Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

[SOLVED] deep triode region definition according to Razavi

Status
Not open for further replies.

BartlebyScrivener

Member level 5
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Messages
90
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1,286
Activity points
2,081
I am working through Design of Analog CMOS integrated circuits by B, Razavi.

It derives the drain current of an NMOS to be

Id = u*Cox*(W/L)*[(Vgs - Vth)Vds - 1/2Vds^2]

Which I am happy with, and that it gives a parabolic shape with the max value at Vgs-Vth

It then goes on to claim if in the above equation, Vds << 2(Vgs - Vth), we have

Id approx = u*Cox*(W/L)*(Vgs-Vth)Vds

and that the drain current is a linear function of Vds. I sort of understand this as due to the Vds^2 term becomes incredibly small compared to the overdrive term and thus can be ignored but ...

I cannot understand the relevance of Vds << 2(Vgs - Vth) why not simply (Vgs - Vth) or surely from looking at the curve, even smaller than that? I have had a look around and can't seem to find a definitive answer.

Thanks.
 

If you put out the factor (1/2)*Vds from the expression in the square bracket in equ. (2.8), you stay with Id = u*Cox*(W/L)*(1/2)*Vds*[2(Vgs - Vth) - Vds]. If you now want to disappear the summand Vds in the square brackets by claiming Vds << 2(Vgs - Vth) , you arrive seamlessly at Razavi's equ. (2.10). So mathematically it's quite ok, I think.

Practically, the factor 2 doesn't mean a lot compared to the meaning of "<<", IMHO. Perhaps it looks better if you write it (1/2)*Vds << (Vgs - Vth) ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top