Sei sulla pagina 1di 50

HERITAGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering

Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering This is to certify that the project thesis titled INPUT

This is to certify that the project thesis titled INPUT VECTOR DEPENDENT LEAKAGE CURRENT OF VLSI STANDARD CELLS IN 45NM TECHNOLOGY Has been currently undertaken by

Argha Rakshit

(Roll no-12600311030)

Avirup Dutta Gupta

(Roll no-12600311042)

Ipsita Basu

(Roll no-12600311062)

Md. Maroof Khan

(Roll no-12600311084)

Prathhana Roy

(Roll no-12600311105)

In partial fulfilment for the award of the degree in Bachelor of Technology In Electronics and Communication Engineering West Bengal University of Technology, 2015

Under the supervision of

--------------------------------

Prof. Krishanu Datta Project Guide & Associate Professor Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering Heritage Institute of Technology, Kolkata

Page 2 of 51

Heritage Institute of Technology

Affiliated to

West Bengal University of Technology

Affiliated to West Bengal University of Technology Certificate of Approval* The foregoing project report is

Certificate of

Approval*

The foregoing project report is hereby approved as a creditable study of an engineering subject carried out and presented in a manner satisfactory to warrant its acceptance as a prerequisite to the degree for which it has been submitted. It is understood that by this approval the undersigned don’t necessarily endorse or approve any statement made opinion expressed or conclusion drawn therein but approve the project report only for the purpose for which it is submitted.

Signature of the Examiners:

1…………………………………………….

2…………………………………………….

3…………………………………………….

*Only in the case the project report is approved

Page 3 of 51

Abstract

With rapid scaling of CMOS technology, sub threshold and gate leakage mechanisms have become dominant. With feature size scaling beyond 50nm, gate leakage has become comparable to sub threshold leakage. In such a scenario, gate leakage currents can no longer be ignored in NMOS devices that are switched OFF. In today’s technology reducing stand by power consumption is one of the key design goals for portable devices. In this study input vector dependency on standby leakage current of VLSI standard cells has been explored for a deep submicron technology (45 nm process node). It is observed that gate leakage current for NMOS devices is not negligible with respect to the subthreshold leakage current which dominates stand by current in VLSI standard cells. Maximizing stacking effect is the key to achieve min leakage of VLSI standard cells.

Page 4 of 51

CHAPTER[1]:INTRODUCTION

There are three major sources of power dissipation in digital CMOS circuits which are summarized in the following equation:

P avg =P switching + P Short-circuit +P Leakage

= α 0->1 C L .V 2 dd .f clk +I sc .V dd +I leakage .V dd

The first term represents the switching component of power, i.e. the Dynamic Power Dissipation, where C L is the load capacitance , f CLK is the clock frequency and α→0 is the node transition activity factor (the average number of times the node makes a power consuming transition in one clock period).The second term ,i.e. Short-Circuit Power Dissipation is due to the direct –path short circuit current ,I SC , which arises when both the NMOS and PMOS transistors are simultaneously active , conducting current directly from supply to ground .Finally, Static (Leakage) Power Dissipation ,where the leakage current, I leakage , which can arise from substrate injection and subthreshold effects, is primarily determined by fabrication technology considerations. In today’s technology Leakage power is dominating most of the chip has more than 50% leakage power.

[1.1] SOURCES OF LEAKAGE POWER:

There are four main sources of leakage current in a CMOS transistor (see Figure 1):

1. Sub-threshold (weak inversion) leakage (I SUB ),

2. Gate direct-tunnelling leakage (I G ) ,

3. Gate induced drain leakage (I GIDL ), and

4. Reverse-biased junction leakage current (I REV ).

Around 70-80% of leakage current is I SUB, 20-30% of leakage current is I Gate (I G +I GIDL ) and rest is

I REV.

a t e (I G +I G I D L ) and rest is I REV.

Figure 1: Leakage current components in an NMOS transistor.

Page 5 of 51

[1.1.1]SUBTHRESHOLD LEAKAGE

The subthreshold leakage is the drain-source current of a transistor operating in the weak inversion region. Unlike the strong inversion region in which the drift current dominates, the subthreshold conduction is due to the diffusion current of the minority carriers in the channel for a MOS device. For instance, in the case of an inverter with a low input voltage, the NMOS is turned OFF and the output voltage is high. In this case, although VGS is 0V, there is still a current flowing in the channel of the OFF NMOS transistor due to the VDD potential of the VDS. The magnitude of the subthreshold current is a function of the temperature, supply voltage, device size, and the process parameters out of which the threshold voltage (V TH ) plays a dominant role. In current CMOS technologies, the subthreshold leakage current, I SUB , is much larger than the other leakage current components. This is mainly because of the relatively low V TH in modern CMOS devices. I SUB is calculated by using the following formula:

I SUB = (W/L).μv TH 2 C STH .e ((v GS - v T + ηv DS )/ ηv TH ) .( 1 - e ( -v DS /v TH ) )……….(1)

where W and L denote the transistor width and length of the MOS, µ denotes the carrier mobility, V TH =kT/q is the thermal voltage at temperature T,C STH =C DEP +C IT ,denotes the summation of the depletion region capacitance and the interface trap capacitance both per unit area of the MOS gate , and η is the drain- induced barrier lowering (DIBL) coefficient [2].

η is the slope shape factor and is calculated as:

η= 1 + (C STH /C OX )……….(2)

where C OX denotes the gate input capacitance per unit area of the MOS gate. When a long channel transistor

with V DS larger than a few V TH is in the OFF state (V GS =0), we have:

I SUB = (W/L).μv th 2 C

.10 (-VT/S) …….(3)

sth.

where S denotes the subthreshold swing parameter, which is defined as the inverse of the slope of the log10(I DS ) versus V GS characteristic and is equal to nν th .ln(10). S is equal to the subthreshold voltage decrease required to increase I SUB by a factor of ten.

It is highly desirable to have a subthreshold swing as small as possible since this is the parameter that determines the amount of voltage swing necessary to switch a MOSFET from OFF to ON state (typical values of S for bulk CMOS devices are 70-110 mV/decade; the theoretical lower bound is 60 mV/decade corresponding to n=1.) This is especially important for modern MOSFETs with supply voltages reaching sub-one volt region. To minimize S, the thinnest possible gate oxide (since it increases Cox) and the lowest possible doping concentration in the channel (since it decreases C DEP ) must be used. Higher temperature results in larger S value, and hence, an increase in the OFF leakage current.

In long channel devices, the influence of source and drain on the channel depletion layer is negligible. However, as channel lengths are reduced, overlapping source and drain depletion regions cause the depletion region under the inversion layer to increase. The wider depletion region is accompanied by a larger surface potential, which attracts more electrons to the channel. Therefore, a smaller amount of charge on the gate is needed to reach the onset of strong inversion and the threshold voltage decreases. This effect is worsened when there is a larger bias on the drain since the depletion region becomes even wider. More precisely,

Page 6 of 51

when a high drain voltage is applied to a short-channel device, it lowers the barrier for electrons between the source and the channel, resulting in further decrease of the threshold voltage. The source then injects carriers into the channel surface (independent of gate voltage), causing an increase in IOFF. This phenomenon, which can be thought of as a lowering of V TH as V DS increases, is the DIBL effect. There is yet another phenomenon known as the “V TH Roll-off” whereby the VT of a MOSFET decreases as the channel length is reduced. In such a case, the subthreshold swing parameter degrades and the impact of drain bias on V TH increases. Finally, there is the well-known “Body Effect” ,which causes an increase in V TH as the body of the transistor is reverse-biased (i.e., VSB of an NMOS transistor is increased).

Clearly, decreasing the threshold voltage increases the leakage current exponentially. In fact decreasing the threshold voltage by 100mV increases the leakage current by a factor of 10. Decreasing the length of transistors increases the leakage current as well. Therefore, in a chip, transistors that have smaller threshold voltage and/or length due to process variation contribute more to the overall leakage.

process variation contribute more to the overall leakage . Figure 2: I S U B (V

Figure 2: I SUB (V GS =0) trend as a function of temperature. Courtesy of Vivek De, Intel.

The subthreshold leakage current increases with temperature. Figure 2 shows the leakage current for several technologies for different temperatures. As one can see, I OFF grows in each generation. Furthermore, in a given technology, the leakage current increases with the temperature. Ioff has a temperature sensitivity of 8- 12 x/100oC.

Page 7 of 51

Figure 3: Power consumption of a die as a function of temperature. Courtesy of Vivek

Figure 3: Power consumption of a die as a function of temperature. Courtesy of Vivek De, Intel.

Figure 3 shows the power consumption of a 15mm die fabricated in a 0.1 µ m technology with a supply voltage of 0.7V. Although the leakage power is only 6% of the total power consumption at 30°C, it becomes 56% of the total power at 110°C. This clearly shows the necessity of using leakage power reduction techniques in current designs. Putting it all together, Let I OFF denote the leakage of an OFF transistor (V GS =0V for an NMOS device).From the above discussion,

we know thatI OFF =I REV +I GIDL +I SUB ………

Clearly, I REV and I GIDL are maximized when V DB = V DD . Similarly, for short-channel devices, I SUB increases with V DB because of the DIBL effect. Note the I G is not a component of the OFF current, since the transistor gate must be at a high potential with respect to the source and substrate for this current to flow. Among the three components of I OFF , I SUB is clearly the dominant component. So the remainder of this paper focuses on I SUB . More precisely, in the next two sections, methods are presented for decreasing the subthreshold leakage currents in circuits that are in STANDBY or ACTIVE state.

STACK EFFECT:

To limit the energy and power increase in future CMOS technology generations, the supply voltage (V DD ) will have to continually scale [9]. The amount of energy reduction depends on the magnitude of V DD scaling[10]. Along with V DD scaling, the threshold voltage (Vt) of MOS devices will have to scale to sustain the traditional 30% gate delay reduction. These V DD and Vt scaling requirements pose several technology and circuit design challenges [11]. One such challenge is the rapid increase in sub-threshold leakage power due to V t scaling. Should the present scaling trend continue it is expected that the sub- threshold leakage power will become a considerable constituent of the total dissipated power[12]. In such a system it becomes crucial to identify techniques to reduce this leakage power component. It has been shown previously that the stacking of two off devices has significantly reduced sub threshold leakage compared to a single off device[13]. This concept of stack effect is illustrated in Figure 4.

(4)

Page 8 of 51

Figure 4: Leakage Current Difference between a Single OFF Device and a Stack of Two

Figure 4: Leakage Current Difference between a Single OFF Device and a Stack of Two OFF Devices. As Illustrated by the energy Band Diagram, the Barrier Height is modulated to be higher for the Two- Stack due to Smaller Drain-to Source Voltage Resulting in Reduced Leakage.

Stack effect factor is defined as the ratio of the leakage current in one off device to the leakage current in a stack of two off devices. One solution to the problem of ever-increasing leakage is to force a non-stack device to a stack of two devices without affecting the input load. By ensuring iso-input load, the previous gate’s delay and the switching power will remain unchanged. Logic gates after stack forcing will reduce leakage power, but incur a delay penalty.

[1.1.2].GATE DIRECT TUNNELLING LEAKAGE

The gate leakage flows from the gate thru the “leaky” oxide insulation to the substrate. In oxide layers thicker than 3–4 nm, this kind of current results from the Fowler-Nordheim tunnelling of electrons into the conduction band of the oxide layer under a high applied electric field across the oxide layer. For lower oxide thicknesses (which are typically found in 0.15µm and lower technology nodes), however, direct tunnelling through the silicon oxide layer is the leading effect. Mechanisms for direct tunnelling include electron tunnelling in the conduction band (ECB), electron tunnelling in the valence band (EVB), and hole tunnelling in the valence band (HVB), among which ECB is the dominant one. The magnitude of the gate direct tunnelling current increases exponentially with the gate oxide thickness T ox and supply voltage V DD . In fact, for relatively thin oxide thicknesses (in the order of 2-3 nm), at a V GS of 1V, every 0.2nm reduction in T ox causes a tenfold increase in IG [3]. Gate leakage increases with temperature at only about 2x/100oC. Note that the gate leakage for a PMOS device is typically one order of magnitude smaller than that of an NMOS device with identical T ox and V DD when using SiO2 as the gate dielectric. As transistor length and supply voltage are scaled down, gate oxide thickness must also be reduced to maintain effective gate control over the channel region. Unfortunately this results in an exponential increase in the gate leakage due to direct tunnelling of electrons through the gate oxide [4]. An effective approach to

Page 9 of 51

overcome the gate leakage currents while maintaining excellent gate control is to replace the currently-used silicon dioxide gate insulator with high-K dielectric material such as TiO 2 and Ta 2 O 5 . Use of the high-k dielectric will allow a less aggressive gate dielectric thickness reduction while maintaining the required gate overdrive at low supply voltages [5]. According to the 2003 International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS-03) [6], high-K gate dielectric is required to control the direct tunnelling current for low standby power devices in process technology nodes below 90 nm. High-K gate dielectrics are expected to be introduced in 2006.

[1.1.3]GATE-INDUCED DRAIN LEAKAGE

The gate induced drain leakage (GIDL) is caused by high field effect in the drain junction of MOS transistors. For an NMOS transistor with grounded gate and drain potential at V DD , significant band bending in the drain allows electron-hole pair generation through avalanche multiplication and band-to-band tunnelling. A deep depletion condition is created since the holes are rapidly swept out to the substrate. At the same time, electrons are collected by the drain, resulting in GIDL current. This leakage mechanism is made worse by high drain to body voltage and high drain to gate voltage. Transistor scaling has led to increasingly steep halo implants, where the substrate doping at the junction interfaces is increased, while the channel doping is low. This is done mainly to control punch-through and drain-induced barrier lowering while having a low impact on the carrier mobility in the channel. The resulting steep doping profile at the drain edge increases band to band tunnelling currents there, particularly as V DB is increased. Thinner oxide and higher supply voltage increase GIDL current. As an example, with a V DG =3V and T ox of 4nm, there is roughly a 10 fold increase in the GIDL current when VDB is increased from 0.8V to 2.2V.

[1.1.4].JUNCTION LEAKAGE The junction leakage occurs from the source or drain to the substrate through the reverse biased diodes when a transistor is OFF. A reverse-biased pn junction leakage has two main components: one is minority carrier diffusion/drift near the edge of the depletion region; the other is due to electron-hole pair generation in the depletion region of the reverse-biased junction [7]. For instance, in the case of an inverter with low input voltage, the NMOS is OFF, the PMOS is ON, and the output voltage is high. Subsequently, the drain-to- substrate voltage of the OFF NMOS transistor is equal to the supply voltage. This results in a leakage current from the drain to the substrate through the reverse-biased diode. The magnitude of the diode’s leakage current depends on the area of the drain diffusion and the leakage current density, which is in turn determined by the doping concentration. If both n and p regions are heavily doped, band-to-band tunnelling (BTBT) dominates the pn junction leakage [8]. Junction leakage has a rather high temperature dependency i.e., as much as 50 – 100 x/100 oC, but it is generally inconsequential except in circuits designed to operate at high temperatures (> 150oC.) Junction reverse-bias leakage components from both the source-drain diodes and the well diodes are generally negligible with respect to the other three leakage components.

Page 10 of 51

[1.2] DIGITAL GATE TIMING DEFINITION:

Switching Speed - limited by time taken to charge and discharge, the capacitor C L .

• Rise Time, T R : waveform to rise from 10% to 90% of its steady state value

• Fall Time T F : 90% to 10% of steady state value

• Delay Time, T D : time difference between input transition (50%) and 50% output level

The below expression denotes average delay where τ pLH defines the Response Time of the gate for a Low to

High Output Transition and τ pHL refers to Low to High Transition. The τ P of a gate defines how quickly it responds to a change at its output.

τ P =( τ pLH + τ pHL )/2

(5)

τ P =( τ p L H + τ p H L )/2 (5) Figure 5:

Figure 5: Depiction Of Delay In The Response Time Of The Gate In Accordance With The Input Signal.

Time Of The Gate In Accordance With The Input Signal. Figure 6: CMOS Inverter with a

Figure 6: CMOS Inverter with a Capacitative Load, C L , to Examine the Average Delay.

Page 11 of 51

Figure 6, shows the familiar CMOS i nverter with a capacity load C L that represent s the load capacitance (input of next gates, output of this gat e and routing). Of interest is the voltage wav eform Vout(t) when the input is driven by a step waveform, V in(t) as shown in figure 7.

Figure 8 shows the trajectory of the 0V to V DD . Initially, the end-device is

X1 on the characteristic curve. Appli cation of a step voltage (V GS = V DD ) at the in put of the inverter changes the operating point to X2. From there onwards the trajectory moves on the V GS = V DD characteristic curve towards point X3 at the origin. Thus i t is evident that the fall time consists of two intervals:

n-transistor operating point as the input volta ge, Vin(t), changes from

cut-off and the load capacitor is charged to V DD . This illustrated by

1. T F1 =period during which the capa citor voltage, V OUT , drops from 0.9V DD to (V

DD –V TN )

2. T F2 =period during which the capa citor voltage, V OUT , drops from (V DD –V TN ) to

0.1V DD .

, drops from (V D D –V T N ) to 0.1V D D . Figure

Figure 7: V OUT (t) when the Input Is Driven By A Step Wavefor m, V IN (t)

With further calculations it is found o ut that the expression for fall time is given b y

T F = kn .C L /V DD .Bn

(6)

From this expression we can see that the delay is directly proportional to the load capacitance. Thus to

achieve high speed circuits one has to

proportion to the supply voltage i.e. a s the supply voltage is raised the delay time i s reduced. Finally, the delay is proportional to the βn of the driving transistor so increasing the width of a transistor decreases the delay.

minimize the load capacitance seen by a gat e. Secondly it is inversely

Thus the fall time is faster than the ri se time primarily due to different carrier mob ility associated with the p

and n devices thus if we want TF=TR

so, width of the pmos must be greater than t hat of nmos.

so, width of the pmos must be greater than t hat of nmos. Figure 8: Trajectory

Figure 8: Trajectory of N-Transistor Operating Point

Page 12 of 51

[1.3]

PVT (Process Voltage Temperature) Variations:

As technology scales down to the deep sub-micron regime, the effects of semiconductor process variations are an increasingly significant and critical factor in the design of high performance CMOS circuits. Furthermore, as the process steps involved in the manufacture an IC becomes more complex as the overall circuit performance is now more sensitive to the underlying statistical process variations. Hence a precise knowledge of the effects of process variations is emerging as an integral part of the design methodology. This variation negatively impacts on circuit performance, and generates design specifications which are harder to meet, resulting in functional and parametric yield loss. Moreover, with technology scaling, these problems are becoming increasingly critical due to the tighter design requirements.

In semiconductor manufacturing, a process corner is an example of a design-of-experiments (DoE) technique that refers to a variation of fabrication parameters used in applying an integrated circuit design to a semiconductor wafer. Process corners represent the extremes of these parameter variations within which a circuit that has been etched onto the wafer must function correctly. A circuit running on devices fabricated at these process corners may run slower or faster than specified and at lower or higher temperatures and voltages, but if the circuit does not function at all at any of these process extremes the design is considered to have inadequate design margin.

In order to verify the robustness of an integrated circuit design, semiconductor manufacturers will fabricate corner lots, which are groups of wafers that have had process parameters adjusted according to these extremes, and will then test the devices made from these special wafers at varying increments of environmental conditions, such as voltage, clock frequency, and temperature, applied in combination (two or sometimes all three together) in a process. Corner-lot analysis is most effective in digital electronics because of the direct effect of process variations on the speed of transistor switching during transitions from one logic state to another.

One naming convention for process corners is to use two-letter designators, where the first letter refers to the N-channel MOSFET (NMOS) corner, and the second letter refers to the P channel (PMOS) corner. In this naming convention, three corners exist: typical, fast and slow. Fast and slow corners exhibit carrier mobility that is higher and lower than normal, respectively. For example, a corner designated as FS denotes fast NFETs and slow PFETs.

There are therefore five possible corners: typical-typical (TT) (not really a corner of an n vs. p mobility graph, but called a corner, anyway), fast-fast (FF), slow-slow (SS), fast-slow (FS), and slow-fast (SF). The first three corners (TT, FF, SS) are called even corners, because both types of devices are affected evenly, and generally do not adversely affect the logical correctness of the circuit. The resulting devices can function at slower or faster clock frequencies, and are often binned as such. The last two corners (FS, SF) are called "skewed" corners, and are cause for concern. This is because one type of FET will switch much faster than the other, and this form of imbalanced switching can cause one edge of the output to have much less slew than the other edge.

Leakage current is a major drawback in nanoscale CMOS. Because of the continued scaling of technology and supply-threshold voltage, leakage power has become more significant in power dissipation of nanoscale CMOS circuits. Therefore, estimating the total leakage power is critical to designing low-power digital circuits.

In nanometreCMOS circuits, the main leakage components are the subthreshold, gate-tunneling and reverse- biased junction band-to-band-tunnelling (BTBT) leakage currents. As transistor geometries decrease, it is necessary to reduce the supply voltage to avoid electrical breakdown and obtain the required performance.

Page 13 of 51

However, to retain or improve performance, it is necessary to reduce the threshold voltage (Vth) as well, which results in an exponential increase of subthreshold leakage. To control short-channel effect and increase the transistor driving strength in deep-submicron (DSM) circuits, gate-oxide thickness also becomes thinner as technology scales down.

The aggressive scaling in the gate oxide results in a tunnelling current through the oxide, which is a strong exponential function of the oxide thickness and the voltage magnitude across the oxide. In scaled devices, the higher substrate doping density and the application of “halo” profiles cause significantly large reverse- biased junction BTBT leakage currents through the drain- and source-substrate junctions.

We have used two different process corners model. Firstly, Nominal Model, in this model the corner type is TT i.e. Typical Typical, the Voltage is 1.0V and the operating Temperature is 27 °C. The other model is FF i.e. Fast Fast corner based. For this variational model the Voltage is 1.1V. It is used for three different operating Temperatures, which are 0 °C, 27 °C and 110 °C.

Page 14 of 51

CHAPTER [2] :SIMULATION

Technology used: PTM 45nm Model File.

Tools used: Tanner Tool

[2.1].SIZING OF STANDARD CELLS:

Another important factor for our study is proper sizing of PMOS and NMOS such that the equivalent resistance of the p network and the n network is always same .

The expression for R ON = L/(KW(V gs - V t – V ds ))

(6)

when the MOS is in Linear Region.

Where W is the width of the MOS.

When NMOSes are connected in series then to get resistance of p network and n network to be same (R) that is equivalent to an inverter, resistance of each MOS should be R/n where R is the required equivalent resistance. Now as resistance is inversely proportional to width, so the width of the MOS es in series has to be increased n*times.But when NMOS es are connected in parallel we consider the discharging time topology that is the lesser the value of resistance the faster an RC network would discharge. So each of the parallel networks should have least resistance that is resistance equal to the equivalent inverter resistance that is R. So, each of the MOS in parallel will have same width.

[2.2] Fanout-4

This inverter circuit is then used as a block for ease of simulation.

This inverter circuit is then used as a block for ease of simulation. Figure 7: Fanout-4

Figure 7: Fanout-4 Inverter Circuit

Page 15 of 51

Data for 45 nm Nominal Model:

Wp

Wn

Wp/Wn

Output Rise

Output Fall

Rise Delay

Fall Delay

Average Delay

1.67

3.33

0.501502

11.79

30.52

36.35

11.79

24.07

2.5

2.5

1

48.9188

28.5188

25.299

14.8419

20.07045

3

2

1.5

42.874

30.43

22.543

16.5935

19.56825

3.33

1.67

1.994012

40.692

33.092

21.675

18.225

19.95

3.57

1.43

2.496503

40.0456

36.12

21.439

19.905

20.672

3.73

1.27

2.937008

40.1486

38.942

21.5062

21.4087

21.45745

3.75

1.25

3

40.1972

39.3532

21.527

21.626

21.5765

3.89

1.11

3.504505

40.7889

42.7147

21.768

23.3884

22.5782

4

1

4

41.618

46.109

22.078

25.1

23.589

Delay vs. Wp/Wn 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.5 1
Delay vs. Wp/Wn
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Rise Delay
Fall Delay

Plot for Rise & Fall Delay against ratio Wp/Wn for 45 nm Nominal Model

It is observed that Rise Delay and Fall Delay is equal for Wp/Wnas 3:1 for 45nm nominal which forms the basis of our further simulations study.

Page 16 of 51

[2.3] LOGICAL EFFORT

The method of logical effort is founded on a simple model of the delay through a single MOS logic gate. The model describes delays caused by the capacitive load that the logic gate drives and by the topology of the logic gate. Clearly, as the load increases, the delay increases, but delay also depends on the logic function of the gate. Inverters, the simplest logic gates, drive loads best and are often used as amplifiers to drive large capacitances. Logic gates that compute other functions require more transistors, some of which are connected in series, making them poorer than inverters at driving current. Thus a NAND gate has more delay than an inverter with similar transistor sizes that drives the same load. The method of logical effort quantifies these effects to simplify delay analysis for individual logic gates and multistage logic networks.

The logical effort of a logic gate tells how much worse it is at producing output current than is an inverter, given that each of its inputs may present only the same input capacitance as the inverter. Reduced output current means slower operation, and thus the logical effort number for a logic gate tells how much more slowly it will drive a load than would an inverter. Equivalently, logical effort is how much more input capacitance a gate must present in order to deliver the same output current as an inverter. It is measured as a ratio of capacitance of an input pin for a particular gate to that for an inverter.It is dependent on the width of each transistor.

Some of the standard cells with sizing is given below:

Some of the standard cells with sizing is given below: Figure 8: Schematic diagram of 3

Figure 8: Schematic diagram of 3 input NOR

This is Three Input NOR circuit. All the NMOS in the Pull-Down network are in parallel to each other, so width of individual NMOS does not change, as already mentioned. In the Pull-Up network, all the PMOS are in series, so individual resistance of PMOS will get divided by 3 and since width is inversely proportional to the resistance, the width of the PMOS should increases 3 fold, that is PMOS have 9µmwidth and NMOS have 1 µm width.

Page 17 of 51

Logical effort of pin with voltage source 2 is 2.5, with voltage source 3 is 2.5 , with voltage source 4 is 2.5 since they have same width.

, with voltage source 4 is 2.5 since they have same width. Figure 9: Schematic Diagram

Figure 9: Schematic Diagram of OAI (A+B).C)

In the Pull-Down network, (A+B) and C are in series so equivalent width of (A+B) and C should be 2µm. And as A and B are in parallel so each should have width 2µm.

For the Pull-Up network, (A+B) are in parallel with C. So, (A+B) and C should have width 3µm. And as A and B are in series so each has width increased 2 times as two are in series. Hence, Width of PMOS_A and PMOS_B is 6µm. Width of PMOS_C is 3µm

Logical Effort for Pin A and Pin B is 2, whereas, the Logical Effort for Pin C is 1.25 .

Page 18 of 51

Figure 10: Schematic Diagram of AOI (AB+C) For the given AOI circuit, In the Pull-Down

Figure 10: Schematic Diagram of AOI (AB+C)

For the given AOI circuit,

In the Pull-Down network, A and B are in series with C in parallel with them. So, A, B and C must have same width as they are the part of a parallel network. So their widths are 1µm each of A, B and C.But individually A and B are in series so width increases 2 folds. Hence, Width of NMOS_A and NMOS_B is 2µm. Width of NMOS_C is 1µm

In the Pull-Up network A and B are in parallel with each other and is in series with C. Similarly A and B have a width of 6 micron such that the equivalent width is 3micron.

Logical Effort for Pin A and Pin B is 2, whereas, the Logical Effort for Pin C is 1.75

In similar way we can find the logical effort for other Standard cells, which are as follows,

Page 19 of 51

Table for Logical Effort of Various Circuits:

 

Cell

Input Pin

Logical Effort

 

A

1.25

2

Input NOR

B

1.25

 

A

2.5

3

Input NOR

B

2.5

 

C

2.5

 

A

1.25

2 Input NAND

B

1.25

 

A

1.5

3Input NAND

B

1.5

C

1.5

 

A

2

 

AOI

B

2

 

C

1.75

 

A

2

 

OAI

B

2

 

C

1.25

Page 20 of 51

[2.4] PROCESS CORNER FOR MAXIMUM LEAKAGE:

[2.4.1] Inverter Circuit:

CORNER FOR MAXIMUM LEAKAGE: [2.4.1] Inverter Circuit: Figure 11: Schematic Diagram of Inverter Process Voltage

Figure 11: Schematic Diagram of Inverter

Process

Voltage

Temperature

Input

Total Leakage Current

Remarks

(in V)

(°C)

Vector

I

LEAKAGE (nA)

TT

1.0

27

0

 

90.39

-

1

 

149.4

FF

1.1

0

0

 

640.5

Maximum

1

 

1302.0

Leakage

FF

1.1

27

0

 

600.1

-

1

 

1212.0

FF

1.1

110

0

 

556.3

-

1

 

1067.0

From the above data, it is observed that for the PVT variation, according to Nominal Model (TT 27 °C), the Leakage current is Minimum, and for FF 0°C, it is the worst condition as Leakage current is Maximum.

Page 21 of 51

[2.4.2]

NAND Circuit:

[2.4.2] NAND Circuit: Figure 12: Schematic Diagram of2 Input NAND Gate   Voltage Temperature Input Vector

Figure 12: Schematic Diagram of2 Input NAND Gate

 

Voltage

Temperature

Input Vector

Total Leakage Current I LEAKAGE (in nA)

 

Process

(in V)

(°C)

Remarks

A

B

     

0

0

11.82

 

0

1

181.3

TT

1.0

27

1

0

57.79

-

1

1

291.8

     

0

0

26.58

 

0

1

1279

Maximum

FF

1.1

0

1

0

290.3

Leakage

1

1

3416

     

0

0

2689

 

0

1

1200

FF

1.1

27

1

0

281.4

-

1

1

3079

Page 22 of 51

From the above data it is observed that for the PVT variation, according to Nominal Model (TT 27 °C), the Leakage current is Minimum and for FF 0 °C, it is the worst condition as Leakage current is Maximum.

[2.4.3]NOR Circuit

Y= A+B
Y= A+B

Figure 13: Schematic Diagram of2 Input NOR Gate

 

Voltage

 

Input Vector

Total Leakage

 

Process

Temperature

 

Current

Remarks

(in V)

(°C)

A

B

I

LEAKAGE (nA)

     

0

0

 

1738

 

0

1

 

112

TT

1.0

27

1

0

 

1051.2

-

1

1

 

4.0

     

0

0

 

3564

 

0

1

 

502

Maximum

FF

1.1

0

1

0

 

39.8

Leakage

1

1

 

10.56

From the above data it is observed that for the PVT variation, according to Nominal Model (TT 27 °C), the Leakage current is Minimum and for FF 0 °C, it is the worst condition as Leakage current is Maximum.

Hence from the above three circuits we can conclude that, for Minimum Leakage the Nominal Model is suitable. So for the all the circuits further to be used in this project, the model file that will be used is the Nominal Model where the Process Corner is TT (Typical Typical), Voltage V DD is 1.0 V and operating Temperature is 27 °C.

Page 23 of 51

[2.5] LEAKAGE ANALYSIS FOR VARIOUS INPUT VECTOR OF SIZED VLSI STANDARD CELLS

[2.5.1] INVERTER

INPUT VECTOR OF SIZED VLSI STANDARD CELLS [2.5.1] INVERTER Figure 14: Circuit Diagram for Inverter 2

Figure 14: Circuit Diagram for Inverter

2 3 1 4 5
2
3
1
4
5

Figure 15: Schematic diagram of inverter

Page 24 of 51

Leakage current(nA)

Ammeter

Index

Input Vector

0

1

Type

1

Gate current of PMOS_1

N

N

2

Source current of PMOS_1

90.38

149.4

3

Substrate current of PMOS_1

N

N

4

Drain current of PMOS_1 &

NMOS_1

90.18

149.5

5

Gate current of NMOS_1

-3.6

15

6

Substrate current of NMOS_1

N

N

7

Source current of NMOS_1

86.58

165.5

8

Total Leakage

90.39

149.4

N=NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT IN PICO AMPERE.

Using KCL:

   

Input

Vector

Drain

Current

Source

Current

Gate

Current

Substrate

Current

 

(nA)

(nA)

(nA)

(nA)

PMOS_1

0

90.18

90.38

N

N

NMOS_1

90.18

86.58

-3.6

N

PMOS_1

1

149.5

149.4

N

N

NMOS_1

149.5

165.5

15

N

Analysis:

N=NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT IN PICO AMPERE.

In order to maintain the ratio Wp:Wn= 3:1, the equivalent resistance of the Pull-Up Network and Pull-Down Network must remain the same. To achieve this, the width of PMOS is 3 µm and the width of NMOS is

1µm.

It is observed that the substrate leakage is negligible for both NMOS and PMOS and the gate leakage is negligible for PMOS. So body effect is not playing any crucial role here. So for our further study we are neglecting substrate leakage.

Another interesting conclusion is that the gate current when the NMOS is on is greater than the gate current when the NMOS is off. The first current is called the tunnelling current and the second current of the NMOS which is off is due to gate induced drain leakage. The ratio that we obtained is 4.16 for inverter which is the basic circuit in our study. Very similar ratios are obtained for other standard cells, which has been discussed later.

Page 25 of 51

[2.5.2] 2 INPUT NAND

4 4 4 4 2 4 9 9 2 10 4 10 3 4 11
4
4
4
4
2
4
9 9
2
10
4 10
3
4
11
4
4
1 1
3
11
5
4
5
12
4
12
6
4
6
4
7
7
4
8 8

Figure 16: Circuit Diagram for 2 Input NAND Gate

7 7 4 8 8 Figure 16: Circuit Diagram for 2 Input NAND Gate Figure 17:

Figure 17: Schematic diagram of 2 input NAND

Page 26 of 51

     

Leakage current(nA)

 

Ammeter Index

Type

 

Input vector

 

0 0

0 1

1 0

1 1

 

Gate current of

       

1

PMOS_1

N

N

N

N

 

Source current of

       

2

PMOS_1

5.907

N

N

149.4

 

Drain current of

       

3

PMOS_1

5.7

181.1

N

149.5

4

Total Leakage

11.81

181.3

57.78

298.8

 

Drain current of

       

5

NMOS_1

11.4

181.1

57.58

299

 

Source current of

       

6

NMOS_1 &Drain current of NMOS_2

4.164

173.9

57.62

311

 

Gate current of

       

7

NMOS_2

N

-31.45

1.452

-30

 

Source current of

       

8

NMOS_2

4.161

205.9

56.24

363.1

 

Source current of

       

9

PMOS_2

5.907

N

57.78

149.4

 

Gate current of

       

10

PMOS_2

N

N

N

N

 

Drain current of

       

11

PMOS_2

5.7

N

57.58

149.5

 

Gate current of

       

12

NMOS_1

-7

-7

N

32.66

N=NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT IN PICO AMPERE.

Page 27 of 51

Using KCL

     

Source

 

Input vector

Drain Current

(nA)

Current

(nA)

Gate Current

(nA)

PMOS_1

 

5.7

5.907

N

PMOS_2

0

0

5.7

5.907

N

NMOS_1

 

11.4

4.164

-7

NMOS_2

4.164

4.161

N

PMOS_1

 

181.1

181.3

N

PMOS_2

0

1

N

N

N

NMOS_1

 

181.1

173.9

-7

NMOS_2

173.9

205.9

-31.45

PMOS_1

 

N

N

N

PMOS_2

1

0

57.58

57.78

N

NMOS_1

 

57.58

57.62

N

NMOS_2

57.62

56.24

1.452

PMOS_1

 

149.5

149.4

N

PMOS_2

1

1

149.5

149.4

N

NMOS_1

 

299

311

12.66

NMOS_2

311

342.1

-30

Analysis:

N=NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT IN PICO AMPERE.

In order to maintain the ratio Wp:Wn= 3:1, the equivalent resistance of the Pull-Up Network and Pull-Down Network must remain the same. To achieve this, the width of PMOS is 3 µm and the width of NMOS is 2 µm.

Page 28 of 51

FACTORS AFFECTING LEAKAGE IN 2-INPUT NAND GATE:

 

A

B

Total Leakage Current (nA)

Factor Affecting Leakage Current

1. 0

 

0

11.81

best case

Stack Effect

2. 0

 

1

 

181.3

-

3. 1

 

0

 

57.78

-

4. 1

 

1

298.8

worst case

PMOS devices leaking in parallel

From the data, it is observed that the fundamental Network Theory i.e. Kirchhoff’s Law has been obeyed at every node, here, we are considering NMOS and PMOS as nodes.

Due to the stacking effect, leakage through a logic gate depends on the applied input vector.

To

evaluate the effect of input vector selection in controlling leakage, the pull-down network of the two input NAND gate (a two-transistor stack) is considered. With both gates at logic “0”, the intermediate node voltage is positive (V m ), resulting in a negative value of Vgs1. This reduces the

sub threshold current in M1. With all other input vectors, V gs of NMOS_1and NMOS_2 are either positive or zero. Thus, “00” gives the minimum sub threshold current flowing through a stack of two transistors. It has been shown that sub threshold current flowing through a stack of transistor decreases with an increase in the number of the “off” transistors.

Whereas, maximum leakage current is obtained when the input vector is “11”. In this condition, both the NMOS are ON but both the PMOS are OFF. As the PMOS are in Parallel, both the devices will leak and the sum of it results in a higher Leakage current than that of rest cases.

Logical effort at input A&B is 1.25.

Page 29 of 51

[2.5.3] 3 INPUT NAND

[2.5.3] 3 INPUT NAND Figure 1 8: Circuit Diagram for 3 Input NAND Gate = (A

Figure 1 8: Circuit Diagram for 3 Input NAND Gate

INPUT NAND Figure 1 8: Circuit Diagram for 3 Input NAND Gate = (A .B.C.) Figure

= (A

.B.C.)

Figure 19: Schematic diagram of 3 input NAND

Page 30 of 51

     

Leakage Current(nA)

 

Ammeter

Type

 

Index

 

Input Vector

 

0 0 0

0 0 1

0 1 0

0 1 1

1 0 0

1 0 1

1 1 0

1 1 1

1

Total Leakage Current

14.41

17.55

11.33

272.1

9.03

86.7

74.9

448.1

 

Drain Current of

               

2

PMOS_1

4.2

8.77

5.6

272.1

N

N

N

149.4

 

Drain Current of

               

3

PMOS_2

4.8

8.77

N

N

4.5

86.7

N

149.4

 

Drain Current of

               

4

PMOS_3

4.8

N

5.6

N

4.5

N

74.8

149.4

 

Source Current of

               

5

PMOS_1

4.49

8.5

5.4

271.9

N

N

N

149.4

 

Source Current of

               

6

PMOS_2

4.49

8.5

N

N

4.3

86.4

N

149.4

 

Source Current of

               

7

PMOS_3

4.49

N

5.4

N

4.3

N

74.89

149.4

 

Gate Current of

               

8

PMOS_3

N

N

N

N

N

0

N

N

 

Gate Current of

               

9

NMOS_1

-10

-10

-10

-10

N

N

88.5

50

 

Drain Current of

               

10

NMOS_1

13.78

17.1

10.9

271.9

8.3

86.4

N

448

 

Source Current of

               

11

NMOS_1 & Drain Current of NMOS_2

2.91

6.2

N

261

8.6

86.5

88.75

498.6

 

Gate Current of

               

12

NMOS_2

N

N

12

50

-2.8

-2

N

48

 

Source Current of

               

13

NMOS_2 & Drain Current of NMOS_3

2.903

6.2

11

309.2

5.6

84.5

89.56

544

 

Gate Current of

               

14

NMOS_3

N

50

N

50

N

50

-16

48

 

Source Current of

               

15

NMOS_3

2.903

54.4

10.9

357.3

5.6

132

73.24

592.9

N=NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT IN PICO AMPERE.

Page 31 of 51

USING KCL:

 

Input Vector

Drain

Gate Current

Source

Current(nA)

(nA)

Current(nA)

PMOS_1

 

4.49

N

4.2

PMOS_2

4.49

N

4.8

PMOS_3

4.49

N

4.8

NMOS_1

0

0 0

13.78

-10

2.91

NMOS_2

 

2.91

N

2.903

NMOS_3

2.903

N

2.903

PMOS_1

 

8.5

N

8.77

PMOS_2

8.5

N

8.77

PMOS_3

N

N

N

NMOS_1

0

0 1

17.1

-10

6.2

NMOS_2

 

6.2

N

6.2

NMOS_3

6.2

50

54.4

PMOS_1

 

5.4

N

5.6

PMOS_2

N

N

N

PMOS_3

5.4

N

5.6

NMOS_1

0

1 0

10.9

-10

N

NMOS_2

 

N

12

11

NMOS_3

11

N

10.9

PMOS_1

 

271.9

N

272.1

PMOS_2

N

N

N

PMOS_3

N

N

N

NMOS_1

0

1 1

271.9

-10

261

NMOS_2

 

261

50

309.2

NMOS_3

309.2

50

357.3

N=NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT IN PICO AMPERE.

Page 32 of 51

   

Drain Current

Gate Current

Source

Input Vector

(nA)

(nA)

Current (nA)

PMOS_1

 

N

N

N

PMOS_2

4.5

N

4.3

PMOS_3

4.5

N

4.3

NMOS_1

1 0 0

8.3

N

8.6

NMOS_2

8.6

-2.8

5.6

NMOS_3

5.6

N

5.6

PMOS_1

 

N

N

N

PMOS_2

86.7

N

86.4

PMOS_3

N

N

N

NMOS_1

1 0 1

86.4

N

86.5

NMOS_2

86.5

-2

84.5

NMOS_3

84.5

50

132

PMOS_1

 

N

N

N

PMOS_2

N

N

N

PMOS_3

74.8

N

74.8

NMOS_1

1 1 0

N

88.5

88.75

NMOS_2

88.75

N

89.56

NMOS_3

89.56

-16

73.24

PMOS_1

 

149.4

N

149.4

PMOS_2

149.4

N

149.4

PMOS_3

149.4

N

149.4

NMOS_1

1 1 1

448

50

498.6

NMOS_2

498.6

48

544

NMOS_3

544

48

592.9

Analysis:

N=NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT IN PICO AMPERE.

In order to maintain the ratio Wp:Wn= 3:1, the equivalent resistance of the Pull-Up Network and Pull-Down Network must remain the same. To achieve this, the width of PMOS is 3 µm and the width of NMOS is 3 µm.

In our study, we have examined the interdependence between I SUB and I GATE . However I GATE in PMOS transistors and reverse I GATE in OFF transistors was considered negligible. This fact does not hold true for 45nm and 32nm technologies.

Page 33 of 51

I GATE leakage in the OFF NMOS transistor is comparable to that in the ON NMOS transistor. However, I GATE in PMOS transistors is relatively less than in NMOS transistors and can be safely ignored. Here Substrate Leakage is also ignored.

FACTORS AFFECTING LEAKAGE IN 3-INPUT NAND GATE

A

B

C

Leakage Current (in nA)

Factor Affecting Leakage Current

0

0

0

14.41

-

0

0

1

17.55

0

1

0

11.33

-

0

1

1

272.1

-

1

0

0

9.03 best case

No I GATE Drawn; Stack Effect

1

0

1

86.7

 

1

1

0

74.9

No Stack Effect; I SUBT Dominates

1

1

1

448.1 worst case

From the data, it is observed that the fundamental Network Theory i.e. Kirchhoff’s Law has been obeyed at every node, here, we are considering NMOS and PMOS as nodes.

Leakage Current is found to be minimum for vector “100” because “No I GATE is drawn; Stack effect”. In this combination, NMOS_1 is ON so it doesn’t any gate current from supply voltage. Rests of the two NMOS are OFF and are in series, hence due to Stacking effect lows I SUB flows.

Another Category of input vector is “I GATE drawn; Stack Effect”. In this combination, NMOS_1 is switched OFF and therefore draws I GATE from power supply. Because there are two OFF NMOS in this combination, low I SUB flows due to stack effect.

In case of vector “010”, “I GATE replaces I SUB ”. In such cases where there is a non-conducting transistor above and below a conducting transistor, I GATE replaces I SUB . A positive potential is developed between the NMOS_1 and NMOS_2 due to I SUB flowing through NMOS_1.Thevoltage developed is sufficiently small for NMOS_2 to exhibit I GATE from its gate to drain. I GATE further increases the voltage at the node. This increase in voltage reduces I SUB through NMOS_1 and also reduces I GATE . But the dependence of I SUB on V GS is stronger than the dependence of I GATE onV GD . Thus, I GATE displaces I SUB and remains as the only leakage component in the stack.

The Last category is “No Stack Effect; I SUB Dominates”, as stack effect is not possible in this case I sub leads to be the dominating factor in leakage. For “111”, it is the Worst case as three PMOS are in parallel, hence ISUB from all the PMOS collectively makes it the maximum leakage combination.

Page 34 of 51

It is observed that for 3ip nand gate max leakage occurs when 3pmos es are in series that is for 111 combination and theoretically min leakage should occur for 000 combination. But this is not the case .We have taken readings of v gs and v ds for all 3 nmoses . The nmos with v gs most negative is the limiter of current in the entire circuit for a particular input combination. It is found out that the theoretical and practical values of ratios of channel currents after subtracting the gate leakage current is almost same. The theoretical value is found from the equation of sub threshold current.

     

100

   

000

   
 

V

ds (v)

V

gs (v)

V

ds (v)

V

gs (v)

Nmos 1

 

.225

 

.225

 

.984

-.156

Nmos 2

 

.77

-.105

 

.129

-.027

Nmos 3

 

.105

 

0

 

.027

 

0

From the table it is observed for 100 combination Nmos2 is the limiter.

 

After subtracting gate leakage current, channel current for 100 combination is (9.03-2.8)nA= 6.23 nA. For 000 combination channel current is 14.41nA. So practically ratio of channel current for 100 to 000 is .432.

I sub =I 0 e ((vgs-vth)/n.vt) e (-vds/vt)

 

Putting the values from the above table and taking n to be 2 ,v th =.22v,v t (thermal voltage) =25 mV we get I sub(100) /I sub(000) = 0.013/0.0298= 0.436

Logical effort at input A, B & C is 1.5

Page 35 of 51

[2.5.4] 2 input NOR

[2.5.4] 2 input NOR Figure 20: Circuit Diagram for 2 Input NOR Gate Y= A+B Figure

Figure 20: Circuit Diagram for 2 Input NOR Gate

2 input NOR Figure 20: Circuit Diagram for 2 Input NOR Gate Y= A+B Figure 21:
Y= A+B
Y= A+B

Figure 21: Schematic diagram of 2 Input NOR Gate

Page 36 of 51

Ammeter

Type

 

Leakage current(nA)

 

Index

 
 

Input Vector

 

0 0

0 1

1 0

1 1

1

Total Leakage Current

181.2

299.3

77.11

3.103

2

Drain Current of PMOS_1 &Source Current of PMOS_2

180.7

298.9

77.16

3.104

3

Drain Current of PMOS_2

180.3

299.1

77.16

3.313

4

Drain Current of NMOS_1

90.17

N

77.16

1.656

5

Drain Current of NMOS_2

90.17

299.1

N

1.656

6

Gate Current of NMOS_1

-3.5

N

16.34

15.95

7

Gate Current of NMOS_2

-3.5

15.95

N

15.95

8

Source Current of NMOS_1

86.57

N

93.11

17.61

9

Source Current of NMOS_2

86.57

315

N

17.61

N=NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT

   

Drain Current

Source Current

Gate Current

Input Vector

(nA)

(nA)

(nA)

PMOS_1

 

180.7

181.2

N

PMOS_2

0

0

180.3

180.7

N

NMOS_1

 

90.17

86.57

-3.5

NMOS_2

90.17

86.97

-3.5

PMOS_1

 

298.9

299.3

N

PMOS_2

0

1

299.1

298.9

N

NMOS_1

 

N

N

N

NMOS_2

299.1

315

15.95

PMOS_1

 

77.16

77.11

N

PMOS_2

1

0

77.16

77.16

N

NMOS_1

 

77.16

93.11

16.34

Page 37 of 51

NMOS_2

 

N

N

N

PMOS_1

 

3.104

3.103

N

PMOS_2

1 1

3.313

3.104

N

NMOS_1

1.656

17.61

15.95

NMOS_2

1.656

17.61

15.95

Analysis:

N=NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF CURRENT IN PICO AMPERE.

In order to keep the effective resistance of the p-MOS and n-MOS equal, the width of the p-MOS and n- MOS are fixed at 6u and 1u, respectively, thereby maintaining ratio of Wp :Wn at 3:1.

In both the studies we observe that the fundamental law of network theory i.e. Kirchhoff’s Current Law has been obeyed at every node (considering, each mos to be a node).

We also observe that maximum leakage current is obtained when both the sources are set to 0V. This is because both the n-MOS are off simultaneously, and so their individual leakage currents are added up.

Minimum leakage current is obtained when both the sources are set to 1V.This is because of the stack effect, resulting in decrease of the leakage current as the p-MOS are in series

Logical effort at input A & B is 7/4.

Page 38 of 51

[2.5.5]3 input NOR

[2.5.5] 3 input NOR Figure 22: Circuit Diagram for 3 Input NOR Gate A B C

Figure 22: Circuit Diagram for 3 Input NOR Gate

A B C A B C
A
B
C
A
B C

Y= (A+B+C)

Figure 23: Schematic diagram of 3 Input NOR Gate

Page 39 of 51

     

Leakage Current (nA)

 

Ammeter

 

index

Type

 

Input Vector

 

000

001

010

011

100

101

110

111

 

Total leakage

               

1

current

272.3

449

116.3

5.281

94.81

4.704

4.098

1.868

2

Drain current of PMOS_1 & Source current of

271.7

448.4

115.7

4.658

94.87

4.705

4.099

1.868

PMOS_2

3

Drain current of PMOS_2 & Source current of

271.7

447.8

115.8

4.658

94.87

4.36

4.233

1.869

PMOS_3

 

Drain current of

               

4

PMOS_3