Op-Amp convex optimization question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding equation (9) from a document on convex optimization of OP-AMPs, specifically why it focuses solely on transistor channel widths (W) and lengths (L). The importance of matching geometries for transistors on the same die is emphasized to achieve good performance. Additionally, a user seeks clarification on their MATLAB cvx program, which is returning a "Failed" status, suspecting that the issue may relate to the ratio of drain current equations for NMOS in saturation. The conversation highlights the need for accurate constraints and optimization parameters in the code. Overall, the thread aims to clarify both theoretical and practical aspects of optimizing OP-AMP designs.
perplexabot
Gold Member
Messages
328
Reaction score
5
Hey all. I have a question regarding an equation in a document I am reading about convex optimization of OP-AMPs. The document is attached, the equation is of section 3.4 and the equation number is (9). Can you please explain how it came to be? I understand that i3 = i4 = i5/2 but I don't understand why W's and L's are the only thing in this equation and why this equality holds.

An explanation for equation (10) would also be nice, but (9) is more important for me!

Thank you for your time.
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
The transistor channel width & length are the main defining properties of the transistors in that circuit, since they are all on the same die. To get good matching, you need the geometries to be the same. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question?
 
  • Like
Likes perplexabot
berkeman said:
The transistor channel width & length are the main defining properties of the transistors in that circuit, since they are all on the same die. To get good matching, you need the geometries to be the same. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question?
Thanks, I was wondering if that fraction was originally the ratio of two Id (drain current) equations for NMOS in saturation with everything cancelling out except for the widths and lengths?

Also, if I may, I would like to know why my cvx Matlab program is ending with "Failed" status : (
Here is my code:
Code:
% Device sizing
clear; clc;
% given variables
mun = 600*(10^-2)^2;
mup = 200*(10^-2)^2;
Vtn = 0.7;
Vtp = -0.9;
lamn = 1/0.03;
lamp = 1/0.06;
Cox = 346*10^-6;
Vomin = 0.1*5;
Vomax = 0.9*5;
Vcmmin = 2.5 - 0.25;
Vcmmax = 2.5 + 0.25;
Vdd = 5;
Vss = 0;
%cvx optimization
cvx_begin gp
    variables L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 Ib I5 I7 I1 I2
    minimize (5*(Ib+I5+I7));
    subject to
        %symmetry and matching
        W1/W2 == 1;
        L1/L2 == 1;
        W3/W4 == 1;
        L3/L4 == 1;
        L5/L7 == 1;
        L5/L6 == 1;
        %physical size limits
        L1 >= 0.8*10^-6;
        L2 >= 0.8*10^-6;
        L3 >= 0.8*10^-6;
        L4 >= 0.8*10^-6;
        L5 >= 0.8*10^-6;
        L6 >= 0.8*10^-6;
        L7 >= 0.8*10^-6;
        L8 >= 0.8*10^-6;
        W1 >= 2*10^-6;
        W2 >= 2*10^-6;
        W3 >= 2*10^-6;
        W4 >= 2*10^-6;
        W5 >= 2*10^-6;
        W6 >= 2*10^-6;
        W7 >= 2*10^-6;
        W8 >= 2*10^-6;
        %area limits
        L1*W1 + L2*W2 + L3*W3 + L4*W4+ L5*W5 + L6*W6 + L7*W7 <= 10000*(10^-6)^2;
        %input offset requirements
        (W3/L3)/(W6/L6)== (1/2)*((W5/L5)/(W7/L7));
        (W4/L4)/(W6/L6)== (1/2)*((W5/L5)/(W7/L7));
        %bias conditions
        I5 == (W5*L8*Ib)/(L5*W8);
        I7 == (W7*L8*Ib)/(L7*W8);
        I1 == I5/2;
        %more bias conditions : p
        sqrt((I1*L3)/((mun*Cox)/(2*W3))) <= Vcmmin - Vss - Vtp - Vtn;
        sqrt((I2*L3)/((mun*Cox)/(2*W3))) <= Vcmmin - Vss - Vtp - Vtn;
        sqrt((I1*L1)/((mup*Cox)/(2*W1))) + sqrt((I5*L5)/((mup*Cox)/(2*W5))) <= Vdd-Vcmmax + Vtp;
        sqrt((I7*L6)/((mun*Cox)/(2*W6))) <= Vomin - Vss;
        sqrt((I7*L7)/((mup*Cox)/(2*W7))) <= Vdd - Vomax;
        %small sig tf constraints
        Av = (2*Cox)/((lamn+lamp)^2)*sqrt(mun*mup*((W2*W6)/(L2*L6*I1*I7)));
cvx_end

All these constraints are from the document in my OP. Also the code is based on example 7.2 (page 24 of the document).
 
Last edited:
BUMP.

Anyone have a clue what I am doing wrong here? I feel like I am missing something big. I will dedicate some more time to it today. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
 
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Hello dear reader, a brief introduction: Some 4 years ago someone started developing health related issues, apparently due to exposure to RF & ELF related frequencies and/or fields (Magnetic). This is currently becoming known as EHS. (Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which adverse symptoms are attributed.) She experiences a deep burning sensation throughout her entire body, leaving her in pain and exhausted after a pulse has occurred...
Back
Top