Feedback vs feedforward common-mode control:

a comparative study
J.M. Carrillo, J.L. Ausin, P. Merchh, and J.F. Duque-Carrillo
Dept. of Electronics and Electr. Eng.
University of Extremadura
(06071) Badajoz, Spain
Tel.-Fax: +34-24-289544; duque@pizarro.unex.es

Abstract

advantages respect to the traditional CMFB networks. The

CMFF performance is discussed and compared with the
feedback counterpart based on the most frequently used
CM signal detectors (differential pairs, source followers,
and triode-operated MOS), according to three figures of
merit: induced distortion, speed, and output signal swing.
Simulated results to illustrate the amplifier performances
are also shown.

A comparison among feedforward (CMFF) and the

traditional common-mode feedback (CMFB) loops,
based on the most frequently used common-mode (CM)
signal detectors for CM control in fully-differential (FD)
circuits, is carried out. Simulated results confirm that
CMFF shows a better performance in terms of induced
nonlinear signal distortion, speed, and amplifier output
signal swing. It is demonstrated that feedforward
approach results very attractive for low-voltage
applications.

2. Feedback and feedforward CM control

Figure 1 shows a generic FD transconductance amplifier
(enclosed by a Gaussian surface) with CMFB. The CM
signal detector senses the output voltages and, ideally,
provides a voltage V, proportional to the output CM
This output CM voltage is compared
component, Vo,c,fi.
with the reference voltage in a gain stage, forcing Vo,c,,,to
the desired value V,<, by means of a negative feedback
action.
Figure 2 represents the FD transconductance amplifier
with CM control by feedforward. As observed, instead of
sensing the CM output voltage as performed in traditional
CMFB loops, two replicas of the amplifier output currents
(Z,' and Zo.) are added together in the CMFF circuit
portion. Thus, a current,Z proportional to the commonmode output current and hence, also proportional to the
CM output voltage, is obtained. In order to guarantee a
precise current summation, an error amplifier has been
included to reduce the non-zero output resistance effect in
the summing node. Besides, the error amplifier fixes the

1. Introduction
In the last years, fully-differential (FD) signal processors
have been widely used, mainly to take advantage of the
reduced available signal swing imposed by the fast scaling
of CMOS technologies. Besides, as compared to the
single-ended counterparts, FD structures provide other
non-negligible advantages such as more reduced harmonic
distortion, higher rejection capability to power-supply and
substrate coupling noises, and higher design flexibility.
However, the main disadvantage consists of the need of an
extra negative feedback (CMFB) loop that controls the
output common-mode (CM) amplifiers voltage, fixing it
to an appropriate dc reference voltage (V,J, usually at the
middle value between supplies.
The design of any CMFB loop must be carried out very
carefully to avoid, as much as possible, the interaction
with differential-mode (DM) loops, since, otherwise, the
performance of the F
D circuit can be degraded [I]. This
requirement is more and more difficult to fulfill as the
total supply voltage is scaling down. Therefore, designing
continuous-time CMFB circuits that are both linear and
operate with low power-supply voltages, is an area of
continuing research.
Very recently some approaches have been reported in
order to avoid the need of CMFB loop in FD circuits [2 41, however, all the proposed techniques present their own
pros and cons.
In this work, it is shown how the control of the CM
component based on feedforward (CMFF) provides

v to 1

I -

converter

i-v

Fig. 1. Generalized FD transconductance amplifier with CMFB.

363

0-7803-5008-1/98/$10.00@1998IEEE.

Current

current

z=-

(14
Cl + C c
where go,,and go,,are the small-signal output conductances
associated with the output nodes of the first stage and
error amplifier, respectively, C,, and Cp,o
are the parasitic
capacitances of these nodes, and g,&o is the
transconductance of the error amplifier. The poles p2 and
p3 correspond to the lower and high unity loop gain
frequencies of the local feedback loop around the error
amplifier, respectively. The pole-zero pair pz-z is
generated by the compensation capacitance C,. To
guarantee the stability, the zero is placed relatively close
to the pole p,, since a large mismatch is tolerable while the
phase shift is maintained with enough safety margin.
Notice that the position of the pole p I is independent on RI
and C, and therefore, the zero can be realized close to this
pole by proper choice of such parameters. As example, for
gfi0
= 300 pAN, C, = 1 pF, RI = 10 IGR, and C,= 20 pF,
the phase margin of the loop changes just in 4" when z
moves from lSp, up to Sp,. The gain-bandwidth product
of the general loop is given by

Fig. 2. Generalized FD transconductance amplifier with CMFF.

I c Io+

+ I,'

'

Gl

Fig. 3. Circuit implementation of the feedforward

section with frequency compensation.

summing node voltage to V,cf The generated current I,, is

substracted from the amplifier output currents, performing
a feedforward cancellation of the output CM voltage and
setting Vocm
to Vmf
A circuit implementation of CMFF control is shown in
Fig. 3. Basically, it consists of a self-biased two-stage
ampliflier. In order to ensure the stability of the global
feedback loop, the positive input of the differential second
stage is connected to the output of the first stage.
Therefore, as the second stage is non-inverting, a
compensation technique, more robust for this case than the
traditional Miller compensation, is used [ 5 ] . Frequency
compensation is realized by means of the capacitor C.,
This compensation capacitor has no effect on the pole
associated with the output of the first stage, but affects the
positions of the second amplifier stage and generates a
zero in the global feedback loop. Assuming that the poles
&-e widely spread, a direct analysis of the equivalent
small-signal circuit of the general feedback loop, leads to
the following expressions for the critical frequencies
(poles and zeros) of the loop gain:

where g,&,is the transconductanceof transistor Mi.

3. Performance comparison
CMFB loops frequently include CM sense circuits based
on differential pairs, source followers, and triode-operated
MOS (Fig. 4). The two first structures provide a voltage
V,, proportional to the amplifier output CM voltage, while
the triode-operated MOS, used to degenerate the amplifier
current sources, provides a current Z,. Next, both
approaches (CMFB based on the above CM sense circuits
and CMFF) are compared according to several figures of
merit: induced distortion, speed, and amplifer ouput
swing. All the simulated results have been obtained with
the FD amplifier connected in unity-gain DM resistive
feedback configuration, 3-V total supply voltage, and a
biasing current of 40 @.

i) Induced distortion: In CMFB loops, most of CM sense

circuits provide an output signal which, along with the
ideal voltage or current component proportional to the
amplifier CM output voltage, contains some nonlinear
Vo,d,n
terms due to the nonlinear I-V characteristic of the
active devices. This fact generates nonlinear distortion on
the DM signal, which is proportional to the CM detector
nonlinearity (NL) and signal swing [l]. This nonlinearity
can be expressed as

364

0.6

0 4

0.2

SOURCE FOLLOWERS
DIFFERENTIAL PAIR
LINEAR
FEEDFORWARD
MOS

0.b

C)

'$
8 I,

1
1
___

21B

Triode MOS
Feedforward

E)z
1

( 2 R .+

Table 1. Nonlinearity for the different approaches.

=a

2
'0,~m + N L . ',,dm

(3)
where a is the coefficient of the linear term of the output
of the CM sense block.
Table 1 shows the second-order nonlinear term for the
CM sense circuits, as well as the nonlinearity of generated
current I , by CMFF. Figure 5 shows the total harmonic
distortion (THD) induced by the different CM controls in
the output signal of the FD amplifier. The frequency of
the sine-wave differential input signal applied is 1 kHz.
As observed, CM control by feedforward introduces a
lower distortion in the output signal as a consequence of
its linearity and also, due to appreciable voltage swing
does not exists in the summing current node, where the
CM output voltage is indirectly sensed. The dc smallsignal gain of the error amplifier included in the
feedforward scheme is about 40 dB.
v s Cis)

'

'

0.8

Vin.dm

'

1.5

1 .'6

'

internal nodes. However, unlike the DM loop, CMFB loop

due to CM sense
introduces, at least, an extra pole (p),
circuit. This pole limits the maximum gain-bandwidth
(LGBW,) of the CMFB loop. Table 2 shows these critical
frequencies for the different approaches. The position of
p0,, at high frequencies requires large biasing currents.
This fact increases the dc voltage drop in the devices and
can tradeoff the input linear range of the CM detector (see
also Table 3) and hence, the minimum supply voltage. In
the case of the proposed feedforward scheme, the
frequency response is basically the frequency response of
a two-stage amplifier, which in general is slower than the
one-stage amplifier counterpart. Nonetheless, due to the
absence of the CM sense pole, no tradeoff exists between
the frequency response on the one hand, and the linear
range and minimum supply voltage on the other.

NL
Source Followers

0.4

Fig. 5. THD induced distortion on a 1-kHz sine-wave

input signal. THD is proportional to NL (see Table 1).

Fig. 3. CMFB is usually based on differential pair (a), source

followers (b), and triode-operated MOS (c) CM detectors.

Differential Pair

'

iii) Output signal swing: Feedback based CM control

requires common-mode signal detectors with large input
range, to avoid the operation out of the linear region (slew

Po,,,
Differential
Pair

ii) Speed: The speed limit in the response of any circuit is

given the maximum achievable gain-bandwidth product
with reasonable phase margin. In CMFB loops, the
dominant pole arises at the amplifier output node, while
secondary poles are in the order of gn/Cp, where C,
represents the total parasitic capacitance associated each

m
-

c, +c,12

P'lL''2

(C, and C,, represent a well-substrate and resistor layer-substrate

parasitic capacitances, respectively, and C, is the load
capacitance).
Table 2. Critical frequencies for the different approaches.

365

shown in Table 3. The resistor value from which this

effect is the limiting one for the linear range, can be easily
derived, resulting:

zone) and hence, the output voltage becomes

assymmetrical. This is a critical design constraint
especially for low-voltage applications, where taking
advantage of available voltage room is a more and more
demanded design feature. Table 3 shows the limits impose
in the amplifier output swing due to the limited input
linear range of the different CM signal detectors, as well
as for the feedforward scheme. As shown, in general large
input linear range in CM sense circuits requires large bias
current and in some cases, large device area as well. In the
particular case of CM detectors based on source followers
with passive resistors (Fig. 4(b)) [ 13, such requirements
can be relaxed by using large resistor values. However, as
stated in Table 2, besides slowing down the speed of the
CMFB loop, for large resistor values the transistor current
sources can go into the linear region before the CM
detector reaches its slew zone. In this case, the input linear
range for the source follower CM sense circuit, is
given by the second expression

On the contrary, a rail-to-rail DM amplifier output range

is allowed by CMFF without tradeoff between swing and
power-area consumptions. Figure 6 illustrates the
simulated results of the FD amplifier curve transfer
characteristic with the different approaches for CM
control. It shows how the limited input linear range of the
CM detectors, shifts the output CM voltage and generates
very assymetrical amplifier output swing, while
feedforward scheme allows a rail-to-rail variation, as
desired for low supply voltage applications.

4. Conclusions
The control of the CM voltage in FD amplifiers by means
of feedforward, rather than the traditional CM feedback
loops, has been proposed, which results very appropriate
for low-voltage applications. Due to the absence of a
specific CM voltage sense circuit, CMFF improves the
induced nonlinear distortion, output signal swing, and, in
some cases, the maximum achievable speed of the control
circuit.

Vo,dmlmax
Differential
Pair

References
[l] J. F. Duque-Carrillo, Control of the common-mode
component in CMOS continuous-time fully differential
signal processing, Analog Integr. Circ. and Sip. Proc.,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, vol. 4, pp. 131-140,
September 1993.
[2] A. Wyszynski and R. Schaumann, Avoiding commonmode feedback in continuous-time g,-C filters by use of
lossy integrators, in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Circuits Syst.,

Table 3. Maximum differential output signal swing

in the FD amplifier.
Vo.dm

1.5

SOURCE FOLLOWERS
DIFFERENTIAL PAIR
LINEAR MOS
FEEDFORWARD

vol. 5, pp. 281-284, 1994.

[3] P. D. Walker and M. M. Green, An approach to fully

diferential circuit design without common-mode feedback,
IEEE T. Circuits and Systems I, vol. 43, pp. 752-762,
November 1996.
[4] P.-H. Lu, C.-Y. Wu, and M.-K. Tsai, The design of fully
diferential CMOS operactional amplifiers without extra
common-mode feedback circuits, Analog Integr. Circ. Sig.
Proc., Kluwer Academic Publishers, vol. 4, pp. 173-186,
September 1993.
[5] Z. Y. Chang and W. Sansen, Low-Noise Wide-Band
Amplijiers in Bipolar and CMOS Technologies, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1991, pp. 116.

00

-1

Vin,dm

Fig. 6. Limited input range of CM detectors generates very

assymetrical output swing. CMFF allows rail-to-rail
symmetrical output signal in the amplifier.

366