2
\$\begingroup\$

A relevant figure of merit for a CMOS inverter is the so-called input threshold voltage (no relationship to the threshold voltage of a given MOSFET) \$V_{inv}\$, defined as the voltage \$V_{in}\$ at which \$V_{in}=V_{out}\$.

Separately, for analytical MOSFET models which neglect channel length modulation (CLM) (i.e. which neglect the effect of \$V_{ds}\$ on drain current in saturation or, equivalently, which model the MOSFET as a perfect controlled current source in saturation), it follows that there is a unique input voltage (and thus unique output voltage, since an input voltage (I think) determines a unique output voltage) at which both are in saturation.

I have three questions:

(1) Is my claim in the second paragraph above true? If so, why? I can easily prove it for specific analytical models (e.g. the standard square-law model), but I think in the end the relevant consideration is the perfect current source nature of saturation so I'm hoping for a general argument.

(2) From the derivations of \$V_{inv}\$ which I have seen, it seems always assumed that \$V_{inv}\$ occurs when both transistors are in saturation. One then equates the drain currents of both transistors in saturation and solves for the relevant \$V_{in}\$, which we then take as \$V_{inv}\$. It follows from that assumption (and an affirmative answer to (1), above) that \$V_{inv}\$ is that unique voltage at which both transistors are in saturation. Given the definitions above, this is not an a priori equality. Thus, my question is why this is it the case that \$V_{inv}\$ occurs when both transistors are in saturation?

(3) If (2) is true in the case of no CLM, is it also true in the case of CLM? Presumably the DC characteristic of the inverter broadens so that there is a region (nonunique \$V_{in}\$ now) over which both transistors are in saturation. Does \$V_{inv}\$ still happen to be one of those input voltages in which both transistors are in saturation?

\$\endgroup\$

3 Answers 3

2
+50
\$\begingroup\$

A simple argument can be constructed without knowing the output (drain) impedance at all, whether triode, saturation or channel-length-modulated:

Since the drain current of each N/P-MOS is a one-to-one function of VGS, and they are wired opposite and complementary, there exists an input voltage where ID(tot) = 0, i.e. the output is static.

This includes if we account for drain curves, which can be implemented as a nonlinear resistance loading the ideal-CCS output, which is itself also one-to-one. Note that, even if the triode regions overlap, or CLM is included, the two transistors' curves simply act in parallel, giving a single Thevenin equivalent output resistance, varying as a function of VO.

Regarding your questions:

  1. No, it is not strictly correct: the output voltage need not be unique; you asked whether both inclusive. If the current saturation* regions overlap, drain voltage is strictly undefined -- the incremental output resistance is infinite.

  2. Strictly speaking, no again; as (1) isn't strictly true. But I imagine you wanted an explanation...

    Consider the case when one transistor is much stronger (W1 > W2) than the other: it can still be in triode while the other is straining as hard as it can in linear mode. Whether either or both devices are in triode, depends on construction; usually triode extends up to VGS, very approximately, but we need exact figures to answer an exact question, so the only thing we can conclude is "sometimes yeah, sometimes nah".

  3. Strictly sp-- okay, nevermind.

    You may find it useful to think in terms of the pair as its own composite transistor, or, some manner of amplifier anyway. We can get these with CD4007UBE, CD4049UBE, 74HCU04, etc., or in cascades in buffered families (basically everything else). Or of course, trivially in simulation. This arrangement has a generally \$\tanh x\$ shaped transfer function, where voltage is limited as it (smoothly) approaches the supplies, with attendant reduction in gm, and with high but finite gain in the middle (up to infinite, in the double saturated no-CLM case).

    The input threshold voltage on which this curve is centered, varies from part to part, reflecting manufacturing differences in W, L, doping, etc., but there will be a unique stable point (for a given part) where Vin = Vout.

    The transfer curve may be lopsided (reflecting the different threshold voltage or triode region "size" of the two devices), in which case a polynomial correction to the \$\tanh\$ function might be used to better model it; or better curve fits or analytical models may apply.

*I would like to disabuse the historical use of "saturation" in FETs, which has proven no shortage of confusion. I encourage using specific language: notice I specified "current saturation" here, as opposed to [implied: voltage] saturation in BJTs, or other general applications where we generally mean saturation with respect to change in voltage. I would suggest calling the constant-current region "linear" or "active", consistent with BJTs. (Which is further unfortunate as the triode region is sometimes called "linear" too. See how much of a mess they made?!)

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Thank you so much for your answer. Just to be sure I follow: For 1), my claim was true I guess that there is a unique input voltage at which both are in saturation, but adding on output too was wrong? \$\endgroup\$
    – EE18
    Commented Sep 2 at 2:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ That is correct. \$\endgroup\$
    – jp314
    Commented Sep 2 at 19:58
3
\$\begingroup\$

MOSFET drain current is:

$$ I_D = k(V_{GS} - V_{TH})^2 (1+\lambda V_{DS}) $$

for \$V_{GS} > V_{TH}\$, where \$\lambda\$ is the fractional change in current due to channel length modulation, and:

$$ k = \frac{1}{2}\mu C_{ox}\frac{W}{L} $$

For a CMOS inverter, the condition \$V_{OUT} = V_{IN}\$ can be produced by manually adjusting gate potential, or by simply joining OUT to IN. Both will produce the same conditions:

schematic

simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab

In both cases and for both transistors, \$V_{DS} = V_{GS}\$, and the expression for \$I_D\$ becomes:

$$ I_D = k(V_{DS} - V_{TH})^2 (1+\lambda V_{DS}) $$

Each transistor has its own distinct properties \$k\$, \$\lambda\$ and \$V_{TH}\$, and its own \$V_{DS}\$. For the N-channel one I'll give those names a "1" suffix, referring to M1:

$$ I_{D1} = k_1(V_{DS1} - V_{TH1})^2 (1+\lambda_1 V_{DS1}) $$

For the upper P-channel MOSFET the variable suffix will be "2":

$$ I_{D2} = k_2(V_{DS2} - V_{TH2})^2 (1+\lambda_2 V_{DS2}) $$

Note: for the P-channel transistor, technically \$I_D\$, \$V_{TH2}\$ and \$V_{DS2}\$ should be negative, but I can't be bothered to be technically correct. You should still check that the application of KCL and KVL is correct, though.

KCL is easy:

$$ \begin{aligned} I_{D1} &= I_{D2} \\ \\ k_1(V_{DS1} - V_{TH1})^2 (1+\lambda_1 V_{DS1}) &= k_2(V_{DS2} - V_{TH2})^2 (1+\lambda_2 V_{DS2}) \\ \\ \end{aligned} $$

A second constraint is set by KVL, for which the two transistors' \$V_{DS}\$ should add up to equal the supply voltage \$V_P\$:

$$ \begin{aligned} V_{DS1} + V_{DS2} &= V_P \\ \\ V_{DS2} &= V_P - V_{DS1} \\ \\ \end{aligned} $$

Substituting that expression for \$V_{DS2}\$ into the KCL equation yields an equation in terms of only one unknown, \$V_{DS1}\$, and a few known constants:

$$ \begin{aligned} k_1(V_{DS1} - V_{TH1})^2 (1+\lambda_1 V_{DS1}) &= k_2((V_P - V_{DS1}) - V_{TH2})^2 (1+\lambda_2 (V_P - V_{DS1})) \\ \\ \end{aligned} $$

While I won't do it here, I think that you can demonstrate that \$V_{DS1}\$ has a single real solution lying between 0V and \$V_P\$.

As for the question of saturation, the criteria that both transistors must meet (to be saturated) are:

$$ \begin{aligned} V_{GS} &> V_{TH} \\ \\ V_{DS} &> V_{GS} - V_{TH} \end{aligned} $$

Take another look at the self-biased push-pull pair, with some annotations to visualise what's coming:

schematic

simulate this circuit

Given that for both transistors \$V_{DS} = V_{GS}\$ (because \$V_{OUT}=V_{IN}\$), then if the first criterion is met, then the second is too. We need only focus on the first, that \$V_{GS}\$ exceeds threshold \$V_{TH}\$:

$$ \begin{aligned} V_{GS1} &> V_{TH1} \\ \\ V_{GS2} &> V_{TH2} \\ \\ \end{aligned} $$

That's only possible if supply \$V_P\$ is large enough to permit it:

$$ V_P > V_{TH1} + V_{TH2} $$

One things is certain, if that condition is not met, then at least one of the transistors will not be saturated.

Even if this condition for \$V_P\$ is met, at first glance that may not be a guarantee that both transistors will always be saturated. My first intuition is that it might be possible for one to be saturated while the other isn't, and I would imagine it depends on how similar the two MOSFETs are in terms of their characteristic parameters. If they are similar, then we would find \$V_{GS1} \approx V_{GS2}\$, with \$V_{IN} = V_{OUT} \approx \frac{V_P}{2}\$. Then, if \$V_P\$ is large enough, both conditions \$V_{GS1} > V_{TH1}\$ and \$V_{GS2} > V_{TH2}\$ will be true.

In general though, for the case where \$V_P > V_{TH1} + V_{TH2}\$, permitting the situation where both transistors saturate, and \$V_{OUT}=V_{IN}\$, the question remains is this a guarantee of saturation of both devices?

Saturation of both requires that \$V_{GS1}\$ and \$V_{GS2}\$ must exceed their corresponding thresholds \$V_{TH}\$, but since we know their sum \$V_{GS1} + V_{GS2} = V_P\$, we can write a general constraint in terms of \$V_{GS1}\$ alone:

$$ V_{TH1} < V_{GS1} < (V_P - V_{TH2}) $$

Since \$V_{DS1} = V_{GS1}\$ this is also the bounds for \$V_{DS1}\$:

$$ V_{TH1} < V_{DS1} < (V_P - V_{TH2}) $$

To determine if a given pair of MOSFETs with different characteristics will settle at \$V_{OUT}=V_{IN}\$ with both saturated, it will be necessary to combine these conditions with the long expression for \$V_{DS1}\$ from before:

$$ \begin{aligned} k_1(V_{DS1} - V_{TH1})^2 (1+\lambda_1 V_{DS1}) &= k_2((V_P - V_{DS1}) - V_{TH2})^2 (1+\lambda_2 (V_P - V_{DS1})) \\ \\ V_{DS1} &> V_{TH1} \\ \\ V_{DS1} &< (V_P - V_{TH2}) \\ \\ \end{aligned} $$

If you can show that there's a (unique) solution for \$V_{DS1}\$, and that it always falls in the interval \$(V_{TH1}, V_P - V_{TH2})\$, then you've proved that the two transistors will always be saturated when \$V_{OUT}=V_{IN}\$.

In the meantime, though, it's safe to assume that if

  1. The MOSFETs are sufficiently close complements of each other, with very similar characteristics and behaviour

  2. \$V_P > V_{TH1} + V_{TH2}\$

then both will saturate, and \$V_{OUT}=V_{IN}=\frac{V_P}{2}\$

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

In your idealized model, there is not a unique output voltage.

At the point where both (NMOS and PMOS) are in saturation (i.e. conducting the same current); as in your (idealized) assumptions, the drain voltage does not affect the current (as long as the FETs are in saturation).

For a CMOS inverter with VDD > sum of VTH's, the range of valid output voltages where both devices are in saturation is from (VIN-VTH_nmos) to (VDD-VIN-|VTH_pmos|). In that condition, VDS of each device is more than the excess voltage (i.e. more than VGS-VTH).

Thus any output voltage within this range can occur with this specific VIN. This is another way of saying the inverter has infinite gain, as a small perturbation of VIN from this value will drive VOUT to either the NMOS or the PMOS excess voltage away from the supply.

In the end, therefore it is convenient to define the inverter's threshold as the point where VIN==VOUT. This will occur as long as VDD > sum_of_thresholds.

So, 1) the claim in your 2nd para is not correct. 2) Both transistors can be in saturation only if VDD exceeds the sum of the VTH's (and ignoring other non-idealities) 3) With CLM, the gain is not infinite, and VOUT will vary slightly (gm*ROUT related) with VIN. However gain is still quite high (typically >> 10), so the change in VIN for minor changes is quite small, and VIN==VOUT is still convenient (and ideal for a chain of inverters where the subsequent one is driven from VOUT of a preceding inverter).

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.