The Designer's Guide Community
Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register. Please follow the Forum guidelines.
Mar 29th, 2024, 3:55am
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ? (Read 13110 times)
pancho_hideboo
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1424
Real Homeless
BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Apr 6th, 2008, 2:27am
 
Hi.

I've heard that most standard Spice MOS models such as Level 1, 2, 3, BSIM1, BSIM2, BSIM3, BSIM4, MOS9, or EKV 2.63 will not give correct results for IM3 simulation(Inter Modulation of Third Order).  

I've also heard that the only MOS models that give correct IM3 results are the PSP model from Philips/Penn State University, the MOS11 model from Philips, and the HiSIM model from Japan.  Coincidentally, all three of these models are surface potential based models.

IM3 given by standard Spice MOS models such as BSIM3 is very incorrect so that it can't be useful in actual circuit design ?
More modern surface potential-based models like PSP, MOS11, and HiSIM will be absolutely needed ?

I expect that standard Spice MOS models is still practical level regarding IM3.
Back to top
 
« Last Edit: Apr 06th, 2008, 11:35pm by pancho_hideboo »  
View Profile WWW Top+Secret Top+Secret   IP Logged
didac
Senior Member
****
Offline

There's a million
ways to see the
things in life

Posts: 247
manresa,spain
Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #1 - Apr 6th, 2008, 7:14am
 
Hi,
I've heard that this issue is caused by non-symmetry of the BSIM model, something related with non-zero second derivative of the current at vds=0. I just can only tell that the last time I made measurements on IM3 with circuits designed with BSIM3v3 the maximum error found between sims and measurement was around +/-0.5dB, so I don't really know were this issue comes as big player in design.

Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
Geoffrey_Coram
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1998
Massachusetts, USA
Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #2 - Apr 7th, 2008, 5:07am
 
Try plotting Cgd and Cgs as you sweep vds across zero.  The values aren't equal at vds=0, so there's a jump as they swap places.

A nice reference is "Validation of MOSFET model Source-Drain Symmetry" by McAndrew, IEEE Trans ED Sept 2006.

The Compact Model Council had some nice plots showing IM3 plots from BSIM3/4 with the wrong slope (wasn't 3:1 output to input power), but I can't find it right now.
Back to top
 
 

If at first you do succeed, STOP, raise your standards, and stop wasting your time.
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
pancho_hideboo
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1424
Real Homeless
Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #3 - Apr 7th, 2008, 5:23am
 
Hi.

I found some informations about this issue in pp.24-29 of the following.

http://www.mos-ak.org/munich/papers/03_MOS-AK_Mattausch.pdf
Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW Top+Secret Top+Secret   IP Logged
didac
Senior Member
****
Offline

There's a million
ways to see the
things in life

Posts: 247
manresa,spain
Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #4 - Apr 7th, 2008, 11:59am
 
Hi,
Looking at the CMC and around the net(and replicating the gummel test and the modified gummel test proposed in the reference provided by Geoffrey) I think that this issue becomes a player in design basically in passive mixers,switching circuits, but I'm not sure about standard Gilbert cell if the intermodulation is dominated by the transconductor. Can anybody confirm this?
PS:another reference for the cause http://www.jazzsemi.com/docs/RFIC-Workshop.pdf
Back to top
 
« Last Edit: Apr 8th, 2008, 7:23am by didac »  
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
pancho_hideboo
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1424
Real Homeless
Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #5 - Apr 7th, 2008, 9:35pm
 
didac wrote on Apr 7th, 2008, 11:59am:
Hi,
Looking at the CMC and around the net(and replicating the gummel test and the modified gummel test proposed in the reference provided by Geoffrey) I think that this issue becomes a player in design basically in passive mixers,switching circuits,

Passive mixer and Sampling mixer are very important building block.
So I'm very anxious about validity of IM3 for passive mixer and sampling mixer.

Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW Top+Secret Top+Secret   IP Logged
Geoffrey_Coram
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1998
Massachusetts, USA
Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #6 - Apr 8th, 2008, 4:38am
 
didac wrote on Apr 7th, 2008, 11:59am:
Hi,
Looking at the CMC and around the net(and replicating the gummel test and the modified gummel test proposed in the reference provided by Geoffrey) I think that this issue becomes a player in design basically in passive mixers,switching circuits, but I'm not sure about standard Gilbert cell if the intermodulation is dominated by the transconductor. Can anybody confirm this?
PS:another reference for the causehttp://www.jazzsemi.com/docs/RFIC-Workshop.pdf


If you're not swinging across VDS=0, then it's not an issue.  (There could be other issues; I've heard BSIM3 has a mathematical smoothing between strong and weak inversion, whereas the surface potential formulations have a physical description.  So, you have to worry about how well the BSIM math fits the actual measurement.)
Back to top
 
 

If at first you do succeed, STOP, raise your standards, and stop wasting your time.
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
didac
Senior Member
****
Offline

There's a million
ways to see the
things in life

Posts: 247
manresa,spain
Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #7 - Apr 8th, 2008, 4:43am
 
Hi,
Thanks for the tips, I'm playing with a passive mixer right now and with two types of transistors and I'm wondering if the finite on resistance would partially circunvent this issue(i.e. don't make a very good switch to avoid the singularity...), at the moment I'm seeing slopes of 2.5 sometimes 3 other times...
Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
didac
Senior Member
****
Offline

There's a million
ways to see the
things in life

Posts: 247
manresa,spain
Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #8 - Apr 8th, 2008, 7:16am
 
Geoffrey_Coram wrote on Apr 8th, 2008, 4:38am:
I've heard BSIM3 has a mathematical smoothing between strong and weak inversion, whereas the surface potential formulations have a physical description.  So, you have to worry about how well the BSIM math fits the actual measurement.)

In the reference that I found from jazz semiconductor it tells something about this region , which makes me wonder which model used in the papers that I read about "sweet spot" bias point(switch from moderate to strong inversion)-not taking into account the side effects associated with this biasing point and issues like feedback of the second harmonic in source degenerated devices-.
Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
didac
Senior Member
****
Offline

There's a million
ways to see the
things in life

Posts: 247
manresa,spain
Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #9 - May 4th, 2008, 2:34am
 
Hi,
If somebody is still interested in this issue I found yesterday a LNA with an IIP3 with a slope of 2 instead of 3... without entering in details about the topology I track down the problem to a switch in the signal path(I verified removing the switch and the slope it's 3-without changing nothing in the simulation configuration-), so I think that this issue extends to "any circuit with a switch in the signal path".
Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
loose-electron
Senior Fellow
******
Offline

Best Design Tool =
Capable Designers

Posts: 1638
San Diego California
Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #10 - May 15th, 2008, 11:50am
 
This is one of those things where you need to draw the difference between the limitations of the model, and the accuracy of the paremeters entered into the model. Looking at the device physics, we all know that they have to be equal for symmetric MOS devices. However, often models are an exercise in blind curve fitting, and checking if ring oscillators simulate and run at the same frequency. Also, 99% of model use is not for analog design, and the poor quality goes unchecked. -- Jerry

Geoffrey_Coram wrote on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:07am:
Try plotting Cgd and Cgs as you sweep vds across zero.  The values aren't equal at vds=0, so there's a jump as they swap places.

A nice reference is "Validation of MOSFET model Source-Drain Symmetry" by McAndrew, IEEE Trans ED Sept 2006.

The Compact Model Council had some nice plots showing IM3 plots from BSIM3/4 with the wrong slope (wasn't 3:1 output to input power), but I can't find it right now.

Back to top
 
 

Jerry Twomey
www.effectiveelectrons.com
Read My Electronic Design Column Here
Contract IC-PCB-System Design - Analog, Mixed Signal, RF & Medical
View Profile WWW   IP Logged
weber8722
Community Member
***
Offline



Posts: 95

Re: BSIM3 can give correct IM3 ?
Reply #11 - Feb 19th, 2013, 7:34am
 
didac wrote on Apr 7th, 2008, 11:59am:
Hi,
Looking at the CMC and around the net(and replicating the gummel test and the modified gummel test proposed in the reference provided by Geoffrey) I think that this issue becomes a player in design basically in passive mixers,switching circuits, but I'm not sure about standard Gilbert cell if the intermodulation is dominated by the transconductor. Can anybody confirm this?
PS:another reference for the cause http://www.jazzsemi.com/docs/RFIC-Workshop.pdf


I made some experiments on my own with bsim3 models: A normal LNA and Gilbert mixer has not the big bad-IM-slope problem, only passive mixers have that problem in simulation.

Bye Stephan
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   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.