The Designer's Guide Community
Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register. Please follow the Forum guidelines.
Jul 22nd, 2024, 3:25am
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Monte carlo miamatch calculation (Read 3795 times)
robotist
New Member
*
Offline



Posts: 8

Monte carlo miamatch calculation
Dec 17th, 2015, 4:37pm
 
Hi my name is kim.
I have a question about mismatch simulation.
I just want to set resistor size by calculating standard deviation.

The attatched file describes my question and hand calculation
I use propagation error formular with assumption that there is no correlation.

Surely, there are no parameter related correlation in model file.

The result in simulation is quiet different with my hand calculation.
Maybe I missed something.

With same sheet resistor, how can I calculate resistor divider mismatch correctly?

Thank you for reading.

Back to top
 

20151203_160138-1.jpg
View Profile   IP Logged
ULPAnalog
Community Member
***
Offline



Posts: 97

Re: Monte carlo miamatch calculation
Reply #1 - Dec 17th, 2015, 7:01pm
 
Did you check your PDK documentation for what the Pelgrom coefficient (AR) is?
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
robotist
New Member
*
Offline



Posts: 8

Re: Monte carlo miamatch calculation
Reply #2 - Dec 17th, 2015, 8:13pm
 
R0 and R0+R0 are simulation results.(Monte carlo simulation)
So, R0 and R0+R0 are determined by Ar, W and L.
What I want to know is R0/(R0+R0) standard deviation.
Thanks for reply.
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
raja.cedt
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1516
Germany
Re: Monte carlo miamatch calculation
Reply #3 - Dec 18th, 2015, 2:55am
 
Problem with your hand-calculation.
1. How do you know Sigma of Ro from PDK or a simple resister calculation? 2. assume R1 and r2 in the potential divide and differentiate individually and finally substitute same value in the place of R1&R2.

Best Regards,
Raj.
Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW raja.sekhar86   IP Logged
ULPAnalog
Community Member
***
Offline



Posts: 97

Re: Monte carlo miamatch calculation
Reply #4 - Dec 18th, 2015, 1:31pm
 
I overlooked that aspect in your hand calculation (One pointed out by Raja). You should have used 2*(20)2 instead of 28 in your calculation, but it does not change the outcome significantly as the variance is dominated by the other term (The term that is erroneous is one half of the other).
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
robotist
New Member
*
Offline



Posts: 8

Re: Monte carlo miamatch calculation
Reply #5 - Dec 18th, 2015, 5:17pm
 
Thank you for reply.
To raja
1. Sigma of R0 is monte carlo simulation result. Surely, it does not make sense that R0 has mismatch itself. But the sheet resistance of R0 varies with gaussian in simulation.
2. I am sorry but I can not understand your comment.

To Analog
Would you explain why I have to use 2×(20)2 in detail?

Thank you again.
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
ULPAnalog
Community Member
***
Offline



Posts: 97

Re: Monte carlo miamatch calculation
Reply #6 - Dec 18th, 2015, 6:16pm
 
Hello

Attached is the response to your query. It is exactly same as what Raja commented. Two resistors of equal value have variations which are iid and should be treated as such. That iss where the stddev of the resistor with twice the value, you expressed in your original post becomes irrelevant.
Back to top
 

WP_20151218_17_45_02_Pro.jpg
View Profile   IP Logged
robotist
New Member
*
Offline



Posts: 8

Re: Monte carlo miamatch calculation
Reply #7 - Dec 21st, 2015, 6:43am
 
Thank you very much ULPAnalog.

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.