Advertisement

Blog

Analog Design on 2 Different Planets

For the past couple of weeks, I have been participating in a LinkedIn discussion group topic regarding how one emulates a low temperature coefficient (TC) resistor on an IC when the IC process doesn't have a low TC resistor available. This discussion is a great example of the differences in how one designs an analog circuit on an IC versus on a PCB.

The discussion started with a detailed post by Jean-Francois Debroux. He showed how one could take two resistor types with large but opposite polarity TCs and combine them to produce a lower effective TC. The discussion split into two camps. On one side is the group that found the concept intriguing with promise. On another side are those who are skeptical regarding either the practicality or the necessity of such a solution.

While I sided with the later of those two groups on both points, the more important issue is why I took those positions.

When an IC is manufactured, there is very little that is tightly controlled with regards to absolute precision. Whereas the photolithographic processing can yield structures that match to better than 1 part in 1000, the addition of impurities into other impurities to build, for example, a resistor, is not well controlled. Absolute resistance control is limited to about 250 parts in 1000; a factor of two hundred fifty (250) times worse than relative control.

The short message here is to always design integrated circuits whose operation is based on relative principles, not absolute precision.

This fundamental design principle is taught early on to students learning how to design analog ICs. And it applies to virtually all integrated components on an IC, not just resistors.

But as Jean-Francois pointed out, in his experience, sometimes one has no choice. He cited for example the sense resistor inside of a current sensor. Another member of the group cited a case of building a precision low power oscillator. These examples lead me to the second point of disagreement: necessity.

Something I learned many years ago from several of the masters in analog IC design is that one should always work with the inherent weaknesses on an IC rather than fight them. A good example of this IC design principle is practiced regularly in the form of a bandgap voltage reference.

The principle behind a bandgap reference is that if two matched bipolar transistors are driven such that their collector currents are equal, their base-emitter voltage difference equals

Equation 1

Equation 1

where k=Boltzmann's constant, q= charge of an electron, T= absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin, and n is the ratio of emitter areas of the matched bipolar transistors.

This is a very powerful result. Equation 1 says effectively that every IC process on the planet that has bipolar transistors can produce exactly the same voltage if the layout of the matched transistors embodies an emitter area ratio of n. Typically, one finds n equal to 8 as a popular choice. This then results in ΔVbe = 53.4mV at 25°C.

Another important aspect of ΔVbe is that it is proportional to absolute temperature (PTAT) with a temperature coefficient of about +3300ppm. As it turns out, the aluminum metal interconnect used on an IC also universally has a TC of about +3200 ppm. So now one can build a current sense resistor out of aluminum interconnect and compare the current sensed voltage against the ΔVbe voltage with a near zero TC drift of an absolute over current detection threshold.

The current detector circuit description above is an example of using the fundamental aspects universally available on all IC processes to create valuable repeatable solutions without depending on absolute controls. While this is only one example, it has been my experience that if one looks hard enough or allows some freedom in how a solution is implemented, it shouldn't be necessary to design on an IC with absolute principles. Equivalent or better results are available with more reliable IC appropriate methods.

I have no doubt that from time to time, weird situations present themselves where engineers are pushed to do things that entail risks that they would otherwise prefer not to take. But from my perspective, the more important lesson here is that those who drive decisions regarding what is to be integrated need to also recognize that there are two completely different analog design methodologies at play.

To force one platform methodology onto an incompatible platform is opening up a Pandora's box of potential problems. Yes, you might succeed in forcing the issue, but you very likely will then also suffer a large consequence when product yields fall off one week, or you discover that the test program now has to be run at multiple temperatures to validate things not guaranteed by the factory.

Designing an IC using relative design principles is the universal unspoken agreement between those who design on an IC and those who control the manufacturing of the wafers.

Related posts:

10 comments on “Analog Design on 2 Different Planets

  1. Davidled
    July 3, 2013

    I am wondering if there is more article or journal paper by Jean-Francols Debroux.  I am not sure how it is practically, unless understanding all process. But in the future, it might impact IC designer. Manger and VP could be educated by a new information.

  2. eafpres
    July 3, 2013

    @Scott–“Another important aspect of ΔVbe  is that it is proportional to absolute temperature (PTAT) with a temperature coefficient of about +3300ppm. As it turns out, the aluminum metal interconnect used on an IC also universally has a TC of about +3200 ppm. So now one can build a current sense resistor out of aluminum interconnect and compare the current sensed voltage against the ΔVbe  voltage with a near zero TC drift of an absolute over current detection threshold.”

    I like your article becuase, although I'm not an IC designer (even remotely) the idea of working with and taking advantage of everything a process gives you seems inherently right to me.

    However, in your example, you use one resistor plus the other voltage sense to correct for temperature.  The author you cited was taking advantage of two resistors in the process space that would also result in low TC drift.  Is your main case here that his method requires adding an extra resistor?

    One concern is how stable are the two coefficients you cite across process runs?  There are lots of “off data sheet” applications at many levels in electronics, but they can come back to bite you if something changes the thing you are taking advantage of.  Again, I'm essentially a caveman vs. you on IC design, so this may be nonsense.  But is there a risk that process changes could fiddle with your version of temperature compensation?

  3. RedDerek
    July 3, 2013

    I think a blog on IC Design Rules and Tips would be helpful. I am aware of the bandgap understanding, but never really implemented into silicon myself. The other thing I see that is easily done is resistor ratios and capacitor ratios. Though the value may change slightly due to process and wafer locality, the ratio, unless damaged cells, is very accurate to generate. Thus if one knows what 2.5000 volts is based on the bandgap, a 1.2500 reference can be made by the resistor divider.

  4. Scott Elder
    July 3, 2013

    @RedDerek – Thanks for commenting!  Let me think about a good blog angle on design rules/tips.  It is always the unwritten things that get designers into trouble.  Just like the unwritten contract between designers and fabricators to use guaranteed wafer results rather than recognize some trick that could be played.  Tricks are great as long as they don't come at the expense of another party (i.e. the fab guys didn't know you depended upon TC tracking!)

  5. Scott Elder
    July 3, 2013

    @DaeJ — From time to time one sees proposals for clever tricks.  My concern is always that every one in the process of making the IC needs to agree with the tricks.  Otherwise, one day someone in the fab will change something to “make it better” and will completely KILL your trick.  Stick with guaranteed, universally accepted methods and one will avoid alot of headaches.

  6. goafrit2
    July 4, 2013

    >> But in the future, it might impact IC designer. Manger and VP could be educated by a new information.

    @Deaj, I do hope it is not the VP that drives your design strategy. They can setup the big picture but at circuit level, they must stay away. My VP thinks that all designs are the same – all you need is modify old circuits. Yet, every 2 years we have a new process and things just get harder.

  7. goafrit2
    July 4, 2013

    >>  Though the value may change slightly due to process and wafer locality, the ratio, unless damaged cells, is very accurate to generate.

    That is the holy grail of matching especially in unstable process. You design on ratios and not on accurate numbers.

  8. SunitaT
    October 31, 2013

    You design on ratios and not on accurate numbers.

    @goafrit2, thats the beauty of analog design, always work on ratios and hence makes the implentation easy.

  9. SunitaT
    October 31, 2013

     Stick with guaranteed, universally accepted methods and one will avoid alot of headaches.

    @Scott, completely agree with your opinion. I think iys very important to remember that having shortcut like trick might cause some issues in future hence its always better to stick to universally accepted methods.

     

  10. SunitaT
    October 31, 2013

     The other thing I see that is easily done is resistor ratios and capacitor ratios.

    @RedDerek, one more important issue is  Matching. Matching is very much needed if we want build accurate systems hence matching of devices is absolutely necessary if we want to build robust systems.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.