The Designer's Guide Community
Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register. Please follow the Forum guidelines.
May 4th, 2024, 6:36am
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
CMFB stability simulation? (Read 6554 times)
ericjohnson
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 24

CMFB stability simulation?
Jun 21st, 2005, 2:09pm
 
Could anyone provide some insignts on CMFB block stability simulation? Should the GBW of CMFB be smaller than that of the main amplifier? Thank you!

Best regards,

Eric
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
sheldon
Community Fellow
*****
Offline



Posts: 751

Re: CMFB stability simulation?
Reply #1 - Jun 21st, 2005, 9:01pm
 
Eric,

   Probably not, the purpose of the CMFB is to maintain the common
mode level of the output signals. So it should probably have more
bandwidth and more slew rate the differential signal path. If the CMFB
is not faster, then common mode level is not maintained. Potentially,
there will be common mode rejection issue is subsequent stages and
worst case common mode range issues.

                                                               Sheldon
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
ericjohnson
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 24

Re: CMFB stability simulation?
Reply #2 - Jun 21st, 2005, 9:53pm
 
Thank you, Sheldon. That's also what I thought. But I remembered I saw an IEEE journal paper a while back that the authors claimed "...it's well known that CMFB should (?) have smaller bandwidth than the main amplifier...". That's where my confusing comes from.

My another guess is that CMFB may have poles closer to each other so it may be difficult to design it with wider bandwidth than the main amplifier?

Eric
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
sheldon
Community Fellow
*****
Offline



Posts: 751

Re: CMFB stability simulation?
Reply #3 - Jun 21st, 2005, 10:30pm
 
Eric,

  Took a quick look at Gray & Meyer, rev. 4, and it seems like there
is no perfect answer:
1) CMFB loops usually have more poles, so they need more compensation
   and therefore have less bandwidth.
2) CMFB don't supress common-mode noise unless they have gain at
    the frequency of the noise.

So the issue is that CMFB bandwidth is maybe good but difficult to
achieve in practice, that is, it adds power/area/...

                                                                  Sheldon
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
blam
New Member
*
Offline



Posts: 5
CA
Re: CMFB stability simulation?
Reply #4 - Jun 22nd, 2005, 11:54am
 
Here is another argument why CMFB loop doesn't need high bandwidth.

The main amplifier needs high bandwidht beecuase it requires to settle to some accuracy, say 0.1% for a 10-bit ADC, within half a clock cycle.  The output of CMFB loop is used to bias the tail current of the main amplifier.  Within 2-5% of the desired value, this bias already makes the main amplier getting close to the desired common mode output voltage.  The bandwidth required to settle to 5% of accuracy is less than to 0.1%.

Of course, one can design CMFB loop with higher bandwidth.  But as pointed out, CMFB loop has more poles and the design of high bandwidth loop means high power.

-Bill
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
Paul
Community Fellow
*****
Offline



Posts: 351
Switzerland
Re: CMFB stability simulation?
Reply #5 - Jun 22nd, 2005, 1:24pm
 
Funny thing, I stumbled over this in Laker & Sansen a couple of days ago. They mention that (I guess in the general case) the CM GBW must be larger than the DM GBW. I am puzzled by the statement Eric mentions and I cannot understand why the CM GBW _should_ be lower, but I believe the statement from L&S on the other hand is too general in many cases.

In an IC, the DM BW of each amplifier is defined by design (unlike a general purpose OP-AMP you can buy from the shelf). In this case, I believe a less stringent constraint relating closed-loop DM BW and CM GBW could be found, but I cannot make a definitive statement on this as I didn't have time yet to investigate further. This should ultimately correspond to Bill's point of view that a very accurate settling is not needed in the CM path.

Of course I agree with everybody about the number of poles making the above mentioned conditions difficult to reach.

Paul
Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Copyright 2002-2024 Designer’s Guide Consulting, Inc. Designer’s Guide® is a registered trademark of Designer’s Guide Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Send comments or questions to editor@designers-guide.org. Consider submitting a paper or model.