Comparison of the Behavior of
MOSFET Transistors Described in
Hardware Description Languages
Aravind Gurumurthy
M.S Thesis Defense Presentation
Committee Chair: Dr. Carla Purdy
Goals

Choose the correct transistor model appropriate
for a given application

Compare simulation results of Verilog-AMS
models with results from SPICE

Improve simulation time and accuracy
Thesis outline

MOSFET transistor

MOSFET modeling

Different generations of MOS models

Experimental setup and models used

Results

Conclusions and future work
MOSFET transistor

MOSFET is a majority carrier device

Can be of two types – NMOS or PMOS
Fig 1 Top view of NMOS transistor, W= Channel width, L= Channel length

In NMOS transistor as shown, current carried from source to
drain by electrons through the n-type channel
MOSFET parameters

The table 1 shows the most frequently used MOS
parameters
Table 1 MOS parameters
Modes of operation

Cutoff region :
VGS < VT

Resistive region:
VGS – VT > VDS
ID = (kn’. W)/(L)*[(VGS - VT)2 – VDS2/2]

Saturation region:
VT < VGS and VGS – VT < VDS
ID = (kn’. W)/(L)*[(VGS - VT)2/2]
MOSFET history

MOSFET modeling dates back 35 years

Initially based in V-I and V-C characteristics

Modeling has become more complex

Current models include effects from short channel and long
field strengths

Steady increase in the number of model parameters over
almost four decades
MOSFET history
Source : http://legwww.epfl.ch/ekv/mos-ak/stuttgart/Pregaldiny-mos-ak-STR04.pdf
Fig 1 Number of model parameters Vs time
MOS modeling

Modeling can be defined as “The method of finding the
parameter values for fixed simulator model equations”

MOS modeling -Writing a set of equations that link
voltages and currents

Behavior of the device can be simulated and predicted

Basic MOS model components
1.
Equations describing Ids (Vds) and Ids (Vgs)
2.
Parameters that link the technology being used for
fabrication
Requirements of good MOS model

Good I-V characteristic accuracy

Meet charge conservation requirement

Correct values of small-signal quantities

Good prediction for white and 1/f noise

Ability to provide results even when device operation is
quasi static

Ability to include all physical mechanisms for sub-micron
devices
Benchmark tests

Benchmark tests used to examine the accuracy

For simple circuits unveils the problem areas for a given
model

General benchmark tests that can be performed are:
–
DC tests
–
Small signal tests
–
Noise tests
–
Frequency test
Flowchart of the operation
Fig 2 Flowchart for choosing the correct MOS model
Generation of MOS models

Generation 1
–
MOS 1 (LEVEL 1) ****
– MOS 2 (LEVEL 2)
– MOS 3 (LEVEL 3)

Generation 2
–
BSIM 1 (LEVEL 13)
– MODIFIED BSIM (LEVEL 28)
– BSIM 2 (LEVEL 39)

Generation 3
–
–
–
–
–
–
BSIM 3 (LEVEL 47) ****
MOS 9 (LEVEL 50)
BSIM 4 (LEVEL 54)
EKV (LEVEL 55) ****
BSIM3-SOI (LEVEL 59)
MOS 11(LEVEL 63) ****
Generation I

Focuses on analytical expressions and extraction of parameters
Source: Kriplani, N., Transistor modeling using Advanced Circuit Simulator Technology
Fig 3 Schematic of LEVEL 1, 2 and 3 MOSFET models
MOS 1 model

Model equations simple

Implements the Shichman-Hodges model

Based on gradual channel approximation and square law for
saturated drain current

Advantages
–
Can be used for preliminary circuit simulations
–
Appropriate for long channel and uniform-doping devices
Generation II

Focus on mathematical conditioning and robust circuit
simulation

Focus less on developing exact analytical models

Binning concept introduced
–
Process of modifying the model parameters for different values
of drawn channel length and width

HSPICE binning uses multiple model statements modeling a
range of different lengths and widths
Generation III - BSIM 3

Model derived from research of General Electric and Intersil

Enhanced version of Ids equation from LEVEL 2 model

Varies from LEVEL 2 model in the area of –
–
Substrate doping
–
Threshold voltage
–
Effective mobility
–
Channel length modulation
–
Sub-threshold current
MOS 11 model

Symmetrical, surface potential based model

Provides accurate physical description of transition from
weak to strong inversion

Simple parameter extraction

Appropriate for digital, analog and RF design
EKV model

Physics based MOSFET model

Has less than twenty intrinsic model parameters

Specifically geared towards analog circuit simulation

Useful for statistical modeling tasks

Models available for all major circuit simulators
Overview of experiments

Goal is to show quantitative results proving that by choosing the
correct model the results are improved

Hardware description language Verilog-AMS used to compare the
results against the results obtained in SPICE

For simulations, HSPICE (Version: hspice-X-2005.09-SP1) from
Synopsys and Verilog-AMS (Version: IUS version 5.6) from
Cadence were used

Used 4 X 336-Mhz UltraSPARC-II processors, 1.3GB of memory
and the Solaris 9 operating system for simulations
HSPICE

Analog simulator

Capable of performing transient, steady state and frequency
domain analysis

Capable of simulating up to 100,000 transistors

HSPICE program contains four parts
–
Title line
–
Element declaration
–
Control commands
–
.END
HSPICE (Contd.)

To view results from transient analysis, Avanwaves was
used

Avanwaves is a point and click interface with bult-in math
functions for users
Hardware description languages (HDLs)

By definition “HDL is a programming language for
developing executable simulation models of hardware
systems”

HDLs describe circuit’s operation and design and also have
tests to verify the circuit’s functionality by simulation

HDLs can be used to design dedicated IC even before the
actual circuit is built

The HDL that was used for simulations in this thesis was
Verilog-AMS
Verilog-AMS

Supports both analog and digital component description

Description in analog components is done by Verilog-A and
digital components by Verilog-HDL


Has SPICE compatibility with SPICE netlist by defining:
–
Primitive names
–
Parameter names
–
Port names
Facilitates code reuse and ease of design
Verilog-AMS (Contd.)

Unique feature of this language is the possibility of
interconnecting instances of Verilog HDL, Verilog-A and
Verilog-AMS with their netlists in a single module

Both electrical and non-electrical models can be described
in Verilog-AMS
Available HDL transistor model descriptions
Table 2 Different MOS models available
Description of experiments

In this thesis, simulations performed initially for CMOS
inverter using a specific MOS model

Then the same MOS model was used in a op-amp circuit to
compare the performance when different MOS models are
used

Structural level of MOS is used for all simulations

Three MOS models were studied – MOS 1, MOS 11 and
EKVMOS
CMOS inverter

Consists of one PMOS and one NMOS as shown
Fig 4 Schematic of CMOS inverter

Four terminals – gate, drain, source and bulk

Specific components were instantiated in Verilog-AMS like the
type of transistor, transistor length, width and terminals of each
transistor

Test bench consisted of applying 0 to 5V in steps of 0.1v
CMOS inverter (Contd.)

For spice simulation, a basic inverter was constructed using
0.8 μ technology and used level 49 BSIM v3 model

The output was observed for all these simulations by
varying the W/L ratio of both PMOS and NMOS transistors

The output observed was the inverted form of the input
Results

Two types of experiments were performed for CMOS
inverter
–
Constant supply voltage with varying transistor dimensions
– Constant W/L ratio (2) with varying supply voltage
Simulations
CMOS Inverter transfer characteristics
Structural Model
6
5
5
Output Voltage (V)
6
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
0
0
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-1
0
1
2
3
Input Voltage (V)
SPICE
Input Voltage (V)
MOS 1
SPICE
Verilog-AMS(MOS11)
CMOS Inverter transfer characteristics
Structural Model
6
5
Output Voltage (V)
Output Voltage (V)
CMOS Inverter transfer characteristics
Structural Model
4
3
2
1
0
-1
0
1
2
3
Input Voltage (V)
SPICE
EKVMOS
4
5
6
4
5
6
Simulations--Errors
% Error Vs Input voltage (V)
% Error Vs Input voltage (V)
200
120
100
100
0
%Error
%Error
80
60
-100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-200
-300
40
-400
20
-500
0
-20
-600
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Input Voltage (V)
Input Voltage (V)
MOS 11 Vs SPICE
MOS 1 and SPICE
Fig 4.4 Relative error between the
MOS 1 and SPICE model (Inverter)
Fig 4.5 Relative error between the MOS
11 and SPICE model (Inverter)
% Error Vs Input voltage (V)
120
100
Fig 4.6 Relative error between the
EKV and SPICE model (Inverter)
%Error
80
60
40
20
0
-20
0
1
2
3
4
Input Voltage (V)
EKVMOS Vs SPICE
5
6
Operational amplifier

Two inputs that operate on dual DC power supply and has a
high open-loop gain

On feedback, the closed-loop gain is determined by the
feedback network
Fig 6 Op-amp schematics
CMOS Structure of op-amp
Source : R. Jacob Baker, Harry W.Li & David E. Boyce, CMOS Circuit Design, Layout and
Simulation
Fig 7 Schematic of op-amp with W/L values
Op-amp parameters


Considered three cases
–
Original dimensions
–
75% original dimensions
–
50% original dimensions
Dimensions of the transistor changed only for the differential
stage not the output stage

Simulations performed with 5V dc supply and ramp input
given to MOS models had a sweep from -2.5V to + 2.5V
Unit step function
Source: Simon Foo, Lisa Anderson & Yoshiyasu Takefuji Analog Components for the
VLSI of Neural Networks IEEE, 1990
Fig 8 Structural model of unit step function with test parameters

The value of output follows the function f(x)=0 for x <= 1
1 for x > 1
Simulations
Unit Step Function Structural Model
Unit Step Function Structural Model
6
5
Output Voltage (V)
3
2
1
-3
-2
-1
0
-1 0
1
2
3
-2
-3
4
2
0
-3
-2
-1
-2
0
1
-4
-4
-6
-5
Input Voltage (V)
Input Voltage (V)
Verilog-AMS(MOS1)
SPICE
SPICE
Verilog-AMS(MOS 11)
Unit Step Function Structural Model
Output Voltage (V)
Output Voltage (V)
4
-3
-2
-1
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0
-2
-3
-4
-5
1
Input Voltage (V)
SPICE
Verilog-AMS(EKVMOS)
2
3
2
3
% Error
%Error Vs Input Voltage
% Error Vs Input Voltage
140
250
120
200
Error(%)
100
Error(%)
150
100
80
60
40
50
20
0
-2
-1
-50
0
0
1
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Input Voltage (V)
Input Voltage (V)
MOS 11 and SPICE
MOS 1 and SPICE
% Error Vs Input Voltage
104
103
102
101
100
99
98
97
96
Error(%)
-3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Input Voltage (V)
EKVMOS Vs SPICE
2
3
2
3
Linear function (Fixed threshold)
Source: Simon Foo, Lisa Anderson & Yoshiyasu Takefuji Analog Components for the VLSI
of Neural Networks IEEE, 1990
Fig 9 Structural model of Linear function with test parameters
Simulations
-2
-1
1
Linear Function (Fixed Threshold)
Structural Model
2
Output Voltage (V)
-3
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0
-2
-3
-4
-5
3
-3
-2
Verilog-AMS(MOS 1)
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0
-2
-3
-4
-5
-1
Input Voltage (V)
Input Voltage (V)
SPICE
SPICE
Verilog-AMS(MOS11)
Linear Function (Fixed Threshold)
Structural Model
Output Voltage (V)
Output Voltage (V)
Linear Function (Fixed Threshold)
Structural Model
-3
-2
-1
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0
-2
-3
-4
-5
Input Voltage (V)
SPICE
EKVMOS
1
2
3
1
2
3
% Error
% Error Vs Input Voltage
% Error Vs Input Voltage(V)
20
10
-1
0
1
2
%Error
-2
3
-10
-20
-3
-2
-1
-30
-40
MOS 11 and SPICE
MOS1 and SPICE
% Error Vs Input Voltage
200
150
100
50
0
-3
d2-f2
Input Voltage (V)
Input Voltage(V)
%Error
Error(%)
0
-3
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50 0
-100
-150
-2
-1
0
1
Input Voltage (V)
EKVMOS and SPICE
2
3
1
2
3
Conclusion

Different Verilog-AMS MOS models were successfully tested in
inverters and also op-amps

Output voltages for different MOS models for both inverter and
op-amp were compared

Assumption - More
advanced
MOS
models
have
better
accuracy and timing

CHANGE: Of all MOS models that were used, MOS 1 is the
most accurate model, matching closely with the SPICE values
Conclusion (Contd.)

MOS 11 and EKVMOS models available for use in this
thesis don’t represent the complete models

Verilog-AMS models currently available not mature enough
to get results as expected
Future work

To improve accuracy, improve the current models

Open source library of models can be developed
THANK YOU
Questions??
Supplementary Slides
MOS 2 model
(Generation 1, Level II)

Geometry based model

Advantages
–
Takes into account velocity saturation, mobility degradation
and DIBL

Disadvantages
–
Not accurate for models with submicron geometries
–
Has convergence problems
–
Slower
MOS 3 model (Level III)

Has semi-empirical parameters to model short channel effects

Uses measured data to determine its main parameters

Works well for channel lengths less than 1µm

More accurate than LEVEL 1 and LEVEL 2 models

Advantages

–
Simple
–
Operational reliability
Disadvantages
–
Abrupt change from linear to saturation region
–
Poor fit of data
BSIM 1 (Level ???)

Same as LEVEL 2 model with the following exceptions
–
Doesn’t have narrow width effects
–
No short-channel effects
–
Model parameter TPG defaults to zero for aluminum gate and
for other levels, it defaults to one
–
Value of VT0 is computed using this parameter
BSIM 2 (Level XIII)


Two modes of operation
–
Enhancement
–
Depletion
If the mode parameter ZENH value is 1, then its the
enhancement model else it’s the depletion model
HSPICE 28 (Level ???)

Model binning can be accomplished

Model parameter is set empirically

Geared towards analog design
BSIM 4 (Level ???)

Enhanced version of BSIM3

Accounts for the physical effects when the 100nm regime is
reached

Accurate model of intrinsic input impedance for analog,
digital and RF applications

Accurate model for induced gate noise and thermal noise
MOS 9 model (Level ???)

Physics based model specifically geared towards analog
simulation developed by Philips

Very good description of electrical characteristics for all
regions of transistor operation

Even using one parameter set, behavior of the model over a
wide range of lengths and widths

Appropriate not only for circuit design, process technology
but also in CAD tool development