CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION 1
Dec 29, 2015
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
1
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF LOW POWER DESIGN
Digital integrated circuits are found everywhere in modern life and many of them are
embedded in mobile devices where limited power resource is available (e.g. mobile
phones, watches, mobile computers…). To permit a usable battery runtime, such devices
must be designed to consume the lowest possible power. Furthermore, low power is also
very important for non-portable devices, too. Indeed reduced power consumption can
highly decrease the packaging costs and highly increase the circuit reliability, which is
tightly related to the circuit working temperature. Hence, low power consumption is a
zero-order constraint for most ICs manufactured today. In fact, higher performance-per-
watt is the new mantra for micro-processor chip manufacturers today.
In order to achieve high density and high performance, CMOS technology feature size
and threshold voltage have been scaling down for decades. Because of this trend, transistor
leakage power has increased exponentially. The reduction of the supply voltage is dictated
by the need to maintain the electric field constant on the ever shrinking gate oxide.
Unfortunately, to keep transistor speed (proportional to the transistor “on” current)
acceptable, the threshold voltage must be reduced too, which results in an exponential
increase of the “off” transistor current, i.e. the current constantly flowing through the
transistor even when it should be “non-conducting”.
As the feature size becomes smaller, shorter channel lengths result in increased sub-
threshold leakage current through a transistor when it is off. Low threshold voltage also
results in increased sub-threshold leakage current because transistors cannot be turned off
completely. For these reasons, static power consumption, i.e. leakage power dissipation
has become a significant portion of total power consumption for current and future silicon
technologies.
To solve the power dissipation problem, many researchers have proposed different
ideas from the device level to the architectural level and above. However there is no
universal way to avoid tradeoffs between power, delay and area, and thus designers are
required to choose appropriate techniques that satisfy application and product needs.
2
1.2 SOURCES OF POWER DISSIPATION
The power consumed by CMOS circuits can be classified into two categories:
Dynamic Power Dissipation:
For a fraction of an instant during the operation of a circuit, both the PMOS
and NMOS devices are “on” simultaneously. The duration of the interval depends on
the input and output transition (rise and fall) times. During this time, a path exists
between Vdd and Gnd and a short-circuit current flows. However, this is not the
dominant factor in dynamic power dissipation. The major component of dynamic
power dissipation arises from transient switching behavior of the nodes. The Signals
in CMOS devices transition back and forth between the two logic levels, resulting in
the charging and discharging of parasitic capacitances in the circuit. Dynamic power
dissipation is proportional to the square of the supply voltage. Every time a capacitive
node (CL) switches from Vdd to Gnd (and back), energy of CLVdd2 is consumed. In
deep-submicron processes, supply voltages and threshold voltages for MOS
transistors are greatly reduced. This, to an extent, reduces the dynamic power
dissipation.
Figure 1.1 Dynamic Power Consumption
Static Power Dissipation:
This is the power dissipation due to leakage currents which flow through a
transistor when no transactions occur and the transistor is in a steady state. Leakage
power depends on gate length and oxide thickness. It varies exponentially with
threshold voltage and other parameters. Reduction of supply voltages and threshold
3
voltages for MOS transistors, which helps to reduce dynamic power dissipation,
becomes disadvantageous in this case. The sub-threshold leakage current increases
exponentially, thereby increasing static power dissipation.
The main components of leakage current in a MOS transistor are:
Figure 1.2 Static CMOS Leakage sources
Reverse-biased junction leakage current: Junction leakage occurs from the source
or drain to the substrate through the reverse-biased diodes when the transistor is off.
Gate induced drain leakage: This is caused due to the high field effect in the drain
junction of MOS transistors. It is made worse by high drain to body voltage and high
drain to gate voltage.
Gate direct tunneling leakage: Gate leakage flows from the gate through the oxide
insulation layer to the substrate. Direct tunneling current is significant for low oxide
thickness. The gate leakage of a PMOS device is typically one order of magnitude
smaller than that of an NMOS device with identical Tox and Vdd.
Punch-through: Occurs when the drain voltage is high and the drain and source
depletion regions approach each other. In the punch-through condition, the gate totally
loses the control of the channel current and the sub-threshold slope starts to degrade.
Sub-threshold (weak inversion) leakage: This is the drain to source current of a
transistor operating in the weak inversion region, when gate to source voltage (VGS) is
below the transistor threshold voltage (Vth).
Gate oxide tunneling, punch-through, GIDL and band-to-band tunneling are due to
the high electric field. For the low voltage low power CMOS circuits at current
technology, sub-threshold leakage is the dominant component of the leakage current.
Equation 1.1 below approximates the sub-threshold leakage current of a MOSFET.
4
I ¿=A . eθ .[1−e(−q V DS
kT ) ] ………… (1.1)
A=μo CoxWL ( kT
q )2
e1.8
θ=[ q
n' kT(V GS−V t h0
−γ ' V s−η V DS )] μo is the carrier mobility;
Cox is the gate oxide capacitance per unit area;
W and L denote the transistor width and length;
kTq
is the thermal voltage at temperature T;
n' is the sub-threshold swing coefficient of the transistor;
V GS is the gate to source voltage of the transistor;
V t h0is the zero-bias threshold voltage;
γ ' V s is the body effect where γ 'is the linearized body effect coefficient; and
η is the Drain Induced Barrier Lowering (DIBL) coefficient.
V DS is the drain to source voltage of the transistor.
Pleak=∑i
I ¿i.V DSi …………… (1.2)
Equation 1.2 gives the total leakage power for all the transistors.
Dynamic power consumption was previously (at 0.18µ technology and above)
the single largest concern for low-power chip designers since dynamic power
accounted for 90% or more of the total chip power. Therefore, many previously
proposed techniques, such as voltage and frequency scaling etc., focused on dynamic
power reduction. However, as the feature size shrinks, e.g., to 0.09µ and 0.065µ, static
power has become a great challenge for current and future technologies. Based on
International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) report, the sub-
threshold leakage power dissipation of a chip may exceed dynamic power dissipation
for deep sub-micron technologies.
One of the main reasons causing the leakage power increase is increase of sub-
threshold leakage power. When technology feature size scales down, supply voltage
and threshold voltage also scales down. Sub-threshold leakage power increases
5
exponentially as threshold voltage decreases. Furthermore, the structure of the short
channel device lowers the threshold voltage even lower. In addition to sub-threshold
leakage another contributor to leakage power is gate-oxide leakage power due to the
tunneling current through the gate-oxide insulator. Since gate-oxide thickness will be
reduced as technology decreases, in nanoscale technology, gate-oxide leakage power
may be comparable to sub-threshold leakage power if not handled properly.
Minimization of sub-threshold leakage is the primary goal in this thesis.
1.3 MOTIVATION FOR LEAKAGE CONTROL MECHANISMS
Cell phones and pocket PCs have burst-mode type integrated circuits, which for the
majority of the time are in an idle state. For such circuits, it is acceptable to have leakage
during the active mode. However, during the idle state it is extremely wasteful to have
leakage, as power is unnecessarily consumed with no useful work being done. Given the
present advances in power management techniques, leakage loss is a major concern in
deep-submicron technologies, as it drains the battery, even when a circuit is completely
idle. Let us compare the impact of static (leakage) power consumption in the context of a
cell phone example. It is assumed that in general, the cell phone considered is always on
(i.e., 24 hours a day). However, the actual usage of the cell phone is very limited. If a 500
minutes calling plan with 500 minutes total used per month is assumed, the cell phone is
active only 1.15% (500min / (30days_24hours_60min)) of the total on time. This means
that during rest – 98.85% of the time – the cell phone is non-active; however, due to static
power consumption, during rest (standby) the cell phone still consumes energy and
reduces battery life.
Power dissipation of high-performance processors and servers is predicted to
increase linearly over the next decade. The 2006 International Technology Roadmap for
Semiconductors projects power dissipation to reach 300 Watts by the year 2018. Multi-
core integrated processors deliver significantly greater compute power through
concurrency, offer greater system density and run at lower clock speeds, thereby reducing
thermal dissipation and power consumption to an extent. Leakage power will contribute
towards the majority of the total power consumption for such servers fabricated with deep-
submicron technologies.
As technology goes deeper into the sub-micron era, the impact of leakage power
is huge compared to the dynamic power as shown in figure 1.3.
6
Figure 1.3 Moore’s Law
Although there are many low-leakage techniques existing, the best prior low-
leakage technique in terms of leakage power reduction, the sleep transistor technique,
loses logic state during sleep mode. Therefore, the sleep transistor technique requires
non-negligible time to wake-up the device from the sleep mode. In an emergency
calling situation to use cell phone, this wake-up time may not be acceptable. Therefore,
an ultra low-leakage technique that can save state even in non-active mode can be quite
important in nanoscale technology.
In this thesis, a novel circuit structure named “LECTOR”, a new remedy for
designers in terms of static power is provided. The LECTOR has a novel structure that
reduces leakage current while saving exact logic state. LECTOR uses two additional
transistors, in a path from supply to ground, which are self-controlled. In short, like the
sleep and zigzag approaches, our approach also obtains the leakage power reduction but
with an advantage of maintaining exact logic states.
Table 1.1 shows the technology scaling of the components and the estimated
power consumption. The number of transistors per circuit will continue to increase as
predicted by Moore’s law, whereas the transistor sizes will continue to shrink. Despite a
decreased supply voltage, the total power will continue to increase.
7
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Technology node [nm] 90 65 65 65 45 45 45 32 32
Printed Gate Length
[nm]
48 42 38 34 30 27 24 21 19
Transistors Number
[M]
193 386 386 386 773 773 773 1546 1546
Chip Size [mm2] 88 140 111 88 140 111 88 140 111
Voltage Supply [V] 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 0.9 0.9
Internal Frequency
[GHz]
6.7 9.2 10.9 12.3 15 17 20 22 28
Total Power [W] 98 104 111 116 119 119 125 137 137
Table 1.1 Technology Scaling
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT
This project work addresses low power approaches for very large scale
integration (VLSI) logic. Power dissipation is one of the major concerns when
designing a VLSI system. Until recently, dynamic power was the only concern.
However, as technology feature size shrinks, static power, which was negligible before,
becomes an issue as important as dynamic power. Since static power increases
dramatically (indeed, even exponentially) in nanoscale technology, the importance of
reducing leakage power consumption cannot be overstressed.
A well known previous technique called the sleep transistor technique cuts off
Vdd and/or Gnd connections of the transistors to save leakage power consumption.
However, when transistors are allowed to float, a system may have to wait a long time
to reliably restore lost state and thus may experience seriously degraded performance.
Therefore, retaining state is crucial for a system that requires fast response even while
in an inactive state. The next approach sleepy stack however saves the state using stack
transistors but occupies a lot of area as each transistor is replaced by three transistors.
Our thesis provides new leakage reduction technique that achieves ultra-low leakage
8
power consumption while maintaining logic state and occupying less area, and thus can
be used for a system with long inactive times but a fast response time requirement.
1.5 THESIS ORGANIZATION
The report is organized into Five chapters.
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter introduces purpose of low power design. This chapter also explains
the sources of power dissipation, addresses the motivation and problem statement and
finally summarizes the organization of the thesis.
Chapter 2: Previous Work
This chapter describes previous work in power reduction research and explains key
differences between our solution and previous work.
Chapter 3: LCPMOS Technique
This chapter introduces the LCPMOS technique. First, the structure of the
LCPMOS is described followed by a detailed explanation of LCPMOS operation.
This chapter also explains reducing area overhead in implementation of LCPMOS
technique, finally explains the experimental methodology carried out in this thesis.
Chapter 4: Applying LCPMOS
This chapter explores various implementations of LCPMOS approach. The
implementation includes generic logic circuits. For each implementation of LCPMOS,
comparisons with respective base cases and with LECTOR are carried out.
Chapter 5: LCPMOS Experimental Results
This chapter discusses the experimental results from various applications of the
LCPMOS approach.
9
CHAPTER-2
PREVIOUS WORK
10
CHAPTER-2
PREVIOUS WORK
Modern technologies are suffering from a dramatic increase in leakage current.
Constant scaling dictates that the supply voltage has to be reduced when downsizing the
technology feature size. Low threshold voltage devices are used to maintain the
required current drive and to satisfy performance specifications. Low threshold devices
have caused a dramatic increase in leakage current. A direct and live solution for that is
to utilize low threshold devices in the critical path and high threshold devices
elsewhere. The threshold voltage can be controlled utilizing the well bias of the device
in the so called Variable Threshold CMOS (VTCMOS).
A technique for leakage control is power gating, which turns off the devices by
cutting off their supply voltage. This technique makes use of bulky NMOS and/or
PMOS device (sleep transistor) in the path between the supply voltage and ground. The
sleep transistor is turned on when the circuit is active and turned off when the circuit is in
idle state with the help of sleep signal. This creates virtual power and ground rails in the
circuit. Hence, there is a significant detrimental effect on the switching speed when the
circuit is active. The identification of the idle regions of the circuit and the generation of
the sleep signal need additional hardware capable of predicting the circuit states
accurately. This additional hardware consumes power throughout the circuit operation
even when the circuit is in an idle state to continuously monitor the circuit state and
control the sleep transistors.
The use of multiple threshold voltage CMOS (MTCMOS) technology for leakage
control is another technique. The transistors of the gates are at low threshold voltage and
the ground is connected to the gate through a high-threshold voltage NMOS gating
transistor. The logical function of a gating transistor is similar to that of a sleep transistor.
The existence of reverse conduction paths tend to reduce the noise margin or in the worst
case may result in complete failure of the gate. Moreover, there is a performance penalty
since high-threshold transistors appear in series with all the switching current paths. A
variation of MTCMOS technique is the Dual Vt technique, which uses transistors with two
11
different threshold voltages. Low-threshold transistors are used for the gates on the critical
path and high-threshold transistors are used for those not in the critical path. It reduces the
noise margin or in worst case may result in complete failure of the gate. In both MTCMOS
and Dual methods, additional mask layers for each value of threshold voltage are required
for fabricating the transistors selectively according to their assigned threshold voltage
values. It is a complicated task to deposit two different oxides thickness, which makes the
fabrication process complex.
In addition to these limitations, the techniques discussed above suffer from
turning-on latency, that is, when the idle subsections of the circuit are reactivated, they
cannot be used immediately because some time is needed before the sub-circuit returns to
its normal operating condition. The latency for power gating is typically a few cycles, and
for Dual technology, is much higher. Also, these techniques are not effective in controlling
the leakage power when the circuit is in active state.
Techniques for leakage power reduction can be grouped into two categories:
(i) State-saving techniques where circuit state (present value) is retained
(ii) State-destructive techniques where the current Boolean output value of the
circuit might be lost.
A state-saving technique has an advantage over a state-destructive technique in that
with a state-saving technique the circuitry can immediately resume operation at a point
much later in time without having to somehow regenerate state.
2.1. SLEEP technique
State-destructive techniques cut off transistor (pull-up or pull-down or both)
networks from supply voltage or ground using sleep transistors (Figure 2.1). this technique
is Multi-Threshold voltage CMOS (MTCMOS), which adds high-Vth sleep transistors
between pull-up networks and Vdd and between pull-down networks and ground while
logic circuits use low-Vth transistors in order to maintain fast logic switching speeds. By
isolating the logic networks using sleep transistors, the sleep transistor technique
dramatically reduces leakage power during sleep mode. However, the additional sleep
transistors increase area and delay. Furthermore, the pull-up and pull-down networks will
have floating values and thus will lose state during sleep mode. These floating values
significantly impact the wakeup time and energy of the sleep technique due to the
requirement to recharge transistors which lost state during sleep.
12
Figure 2.1 Sleep Transistor Technique
2.2. FORCED STACK technique
For the stack approach every transistor in the base case network is duplicated with
both original and duplicate bearing half the original transistor width (Figure 2.2).
Duplicated transistors cause a slight reverse bias between the gate and source when both
transistors are turned off. Because sub-threshold current is exponentially dependent on
gate bias, a substantial current reduction is obtained.
The stack effect can be understood from the forced stack inverter example
shown in Figure 2.3. Unlike a generic CMOS inverter, this forced stack inverter consists
of two pull-up transistors and two pull-down transistors. All the transistor inputs share the
same input ‘A’. If A = 0, then both transistors M1 and M2 are turned off. Due to the
internal resistance of M2, the intermediate node voltage Vx is higher than Gnd. The
positive potential of Vx results in a negative gate-source voltage (Vgs) for M1 and
negative source-base voltage (Vsb) for M1. Furthermore, M1 has a reduced drain-source
voltage (Vds), which degrades the Drain Induced Barrier Lowering (DIBL) effect. All
three effects together change the leakage reduction factor, reducing leakage current by an
order of magnitude for today’s channel lengths (0.18μ, 0.13μ, 0.09μ, 0.065μ, 0.045μ).
13
Figure 2.2 Forced Stack Figure 2.3 Forced Stack Inverter
Since all transistors are placed in between two parallel rows of continuous VDD
and GND, stack approach design forces an increase in the number of transistors and
decrease in transistor width.
2.3. ZIGZAG Technique
To reduce the wake-up cost of the sleep transistor technique, the zigzag technique
is introduced. The zigzag technique reduces the wake-up overhead by choosing a
particular circuit state (e.g., corresponding to a “reset”) and then, for the exact circuit state
chosen, turning off the pull-down network for each gate whose output is high while
conversely turning off the pull-up network for each gate whose output is low.
Figure 2.4 Zigzag Approach 14
For example, the zigzag technique in Figure 2.4 assumes that the input ‘A’ is
asserted such that the output values result as shown in the figure. If the output is ‘1,’ then a
pull-down sleep transistor is applied; if the output is ‘0,’ then a pull-up sleep transistor is
applied. By applying, prior to going to sleep, the particular input pattern chosen prior to
chip fabrication, the zigzag technique can prevent floating. Although the zigzag technique
retains the particular state chosen prior to chip fabrication, any other arbitrary state during
regular operation is lost in power-down mode. Although the zigzag technique can reduce
wake-up cost, the zigzag technique still loses state. Thus, any particular state (from prior
to going to sleep) which is needed upon wakeup must be regenerated somehow. The
technique may need extra circuitry to generate a specific input vector (in case reset values
are not used for sleep mode input vector).
2.4. SLEEPY STACK technique
The sleepy stack technique has a combined structure of the forced stack
technique and the sleep transistor technique. When applying the sleepy stack technique,
each existing transistor is replaced with two half sized transistors and add one extra sleep
transistor as shown in figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5 Sleepy Stack
15
(a) (b)
Figure 2.6 Sleepy Stack (a) active mode (b) sleep mode
The sleepy stack technique has a structure merging the forced stack technique and
the sleep transistor technique. Figure 2.6 shows a sleepy stack inverter. The sleepy stack
technique divides existing transistors into two transistors each typically with the same
width W1 half the size of the original single transistor’s width W0 (i.e., W1 = W0/2), thus
maintaining equivalent input capacitance. The sleepy stack inverter in Figure 2.6(a) uses
W/L = 3 for the pull-up transistors and W/L = 1.5 for the pull-down transistors, while a
conventional inverter with the same input capacitance would use W/L = 6 for the pull-up
transistor and W/L = 3 for the pull-down transistor (assuming μn = 2μp). Then sleep
transistors are added in parallel to one of the transistors in each set of two stacked
transistors. Half size transistor width of the original transistor (i.e., we use W0/2) is used
for the sleep transistor width of the sleepy stack. Although using of W0/2 for the width of
the sleep transistor, changing the sleep transistor width may provide additional tradeoffs
between delay, power and area.
Sleepy Stack operation
Below is an explanation how the sleepy stack works during active mode and during
sleep mode, along with leakage power saving using the sleepy stack structure. The sleep
transistors of the sleepy stack operate similar to the sleep transistors used in the sleep
16
transistor technique in which sleep transistors are turned on during active mode and turned
off during sleep mode. Figure 2.6 depicts the sleepy stack operation using a sleepy stack
inverter.
During active mode (Figure 2.6(a)), S = 0 and S’ = 1 are asserted, and thus all
sleep transistors are turned on. This sleepy stack structure can potentially reduce circuit
delay in two ways. First, since the sleep transistors are always on during active mode, the
sleepy stack structure achieves faster switching time than the forced stack structure;
specifically, in Figure 2.6(a), at each sleep transistor drain, the voltage value connected to
the sleep transistor source is always ready and available at the sleep transistor drain, and
thus current flow is immediately available to the low-Vth transistors connected to the gate
output regardless of the status of each transistor in parallel to the sleep transistors.
Furthermore, we can use high-Vth transistors (which are slow but 1000 times or so less
leaky), for the sleep transistors and the transistors parallel to the sleep transistors (see
Figure 2.6) without incurring large delay increase.
During sleep mode (Figure 2.6(b)), S = 1 and S’ = 0 are asserted, and so both of
the sleep transistors are turned off. Although the sleep transistors are turned off, the sleepy
stack structure maintains exact logic state. The leakage reduction of the sleepy stack
structure occurs in two ways. First, leakage power is suppressed by high-Vth transistors,
which are applied to the sleep transistors and the transistors parallel to the sleep
transistors. Second, two stacked and turned off transistors induce the stack effect, which
also suppresses leakage power consumption. By combining these two effects, the sleepy
stack structure achieves ultra-low leakage power consumption during sleep mode while
retaining exact logic state. The price for this, however, is increased area.
2.5. LEAKAGE FEEDBACK technique
The leakage feedback approach is based on the sleep approach. However, the
leakage feedback approach uses two additional transistors to maintain logic state during
sleep mode, and the two transistors are driven by the output of an inverter which is driven
by output of the circuit implemented utilizing leakage feedback. As shown in Figure 2.7, a
PMOS transistor is placed in parallel to the sleep transistor (S) and a NMOS transistor is
placed in parallel to the sleep transistor (S'). The two transistors are driven by the output of
the inverter which is driven by the output of the circuit. During sleep mode, sleep
transistors are turned off and one of the transistors in parallel to the sleep transistors keep
the connection with the appropriate power rail.
17
Figure 2.7 Leakage Feedback approach
For the sleep, zigzag, sleepy stack and leakage feedback approaches, dual
Vth technology can be applied to obtain greater leakage power reduction. Since high-Vth
results in less leakage but lowers performance, high-Vth is applied only to leakage
reduction transistors, which are sleep transistors, and any transistors in parallel to the sleep
transistors; on the other hand, low-Vth is applied to the remaining transistors to maintain
logic performance.
2.6. SLEEPY KEEPER technique
Figure 2.8 Sleepy Keeper approach
The basic problem with traditional CMOS is that the transistors are used only in
their most efficient and naturally inverting way: namely, PMOS transistors connect to 18
VDD and NMOS transistors connect to GND. It is well known that PMOS transistors are
not efficient at passing GND; similarly, it is well known that NMOS transistors are not
efficient at passing VDD. However, to maintain a value of ‘1’ in sleep mode, given that
the ‘1’ value has already been calculated, the sleepy keeper approach uses this output
value of ‘1’ and an NMOS transistor connected to VDD to maintain output value equal to
‘1’ when in sleep mode. As shown in Figure 2.8, an additional single NMOS transistor
placed in parallel to the pull-up sleep transistor connects VDD to the pull-up network.
When in sleep mode, this NMOS transistor is the only source of VDD to the pull-up
network since the sleep transistor is off.
Similarly, to maintain a value of ‘0’ in sleep mode, given that the ‘0’ value has
already been calculated, the sleepy keeper approach uses this output value of ‘0’ and a
PMOS transistor connected to GND to maintain output value equal to ‘0’ when in sleep
mode. For this sleepy keeper approach to work, all that is needed is for the NMOS
connected to VDD and PMOS connected to GND to be able to maintain proper logic state.
Consider figure 2.8. Note that there is a sleepy keeper PMOS transistor connecting GND
to the pull-down network. When in sleep mode, this PMOS transistor is the only source of
GND since the sleep transistor is off. On the other hand, there is an additional single
NMOS transistor connecting VDD to the pull-up network. During sleep mode, this NMOS
transistor is the only source of VDD which is the dual case of the PMOS transistor case
explained above.
Sleepy keeper transistors (the NMOS connected to VDD and the PMOS connected
to GND) are not used to dynamically change the output voltage but instead only use them
to maintain an already calculated output voltage. Specifically only a few clock cycles after
entering sleep to a few clock cycles prior to exiting sleep do the sleepy keeper transistors
acts as the sole connection to keep the output voltage unchanged.
The sleep transistor is turned on when the circuit is active and turned off when the
circuit is in idle state with the help of sleep signal. This creates virtual power and ground
rails in the circuit. Hence, there is a significant detrimental effect on the switching speed
when the circuit is active. The identification of the idle regions of the circuit and the
generation of the sleep signal need additional hardware capable of predicting the circuit
states accurately. Additional hardware used to provide the sleep signal increases the area
requirement of the circuit. This technique creates a negative effect when the circuit is
operating in active mode. This additional hardware consumes power throughout the circuit
19
operation even when the circuit is in an idle state to continuously monitor the circuit state
and control the sleep transistors.
2.7. LECTOR technique
The basic idea behind this approach for reduction of leakage power is the effective
stacking of transistors in the path from supply voltage to ground. In LECTOR technique
two leakage control transistors (one p-type and one n-type) are introduced between pull-up
and pull-down circuit within the logic gate for which the gate terminal of each leakage
control transistor (LCT) is controlled by the source of the other. This arrangement ensures
that one of the LCTs always operates in its near cutoff region.
2.7.1 LECTOR Structure
Figure 2.9 Generalized structure for leakage controlled gates
The generalized structure of leakage controlled gates using lector technique which
introduces two self controlled transistors between pull up and pull down network. There
by increases the resistance in path from Vdd to ground. But the circuit becomes bulky. The
area overhead in implementation of lector is as shown in section 2.7.2.
2.7.2 LECTOR CMOS Gate
20
Figure 2.10 LECTOR CMOS Gate
Figure 2.10 illustrates the topology of a LECTOR CMOS gate. Two Leakage Control
Transistors (LCTs), LCT1 and LCT2, are introduced between nodes N1 and N2. The gate
terminal for each LCT is controlled by the source of the other. Hence, these LCTs act as
self-controlled stacked transistors. No external control circuitry is required using the
LECTOR implementation. The introduction of LCTs increases the resistance of the path
from Vdd to Gnd, thereby reducing leakage.
2.7.3 LCT NAND Gate
Leakage Control TransistOR (LECTOR) technique is illustrated with the case of a
NAND gate. A CMOS NAND gate with the addition of two leakage control transistors is
shown in Figure 2.11 (we later refer to it as the LCT NAND gate). As the NAND logic is
satisfied, thus it is clearly observed that insertion of two leakage control transistors
between the supply and ground path does not affect the basic characteristics of NAND
gate.
21
Figure 2.11 LECTOR based CMOS NAND gate
2.7.4 Area overhead in implementation of LECTOR
A method to control the leakage power in a two-input NAND gate was described
above. If we extend this idea to all the basic logic gates, then the area overhead on the
entire circuit will increase up to an upper bound of 60% depending on the logic gates used.
The area overhead on various logic gates implemented using LCTs is tabulated in Table
2.1.
Table 2.1 Area Overhead for various LCT Gates
22
CHAPTER-3
LCPMOS TECHNIQUE
23
CHAPTER-3
LCPMOS TECHNIQUE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The basic idea behind this approach for reduction of leakage power is the effective
stacking of transistors in the path from supply voltage to ground. This is based on the
observation that “a state with one transistor OFF in a path from supply voltage to ground
is far less leaky.” In LCPMOS technique one leakage control transistor (one p-type) is
introduced between pull-down and ground circuit within the logic gate for which the gate
terminal of leakage control transistor (LCT) is controlled by the output of the circuit itself.
Figure 3.1 LCPMOS CMOS Gate
Figure 3.1 illustrates the topology of a LCPMOS CMOS gate. One Leakage Control
Transistor (LCT), is introduced between pull down network and ground. The gate terminal
of LCT is controlled by the output of circuit itself. No external control circuitry is required
using the LCPMOS implementation. The introduction of LCT increases the resistance of
the path from pull down network (PDN) to Gnd, which increases the resistance from Vdd to
Gnd, thereby reducing leakage.
24
3.2 LCPMOS NOT Gate
Figure 3.2 LCPMOS based CMOS NOT gate
Leakage Control PMOS (LCPMOS) technique is illustrated with the case of a NOT gate.
A CMOS NOT gate with the addition of one leakage control transistor is shown in Figure
3.2 (we later refer to it as the LCPMOS NOT gate). As the NOT logic is satisfied which
can be seen through the input output graphs of LCPMOS based NOT gate, thus it is clearly
observed that insertion of one leakage control transistor between the Pull down network
and ground path does not affect the basic characteristics of NOT gate.
3.3 LCPMOS NAND Gate
Leakage control transistor LCT (PMOS) is introduced between the nodes N1and
N2 of the pull-down and ground logic of the NAND gate. The gate of the LCT is
connected to the output node of the NAND gate. Consider the dc characteristics of the
LCT NAND gate. When Ain = 1V and Bin = 0V, the voltage at the output node is high.
Hence the LCT (PMOS) will be in off state. So it offers very high resistance path from Vdd
to ground so there no path exists from source to ground. Similarly, when A in = 1V and Bin
= 1V, the voltage at the output node is low, operating the transistor to be in on state.
25
Figure 3.3 LCPMOS based CMOS NAND gate
Thus, the introduction of LCT increases the resistance of the path from Vdd to
ground. This also increases the propagation delay of the gate. To reduce this hostile effect,
the transistors of LCT gate are sized such that the propagation delay is equal to its
conventional counterpart.
The transistors of the LCT NAND gate are sized to study its effect on the
propagation delay of the gate. Also, we have tried to adjust the widths of all the transistors
of the LCT NAND gate such that its propagation delay is almost equal to that of a
conventional NAND gate. (We refer to this gate as Iso-LCT NAND gate.) The widths of
PMOS and NMOS transistors, except LCT transistor, used in simulation of gates are set to
two and three times the minimum feature width of the respective process variation.
In the previous technique discussed, the sleep transistors have to be able to isolate
the power supply and/or ground from the rest of the transistors of the gate. Hence, they
need to be made bulkier dissipating more dynamic power. This offsets the savings yielded
when the circuit is idle. Moreover, this technique is input-vector dependent and needs 26
additional circuitry to monitor and control the switching of sleep transistors. Thus, it
consumes power in both active and idle states. In comparison, LCPMOS is vector
independent and the required control signals are generated within the gate.
Forced stacks have 100% area overhead. LECTOR requires exactly two additional
transistors for every path from supply voltage to ground irrespective of the logic function
realized by the gate. In comparison, LCPMOS requires only one additional transistor for
every path from pull down network to ground irrespective of the logic function realized by
the gate. The loading requirements of the gate with forced stacks are huge and depend on
the number of additional transistors added. In comparison, the loading requirement with
LCT is much lower and is a constant. Hence, the performance degradation is insignificant
in the case of LCPMOS, and we overcome the major drawback faced by forced stack and
LECTOR techniques. Figure 3.3 shows the general scheme for converting any SCCG gate
to leakage-controlled gate.
Figure 3.4 Generalized structure for leakage controlled gates
3.4 Experimental methodology
The results of LCPMOS technique is compared with that of the base case
(conventional) and with LECTOR circuits for various CMOS circuits. Experiments are
done on various technologies for some circuits to show the effect of technology scaling on
different parameters. Later we concentrate only on one technology. Also the effects of
varying widths are studied.
27
Schematics are being designed using Tanner S-Edit tool. Schematics are used to
obtain the net lists of test circuits. Schematics are to be created using any process
parameters. And the width and length of the transistors both NMOS and PMOS are varied
for various technologies. Spice commands are used for generating the power and input –
output values. W-edit generates the graphs for power and input –output values. The power
consumptions for LCPMOS circuits are measured with varying the LCT width as
mentioned in Table 3.1.
Technology Length
(in µm)
WIDTH
Normal transistors Leakage Control Transistor
NMOS PMOS PMOS
180nm L (0.18) 4L 8L L, L
90nm L (0.09) 4L 8L L, L
65nm L(0.065) 4L 8L L, L
Table 3.1 Width parameter for LCPMOS circuits
The supply voltage for various technologies are considered as mentioned in the Table 3.2
Technology 180nm 90nm 65nm
Supply Voltage 1.8V 1.1V 0.9V
Table 3.2 Vdd parameter
The threshold voltages for NMOS and PMOS are to be maintained as shown in the table
3.3 for various technologies
Technology NMOS PMOS
180nm 0.3999 -0.42
90nm 0.2607 -0.303
65nm 0.22 -0.22
Table 3.3 Threshold voltage parameter
The experimental setup is as shown in figure 3.5
28
Figure 3.5 Experimental Methodology
Static power consumption is measured for all the CMOS circuits in the
technologies considered for the particular circuits.
Dynamic Power
Dynamic power is measured by asserting sets of input vectors in S-EDIT. The
input vectors include all the possible input combinations. The dynamic power is
determined by considering the average of all the power dissipations obtained for all the
possible input combinations
29
CHAPTER-4
APPLYING LCPMOS
30
CHAPTER-4
APPLYING LCPMOS
4.1. Applying LCPMOS to Logic circuits
In chapter 3, the proposed low-leakage “LCPMOS” structure is explained.
Furthermore, various circuit applications of the LCPMOS techniques are explored. The
applications are categorized into two kinds: generic logic circuits and memory circuits.
Generic logic circuits are considered in this project and results are tabulated. The
generic logic circuits – including universal gates (NAND & NOR), AND-OR-Invert,
and full adder – are implemented using LCPMOS and also the base case (conventional
circuits) and LECTOR circuits. The LCPMOS technique is applied to various generic
logic circuits to show that LCPMOS technique is applicable to general logic design.
4.1.1. NOT GATE
Figure 4.1 NOT Gate
A NOT gate is shown in Figure 4.1. The functionality of NOT can be given
through its truth table as shown in table 4.1.
INPUT OUTPUT
A Z
0 1
1 0
Table 4.1 NOT Truth Table
The transistor-level schematic of NOT is as shown in figure 4.2. For the
realization of transistor-level schematic of NOT, the PMOS should be arranged in series
in the Pull-Up network and NMOS should be arranged in series in the Pull-Down
network.
31
Figure 4.2 CMOS NOT Schematic
The sizes of the transistor in the NOT gate are maintained as mentioned in chapter 3.
The NOT schematics that are designed through the Tanner S-EDIT for the base
case (conventional NOT), LECTOR NOT and LCPMOS NOT are shown in figure 4.3
(a) and figure 4.3 (b) and 4.3(c).
Figure 4.3 (a) Conventional NOT
32
Figure 4.3 (b) LECTOR NOT
PMOS_1: Normal PMOS transistors in Pull-Up network
NMOS_1: Normal NMOS transistors in Pull-Down network
PMOS_2: Leakage Control PMOS Transistor (LCT1) for Pull-Up network
NMOS_2: Leakage Control NMOS Transistor (LCT2) for Pull-Down network
33
Figure 4.3 (c) LCPMOS NOT
PMOS_1: Normal PMOS transistors in Pull-Up network
NMOS_1: Normal NMOS transistors in Pull-Down network
PMOS_2: Leakage Control PMOS Transistor (LCT)
4.1.2. Universal Gates
NAND and NOR are called UNIVERSAL GATES since any logic can be
implemented using either of the gates.
4.1.2.1. NAND Gate
Figure 4.4 2-input NAND Gate
A 2-input NAND gate is shown in Figure 4.5. The functionality of NAND can
be given through its truth table as shown in table 4.2.
34
INPUT OUTPUT
A B Z
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
Table 4.2 NAND Truth Table
The transistor-level schematic of NAND is as shown in figure 4.2. For the
realization of transistor-level schematic of NAND, the PMOS should be arranged in
parallel in the Pull-Up network and NMOS should be arranged in series in the Pull-
Down network.
Figure 4.5 CMOS NAND Schematic
The sizes of the transistor in the NAND gate are maintained as mentioned in chapter 3.
Dynamic Power
For a 2-input NAND gate, as there are four (i.e., 22) possible input combinations,
four input vectors are considered. Therefore to measure the dynamic power of NAND
gate, the average of the power dissipation of all the four input vectors (i.e., (0, 0), (0, 1),
(1, 0), (1, 1)) is to be considered.
35
The NAND schematics that are designed through the Tanner S-EDIT for the
base case (conventional NAND), LECTOR NAND and LCPMOS are shown in figure
4.6 (a) and figure 4.6 (b) and 4.6(c).
Figure 4.6 (a) Conventional NAND
Figure 4.6 (b) LECTOR NAND
36
PMOS_1, PMOS_2: Normal PMOS transistors in Pull-Up network
NMOS_1, NMOS_2: Normal NMOS transistors in Pull-Down network
PMOS_3: Leakage Control PMOS Transistor (LCT1) for Pull-Up network
NMOS_3: Leakage Control NMOS Transistor (LCT2) for Pull-Down network
Figure 4.6 (c) LCPMOS NAND
PMOS_1, PMOS_2: Normal PMOS transistors in Pull-Up network
NMOS_1, NMOS_2: Normal NMOS transistors in Pull-Down network
PMOS_3: Leakage Control PMOS Transistor (LCT)
To verify the designed transistor level schematic and the net list obtained from
the schematic correctness, we have gone through the simulation waveforms through the
W-EDIT
4.1.2.2. NOR Gate
A 2-input NOR gate is shown in Figure 4.7. The functionality of NOR can be
given through its truth table as shown in table 4.3.
37
The transistor-level schematic of NOR is as shown in figure 4.8. For the
realization of transistor-level schematic of NOR, the PMOS should be arranged in series
in the Pull-Up network and NMOS should be arranged in parallel in the Pull-Down
network.
Figure4.8 CMOS NOR Schematic
The sizes of the PMOS and NMOS transistors in the NOR gate are maintained as
mentioned in chapter 3.
Dynamic Power
For a 2-input NOR gate, as there are four (i.e., 22) possible input combinations,
four input vectors are considered. Therefore to measure the dynamic power of NOR
gate, the average of the power dissipation of all the four input vectors (i.e., (0, 0), (0, 1),
(1, 0), (1, 1)) is to be considered.
38
The NOR schematics that are designed through the Tanner S-EDIT for the base
case (conventional NOR), LECTOR NOR and LCPMOS NOR are shown in figure 4.9
(a) and figure 4.9 (b) and 4.9(c).
Figure 4.9 (a) Conventional NOR
39
Figure 4.9 (b) LECTOR NOR
PMOS_1, PMOS_2: Normal PMOS transistors in Pull-Up network
NMOS_1, NMOS_2: Normal NMOS transistors in Pull-Down network
PMOS_3: Leakage Control PMOS Transistor (LCT1) for Pull-Up network
NMOS_3: Leakage Control NMOS Transistor (LCT2) for Pull-Down network
40
Figure 4.9 (c) LCPMOS NOR
PMOS_1, PMOS_2: Normal PMOS transistors in Pull-Up network
NMOS_1, NMOS_2: Normal NMOS transistors in Pull-Down network
PMOS_3: Leakage Control PMOS Transistor (LCT)
To verify the designed transistor level schematic and the net list obtained from
the schematic correctness, we have gone through the simulation waveforms through the
W-EDIT
4.1.2.3 -Input AND-OR-Invert
This application of LCPMOS is considered as a reference to section 3.3 of this
thesis. As mentioned in section 3.3, the AND-OR-Invert is implemented as SCCG
(static CMOS complex gates) instead of considering as gate level. The difference in both
can be clearly identified through the two different implementations as shown in Figure
4.10.
41
Figure 4.10 SCCG implementation of AOI
Dynamic Power
For a 4-input AOI, as there are 16 (i.e., 24) possible input combinations, sixteen
input vectors are considered. Therefore to measure the dynamic power of AOI, the
average of the power dissipation of all the sixteen input vectors (i.e., (0, 0, 0, 0), (0, 0,
0, 1)… (1, 1, 1, 1)) is to be considered.
The AOI schematics that are designed through the Tanner S-EDIT for the base
case (conventional NOR), LECTOR AOI and LCPMOS AOI are shown in figure 4.11
(a) and figure 4.11 (b) and 4.11(c).
42
Figure 4.11 (a) Conventional AOI
43
Figure 4.11 (b) LECTOR AOI
PMOS_1, PMOS_2, PMOS_3, PMOS_4: Normal PMOS transistors in Pull-Up
network
NMOS_1, NMOS_2, NMOS_3, NMOS_4: Normal NMOS transistors in Pull-Down
network
PMOS_5: Leakage Control PMOS Transistor (LCT1) for Pull-Up network
NMOS_5: Leakage Control NMOS Transistor (LCT2) for Pull-Down network
44
Figure 4.11 (c) LCPMOS AOI
PMOS_1, PMOS_2: Normal PMOS transistors in Pull-Up network
NMOS_1, NMOS_2: Normal NMOS transistors in Pull-Down network
PMOS_3: Leakage Control PMOS Transistor (LCT)
The advantage with SCCG implementation can be observed from Figure 4.10
(c). Irrespective of the number of transistors in the Pull-Up Network and the Pull-Down
network, only one transistor i.e., one PMOS (LCT) in Pull-down network and ground is
to be added for the LCPMOS case to obtain the leakage reduction.
To verify the designed transistor level schematic and the net list obtained from
the schematic correctness, we have gone through the simulation waveforms through the
W-EDIT.
45
CHAPTER-5
LCPMOS
Experimental Results
46
CHAPTER-5
LCPMOS Experimental Results
The experimental results for various CMOS circuits are given in this chapter.
For all the circuits we considered the results in three cases i. conventional (base case)
ii. LECTOR iii. LCPMOS and they are listed in the tables and their corresponding
graphs.
Y-axis of the graphs in Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.17 represents the POWER DISSIPATED
in MICRO WATTs (uW)
X-axis of the graphs in Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.17 represents the TECHNOLOGIES i.e.
180nm , 90nm,65nm.
5.1 Basic CMOS Inverter
At first impact of technology scaling on static power is shown analyzing the
NOT gate using all the technologies i.e., 180nm, 90nm, 65nm. The leakage power in
each technology obtained through our technique, i.e., LCPMOS is compared with the
leakage power obtained in the LECTOR Case and base (conventional) case. Fig 5.1 to
5.17 represents the simulation results of NOT, NAND, NOR and AOI GATES
respectively.
5.1.1 NOT Gate
TABLE I. NOT RESULTS FOR VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNOLOG
Y
LEAKAGE POWER IN MICRO
WATTS(uW)
%
decrease
in power
d
issipation
(LECTOR)
%
decrease
in power
d
issipation
(LCPMOS)
BASE
CASE
LECTO
R
LCPMO
S
180nm 130 78 39 40% 70%
90nm 110 35 9.3 68.19% 91.54%
47
65nm 98 5 3.8 94.89% 95.4%
Table 5.1 Results of NOT GATE for various technologies
5.1.2 NOT Gate simulation results for 180nm technology
Fig 5.1(a): Simulation graph of BASE CASE NOT GATE in 180nm technology.
Fig 5.1(b): Simulation graph of LECTOR NOT GATE in 180nm technology.
48
Fig 5.1(c): Simulation graph of LCPMOS NOT GATE in 180nm technology.
5.1.3 NOT Gate simulation results for 90nm technology
Fig 5.2(a): Simulation graph of BASE CASE NOT GATE in 90nm technology.
49
Fig 5.2(b): Simulation graph of LECTOR NOT GATE in 180nm technology.
Fig 5.2(c): Simulation graph of LCPMOS NOT GATE in 90nm technology.
5.1.4 NOT Gate simulation results for 65nm technology
50
Fig 5.3(a): Simulation graph of BASE CASE NOT GATE in 65nm technology.
Fig 5.3(b): Simulation graph of LECTOR NOT GATE in 65nm technology.
51
Fig 5.3(c): Simulation graph of LCPMOS NOT GATE in 65nm technology.
180nm 90nm 65nm0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
BASE CASELECTORLCPMOS
TECHNOLOGY SCALING
LEAK
AGE
POW
ER IN
(uW
)
Figure 5.4 Plot of leakage Power for NOT GATE in various technologies
5.2 NAND Gate
TABLE II. NAND RESULTS FOR VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNOLOG LEAKAGE POWER IN MICRO % %
52
Y WATTS(uW) decrease
in power
d
issipation
(LECTOR)
decrease
in power
d
issipation
(LCPMOS)
BASE
CASE
LECTO
R
LCPMO
S
180nm 140 90 70 35.72% 50%
90nm 125 37 30 70.4% 76%
65nm 115 75 12.5 34.7% 89.13%
Table 5.2 Results of NAND GATE for various technologies
5.2.1 NAND Gate simulation results for 180nm technology
Fig 5.5(a): Simulation graph of BASE CASE NAND GATE in 180nm technology.
53
Fig 5.5(b): Simulation graph of LECTOR NAND GATE in 180nm technology.
Fig 5.5(c): Simulation graph ofLCPMOS NAND GATE in 180nm technology.
5.2.2 NAND Gate simulation results for 90nm technology
54
Fig 5.6(a): Simulation graph of BASE CASE NAND GATE in 90nm technology.
Fig 5.6(b): Simulation graph of LECTOR NAND GATE in 90nm technology.
55
Fig 5.6(c): Simulation graph ofLCPMOS NAND GATE in 90nm technology.
5.2.3 NAND Gate simulation results for 65nm technology
Fig 5.7(a): Simulation graph of BASE CASE NAND GATE in 65nm technology.
56
Fig 5.7(b): Simulation graph of LECTOR NAND GATE in 65nm technology.
Fig 5.7(c): Simulation graph of LCPMOS NAND GATE in 65nm technology.
57
180nm 90nm 65nm0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
BASE CASELECTORLCPMOS
TECHNOLOGY SCALING
LEA
KA
GE P
OW
ER
IN
(uW
)
Figure 5.8 Plot of leakage Power for NAND in various technologies
5.3 NOR Gate
TABLE III. NOR RESULTS FOR VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNOLOG
Y
LEAKAGE POWER IN MICRO
WATTS(uW)
%
decrease
in power
d
issipation
(LECTOR)
%
decrease
in power
d
issipation
(LCPMOS)
BASE
CASE
LECTO
R
LCPMO
S
180nm 98 33 21 66.32% 78.57%
90nm 76 27 18 64.4% 76.31%
65nm 57 8.2 7 85.61% 87.71%
Table 5.3 Results of NOR GATE for various technologies
5.3.1 NOR Gate simulation results for 180nm technology
58
Fig 5.9(a): Simulation graph of BASE CASE NAND GATE in 180nm technology.
Fig 5.9(b): Simulation graph of LECTOR NOR GATE in 180nm technology.
59
Fig 5.9(c): Simulation graph of LCPMOS NOR GATE in 180nm technology.
5.3.2 NOR Gate simulation results for 90nm technology
Fig 5.10(a): Simulation graph of BASE CASE NOR GATE in 90nm technology.
60
Fig 5.10(b): Simulation graph of LECTOR NOR GATE in 90nm technology.
Fig 5.10(c): Simulation graph of LCPMOS NOR GATE in 90nm technology.
5.3.3 NOR Gate simulation results for 65nm technology
61
Fig 5.11(a): Simulation graph of BASE CASE NOR GATE in 65nm technology.
Fig 5.11(b): Simulation graph of LECTOR NOR GATE in 65nm technology.
62
Fig 5.11(c): Simulation graph of LCPMOS NOR GATE in 65nm technology.
180nm 90nm 65nm0
20
40
60
80
100
120
BASE CASELECTORLCPMOS
TECHNOLOGY SCALING
LEA
KA
GE P
OW
ER
IN
(uW
)
Fig 5.12 Plot Of leakage Power for NOR in various technologies
5.4 AND OR INVERT
TABLE IV. AOI RESULTS FOR VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES
TECHNOLOG
Y
LEAKAGE POWER IN MICRO
WATTS(uW)
%
decrease
in power
d
%
decrease
in power
d
BASE
CASE
LECTO
R
LCPMO
S
63
issipation
(LECTOR)
issipation
(LCPMOS)
180nm 210 130 60 38.09% 71.42%
90nm 100 41 28 59% 72%
65nm 20 9.6 2.8 52% 86%
Table 5.4 Results of AOI for various technologies
Fig 5.13 Input output waveforms of AOI
5.4.1 AOI Gate simulation results for 180nm technology
64
Fig 5.14(a) Simulation graph of BASECASE AOI GATE in 180nm technology.
Fig 5.14(b) Simulation graph of LECTOR AOI GATE in 180nm technology.
65
Fig 5.14(c) Simulation graph of LCPMOS AOI GATE in 180nm technology.
5.4.2 AOI Gate simulation results for 90nm technology
Fig 5.15(a) Simulation graph of BASECASE AOI GATE in 90nm technology.
66
Fig 5.15(b) Simulation graph of LECTOR AOI GATE in 90nm technology.
Fig 5.15(c) Simulation graph of LCPMOS AOI GATE in 90nm technology.
5.4.3 AOI Gate simulation results for 65nm technology
67
Fig 5.16(a) Simulation graph of BASE CASE AOI GATE in 65nm technology.
Fig 5.15(b) Simulation graph of LCPMOS AOI GATE in 65nm technology.
68
Fig 5.16(c) Simulation graph of LCPMOS AOI GATE in 65nm technology.
180nm 90nm 65nm0
50
100
150
200
250
BASE CASELECTORLCPMOS
TECHNOLOGY SCALING
LEA
KA
GE P
OW
ER
IN
(uW
)
Figure 5.17 Plot of leakage Power for AOI in various technologies
69
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
The scaling down of device dimensions, supply voltage, and threshold voltage for
achieving high performance and low dynamic power dissipation has largely contributed to
the increase in leakage power dissipation. With deep-submicron and nanometer
technologies, the leakage current becomes more critical in portable systems where battery
life is of primary concern.
In nanometer scale CMOS technology, sub-threshold leakage power is compatible
to dynamic power consumption, and thus handling leakage power is a great challenge. In
this thesis, we present a new circuit structure named “LCPMOS” to tackle the leakage
problem. LCPMOS yields better leakage reduction as the threshold voltage decreases and
hence aids in further reduction of supply voltage and minimization of transistor sizes.
LCPMOS uses one additional transistor. Compared to other leakage reduction techniques,
like LECTOR ,sleepy stack, sleepy keeper, etc, LCPMOS achieves leakage power
reduction but with the advantage of not effecting the dynamic power as this technique
does not having any additional control and monitoring circuitry like in sleep techniques
and it also maintains exact logic state.
The LCPMOS technique can retain logic state, so it can be used for both generic
logic circuits as well as memories, i.e., SRAM. When applied to generic logic circuits, the
LCPMOS technique achieves up to 85-90% leakage reduction over the conventional
circuits without affecting the dynamic power.
As technology tends to scale down towards deep sub-micron era i.e., 22nm, 16nm,
12nm etc, there is much necessity of techniques such as LCPMOS which plays a
prominent role in decreasing the static power which is the dominant factor in the total
power. Methods to decrease the delay which will also be prominent part in the techniques
as going down the technology should be investigated; which can be considered as future
work.
70
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
71
1. H. Narender and R. Nagarajan, “LECTOR: A technique for leakage reduction in
CMOS circuits”, IEEE trans. on VLSI systems, vol. 12, no. 2, Feb. 2004.
2. P. Verma, R. A. Mishra, “Leakage power and delay analysis of LECTOR based
CMOS circuits”, Int’l conf. on computer & communication technology ICCCT
2011.
3. L. Wei, K. Roy, V. De, “Low voltage low power VLSI design techniques for deep
submicron ICs,” 13th International Conf., 2000, pp. 24-29.
4. John F. Wakerly, “Digital Design- Principles and Practices”, fourth edition.
5. M. C. Johnson, D. Somasekhar, L. Y. Chiou, and K. Roy, “Leakage control with
efficient use of transistor stacks in single threshold CMOS,” IEEE Trans. VLSI
Syst., vol. 10, pp. 1–5, Feb. 2002.
6. B. S. Deepaksubramanyan, A. Nunez, “Analysis of subthreshold leakage reduction
in CMOS digital circuits,” in Proc. 13th NASA VLSI Symp.,June 2007.
7. Q. Wang and S. Vrudhula, “Static power optimization of deep sub-micron CMOS
circuits for dual V technology,” in Proc. ICCAD, Apr. 1998, pp. 490–496.
8. J. C. Park, “Sleepy Stack: A new approach to Low Power VLSI logic and
memory,” Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005.
9. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMOS
10. Digital Logic Gates: http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/logic/logic_1.html
72