How to generate netlist for SR Latch using Nand Gate

 

 

 

1) Begin by creating a netlist for SR-Latch. Latch should have two inputs (S and R) and two outputs (Q and QN). Be sure to also include ground and VDD. Make each transistor of your latch minimum-sized (use the minimum width and length for each transistor).

2) Simulate SR-latch to ensure that it works properly (use a transient analysis)–test setting Q to 1, holding this output value, resetting Q to 0, holding this output value, asserting set and reset at the same time, and holding this output value. I suggest that you create a subcircuit (in Spice, this is .SUBCKT) of your latch.

3) Then we need to modify the code to create a fanout-of-4 (FO4) at each output of SR-latch–this is one common way to add load to a circuit in order to more accurately measure its performance. To create a FO4 configuration, use two additional, identical copies of your latch as loads. Connect your Q output to both the S and R inputs of one of your load latches and connect your QN output to both the S and R inputs of your other load latch. Then we must measure the performance of your first latch and just use the other two copies as loads. You must also use a separate DC source for the VDD of each latch (this will ensure that you only measure the current of the first latch when calculating power and energy performance).

Note:

i) Measure and record the rise-time of output Q (from 10% to 90% of VDD) and propagation delay (from S to Q) for the set operation. Also measure and record the fall-time of output Q (from 90% to 10% of VDD) and propagation delay (from R to Q) for the reset operation. I recommend using CosmosScope to make these measurements.

ii) Measure and record the average current required (the current from the supply voltage, VDD) during your SR-Latch’s (1) hold operation, (2) set operation, and (3) reset operation (again, I recommend using CosmosScope to make these measurements). Calculate the average power dissipated during your SR-Latch’s (1) hold operation, (2) set operation, and (3) reset operation. Also calculate the average energy dissipated during your SR-Latch’s (2) set operation and (3) reset operation.

iii) Obtain waveform of your inputs (S and R) and outputs (Q and QN) showing you first asserting set and reset at the same time, and afterwards, immediately performing the hold operation. Describe what behavior you are observing and why this is occurring.

Note: >Now resize your transistors (change the NMOS and/or PMOS widths) to obtain equal rise- and fall-times. Do this in your Spice subcircuit (to ensure that all of your latches (the SR-Latch being measured and the two load latches) are still identical). Now obtain the following information from the FO4 simulation of your resized SR-Latch.

iv) List and explain the widths you chose for each of your transistors

For example: what calculations did you perform, what was the sequence of changes/simulations you performed which led you to your final transistor values, etc.
v) Compare and explain these results with your initial, minimum-sized SR-Latch
For example: how did the delays change (what percent increases/decreases and why?), how did the powers change (what percent increases/decreases and why?), etc.

 

 

 

Sample Solution

b) US – Rules of Origin case
India requested consultations with the United States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products as set out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round of Agreement, Section 405 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 and customs regulations implementing these provisions.

India argued that, prior to the abovementioned Section 334, the rule of origin applicable to textiles and apparel products was the “substantial transformation” rule. India considered that Section 334 changed the system by identifying specific processing operations which world confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel products. In India’s view, these changes appear to have been made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry from import competition. India indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had already been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were incompatible with the United States’ obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and other WTO Agreements.
Initially the Dispute Settlement Body deferred the establishment of panel. Further to a second request by India, the DSB established a panel. The panel requested for extension of time since the dispute involved complex matter and that it needed more than 6 months – time period. The panel concluded hearing of the dispute and circulated the report to the members. The panel found that India failed to establish that the United States had violated the GATT agreement.

It is said that this is the only case wherein the interpretation of the World trade Organization on Rules of Origin was sought. It is further said that even though India lost the case, India’s “original arguments” helped shape the interpretation of the WTO Rules of Origin.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.