University of Portland School of Engineering Phone 503 943 73145000 N. Willamette Blvd. Fax 503 943 7316Portland, OR 97203-5798
Final Report
Project Steelhead: A CMOS 4-bit x 4-bit Multiplier
Contributors:
Ross Yoshioka
Scott Sato
ApprovalsName Date Name Date
Dr. Osterberg Dr. LillevikInsert checkmark (√) next to name when approved.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
.........
FINAL REPORT REV. 0.95 PAGE IIPROJECT STEELHEAD UP-EE-TR-04-02
Revision HistoryRev. Date Author Reason for Changes
0.9 04/16/04 R. Yoshioka & S. Sato
Initial draft
0.95 04/20/04 R. Yoshioka & S. Sato
Updated budget table, inserted Block diagram in “Results”
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
.........
FINAL REPORT REV. 0.95 PAGE IIIPROJECT STEELHEAD UP-EE-TR-04-02
Acknowledgements- Dr. Peter M. Osterberg:
First, thank you for giving us the idea of creating a 4-bit x 4-bit multiplier. Thanks also for teaching us how to break down our design into different levels (Top-Level Schematic, Chip Block Diagram, Output Decoder Diagram, B²Logic Simulation, TPR file, etc.) This helped a lot in our monthly Program Reviews. Thanks also for teaching us how to use the correct wording in all of our documents.
- Dr. Sigurd L. Lillevik
Thank you for teaching us how to properly document our ideas. We truly were able to narrow down our ideas from such document as the Functional Specifications and the Project Plan. The documentation brought the professional aspect of designing a project in the real working world to our project.
- Mr. Michael M. DeSmith
Thank you for helping us to break down the step by step process of what the user will see when he or she uses of device. Thanks also for your advice on our 8-bit binary to BCD conversion.
- Sandra A. Ressel
Thank you for your willingness to always get us the parts that we needed.
- Dr. Wayne Lu
Thank you for your advice on using the rotary devices instead of the keypad. Thanks also for your help on designing our GAL’s (Gate Array Logic) chips.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
.........
FINAL REPORT REV. 0.95 PAGE IVPROJECT STEELHEAD UP-EE-TR-04-02
Table of ContentsSummary..............................................................................................................1
Introduction..........................................................................................................3
Background..........................................................................................................4
Methodology.........................................................................................................5
Results................................................................................................................13
Technical................................................................................................................................. 13
Process................................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusions........................................................................................................15
Appendices..........................................................................................................16
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
.........
FINAL REPORT REV. 0.95 PAGE VPROJECT STEELHEAD UP-EE-TR-04-02
List of FiguresFigure 1. Project Steelhead Top Level Block Diagram........................................................................5
Figure 2. Steelhead schedule..........................................................................................................10
Figure 3. Project Steelhead Block Diagram......................................................................................13
Figure 4. Project Steelhead Chip Block Diagram..............................................................................14
Figure 5. Project Steelhead Output Decoder Block Diagram.............................................................14
Figure 6. Project Steelhead B2Logic Simulation................................................................................15
Figure 7. Project Steelhead TPR File Snippet...................................................................................16
Figure 8. Project Steelhead Chip Layout..........................................................................................17
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
.........
FINAL REPORT REV. 0.95 PAGE VIPROJECT STEELHEAD UP-EE-TR-04-02
List of TablesTable 1. Steelhead Deliverables........................................................................................................6
Table 2. Key Steelhead milestones....................................................................................................8
Table 3. Overall Steelhead Budget………………………………………………………………………….11
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
.........
FINAL REPORT REV. 0.95 PAGE 1PROJECT STEELHEAD UP-EE-TR-04-02
Chapter
Summary1Project Steelhead is a CMOS 4-bit x 4-bit Serial Multiplication chip implemented with a
MOSIS VLSI (very large-scale integration) chip. Project Steelhead will likely be used as a
classroom demonstration project at the University of Portland. This document covers the
introduction, background, methodology, results, and conclusion of project Steelhead.
The input to project Steelhead comes as two 4-bit binary numbers through two rotary
devices. The 4-bit binary numbers are then converted into its decimal equivalent and then
displayed on two red seven-segment LED displays. At the same time, the two 4-bit
numbers are also fed to the chip to be multiplied. The output from the chip will be one 8-
bit binary number which will then be displayed on a green seven-segment LED display.
The necessary off-chip binary to decimal decoding for both the input and output displays
was done using GAL (Gate Array Logic) chips.
The development process of Project Steelhead is shown in our schedule. The design
of the chip (using B²Logic), the implementation of the tpr file, and the ordering of the parts
was completed in the fall 2003 semester. In the spring 2004 semester, we built and tested
both the macro-model (which is a discrete representation of our MOSIS chip) and our
system model (which includes both our input and output sections). We planned on
replacing our macro-model with our MOSIS chip but we were unable to do this, which will
be explained in our results section.
In terms of budget, this project was mainly sponsored through funding by the
University of Portland. MOSIS provided the fabrication services for the CMOS VLSI chip
via NSF funding. B²LOGIC and Tanner LEDIT were used to design the VLSI chip. All
other necessary parts were purchased by the project team using money provided by the
University of Portland. These parts included, but are not limited to, 74xx chips (macro
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
.........
FINAL REPORT REV. 0.95 PAGE 2PROJECT STEELHEAD UP-EE-TR-04-02
model), two rotary devices, seven segment LED displays, power supply, display case,
GAL’s, 555 series clock chip, and a R-S Latch.
Any further questions or concerns may be directed to Scott Sato or Ross Yoshioka.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
.........
FINAL REPORT REV. 0.95 PAGE 3PROJECT STEELHEAD UP-EE-TR-04-02
Chapter
Introduction2The purpose of this document is to inform our EE/CS 481 classmates; our advisor, Dr. Osterberg; our
industry representative, Mr. Michael M. DeSmith; and our EE/CS 481 instructor, Dr. Lillevik about the
background, methodology, results, and conclusion of project Steelhead. From reading this document,
the reader will gain insight on the development process and the results of project Steelhead. The
reader will also gain an understanding of the risks, as well as the conclusions the project team has
made so far.
Also included in the Final Report are the following:
• Background: Includes the major components of the project, as well as its uses in the
present technologies.
• Methodology: Describes how we designed and created our project.
• Results: Describes both the technical and process sections of our results.
• Conclusion: Recaps the key points of this document.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
PROJECT PLAN REV. 0.95 PAGE 4PROJECT STEELHEAD
Chapter
Background3This project consists of a multiplier implemented with a CMOS VLSI chip. The chip is
provided by MOSIS and is the most vital part of our design. The most integral part in
designing the MOSIS chip is the tpr file, which is then used to automatically place and
route the chip in the Tanner LEDIT CAD tool. According to Dr. Peter Osterberg, a CMOS
VLSI multiplier has never yet been attempted at the University of Portland. The key
technology of this project can be used in digital signal processing for such applications as
audio and video compression, and wireless communication.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 5PROJECT STEELHEAD
Chapter
Methodology4General Description
Figure 1 shows the overall block diagram of the Project. The input to this project will
come as two 4-bit binary numbers from two rotary devices. These inputs will then be
converted into decimal form using GAL’s (gate array logic) and BCD to seven-segment
decoders to display the inputs (the multiplier and the multiplicand) on seven-segment LED
displays. At the same time the two 4-bit numbers are fed to the chip to be multiplied. The
output from the chip will be one 8-bit binary number which will then be displayed on
another set of seven-segment LED displays. Figure 1. shows our top level diagram,
breaking the project down into three parts which are further explained in figure 3.
Figure 1. Project Steelhead Top Level Block Diagram
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 6PROJECT STEELHEAD
Deliverables
Table 1. Steelhead Deliverables.
Number Deliverable Date1 Chip Design and Simulation 10/28/032 Chip tpr file completed 11/11/033 Macro Model 3/23/044 I/O system 4/01/045 Prototype Assembly and
debugging with Macro Model 4/01/04
6 Receive MOSIS chip and Plug-In 4/01/04
7 Build Display Unit 4/3/048 Final Functional Prototype
Demonstration (Founder’s Day)
4/13/04
Chip Design and Simulation
This involved breaking Project Steelhead’s Multiplier Chip into smaller blocks of logic. Each block was then designed and simulated in B2Logic using only the standard cells provided in the L-Edit Suite.
Chip tpr file completed
Completed tpr file (checked, re-checked, and re-re-checked) for the chip in order to be programmed by L-Edit’s Place and Route software.
Macro Model
Built a Macro Model of the Project Steelhead Multiplier Chip as a backup for the MOSIS CMOS chip.
I/O System
Built and tested the I/O system for Project Steelhead.
Prototype Assembly and Debugging
Put together all pieces of Project Steelhead and test for functionality. Project worked perfectly with Macro Model in place of chip.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 7PROJECT STEELHEAD
Receive Mosis Chip and Plug-in
Take Macro Model out and replace with MOSIS Chip. MOSIS chip didn’t work.
Build Display Unit
Once the Project is working properly, a suitable display case will need to be constructed. Building material was built out of Plexi-glass.
Final Functional Prototype Presentation
Completed and Fully tested prototype of Project Steelhead.
General Approach
The primary goal of the day to day operations of Project Steelhead was to stay on
schedule. The first step in Project Steelhead was researching Binary Multiplication
Methods. The most desirable method was one that was easy to understand, implement,
and was considered to be fast. The next step was to design and simulate this multiplier in
B2Logic and to obtain a design that would ensure success. After B2Logic design and
simulation was complete, extensive testing was needed to help ensure that the design
was accurate. We then took this schematic and used it to write the tpr file which was
needed to automatically place and route the chip. While one team member worked on
this, the other worked on figuring out exactly what parts were need to be ordered. Before
going on winter break, we ordered all parts necessary to build the Macro Model, as well as
the remainder of the project. Once these parts were received in the spring, we began
building the Macro Model. At the same time, we also built the System Model. The next
step was to put the pieces together and get the project working with the Macro Model.
After the project was working correctly and we receive the chip from MOSIS, we replaced
the Macro Model with the Chip. Unfortunately, we had an error in our tpr file, which led to
the CMOS chip not working. The last step was to build a display case, the materials for
which were mostly salvaged from past projects.
Milestones
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 8PROJECT STEELHEAD
Table 2. Key Steelhead milestones.
Number Description OriginalDate
PreviousDate
PresentDate
1 Product Approval 9/22/03 9/30/03 10/07/032 Project Plan
Approval11/04/03 11/04/03 11/06/03
3 TPR File Completed
11/26/03 11/26/03 11/26/03
4 Design Release 12/02/03 12/02/03 12/02/035 Macro Model
Complete02/09/04 02/09/04 02/09/04
6 TOP’s Approval 02/10/04 02/10/04 02/10/047 Prototype
Functional with Macro Model
03/07/04 03/31/04 04/01/04
8 Receive MOSIS chip
03/17/04 03/31/04 04/01/04
9 Prototype Release
04/06/04 04/09/04 04/09/04
10 Founder’s Day Presentation
04/13/04 04/13/04 04/13/04
11 Final Report Approval
04/20/04 04/20/04 04/22/04
12 Post Mortem Presentation
04/22/04 04/22/04 04/22/04
Table 2 lists Project Steelhead’s key milestones. The first milestone, Product
Approval, has already been completed. The Project Plan Approval has already been
approved from both our advisor and Industry Representative. We completed the creation
of our tpr file. We got our Design Release approved. This marked the end to Fall
Semester.
Spring Semester opened far more relaxed, with most design milestones well spaced
out. The completion of the Macro Model was the first milestone of the semester. The
second milestone was the Approval Meeting for the “Theory of Operation” document. The
next milestone, Prototype functional with Macro Model, was another important design UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 9PROJECT STEELHEAD
milestone. It was the point where our project worked with the Macro Model. The next
milestone was replacing the MOSIS chip with the macro-model. Unfortunately, we were
not able to do this since our tpr file had an error in it. The next milestone, Prototype
Release, was the time at which our Prototype was fully functional. Project Steelhead
came together at the next milestone. Founder’s Day was the final presentation done on
the project. This was a time to talk about the design process and show the success of the
project, which was completely functional with the macro-model.
The Final Report is the second to the last item on the list. It is the last document done
by the team, and will bring together all that was learned through the life of the project. The
last milestone is the Post Mortem presentation/discussion held with the junior class. This
serves to help the upcoming seniors gain a grasp on what lies ahead for them.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 10PROJECT STEELHEAD
Schedule
Figure 2. Steelhead schedule.
Schedule Overview
The most critical work came in the month of November. This was when the design of the entire project came together to create a stable design for the MOSIS Chip. Once this was done, the project’s timeline eased up somewhat. The building of the Macro Model and I/O section of the project was by far more stressful in comparison to the design of the MOSIS chip and I/O sections since many problems arose.
Critical Path
The critical path included the design and simulation of the chip in the Fall Semester. It also included the creation of the tpr file. The ordering of parts, along with the necessary lead time to receive them was the next item on the critical path. In the spring semester, the creation of the macro model, along with the building of the I/O section of the Project was the next items located on the critical path. After this, the delivery of the MOSIS Chip was the next item on the critical path. After the Chip was received, testing also needed to be done before the final Prototype Release was completed.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 11PROJECT STEELHEAD
Resources
Personnel
Scott Sato: Team Leader for Fall Semester; Design and Simulation of Chip in B2Logic, writing of tpr file, website, build macro model, testing.
Ross Yoshioka: Team Leader for Spring Semester; Verification of tpr file, Choosing parts, B2Logic simulation of I/O section, build system model, testing.
Budget
Table 3. Overall Steelhead budget.
Equipment
Power Supply: Used to power the Chip / Macro Model, I/O Section, and Display. Salvaged from a past Senior Design Prototype.
Ribbon Cables: Used to connect the various parts of the project.
Prototyping Board: Used to put the bulk of the project together.
Wire: Used to connect discrete components of the project.
Wire Wrapping Gun: Used to connect pins and wires in Macro Model and Overall Project. Provided by the University of Portland.
Logic Gates: Used to build Macro Model and Combinational Logic for I/O Section.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 12PROJECT STEELHEAD
Resistors: Used to regulate voltage in project (I/O section).
Seven-Segment LED Displays: Used to create an attractive display for the User.
Push Buttons: Used for the “Clear” and “Equal” keys.
Rotary Devices: Used to send out the input in BCD form.
Case Material: Used to build an attractive and appropriate case for display.
Facilities
The University of Portland, School of Engineering Electrical Circuits laboratory, ENG 2001 was primarily used when constructing and testing Project Steelhead.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 13PROJECT STEELHEAD
Chapter
Results5Technical
Block Diagram
Figure 3. Project Steelhead Block Diagram
This is a diagram breaks down our top level diagram, figure 1. It covers the same scope as figure 1., but goes into more detail regarding what each block is comprised of.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 14PROJECT STEELHEAD
Chip Block Diagram
Figure 4. Project Steelhead Chip Block Diagram
This diagram shows the algorithm employed in our Chip and Macro Model. It is a “Shift and Add” type of multiplier. In short, this block diagram shows what the “MOSIS Chip” block is made of (in figure 3.).
Output Decoder Block Diagram
Figure 5. Project Steelhead Output Decoder Block Diagram
This diagram shows the method we employed to convert from the 8-bit binary output from the Chip/Macro Model to the three digit decimal number the user would see. Since no 8-
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 15PROJECT STEELHEAD
bit binary to BCD decoders were readily available commercially, we decided to implement this decoding using Gate Array Logic, or GALs for short.
Process
The first step we took in designing our prototype was to gather our thoughts and try to come up with a design on paper. We used knowledge from various classes we have taken to do this. The next step was to simulate this design in B2Logic. Figure 6. shows the simulation for our Chip/Macro Model.
Figure 6. Project Steelhead B2Logic Simulation
After this simulation was tested exhaustively, the next step was to take this simulation and create a tpr file. This tpr file is a net list used by L-EDIT’s Place and Route software. A snippet of this code is shown in figure 7. After fabrication, it was discovered that an error was made in the creation of the tpr file. Through due diligence/error analysis, we were able to find the exact location of the error within the file.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 16PROJECT STEELHEAD
Figure 7. Project Steelhead TPR File Snippet
The TPR file, which turned out to be nearly six pages long, was then sent to Dr. Osterberg who ran it through the L-EDIT software to get our chip layout which is shown in figure 8.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 17PROJECT STEELHEAD
Figure 8. Project Steelhead Chip Layout
One major assumption we made was that we understood how the keypad we intended to use operated. We did not have a backup plan in the event this assumption proved wrong. Instead, we were forced to create a solution “on the fly”. Luckily, a solution even more practical than our original one presented itself. Another assumption we made that proved to be false was the assumption that our MOSIS Chip would work. However, the other two assumptions we made did prove to be true. They were: (1) assuming our multiplier design was valid; (2) and also assuming we would be able to get all the parts we needed.
There were a few instances where we did fall behind the dates projected in our milestones table. One major instance of this was in the event labeled “Prototype Working with Macro Model.” This also caused us to fall behind on our next milestone, which was to receive and test our MOSIS Chip. Because both of these events were located along the critical path of our plan, they did have some affect on our timeline. However, since there was some extra time built into the schedule, the delays did not affect our ability to complete our prototype in time for Founder’s Day.
One risk which proved risky was the risk of our MOSIS Chip not working. Although there was a backup plan (the Macro Model), there is no real substitute for having the chip actually working. That backup plan ended up being the savior of our project, since without it, we would not have a functioning prototype. Another risk we considered that ended up manifesting itself was the risk of a keypad failure. Although a failure did not happen in the usual sense of the word, our failure to correctly assess the workings of the keypad was a cause for worry when the problem arose. Luckily, a good solution was found. The final risk we mentioned was the “Prototype not functioning properly.” Although we listed
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 18PROJECT STEELHEAD
this as a medium risk, the outfall of such a failure would be tremendous. Luckily, we did not have the misfortune of experiencing the fallout of this risk.
As mentioned earlier in the discussion of our Milestones table, the time required to build and debug our Macro Model and System Model were underestimated. Having never worked on a project of this scope before, this was probably just a function of not knowing was to expect. Our budget, equipment, and facilities proved adequate. Our advising resources proved to be excellent. Without the help of all those listed in our acknowledgment section, we would have surely struggled, possibly even failed.
In the section of contingency plans, the contingency plan for the MOSIS Chip not working was invoked, the reasons for which are self-explanatory. There was also a secondary contingency plan for the keypad not working properly. This was the actualization of our “Input Interface” using rotary keys. This contingency plan was not included in our Project Plan because we were not aware of such a possibility at that time.
There was one change request made during the design sequence. This was the request to change our design from using a keypad to two rotary switches as discussed above. It was submitted on April 4, 2004.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA
FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION REV. 0.95 PAGE 19PROJECT STEELHEAD
Chapter
Conclusions6In this document, we covered the summary, introduction, background, methodology, and
results of Project Steelhead. Overall, we accomplished most of our objectives. We successfully
designed and created a 4-bit x 4-bit multiplier using the macro-model instead of the MOSIS chip. Also
all of our input and output devices like our rotary devices, binary to seven-segment decoders, and our
LED displays worked perfectly. The only problem that we had was our MOSIS chip not working
correctly. On a positive note, though, we discovered that the root of the problem occurred in the
counter section of our tpr. File. The value should have said P1 instead of P0. This problem was the
difference between our MOSIS chip working and not working.
Some possible areas of improvement would be keeping on schedule during the design
process and also checking and rechecking the tpr file until it is absolutely correct. Maybe in the future
groups could also use the B²Logic to L-Edit Translator.
Overall, we really learned a lot from this Senior Design Project. We learned that keeping on
Schedule was extremely important to the success of our design. We also learned how to properly
document the design process. Finally, we discovered that the engineering teachers at the University
of Portland are extremely helpful and supportive!
UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CONTACT: ROSS YOSHIOKA