User:John R. Brews/WP Import: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John R. Brews
No edit summary
imported>John R. Brews
Line 48: Line 48:


===Miller approximation===
===Miller approximation===
This example also assumes ''A'' is frequency independent, but more generally there is frequency dependence of the amplifier contained implicitly in ''A''. Such frequency dependence of ''A'' also makes the Miller capacitance frequency dependent, so interpretation of ''C<sub>M</sub>'' as a normal capacitance fails. However, in many cases, frequency dependence of ''A'' arises only at frequencies much higher than the roll-off with frequency caused by the Miller effect, so for frequencies up to the Miller-effect roll-off of the gain, ''A'' is adequately approximated by its low-frequency value. Determination of ''C<sub>M</sub>'' using ''A'' evaluated at low frequencies is the so-called '''Miller approximation'''.<ref name=Spencer/> With the Miller approximation, ''C<sub>M</sub>'' becomes frequency independent, and its interpretation as a capacitance is secure.
This example assumes ''A'' is frequency independent, but more generally ''A'' is frequency dependent. Because the Miller capacitance depnds upon ''A'', frequency dependence of ''A'' makes the Miller capacitance frequency dependent, so interpretation of ''C<sub>M</sub>'' as a normal capacitance fails. However, in many cases, frequency dependence of ''A'' arises only at frequencies higher than the corner frequency caused by the Miller effect, so for frequencies up to the Miller-effect roll-off of the gain does not occur, and ''A'' is approximated adequately by its low-frequency value. This approximation, the determination of ''C<sub>M</sub>'' using ''A'' evaluated at low frequencies, is the so-called '''Miller approximation'''.<ref name=Spencer/> With the Miller approximation, ''C<sub>M</sub>'' is frequency independent, and its interpretation as a capacitance is secure.


===Mitigation===
===Mitigation===

Revision as of 23:07, 23 May 2011

In electronics, the Miller effect accounts for the increase in the equivalent input capacitance of an inverting voltage amplifier due to amplification of the capacitance between the input and output terminals. The additional input capacitance due to the Miller effect is given by

where Av is the voltage gain of the amplifier, which is a negative number because it is inverting, and C is the feedback capacitance.

Although the term Miller effect normally refers to capacitance, the amplifier input impedance is modified by the Miller effect by any impedance connected between the input and another node exhibiting gain. These properties of the Miller effect are generalized in Miller's theorem.

History

The Miller effect was named after John Milton Miller.[1] When Miller published his work in 1920, he was working on vacuum tube triodes, however the same theory applies to more modern devices such as bipolar and MOS transistors.

Derivation

(PD) Image: John R. Brews
Miller's theorem

Consider a voltage amplifier of gain −A with an impedance Zμ connected between its input and output stages. The input signal is provided by a Thévenin voltage source representing the driving stage. The voltage at the input end (node 1) of the coupling impedance is v1, and at the output end −Av1. The current through Zμ according to Ohm's law is given by:

.

The input current is:

The impedance of the circuit at node 1 is:

This same input impedance is found if the input stage simply is decoupled from the output stage, and the lower impedance Zμ / (1+A) is connected in parallel with Z11. Of course, if the input stage is decoupled, no current reaches the output stage. To fix that problem, a dependent current source is attached to the second stage to provide the correct current to the output circuit, as shown in the lower figure. This decoupling scenario is the basis for Miller's theorem and the very noticeable prediction that the input impedance is reduced by the coupling between stages in the amount of the reduced impedance Zμ / (1+A) shunted across the input is called the Miller effect.

Effects

The Miller effect shows up prominently in amplifier design, where the coupling impedance is a parasitic capacitance. If Zμ represents a capacitor with impedance Zμ = 1/jωCμ, the resulting input impedance has a huge capacitance (1+A)Cμ attached in parallel with the nominal input impedance Z11. This gain-enhanced capacitance is called the Miller capacitance, CM:

That is, the effective or Miller capacitance CM is the physical Cμ multiplied by the factor (1+A).[2] This huge capacitance seriously degrades the amplifier frequency performance, because this capacitance becomes a short-circuit at high frequencies, effectively preventing any signal from entering the amplifier. The bigger this Miller capacitance, the lower the frequency at which the amplifier fails to work.

To illustrate this point, suppose Z11 = R11 and ZTh = RTh, simple resistors. Application of Kirchhoff's current law at node 1 leads to the result:

which displays a roll-off of the input signal amplitude v1 exciting the output stage for frequencies larger than:

where ωC is called the corner frequency. An interesting point is that this frequency becomes infinite (no roll-off) if the Thévenin resistance RTh = 0. That is why the parasitic resistance rX in the base lead of the hybrid-pi model for the bipolar transistor can be influential in determining the amplifier roll-off when these transistors are driven with a very low resistance Thévenin voltage source.

It is also important to note that the Miller capacitance is not the only source of amplifier frequency dependence. It is important to include as well the capacitances contributed by the output stage, and in feedback amplifiers it is this frequency dependence that controls the stability of the amplifier. This frequency dependence can be affected by the dependent current source that the Miller theorem introduces in the output stage.

The Miller effect is not always a nuisance: it may be exploited to synthesize larger capacitors from smaller ones. One such example is in the stabilization of feedback amplifiers, where the required capacitance may be too large to practically include in the circuit. This may be particularly important in the design of integrated circuit, where capacitors can consume significant area, increasing costs.

Miller approximation

This example assumes A is frequency independent, but more generally A is frequency dependent. Because the Miller capacitance depnds upon A, frequency dependence of A makes the Miller capacitance frequency dependent, so interpretation of CM as a normal capacitance fails. However, in many cases, frequency dependence of A arises only at frequencies higher than the corner frequency caused by the Miller effect, so for frequencies up to the Miller-effect roll-off of the gain does not occur, and A is approximated adequately by its low-frequency value. This approximation, the determination of CM using A evaluated at low frequencies, is the so-called Miller approximation.[2] With the Miller approximation, CM is frequency independent, and its interpretation as a capacitance is secure.

Mitigation

The Miller effect may be undesired in many cases, and approaches may be sought to lower its impact. Several such techniques are used in the design of amplifiers.

A current buffer stage may be added at the output to lower the gain between the input and output terminals of the amplifier (though not necessarily the overall gain). For example, a common base may be used as a current buffer at the output of a common emitter stage, forming a cascode. This will typically reduce the Miller effect and increase the bandwidth of the amplifier.

Alternatively, a voltage buffer may be used before the amplifier input, reducing the effective source impedance seen by the input terminals. It is important to notice that the effect of CM upon the amplifier bandwidth is greatly reduced for low impedance drivers (CM RA is small if RA is small). Consequently, one way to minimize the Miller effect upon bandwidth is to use a low-impedance driver, for example, by interposing a voltage follower stage between the driver and the amplifier, which reduces the apparent driver impedance seen by the amplifier.

The output voltage of this simple circuit is always A v1. However, real amplifiers have output resistance. If the amplifier output resistance is included in the analysis, the output voltage exhibits a more complex frequency response and the impact of the frequency-dependent current source on the output side must be taken into account.[3]

References and notes

  1. John M. Miller (1920). "Dependence of the input impedance of a three-electrode vacuum tube upon the load in the plate circuit". Scientific Papers of the Bureau of Standards 15 (351): pp. 367-385.
  2. 2.0 2.1 R.R. Spencer and M.S. Ghausi (2003). Introduction to electronic circuit design.. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education, Inc.. ISBN 0-201-36183-3. 
  3. Ordinarily these effects show up only at frequencies much higher than the roll-off due to the Miller capacitance, so the analysis presented here is adequate to determine the useful frequency range of an amplifier dominated by the Miller effect. See article on pole splitting.