bottom instead of PMOS) is the one I am looking for.
 
arhzz said:
So im trying to find the small signal differential gain of this circuit

punjabi.webp
Circuits are designed to be balanced, so parameters that cannot be controlled, such as thermal effects, will largely cancel. Your circuit appears to amplify the uncontrolled parameters by unbalancing the channel parameters of the MOSFETs you use.

Where have you ever seen a circuit like the one you present, being analysed or operated ?
 
Baluncore said:
Circuits are designed to be balanced, so parameters that cannot be controlled, such as thermal effects, will largely cancel. Your circuit appears to amplify the uncontrolled parameters by unbalancing the channel parameters of the MOSFETs you use.

Where have you ever seen a circuit like the one you present, being analysed or operated ?
To be honest nowhere, this is a task I was given for my bachelor thesis.
 
The output of a transconductance amplifier will be the difference of two almost identical currents in the circuit output.

There will be an amplifier bias current, Iabc . The differential input voltage will cause a current, i = Vin / Rin , to flow through the input resistor.
The differential input stage will then offset Iabc by +i and -i, giving,
Iabc+i on one side, and Iabc-i on the other.

There are two ways to perform the subtraction that makes the output independent of Iabc.

1. Subtraction from Iabc; by using a wide, multiple output Iabc mirror.
giving outputs of;
Iabc - Iabc+i = -i .
Iabc - Iabc-i = +i .
See No-Cross circuit below.

2. Subtraction of the opposite side of the input, by using a crossover,
giving outputs of;
Iabc+i - Iabc-i = +2i ;
Iabc-i - Iabc+i = -2i ;
See Cross-Over circuit below.

By making the MOSFETs asymmetrical, you thought you had fixed the problem. But you are now taking Iabc+i,
then multiplying it by a MOSFET mirror asymmetry, A ;
before subtracting the original.
Iout = A*(Iabc+i) - (Iabc+i) = (A-1)*Iabc + (A-1)*i .
That has NOT eliminated Iabc from the outputs.
That is the problem with your crooked circuit at the moment.

If all the MOSFETs were identical, then A = 1, and Iout = 0.
That was your original thread's problem, perfect cancellation = 0.

1. No-Cross.
No-Cross.webp


2. Cross-Over.
Cross-over.webp
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Okay I will look into it, thanks!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
11K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K