1991
DOI: 10.1109/4.75008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rapid yield estimation as a computer aid for analog circuit design

Abstract: A rapid yield estimation methodology that aids the analog circuit designer in making design trade-offs that improve yield is presented. This methodology is based on using hierarchical evaluation of analysis equations, rather than simulation, to predict circuit performance. The new analog rapid yield estimation (ARYE) method has been used to predict the yield of two-stage op amps, and has been incorporated into the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) analog design system (ACACIA). An example of how ARYE allows ana… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
(17 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The result shows that a higher yield was achieved with the proposed method. The computational cost is one that can be overcome with a parallelization of the optimization process [15]. Figure 6 Monte Carlo Simulation for Voltage Offset…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The result shows that a higher yield was achieved with the proposed method. The computational cost is one that can be overcome with a parallelization of the optimization process [15]. Figure 6 Monte Carlo Simulation for Voltage Offset…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there are some efforts that have been developed that include parameter variations in the analog circuit synthesis. [15], [16] use post-design yield analysis to change the cost function of the inner circuit optimization. While [17] incorporates mismatch parameter as the cost function, but this is done only for global variations and the mismatch is represented by a simplified model rather than simulationbased estimation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This falls short in that it attempts to use the same variability for all devices in a design, regardless of the degree of matching they exhibit. The second method develops an empirical model for each specific matched device configuration, and uses that model to generate specific parameter information for each matched device [14], [15]. This technique requires explicit model development for each new matching configuration (for example, if three matching devices were used rather than two), and assumes that the only within-die variations which matter are those on matched devices (other devices are modeled with no variation).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This falls short in that it attempts to use the same variability for all devices in a design, regardless of the degree of matching they exhibit. The second method develops an empirical model for each specific matched device configuration, and uses that model to generate specific parameter information for each matched device [32], [33]. This technique requires explicit model development for each new matching configuration (for example, if three matching devices were used rather than two), and assumes that the only within-die variations which matter are those on matched devices (other devices are modeled with no variation).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%