Reciprocity Mixers

ece145c lecture notes Copyright Mark Rodwell, 2016
Mixers:
Reciprocity
N-path designs
Mark Rodwell,
University of California, Santa Barbara
Copyright Mark Rodwell, 2016
Ideal mixing is multiplication
VB (t )  VI cos(Bt ) VRF (t )  VI cos( B t )  VLO cos( LO t ) / V0

Note the coefficient 1 / V0
VLO (t )  VLO cos(LOt )
How do we actually provide multiplication ?

Mixing: learn to do the math efficiently
Trick : 2 cos t  e jt  e  jt  z  1 / z
e j  cos( )  j sin(  )  2  cos( )  e j  e j and 2 j  sin(  )  e j  e j
2  cos( B t )  e j Bt  e  j B t  z1B  z B1

2  cos( LO t )  e j LO t  e  j LO t  z1LO  z LO
1
so
4  cos( B t )  cos( LO t )  ( z1B  z B1 )( z1LO  z LO
1
)
 z1B z1LO  z1LO z B1  z1B z LO
1
 z B1 z LO
1
 e j Bt e j LO t  e j LO t e  j Bt  e j B t e  j LO t  e  j Bt e  j LO t
 (e j B t e j LO t  e  j Bt e  j LO t )  (e j LO t e  j B t  e j B t e  j LO t )
 2  cos ( LO   B )t   2  cos ( LO   B )t 
Mixing by time-dependent conductance

Analysis is simpler if we assume small RF and IF signals
I d  I bias exp((Vbias  Vdiode) / Vt ) where Vt  kT / q
LO voltage modulates the diode current.

If the LO is small,
I d (t )  I bias  I LO cos( LO t )
The diode conductivi ty is then

g (t )  I d (t ) / Vt  g 0  g LO cos( LO t )
The small RF and IF signals are applied to g (t ) :

Vd (t )  VRF cos( RF t )  VIF cos( IF t )
I d (t )  Vd (t ) g (t )
 g 0VRF cos( RF t )  g 0VIF cos( IF t )
 ( g LO / 2)VRF cos(( RF   LO )t ) cos(( RF   LO )t ) 
 ( g LO / 2)VIF cos(( IF   LO )t ) cos(( IF   LO )t ) 
The time - varying conductivi ty produces the sum and difference frequencie s
The LO drive should be big !
I d (t )  g 0VRF cos( RF t )  g 0VIF cos( IF t )  Resisitive currents (loss !)

 ( g LO / 2)VRF cos(( RF   LO )t ) cos(( RF   LO )t )   mixing terms
 ( g LO / 2)VIF cos(( IF   LO )t ) cos(( IF   LO )t )   mixing terms
The local oscillator should * strongly * modulate the conductivi ty

With big LO drive, mixer becomes a switch
G (t ) is now a square wave.

Modulation of G (t ) by LO is strong
 strong mixing signal.
G  2 cos(3 LO t ) cos(5 LO t ) 
G (t )   on   Gon  cos( LO t )    ....
 2   3 5 
 Gon 
 2   this will give us direct RF  IF coupling ...not good.
 
Gon  cos( LO t )  generates desired mixing terms ...( RF   LO )
2

2  cos(3 LO t ) 
Gon 
    generates * harmonic * mixing terms ...( RF  3 LO )
3 
Idealized (switch) double-balanced mixer
Input is multiplied by  1,-1,1,-1,.... , i.e. by a squarewave

VIF (t )  M (t )VRF (t ) where M (t ) is a squarewave
The squarewave has a Fourier series :
4 cos(3 LO t ) cos(5 LO t ) 
M (t )  cos( t )    ....
  
LO
3 5 
So we are multiplying VRF (t ) with cos( LO t )
First hint of trouble : there' s also 3 LO , 5 LO ,...
A Gilbert-cell mixer is an amplifier and a switch
LO drive voltage is sufficient for

upper quad to operate as switches.
Gilbert cell is :
A linear input stage
for isolation, gain, ...
...not really part of the mixer : a preamplifer
A switch, as in previous figure.
Typical mixer presentation then moves to circuits:
You have studied such circuits before.
But, before we concentrate on circuits, how well do we understand mixing ?

Insertion loss ? Noise figure ? Image responses ? Harmonic responses ?
Input - output isolation ?
Ideal switch-based mixer
Insertion loss ? Noise figure ? Image responses ?

Harmonic responses ? Input - output isolation ?
We can learn much by studying an ideal mixer

What is our goal ?
Question : Why do we use LNAs in receivers ?

Answer : to reduce the mixer' s noise figure contribution.
Question : Why do mixers have 3 - 6 dB noise figures ?
If low mixer noise figure  eliminate LNA.

Lower cost, higher receiver IP3.
Note : IF amp operates at lower frequency, can have low Fmin
Even ideal mixers have:

Image response  out - of - band response, added noise.
LO harmonic response  out - of - band response, added noise.
Attenuation : becuase input signal is converted to several frequencies
Bilateral response : output couples back to input. At several frequencies.
Ideal mixer
Ideal mixer with filters.

This behaves differently
from the mixer
with no filter.
Image response→ interference, loss of SNR

VIF (t )  M (t )VRF (t )
4 cos(3 LO t ) cos(5 LO t ) 
M (t )  cos( t )    ....
  
LO
3 5 
Image response :
If f IF  f RF  f LO , then f image  f LO  f IF  f RF  2 f LO
Signals and noise at f image also mix to f IF .
Problem #1 is interference :
RF front - end needs filter to reject f image
Problem #2 is loss in SNR due to f image

Mixer input noise power spectral density @ f RF  kTFGLNA ( f RF )
Mixer input noise power spectral density @ f image  kTFGLNA ( f image )
Poor front - end filtering ?  Image response adds significant noise
But there is *a different* image response problem:

4 cos(3 LO t ) cos(5 LO t ) 
M (t )  cos( t )    ....
  
LO
3 5 
Image response at RF : signals and noise at f image also mix to f IF .

If f IF  f RF  f LO , then f image  f LO  f IF  f RF  2 f LO
But, there is another problem :

If the input is at f RF , then one output is at f IF  f RF  f LO
If the input is at f RF , another output is at f IF '  f RF  f LO
If the mixer is passive and lossless, it conserves energy !
Signal power at f IF '  less power at f IF   attenuation.
 less signal power power at IF amp
 IF amp noise has greater effect on receiver SNR
LO harmonics also produce images:

4 cos(3 LO t ) cos(5 LO t ) 
M (t )  cos( t )    ....
  
LO
3 5 
At the RF port, other frequencies also mix to f IF

3 f LO  f IF , 5 f LO  f IF , 7 f LO  f IF ...
And, given imperfect LO symmetry : 2 f LO  f IF , 4 f LO  f IF , ...
Problem : out - of - band interference  need good RF filter
Problem : out - of - band noise contribution  need good RF filter
Further, an input at f RF mixes to many output frequencies

f RF  f LO , f RF  2 f LO , f RF  3 f LO , ...
signal power at these  less power at f IF  more attenuation
Ideally: eliminate spurious responses with filters

4 cos(3 LO t ) cos(5 LO t ) 
M (t )  cos( t )    ....
  
LO
3 5 
But :
off - wafer filters cost money, increase product size
on - wafer filters occupy die area, & are low - Q
If f IF / f RF is small, then the filter must be very high Q
* And* :
In a real mixer, the switches are diodes or transistors
these have RC parasitics, shot noise generators.
1) the resistors & transistor junctions will introduce kTF , shot noise directly at f RF , f IF
2) the resistors also generate noise at all the image frequencies.
These will also mix into the receiver passband;
and external filters cannot prevent this.
Real mixers are bilateral, not unilateral

VRF (t )  M (t )VIF (t )
4 cos(3 LO t ) cos(5 LO t ) 
M (t )  cos( t )    ....
  
LO
3 5 
Apply signal at f IF to the IF port
RF port :
response @ f LO  f IF  f RF
response @ f LO  f IF
response @ 2 f LO  f IF
response @ 2 f LO  f IF , etc.
Just like other circuits, mixers are bilateral ( S 21S12  0)

Passive mixers S 21  S12
Active mixers S12  S 21 but S12 nevertheless  0.
Note : Sij here defined at different frequencies for input & output ports.
Diode Double Balanced Mixer: Two-Port Representation
If we apply filters, as shown, to restrict t he signal

frequencie s at the two ports, we can again represent
the mixer with a 2 - port network, where the two ports
have signals at frequencie s  RF and  IF .
 Mixers have MAG, optimum impedances, etc.
Derivation is not hard. But, we will not pursue here.

For ideal switches, Y , Z matrices will have infinities.
in that case, use S matrix.
Bilateral mixing→ spurious RF responses

Example : filter at IF port, not at RF port
Apply signal at f RF to the IF port
 produces signal at f IF at the IF port
 then produces signal at the RF port
@ f LO  f IF  f RF
@ f LO  f IF
@ 2 f LO  f IF
@ 2 f LO  f IF , etc.
Out - of - band signal responses.
Antenna will re - radiate.
Suppressed by LNA S12 , if present.
Suppressed by filter, if present,
and if filter is sufficiently narrow.
(one response is @ f RF  2 f IF )
This is in addition to LO leakage : also radiates from antenna; much stronger signal
Eliminating Noise from Image Response
Image - reject mixer suppresses both

image signal and image noise response
Trap provides zero available noise

power at image frequency
Filtering : ~ kT noise at image frequency

but ~ kTFG noise at signal frequency
System-Level Mixer Noise analysis

Citation: TUTORIAL 5594: System Noise-Figure Analysis for Modern Radio Receivers By: Charles Razzell,Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.
Model of Mixer' s internal noise.

Adds N s at f signal ; spectral density S s
Adds N i at f image ; spectral density S I
Adds N IF at f IF ; spectral density S IF
GS  mixer gain for signal frequency
GI  mixer gain for image frequency
Total noise at IF port

S mixer  S S GS  S I GI  S IF
Again, this is just the mixer' s internal noise.

Receiver model :
LNA adds noise N LNA, S at f signal
LNA has gain GLNA, S at f signal
LNA adds noise N LNA, I at f image
LNA has gain GLNA, I at f image
Include filter 2 frequency reponse in GLNA
IF signal power
PIF  Psignal GLNA, S GS
IF noise power spectral density
S IF  (kT  N LNA, S )GLNA, S GS  (kT  N LNA, I )GLNA, I GIM  S mixer
 kTFLNA, S GLNA, S GS  kTFLNA, I GLNA, I GIM  S mixer
Component of IF noise power spectral density from RF source @f S
S IF ,from antenna@f s  kTGLNA, S GS
System Noise figure
FLNA, S GLNA, S GS  FLNA, I GLNA, I GIM  S mixer / kT
Fsystem  S IF / S IF ,from antenna@f s 
GLNA, S GS
GLNA, I GIM S mixer
Fsystem  FLNA, S  FLNA, I 
GLNA, S GS kTGLNA, S GS

System Noise figure
GLNA, I GIM S mixer
GLNA, S GS kTGLNA, S GS
Suppose : no RF filtering of image,

GLNA, I  GLNA, S , GIM  GS
S mixer
kTGLNA, S GS
we have doubled the LNA noise contribution
Suppose : perfect RF filtering of image,

GLNA, I  0
S mixer
Fsystem  FLNA, S 
kTGLNA, S GS
we have elimnated the image noise contribution
except for that internal to the mixer
System-Level Mixer Noise analysis: another case

Assume :
filter 2 provides perfect RF filtering of image,
but we then have another gain stage (LNA 2).
GLNA1, I  0
FLNA 2, S  1 FLNA 2, I  1 GLNA 2, I GIM S mixer
Fsystem  FLNA1, S   
GLNA1, S GLNA1, S GLNA 2, S GS kTGLNA1, S GLNA 2, S GS
We have doubled the noise contribution of LNA 2.

System-Level Mixer Noise analysis: Big Picture

Receiver noise model
If unfiltered, image responses will
add LNA (etc) noise at image frequency
to that at signal frequency
 increased receiver noise
Mixer noise model

Mixer internal noise at image frequency
adds to that at signal frequency
 increased mixer noise
This can' t be filtered.
Image responses also arise from LO harmonics
Clearly : try to minimize mixer harmonic and image responses

Eliminating Noise from Image Response
Image - reject mixer suppresses both

image signal and image noise response
Trap provides zero available noise

power at image frequency
Filtering : ~ kT noise at image frequency

but ~ kTFG noise at signal frequency
N-path mixers: Motivation
Why use LNAs in superheterodyne receivers ?

...because mixer has high noise figure.
LNAs degrade overall receiver overload/jammer tolerance:

-Receiver IIP3 set by LNA IIP3 & (mixer IIP3)/(LNA gain).
-Fixed-tuned RF filter can't protect LNA & mixer
from interferers within receiver overall tuning bandwidth.
If we could make a very low noise figure mixer….

LNA would not be needed--> improved receiver IP3.
Out of band IM3 from mixer alone.
Low receiver noise (IF amp can have low Fmin).
N-path mixers: Motivation
Why do mixers have high noise figure ?

noise partly from component noise & attenuation.
noise partly from mixer image & harmonic responses.
Can we make mixers with very low noise figure ?

good devices→ low component noise.
subsampling method→ low/zero image responses.
Where are the harmonic responses coming from ?
We are mixing against a squarewave.

...not a sinewave.
Yet, we wish to mix using switches, not

small - signal nonlinear elements
How might we do this ?

Array of sample-hold gates:
This takes time - samples of the input waveform.

Several samples per signal cycle.
Samples taken with switches.
Switch mixer, not V 2 /V0 mixer.
There are N switches

Number them 1,..., n,..., N
Array of sample-hold gates: now sum the outputs
Form linear sums of the S/H outputs.

weightings : cos( )  cos(2n / N )
Approximates multiplying Vin with cos(( LO / N )t )
Yet, we are using switches, not x 2 nonlinearities
Quadrature mixer with sample-hold array
Provide both cosine and sine weightings :

cos( )  cos(2n / N ), sin ( )  sin( 2n / N )
 quadrature mixer.
Array of sample-hold gates: harmonic tuning
The desired harmonic can be selected

Selecting Harmonics:
One S/H : mixing
against pulse train
 many LO
harmonics
Selecting
f LO / N
Selecting
2 f LO / N
N-path Filter Has No Image Responses
Array has N non-overlapping switches

unfiltered outputs: positive & negative IF images
unfiltered outputs: responses for all LO harmonics
sine/cosine weighting: selects particular LO response
sine / cosine quadrature summing suppresses IF image
Input RF filter suppresses responses beyond N*fLO.
What is the bandwidth ?
Assume :
f signal and f LO / N are  baseband signal frequency
 use switched - capacitor theory :

Switch duty cycle  1 / N
Equivalent impedance  NZ 0
 Bandwidth  1/2 ( NZ 0 )C
N-path filter tuning

The receiver signal frequency is tuned by adjusting:
The LO (sampling) frequency (fsig = 2 fLO + fIF )
The selected LO harmonic (cos/sin weighting)
Wide tuning range is easily achieved
N-path filter with a nonzero IF Frequency
Input gates are sample-and-filter, not sample-and-hold

No in-band resonant enhancement of voltage or current
Out-of-band voltage is suppressed at switch
→ System IM3 set by switch stage, no Q:1 degradation in dynamic range
As N → ∞ perfect conversion, image response → 0, NF →0
With nonzero IF output frequency
SSB mixing is then obtained by summing

the I and Q outputs at 900 relative phase
Again, what is the bandwidth ?
Assume :
f signal and f LO / N are  baseband signal frequency
 use switched - capacitor theory :

Switch duty cycle  1 / N
Equivalent impedance  NZ 0
 Bandwidth  1/2 ( NZ 0 )C
Simulations: Late 2008, early 2009
Simulation example showing the 8 sampling phases, and the sine and cosine weighted outputs both before and
after 90 degree phase-shifting
Simulation
CMOS switch array responses with 1st and 3rd LO harmonic tuning.
The IF bandwidth is set at 30 MHz equivalent to a Q of 100
Simulations
device model: 35 nm InP/InGaAs HEMT, 400-500 GHz ft , fmaxf compared to 65nm NMOS (state of art at time of simulation)
3
Increased N : File:nf-vs-N-ssampRLC
65nm CMOS (digital)

better approximation to sinewave 35nm Std InP HEMT
35nm Low Noise InP HEMT
Noise Figure (dB)

reduced LO harmonic content 2
 reduced noise figure.

1
ADS Sim mark4
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of Samplers
Dynamic Range
Input Capacitor C is large i.e. Z0C >> TON

Within passband, C charges to RF signal,
Current→ 0, distortion is minimized, IF amp determines IP3
Outside passband, C discharged
Current ~ Isig distortion is from current in switch element
No resonant enhancement in either case
No 3dB noise from image/harmonic response in limit as n→∞
No RF filtering needed since no LNA and mixer has high IIP3
Simulations
device model: 35 nm InP/InGaAs HEMT, 400-500 GHz ft , fmaxf
compared to 65nm NMOS (state of art at time of simulation)
65nm MOSFET Simulations – 8 element array
Simulation of in-band IM3, showing 12 dBm IIP3.

Simulations showed 1.7 dB NF at 1.2 GHz
12.5 dBm IIP3 is obtained with mixing against the
2nd LO harmonic (2.2 GHz inputs).
Out-of-band IM3 simulation

~0 dBm equivalent IIP3.
Signals selected so that the IM3 response in-
band but carriers are not.
IM3 products are 20 dB stronger, so the
"equivalent" IP3 has dropped 10 dB
65nm MOSFET Simulations – 8 element array
• Simulation of in-band IM3, showing 12

dBm IIP3.
• Using the 65 nm MOS model, simulations
showed 1.7 dB NF at 1.2 GHz
• 12.5 dBm IIP3 is obtained with mixing
against the 2nd LO harmonic (2.2 GHz
inputs).
• Out-of-band IM3 simulation indicating ~0

dBm equivalent IIP3.
• Signals selected so that the IM3 response
in-band but carriers are not.
• IM3 products are 20 dB stronger, so the
"equivalent" IP3 has dropped 10 dB
N-path: first demonstrated early 2009

Reciprocity Mixers

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Reciprocity Mixers

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ece145c lecture notes Copyright Mark Rodwell, 2016

Ideal mixing is multiplication

VB (t )  VI cos(Bt ) VRF (t )  VI cos( B t )  VLO cos( LO t ) / V0

How do we actually provide multiplication ?

Mixing: learn to do the math efficiently

Trick : 2 cos t  e jt  e  jt  z  1 / z

e j  cos( )  j sin(  )  2  cos( )  e j  e j and 2 j  sin(  )  e j  e j

2  cos( B t )  e j Bt  e  j B t  z1B  z B1

Mixing by time-dependent conductance

LO voltage modulates the diode current.

The diode conductivi ty is then

The small RF and IF signals are applied to g (t ) :

The LO drive should be big !

I d (t )  g 0VRF cos( RF t )  g 0VIF cos( IF t )  Resisitive currents (loss !)

The local oscillator should * strongly * modulate the conductivi ty

With big LO drive, mixer becomes a switch

G (t ) is now a square wave.

Idealized (switch) double-balanced mixer

Input is multiplied by  1,-1,1,-1,.... , i.e. by a squarewave

A Gilbert-cell mixer is an amplifier and a switch

LO drive voltage is sufficient for

Typical mixer presentation then moves to circuits:

You have studied such circuits before.

But, before we concentrate on circuits, how well do we understand mixing ?

Ideal switch-based mixer

Insertion loss ? Noise figure ? Image responses ?

We can learn much by studying an ideal mixer

What is our goal ?

Question : Why do we use LNAs in receivers ?

If low mixer noise figure  eliminate LNA.

Even ideal mixers have:

Ideal mixer with filters.

Image response→ interference, loss of SNR

Problem #2 is loss in SNR due to f image

But there is *a different* image response problem:

Image response at RF : signals and noise at f image also mix to f IF .

But, there is another problem :

LO harmonics also produce images:

At the RF port, other frequencies also mix to f IF

Further, an input at f RF mixes to many output frequencies

Ideally: eliminate spurious responses with filters

Real mixers are bilateral, not unilateral

Apply signal at f IF to the IF port

Just like other circuits, mixers are bilateral ( S 21S12  0)

Diode Double Balanced Mixer: Two-Port Representation

If we apply filters, as shown, to restrict t he signal

 Mixers have MAG, optimum impedances, etc.

Derivation is not hard. But, we will not pursue here.

Bilateral mixing→ spurious RF responses

Eliminating Noise from Image Response

Image - reject mixer suppresses both

Trap provides zero available noise

Filtering : ~ kT noise at image frequency

System-Level Mixer Noise analysis

Model of Mixer' s internal noise.

Total noise at IF port

System-Level Mixer Noise analysis

System-Level Mixer Noise analysis

Suppose : no RF filtering of image,

Suppose : perfect RF filtering of image,

System-Level Mixer Noise analysis: another case

We have doubled the noise contribution of LNA 2.

System-Level Mixer Noise analysis: Big Picture

Mixer noise model

But there is a different image response problem: