1. Introduction
AC – DC charge pumps (CPs) are used to convert AC input power to DC output power for microwave wireless power transmission (MWPT) or RF energy harvesting (RF – EH) [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11], biomedical application [
12,
13,
14,
15,
16] and (c) vibration energy harvesting [
17,
18,
19,
20], as shown in
Figure 1 (a) – (c).
Figure 1 (d) illustrates a circuit diagram of CP composed of multiple rectifiers and capacitors connected in series between the input and output terminals. The capacitors are driven by differential signals
CLK and
CLKB, alternately. A filtering capacitor is connected at the output terminal to generate a DC voltage. The DC voltage is used for the following circuit blocks or ICs such as sensors and RF ICs in IoT edge modules or medical devices. The rectifier used in AC – DC CPs was originally a diode-connected single MOSFET [
21,
22,
23], as shown in
Figure 2(a). When the amplitude of the input AC voltage is low in low power systems, reverse leakage becomes significant concern. To reduce the reverse leakage current, ultra-low-power diodes were proposed and used in low power AC – DC CPs [
24,
25,
26], as shown in
Figure 2(b). To boost the gate voltages of switching MOSFETs for increasing the forward current, cross-coupled CMOS or CMOS latch has been widely used [
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34], as shown in
Figure 2(c).
The frequency of AC signals is spread depending on use cases. MWPT utilizes ISM bands such as 920 MHz [1 – 3], 2.4 GHz [4 – 7], 5.8 GHz [8 – 9], and 24 GHz [10 – 11]. To have low tissue attenuation, ultrasound with moderate frequencies of 6.78 MHz and 13.56 MHz is used for biomedical application [
12,
13,
14,
15,
16]. Fundamental resonant frequency used for vibration energy harvesting is nominally at 1 –100Hz [17 – 20]. Thus, improving the efficiency to design AC – DC CPs is required. A circuit model plays a key role to improve the design efficiency. Models for AC – DC CPs with single diodes have been developed in [
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38,
39,
40]. DC – DC CPs with cross-coupled CMOS operating in triode region was modeled in [
41]. However, the output resistance of the CP (
Ro) was given not specifically but by the traditional method of
N/fC coth(Ton/Ron C), where
N is the number of stages,
f clock frequency,
C stage capacitance,
Ton the period that the MOSFET turns on,
Ron on-resistance of the MOSFET.
To directly take a look at differences in
Ro among SD – CP, ULPD – CP and XC – CP, SPICE simulation was done using the design parameters in 65nm CMOS as shown in
Table 1, resulting in
Figure 3. Surprisingly,
Ro of XC – CP was 3X higher than those of SD – CP and ULPD – CP. As a result, the previous model [
39,
40] needs to be modified to predict high
Ro for XC – CP.
This paper proposes a circuit model of cross-coupled CMOS AC – DC charge pump (XC – CP) operating in subthreshold region. The aim is improving the efficiency to design XC – CPs with variety of specifications, e.g., input and output voltages and AC input frequency. First, it is shown that the output resistance (Ro) of XC-CP is much higher than those of CPs with single diodes (SD – CP) and ultra-low-power diodes (ULPD – CP) as charge transfer switches (CTSs). Second, the reason behind the above feature of XC-CP is identified by a simple model that the gate-to-source voltages of CTS MOSFETs are independent of the output voltage of the CP. Third, high but finite Ro of XC – CP is explainable with a more accurate model that includes the dependence of the saturation current of MOSFETs operating in subthreshold voltage on the drain-to-source voltage which is a faction of the output voltage of CP. The model was in good agreement with measured and simulated results of XC –, SD – and ULPD – CPs fabricated in 250 nm CMOS.
This paper is composed of the following sections.
Section 2 shows the characteristics and schematics of rectifiers composing each stage to be optimized.
Section 3 presents fabricated circuits and measurement results. Section 4 summarizes this research.
3. Validation of the proposed model
XC – CP, SD – CP and ULPD – CP were designed in 250nm CMOS with the parameters shown in
Table 3.
Figure 8,
Figure 9 and
Figure 10 respectively show simulated waveforms at 12
th and 13
th stages when
Vdd is 400 mV and
Vpp is 3.0V. Note that V3, N- and P-well voltage, of XC – CP in
Figure 9, and V2 and V4, N- and P-well voltages, of ULPD – CP in
Figure 10, are much more stable than V1 – V3 of SD – CP as shown in
Figure 8. I1 and I2 of ULPD – CP become negative in a cycle time, but those are due to AC current to the gate of CTS transistors, not actual leakage current.
XC – CP, SD – CP and ULPD – CP were fabricated in 250nm CMOS to validate the proposed model.
Figure 11,
Figure 12 and
Figure 13 respectively illustrate layout design for those three CPs.
NMOSFETs were formed in the triple well to isolate their P-well from P-substrate. Deep N-well of the NMOSFET is shared with N-well for PMOSFET to minimize the parasitic capacitance for XC and ULPD CPs. To route wires for CLK and CLKB with minimal length, adjacent two stages are laid out by placing two capacitors at top and bottom of the cell. The CTS is placed in the middle. The cell width is determined by the CTS and the cell height is determined by the two caps and the CTS.
Figure 14 shows die photo. Each CP has 24 stages with a stage capacitor of 10 pF. Because of difference in CTS size of three CPs, XC, ULPD and SD CPs have entire size of 0.48mm
2, 0.49mm
2 and 0.44mm
2, respectively.
Figure 15 shows measured waveforms of the three CPs with
Vdd of 200 mV, f of 1 MHz and a load resistance of 10 MΩ. The ripple voltages were below 6mV with a filtering capacitance of 22 pF.
Vpp was measured with various
Vdd and load resistance.
Figure 16 compares
Vpp –
Ipp curves between XC, ULPD and SD with SPICE, measurement and model. Hereinafter, the models for XC and SD indicate (13) and (5), respectively.
Figure 16 (a) – (c) show the comparison of
Vpp – Ipp curves given by SPICE simulation between XC, ULPD and SD at
Vdd of 400 mV (a), 200 mV (b), and 50 mV (c). At
Vdd of 400 mV or 200 mV, “Latch” or XC – CP had the highest
Ro in a lower
Vpp range, but
Ipp suddenly collapsed at certain
Vpp. The reason of that behavior has not been identified in this work, which will be determined in the following researches.
Isc of SC was the highest among the three CPs at
Vdd of 400 mV, 200 mV and 50 mV. At
Vdd of 50 mV,
Ipp of XC is as low as that of ULPD. At such a low
Vdd,
Vds of each CTS transistor may play a main role.
Vds of each CTS transistor in XC and ULPD is half of that in SD. When
Vds goes below
VT, (7) indicates that
Ids is reduced as
Vds decreases.
Figure 16 (d) – (f) show the comparison of
Vpp – Ipp curves given by measurement between XC, ULPD and SD at
Vdd of 400 mV (d), 200 mV (e), and 50 mV (f).
Vpp – Ipp characteristics at
Vdd of 400mV or 200mV between XC, ULPD and SD were very similar to those of SPICE results. Unlike SPICE results,
Ipp values of the three CPs were about the same at
Vdd of 50 mV.
Figure 16 (g) – (i) show the comparison of
Vpp – Ipp curves given by the models between XC and SD at
Vdd of 400 mV (g), 200 mV (h), and 50 mV (i).
Ipp of XC was larger than SD when
Vdd was 400mV or 200mV whereas
Ipp of XC was smaller than SD when
Vdd was 50mV. Those trends were similar to SPICE results.
Figure 17 compares
Vpp – Ipp curves between SPICE, measurement and model.
Figure 17 (a) – (c) show the comparison of
Vpp – Ipp curves of XC – CP at
Vdd of 400 mV (a), 200 mV (b), and 50 mV (c). The proposed model (13) was in good agreement with SPICE and measured within a factor of 3 in the swept ranges of
Vpp and
Vdd. The model was not succeeded to show sudden collapse at a certain
Vpp with
Vdd of 400mV.
Figure 17 (d) – (f) show the comparison of
Vpp – Ipp curves of ULPD – CP at
Vdd of 400 mV (d), 200 mV (e), and 50 mV (f). SPICE and measured results were well matched in terms of the open circuit voltage and within a discrepancy of 20% in terms of
Ro.
Figure 17 (g) – (i) show the comparison of
Vpp – Ipp curves of SD – CP at
Vdd of 400 mV (g), 200 mV (h), and 50 mV (i).
Ro had discrepancies from SPICE and measured by a factor of two at
Vdd of 400mV and was in good agreement with measured at
Vdd of 200mV and 50mV. The discrepancy in
Ro between SPICE and measured increases as
Vdd decreases in comparison with XC and ULPD.
Figure 18 (a) – (c) compare
Ro (a),
Isc (b) and
Voc (c) of XC – CP between SPICE, measured and model (13) at three conditions of (
Vdd,
Vpp) = (400 mV, 2.5 V), (200 mV, 1.0 V), and (50 mV, 0.2 V).
Voc of the model was closer to that of SPICE and measured than
Ro and
Isc of the model were. This means that the discrepancy in
Ro of the model from SPICE and measured is as large as that in
Isc.
Figure 18 (d) – (f) compare
Ro (d),
Isc (e) and
Voc (f) of SD – CP between SPICE, measured and model (5) at three conditions of (
Vdd,
Vpp) = (400 mV, 2.5 V), (200 mV, 1.0 V), and (50 mV, 0.2 V). Like XC – CP,
Voc of the model was closer to that of SPICE and measured than
Ro and
Isc of the model were.
Figure 19 (a) – (c) compare
Ro (a),
Isc (b) and
Voc (c) of XC – CP normalized by those of SD – CP between SPICE, measured and model at the three conditions of (
Vdd,
Vpp) = (400 mV, 2.5 V), (200 mV, 1.0 V), and (50 mV, 0.2 V). From
Figure 19 (a), except for the measured result at (
Vdd,
Vpp) = (50 mV, 0.2 V),
Ro of XC – CP was larger than that of SD – CP by a factor of 2.5 or more. When the condition of (
Vdd,
Vpp) moved from (400 mV, 2.5 V) to (200 mV, 1.0 V) and from (200 mV, 1.0 V) to (50 mV, 0.2 V), the
Ro ratio increased with SPICE whereas didn’t with measured and model except for the measured result from (200 mV, 1.0 V) to (50 mV, 0.2 V).
Figure 19 (b) shows that the
Isc ratio decreased with SPICE and model whereas didn’t with measured.
Figure 19 (c) shows that the
Voc ratios were in good agreement between SPICE, measured and model in those three conditions even though the
Ro ratio and the
Isc ratio had different tendency on the operation condition.
Figure 1.
Applications of AC – DC/RF – DC CPs ((a) Microwave wireless power transmission or RF energy harvesting, (b) biomedical application, (c) vibration energy harvesting) and (d) circuit diagram of CP.
Figure 1.
Applications of AC – DC/RF – DC CPs ((a) Microwave wireless power transmission or RF energy harvesting, (b) biomedical application, (c) vibration energy harvesting) and (d) circuit diagram of CP.
Figure 2.
AC – DC CPs with diode-connected MOSFETs (a), ultra-low-power diodes (ULPDs) (b) and cross-coupled CMOS or CMOS latch (c).
Figure 2.
AC – DC CPs with diode-connected MOSFETs (a), ultra-low-power diodes (ULPDs) (b) and cross-coupled CMOS or CMOS latch (c).
Figure 3.
Output voltage
Vpp – output current
Ipp under the condition of
Table 1.
Figure 3.
Output voltage
Vpp – output current
Ipp under the condition of
Table 1.
Figure 4.
Nodal voltages Vn and Vn+1 of neighboring stages (a) and their waveform (b).
Figure 4.
Nodal voltages Vn and Vn+1 of neighboring stages (a) and their waveform (b).
Figure 5.
Sub-circuit of XC – CP (a) and waveform of nodal voltages (b).
Figure 5.
Sub-circuit of XC – CP (a) and waveform of nodal voltages (b).
Figure 6.
Ids – Vgs (a) and an extracted IS – Vds (b) of an NMOSFET in 250 nm CMOS.
Figure 6.
Ids – Vgs (a) and an extracted IS – Vds (b) of an NMOSFET in 250 nm CMOS.
Figure 7.
Comparison of Vpp – Ipp between SPICE and models (10), (12), (13).
Figure 7.
Comparison of Vpp – Ipp between SPICE and models (10), (12), (13).
Figure 8.
12th and 13th stages of SD – CP (a) and their waveforms (b).
Figure 8.
12th and 13th stages of SD – CP (a) and their waveforms (b).
Figure 9.
12th and 13th stages of XC – CP (a) and their waveforms (b).
Figure 9.
12th and 13th stages of XC – CP (a) and their waveforms (b).
Figure 10.
12th and 13th stages of ULPD – CP (a) and their waveforms (b).
Figure 10.
12th and 13th stages of ULPD – CP (a) and their waveforms (b).
Figure 11.
Layout unit of SD – CP (a) and its layout design (b).
Figure 11.
Layout unit of SD – CP (a) and its layout design (b).
Figure 12.
Layout unit of XC – CP (a) and its layout design (b).
Figure 12.
Layout unit of XC – CP (a) and its layout design (b).
Figure 13.
Layout unit of ULPD – CP (a) and its layout design (b).
Figure 13.
Layout unit of ULPD – CP (a) and its layout design (b).
Figure 15.
Measured waveform with Vdd of 200 mV and f of 1 MHz.
Figure 15.
Measured waveform with Vdd of 200 mV and f of 1 MHz.
Figure 16.
Vpp – Ipp characteristics: SPICE results with Vdd of 400 mV (a), 200 mV (b) and 50 mV (c); measured results with Vdd of 400 mV (d), 200 mV (e) and 50 mV (f); models with Vdd of 400 mV (g), 200 mV (h) and 50 mV (i).
Figure 16.
Vpp – Ipp characteristics: SPICE results with Vdd of 400 mV (a), 200 mV (b) and 50 mV (c); measured results with Vdd of 400 mV (d), 200 mV (e) and 50 mV (f); models with Vdd of 400 mV (g), 200 mV (h) and 50 mV (i).
Figure 17.
Vpp – Ipp characteristics: XC – CP (Latch) with Vdd of 400 mV (a), 200 mV (b) and 50 mV (c); ULPD – CP with Vdd of 400 mV (d), 200 mV (e) and 50 mV (f); SD – CP (Single) with Vdd of 400 mV (g), 200 mV (h) and 50 mV (i).
Figure 17.
Vpp – Ipp characteristics: XC – CP (Latch) with Vdd of 400 mV (a), 200 mV (b) and 50 mV (c); ULPD – CP with Vdd of 400 mV (d), 200 mV (e) and 50 mV (f); SD – CP (Single) with Vdd of 400 mV (g), 200 mV (h) and 50 mV (i).
Figure 18.
Ro (a), Isc (b) and Voc (c) of XC – CP and Ro (d), Isc (e) and Voc (f) of SD – CP between SPICE, measured and model (13) at three conditions of (Vdd, Vpp) = (400 mV, 2.5 V), (200 mV, 1.0 V), and (50 mV, 0.2 V).
Figure 18.
Ro (a), Isc (b) and Voc (c) of XC – CP and Ro (d), Isc (e) and Voc (f) of SD – CP between SPICE, measured and model (13) at three conditions of (Vdd, Vpp) = (400 mV, 2.5 V), (200 mV, 1.0 V), and (50 mV, 0.2 V).
Figure 19.
Comparison of Ro (a), Isc (b) and Voc (c) of XC – CP normalized by those of SD – CP between SPICE, measured and model at the three conditions of (Vdd, Vpp) = (400 mV, 2.5 V), (200 mV, 1.0 V), and (50 mV, 0.2 V).
Figure 19.
Comparison of Ro (a), Isc (b) and Voc (c) of XC – CP normalized by those of SD – CP between SPICE, measured and model at the three conditions of (Vdd, Vpp) = (400 mV, 2.5 V), (200 mV, 1.0 V), and (50 mV, 0.2 V).
Table 1.
Design parameters for
Figure 3.
Table 1.
Design parameters for
Figure 3.
Parameter |
Symbol |
Value |
Clock frequency |
f |
1 GHz |
Number of stages |
N |
32 |
Stage capacitance |
C |
100 fF |
Clock amplitude |
Vdd |
400mV |
Table 2.
Definition of design parameters.
Table 2.
Definition of design parameters.
Parameter |
Description |
Parameter |
Description |
|
Frequency of input power |
|
Saturation current of MOSFET operating in subthreshold region |
|
Input AC voltage of XC–CP |
C |
Stage capacitor (capacitance per stage) |
|
Amplitude of Vin
|
|
Number of stages |
|
Output DC voltage of XC–CP |
|
Output resistance of CP |
|
Average output current of XC–CP |
ISC |
Short circuit current of CP |
|
Effective thermal voltage |
VOC |
Open circuit voltage defined by RO ISC
|
Table 3.
Design parameters for
Figure 7 and used for the fabricated CPs which will be discussed in
Section 3.
Table 3.
Design parameters for
Figure 7 and used for the fabricated CPs which will be discussed in
Section 3.
Parameter |
Symbol |
Value |
Clock frequency |
f |
1 MHz |
Number of stages |
N |
24 |
Stage capacitance |
C |
10 pF |
Clock amplitude |
Vdd |
400mV, 200mV, 50mV |