6.776 high speed communication circuits lecture 23 design of … · 2020. 12. 30. · m.h. perrott...
TRANSCRIPT
-
6.776High Speed Communication Circuits
Lecture 23
Design of Fractional-N Frequency Synthesizers and Bandwidth Extension Techniques
Michael PerrottMassachusetts Institute of Technology
May 4, 2005
Copyright © 2005 by Michael H. Perrott
-
2M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Outline of PLL Lectures
Integer-N Synthesizers- Basic blocks, modeling, and design- Frequency detection, PLL Type
Noise in Integer-N and Fractional-N Synthesizers- Noise analysis of integer-N structure- Sigma-Delta modulators applied to fractional-N
structures- Noise analysis of fractional-N structure
Design of Fractional-N Frequency Synthesizers and Bandwidth Extension Techniques- PLL Design Assistant Software- Quantization noise reduction for improved bandwidth
and noise
-
3M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Design of Frequency Synthesizers
PFD ChargePump
Nsd[m]
ref(t) out(t)e(t)
div(t)
Σ−∆Modulator
v(t)
N[m]
LoopFilter
Divider
VCO
Focus on fractional-N architecture since it is essentially a “super set” of other PLL synthesizers- If we can design this structure, we can also design
classical integer-N systems
-
4M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Frequency-domain Model
Φdiv[k]
Φref[k] KVjf
v(t) Φout(t)H(f)
1Nnom
2π z-1
z=ej2πfT1 - z-1n[k]
T1
Φd[k]
T2π
e(t)
PFD
Divider
LoopFilterC.P. VCO
α
Tristate: α=1XOR: α=2
Icp
Perrott et. al. JSSC, Aug. 2002Closed loop dynamics parameterized by
-
5M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Review of Classical Design Approach
Given the desired closed-loop bandwidth, order, and system type: 1. Choose an appropriate topology for H(f)
Depends on order, type2. Choose pole/zero values for H(f) as appropriate for the
required bandwidth3. Adjust the open-loop gain to achieve the required
bandwidth while maintaining stabilityPlot gain and phase bode plots of A(f)Use phase (or gain) margin criterion to infer stability
-
6M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Example: First Order, Type I with Parasitic Poles
-90o
-315o
-165o
-180o
-240o
20log|A(f)|
ffp3
\A(f)
Open loopgain
increased
0 dB
PM = 51o for B
PM = -12o for C
PM = 72o for A
Non-dominantpoles
Dominantpole pair
ABC
B
A
A
B
C
C
Evaluation ofPhase Margin
Closed Loop PoleLocations of G(f)
fp fp2
Re(s)
Im(s)
0
-
7M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
First Order, Type I: Frequency and Step Responses
0 dB
Closed Loop Frequency Response
Frequency
A
B
C
0
1
Closed Loop Step Response
Time
2
A
B
C
-
8M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Limitations of Open Loop Design Approach
Constrained for applications which require precise filter responseComplicated once parasitic poles are taken into accountPoor control over filter shapeInadequate for systems with third order rolloff- Phase margin criterion based on second order systems
Closed loop design approach: Directly design G(f) by specifying dominant pole and zero locations on the s-plane (pole-zero diagram)
-
9M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Closed Loop Design Approach: Overview
G(f) completely describes the closed loop dynamics- Design of this function is the ultimate goal
Instead of indirectly designing G(f) using plots of A(f), solve for G(f) directly as a function of specification parametersSolve for A(f) that will achieve desired G(f) Account for the impact of parasitic poles/zeros
Performance
Specifications
{type, fo, ...}
|A(f)|
\A(f)
{K, fzA, fpA, ...}
G(f)
{fz , fp , ...}
A(f)
1+A(f)G(f) =
Open Loop
Design
Approach
Closed Loop Design ApproachClosed Loop Design Approach
G(f)
1-1-G(f)A(f) ) =
-
10M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Closed Loop Design Approach: Implementation
Download PLL Design Assistant Software at http://www-mtl.mit.edu/research/perrottgroup/tools.htmlRead accompanying manualAlgorithm described by C.Y. Lau et. al. in “Fractional-N Frequency Synthesizer Design at the Transfer Function Level Using a Direct Closed Loop Realization Algorithm”, Design Automation Conference, 2003
http://www-mtl.mit.edu/research/perrottgroup/tools.html
-
11M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
PLL Design Assistant
-
12M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Definition of Bandwidth, Order, and Shape for G(f)
fo f
rolloff =-20n
dB/decadeG(f)(dB)
0
Bandwidth – fo- Defined in asymptotic manner as shownOrder – n- Defined according to the rolloff characteristic of G(f)
Shape- Defined according to standard filter design
methodologiesButterworth, Bessel, Chebyshev, etc.
-
13M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Definition of Type
Type I: one integrator in PLL open loop transfer function- VCO adds on integrator- Loop filter, H(f), has no integrators
Type II: two integrators in PLL open loop transfer function- Loop filter, H(f), has one integrator
N
Φref(t) Φout(t)
Φdiv(t)
e(t) v(t)H(f) Kv
jfα2π
1
Loop FilterPFD
VCO
Divider
Tristate: α=1XOR-based: α=2
-
14M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Loop Filter Transfer Function Vs Type and Order of G(f)
Practical PLL implementations limited to above- Prohibitive analog complexity for higher order, type
Open loop gain, K, will be calculated by algorithm- Loop filter gain related to open loop gain as shown above
KLP1+s/wp
KLP1+s/(wpQp)+(s/wp)
2
KLP KLP1+s/wz
s
KLP1+s/wz
s(1+s/wp)
KLP(1+s/wz)
s(1+s/(wpQp)+(s/wp)2)
Type I Type II
Order 1
Order 2
Order 3
where KLP = NnomKvIcpα
K
Calculated from software
H(s) Topology For Different Type and Orders of G(f)
-
15M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Passive Topologies to Realize a Second Order PLL
Vout
C1 R1
Iin
DACIdac
Vout
C1C2
R1
Iin
VoutIin
R11+sR1C1
= VoutIin
1s(C1+C2)
=1+sR1C21+sR1C||
Type I, Order 2 Type II, Order 2
DAC is used for Type I implementation to coarsely tune VCO- Allows full range of VCO to be achieved
-
16M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Passive Topologies to Realize a Third Order PLL
Vout
C1 R1
L1Iin
DACIdac
Vout
C1C2
R1
L1Iin
VoutIin
R11+sR1C1+s
2L1C1=
where C||= C1C2/(C1+C2)
VoutIin
1
s(C1+C2)=
1+sR1C21+sR1C||+s
2L1C||
Type I, Order 3 Type II, Order 3
Inductor is necessary to create a complex pole pair- Must be implemented off-chip due to its large value
-
17M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Problem with Passive Loop Filter Implementations
Large voltage swing required at charge pump output- Must support full range of VCO input
Non-ideal behavior of inductors (for third order G(f) implementations)- Hard to realize large inductor values- Self resonance of inductor reduces high frequency
attenuationCp
L1L1
Alternative: active loop filter implementation
-
18M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Guidelines for Active Loop Filter Design
Use topologies with unity gain feedback in the opamp- Minimizes influence of
opamp noise
Vnoise,in
Vref
Vout
R1 R2
2
Set nominalvoltage to Vref
Vout
LevelShift
Element
Use currentto achievelevel shift
Perform level shifting in feedback of opamp- Fixes voltage at charge
pump output
Prevent fast edges from directly reaching opamp inputs- Will otherwise cause opamp to be driven into nonlinear
region of operation
-
19M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Active Topologies To Realize a Second Order PLL
Vout
R2
R1
DAC
Iin
Idac
C1Vref
Vout
C1
C3
C2
R1
Iin
Iin
Vref
Vref
VoutIin
R11+sR1C1
= VoutIin
1+sR1(C1+C2+C3)=sC2(1+sR1C1)
Type I, Order 2 Type II, Order 2
Follows guidelines from previous slideCharge pump output is terminated directly with a high Q capacitor- Smooths fast edges from charge pump before they
reach the opamp input(s)
-
20M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Active Topologies To Realize a Third Order PLL
Vout
C1
C2
R1 R2
Iin
Vref
DACIdac
Vout
C1
C2
C3R1 R2
Iin
Vref
VoutIin
-R21+s(R1+R2)C2+s
2R1R2C1C2=
VoutIin
-1
s(C1+C2)=
1+sR2C31+sC||(R1(1+C1/C3)+R2)+s
2R1R2C1C||
where C||= C2C3/(C2+C3)
Type I, Order 3 Type II, Order 3
Follows active implementation guidelines from a few slides ago
-
21M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Example Design
Type II, 3rd order, Butterworth, fo = 300kHz, fz/fo = 0.125- No parasitic polesRequired loop filter transfer function can be found from table:
-
22M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Use PLL Design Assistant to Calculate Parameters
-
23M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Resulting Step Response and Pole/Zero Diagram
-
24M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Impact of Open Loop Parameter Variations
Open loop parameter variations can be directly entered into tool
-
25M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Resulting Step Responses and Pole/Zero Diagrams
Impact of variations on the loop dynamics can be visualized instantly and taken into account at early stage of design
-
26M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Design with Parasitic Pole
K, fp and Qp are adjusted to obtain the same dominant pole locations
Include a parasitic pole at nominal value fp1 = 1.2MHz
-
27M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Noise Estimation
Phase noise plots can be easily obtained- Jitter calculated by integrating over frequency range
-
28M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Calculated Versus Simulated Phase Noise Spectrum
Without parasitic pole:
Simulated Phase Noise of SD Freq. Synth.
104
Frequency Offset (Hz)105 106 107 108
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
L(f)
(dB
c/H
z)180
160
140
120
100
80
60Output Phase Noise of Synthesizer
L(f)
(dB
c/H
z)
SD Noise Detector NoiseVCO Noise Total Noise Simulated Noise
104
Frequency Offset (Hz)105 106 107 108
RMS jitter = 13.791ps
-
29M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Calculated Versus Simulated Phase Noise Spectrum
With parasitic pole at 1.2 MHz:
104180
160
140
120
100
80
60Simulated Phase Noise of SD Freq. Synth.
Frequency Offset from Carrier (Hz)
L(f)
(dB
c/H
z)
105 106 107 108104180
160
140
120
100
80
60Output Phase Noise of Synthesizer
Frequency Offset (Hz)
L(f)
(dB
c/H
z)
SD Noise Detector NoiseVCO Noise Total Noise
105 106 107 108
Simulated Noise
RMS jitter = 14.057ps
-
30M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Noise under Open Loop Parameter Variations
SD Noise Detector NoiseVCO Noise Total Noise
Output Phase Noise of Synthesizer
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
L(f)
(dB
c/H
z)
104
Frequency Offset (Hz)105 106 107 108
RMS jitter = 11.678ps (min), 18.211ps (max)
Impact of open loop parameter variations on phase noise and jitter can be visualized immediately
-
31M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Conclusion
New closed loop design approach facilitates: - Accurate control of closed loop dynamics
Bandwidth, Order, Shape, Type - Straightforward design of higher order PLL’s- Direct assessment of impact of parasitic poles/zeros
Techniques implemented in a GUI-based CAD tool
Beginners can quickly come up to speed in designing PLL’sExperienced designers can quickly evaluate the performance of different PLL configurations
-
Bandwidth Extension of Fractional-N Frequency Synthesizers
M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
-
33M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Impact of Σ−∆ Quantization Noise on Synth. Output
PFD LoopFilter
N/N+1
Ref Out
M-bit 1-bit
Div
Σ−∆Modulator
Fout
Noise
FrequencySelection
FrequencySelection
OutputSpectrum
QuantizationNoise Spectrum
PLL dynamicsΣ−∆
Lowpass action of PLL dynamics suppresses the shaped Σ-∆ quantization noise
-
34M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Impact of Increasing the PLL Bandwidth
Higher PLL bandwidth leads to less quantization noise suppression
PFD LoopFilter
N/N+1
Ref Out
M-bit 1-bit
Div
Σ−∆Modulator
Fout
Noise
FrequencySelection
FrequencySelection
OutputSpectrum
QuantizationNoise Spectrum
PLL dynamicsΣ−∆
Tradeoff: Noise performance vs PLL bandwidth
-
35M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Recent Approaches to Bandwidth Extension
[1] C. Park, O. Kim, and B. Kim, “A 1.8GHz Self-Calibrated Phase-Locked Loop with Precise I/Q Matching,” IEEE JSSC, May 2001.[2] K. Lee, et. al., “A Single Chip 2.4GHz Direct-Conversion CMOS Receiver for Wireless Local Loop Using Multiphase Reduced Frequency Conversion Technique ,” IEEE JSSC, May 2001.[3] S. Pamarti, L. Jansson, and I. Galton, “A Wideband 2.4GHz Delta-Sigma Fractional-N PLL With 1Mb/s In-Loop Modulation”, IEEE JSSC, Jan 2004[4] E. Temporiti, et. al., “A 700kHz Bandwidth Σ−∆Fractional-N Frequency Synthesizer with Spurs Compensation and Linearization Techniques for WCDMA Applications”, IEEE JSSC, Sept 2004
We will focus on our own approach in this talk
-
36M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Examine Classical Fractional-N Signals
1
4
2
4
3
4
0
4
1
4
2
4
3
4
div(t)
ref(t)
e(t)
f0 Fref
Se(f) FractionalSpurs
Goal: eliminate the fractional spurs
-
37M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Method 1: Vertical Compensation
1
4
2
4
3
4
0
4
1
4
2
4
3
4
e(t)
f0 Fref
Se(f)
3
4
2
4
1
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
1
4
1
4
2
4
3
4
0
4
1
4
2
4
3
4
div(t)
ref(t)
e(t)
“Fill in” pulses so that they are constant area- Fractional spurs are eliminated!
-
38M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Method 2: Horizontal Compensation
Use constant width pulses of varying height to achieve constant area pulses- Largely eliminates fractional spurs
1
43
4
2
42
4
3
41
4
0
44
4
1
43
4
2
42
4
3
41
4
e(t)
f0 Fref
Se(f)
1
4
2
4
3
4
0
4
1
4
2
4
3
4
e(t)
3
4
2
4
1
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
1
4
1
4
2
4
3
4
0
4
1
4
2
4
3
4
div(t)
ref(t)
e(t)
-
39 M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Implementation of Horizontal Cancellation
We begin with the basic fractional-N structure
div(t)
ref(t)
LoopFilter
out(t)
N[k]
Divider
PFD
Reg
ref(t)
div(t)
e2(t)
e2(t)
-
40M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Add a Second PFD with Delayed Divider Signal
div(t)
ref(t)
delayeddiv(t)
ref(t)
PFD
LoopFilter
out(t)
N[k]
Divider
PFD
RegReg
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
e1(t)
e2(t)
e1(t)
e2(t)
-
41M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Scale Error Pulses According to Accumulator Residue
div(t)
ref(t)
delayeddiv(t)
ref(t)
PFD
LoopFilter
out(t)
Divider
PFD
RegReg
1-ε[k]
ε[k]
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
ε[k]e1(t)
(1-ε[k])e2(t)
ε[k]e1(t)
(1-ε[k])e2(t)
residue[k] = ε[k]
frac[k]Accum
-
42M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
A Closer Look at Adding the Scaled Error Pulses
PFD
PFD 1-ε[k]
ε[k]
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
ε[k]e1(t)
(1-ε[k])e2(t)
ε[k]e1(t)
(1-ε[k])e2(t)
e(t)
e(t)
Goal – keep area constant for each pulse- It’s easier to see this from a slightly different viewpoint
-
43M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Alternate Viewpoint
The sum of scaled pulses can now be viewed as horizontal cancellation
PFD
PFD 1-ε[k]
ε[k]
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
ε[k]e1(t)
(1-ε[k])e2(t)
ε[k]e1(t)
(1-ε[k])e2(t)
1
43
4
2
42
4
3
41
4
0
44
4
1
43
4
2
42
4
3
41
4
e(t)
e(t)
e(t)
-
44M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Implementation of Pulse Scaling Operation
Direct output of a differential current DAC into two charge pumps
Y. DufourUS Patent 6,130,561
1998 (filing date)
PFD
PFD
ε[k]
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
ε[k]e1(t)
(1-ε[k])e2(t)
ChargePump
ChargePump
1-ε[k]
2n
Residue[k]
LoopFilter
Issue: practical non-idealities kill performance
-
45M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Primary Non-idealities of Concern
Delay mismatch
DAC currentelement mismatch
Incomplete FractionalSpur Suppression
PFD
PFD
ε[k]
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
ChargePump
ChargePump
1-ε[k]
2n
Residue[k]
Tvco+∆
e(t)
f0 Fref
Se(f)
Proposed approach: dramatically reduce impact of these non-idealities using mixed-signal processing techniques
-
46M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Eliminate Impact of DAC Current Element Mismatch
Apply standard DAC noise shaping techniques to shape mismatch noise to high frequencies- See Baird and Fiez, TCAS II, Dec 1995
Allows up to 5% mismatch between unit elements without degrading our desired performance targets
PFD
PFD
ε[k]
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
ε[k]e1(t)
(1-ε[k])e2(t)
DACMismatchShaping
ChargePump
ChargePump
1-ε[k]ε[k]
2nn+1
Residue[k]
LoopFilter
-
47M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Eliminate Impact of Timing Mismatch
Swap paths between divider outputs in a pseudo-random fashion- Need to also swap ε[k] and 1-ε[k] sequence
Allows up to 5 ps mismatch without degrading our desired performance targets
PFD
PFD
ε[k]
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
ε[k]e1(t)
(1-ε[k])e2(t)
DACMismatchShaping
ChargePump
ChargePump
1-ε[k]ε[k]
2nn+1
Residue[k]
LoopFilter
Timing Mismatch
Compensation and
Re-synchronization
vco_out(t)
Tvco+∆
-
48M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Improve Horizontal Cancellation Performance
Sampling circuit accumulates error pulses before passing their information to the loop filter- A common analog trick used for decades
Eliminates issue of having non-square error pulse shapes
PFD
PFD
ε[k]
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
DACMismatchShaping
ChargePump
ChargePump
1-ε[k]ε[k]
2nn+1
Residue[k]
LoopFilter
Timing Mismatch
Compensation and
Re-synchronization
vco_out(t)
Sampler
f0 Fref
Se(f)
-
49M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
For More Details on This Approach
Theory and simulations presented in TCAS II paper- Meninger and Perrott, TCASII, Nov 2003
PFD
PFD
ε[k]
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
DACMismatchShaping
ChargePump
ChargePump
1-ε[k]ε[k]
2nn+1
Residue[k]
LoopFilter
Timing Mismatch
Compensation and
Re-synchronization
vco_out(t)
Sampler
f0 Fref
Se(f)
-
50M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Design and Simulation of ‘PFD/DAC’ Synthesizer
PFD/DACLoopFilter
out(t)
DividerRegReg
ref(t)
div(t)
residue[k] = ε[k]
frac[k]Accum
Step 1: Derive analytical modelStep 2: Design at system level Step 3: Simulate at system level (CppSim)Step 4: Simulate at transistor level (SPICE)
Iterate between all of these steps in practice
-
51M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Analytical Model of ‘PFD/DAC’ Fractional-N PLL
Based on:Perrott et. al., JSSC, Aug. 2002
n-bit PFD/DAC → ∆ is reduced from 1 to (1/2)n
Φdiv[k]
Φref[k] KV
jf
v(t) Φout(t)H(f)
1N
nom
2π z-1
z=ej2πfT1 - z-1
n[k]
T
1
Φd[k]
T
2π
e(t)
PFD
Divider
LoopFilterC.P. VCO
α
Tristate: α=1
Icp
en(t)
f0
SEn(f)
PFD-referredNoise
1/T
Φvn(t)
VCO-referredNoise
f0
SΦvn
(f)-20 dB/dec
Sq(ej2πfT)
f0
Σ−∆
QuantizationNoise
∆: 1 (1/2)n
∆
-
52M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Parameterized PLL Model
Φvn(t)
T G(f)
2π z-1
1 - z-1
n[k] Φn[k]
En(t)
Φout(t)Φdiv(t)Φtn,pll(t)
fo1-G(f)
fo
fo
G(f)2π
Nnom
z=ej2πfT
α
f0
f0
-20 dB/dec
SEn(f) S
Φvn(f)
1/T
PFD-referredNoise
VCO-referredNoise
Sq(ej2πfT)
f0
Σ−∆
QuantizationNoise
∆: 1 (1/2)n
∆
-
Application:A 1 MHz Bandwidth Fractional-N Frequency
Synthesizer Implementation
M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
-
54M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Design Goals
Output frequency: 3.6 GHz- Allows dual-band output (1.8 GHz and 900 MHz)
Reference frequency: 50 MHz- Allows low cost crystal reference
Bandwidth: 1 MHz- Allows fast settling time and ~1 Mbit/s modulation rate
Noise: < -150 dBc/Hz at 20 MHz offset (3.6 GHz carrier)- Phase noise at the 20 MHz frequency offset is very
challenging for GSM and DCS transmittersGSM: -162 dBc/Hz at 20 MHz offset (900 MHz carrier)DCS: -151 dBc/Hz at 20 MHz offset (1.8 GHz carrier)
Simultaneous achievement of the above bandwidth and noise targets is very challenging
-
55M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Evaluate Noise Performance with 1 MHz PLL BW
G(f) parameters- 1 MHz BW, Type II, 2nd order rolloff, extra pole at 2.5 MHz
Required PLL noise parameters (with a few dB of margin)- Output-referred charge pump noise: -105 dBc/Hz- VCO noise: -155 dBc/Hz at 20 MHz offset (3.6 GHz carrier)
-
56M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Calculated Phase Noise for Classical Fractional-N
2nd Order Σ−∆
3rd Order Σ−∆
-132 dBc/Hz at 20 MHz
-126 dBc/Hz at 20 MHz
These do NOT meet our target of
-150 dBc/Hz at 20 MHz(3.6 GHz carrier freq.)
-
7-bit PFD/DAC
-155 dBc/Hz at 20 MHz !
Calculated Phase Noise for 7-bit PFD/DAC Synth
57M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
-
58M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Simulation of PFD/DAC Synthesizer using CppSim
Phase noise plots to follow: 40e6 time steps in 10 min
-
59M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Intrinsic PLL Noise Performance
PFD/DACLoopFilter
out(t)
DividerRegReg
ref(t)
div(t)
residue[k] = 0
frac[k] = 0Accum
Set fractional portion of divide value to zero- Leads to residue variation of zero
No quantization noise!Need to calculate and simulate impact of detector and VCO noise
In essence, operate as integer-N synthesizer
-
60M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Calculate Intrinsic PLL Noise Sources
Estimate detector noise (dominated by charge pump)- From SPICE Simulation, SIcp(f) = Duty*3e-22 A2/Hz- Output-referred PLL noise due to above noise:
Estimate VCO noise- For off-chip VCO, examine data sheet:
In this case, SΦvco = -155 dBc/Hz at 20 MHz offset- For on-chip VCO, use Spectre RF or other CAD tool
-
61M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Calculate PLL Noise Due to Intrinsic Noise Sources
We will see that we will need to include:- Reference noise- 1/f noise
-
62M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Simulated Phase Noise due to Intrinsic Noise Sources
-139
-129
-119
-109
-99
-89
-79
-69
-59
-49
Spu
rs (
dBc)
0.1 1 10
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
Frequency Offset from Carrier (MHz)
L(f)
(dB
c/H
z)CppSim Simulated Phase Noise for Cell: wb_synth, Lib: WBSynth_Example, Sim: test_int_n.par
freqfilt
Detector NoiseVCO Noise Total Noise
Reference Spur≈ -50 dBc at 50 MHz
PLL Design Assistant accurately models simulated noise!
-
63M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
2nd Order Σ−∆ Fractional-N Performance
PFD/DACLoopFilter
out(t)
DividerRegReg
ref(t)
div(t)
residue[k] = 0
frac[k]2nd orderΣ−∆
Replace accumulator with second order Σ−∆ modulatorSet residue into PFD/DAC equal to zero
-
64M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Calculate PLL Noise for 2nd Order Σ−∆ Synthesizer
2nd order Σ−∆- Click on 2nd order
S-D quantization noise in tool
-
65M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Simulated Phase Noise of 2nd Order Σ−∆ Synthesizer
PLL Design Assistant accurately models simulated noise!
-139
-119
-99
-79
-59
-39
Spu
rs (
dBc)
0.1 1 10
-180
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
Frequency Offset from Carrier (MHz)
L(f)
(dB
c/H
z)CppSim Simulated Phase Noise for Cell: wb_synth_sd2, Lib: WBSynth_Example, Sim: test.par
freqfilt
SD Noise Detector NoiseVCO Noise Total Noise
-
66M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
7-bit PFD/DAC Synthesizer Performance
Delay mismatch
DAC currentelement
mismatch
Application of proposed noise scrambling/shaping techniques leads to broadband noise from delay and
DAC current mismatch
PFD
PFD
ε[k]
ref(t)
div(t)
delayeddiv(t)
DACMismatchShaping
ChargePump
ChargePump
1-ε[k]ε[k]
2nn+1
Residue[k]
LoopFilter
Timing Mismatch
Compensation and
Re-synchronization
vco_out(t)
Tvco+∆ Sampler
-
67M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Impact on PLL Noise due to Non-idealities of PFD/DAC
Impact of DAC mismatch- Lowers achievable quantization noise suppression- Negligible in this case
Impact of delay mismatch- Model as white reference noise uniformly distributed from
0 to ∆tCalculation for ∆t = 5 ps:
-
68M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Calculate PLL Noise for 7-bit PFD/DAC Synthesizer
PFD/DAC- Adjust S-D Quant.
NoiseDelay mismatch- Adjust Detector noise
-
69M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Simulated PLL Phase Noise of 7-bit PFD/DAC
PLL Design Assistant accurately models simulated noise!
-
70M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Summary of Design/Simulation Results
The PLL Design Assistant can be used to model the impact of- Intrinsic PLL noise sources- Quantization noise due to Σ−∆ dithering of divide value- Suppression of quantization noise by n-bit PFD/DAC- Impact of delay and current mismatch on PLL phase
noiseCppSim simulations confirm the accuracy of the above analysis
How do PLL Design Assistant calculations compare to measured results?
-
M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Fabricated by National
Semiconductor
Funded byMARCO C2S2
Scott Meninger
A 1 MHz BW Fractional-N Frequency Synthesizer IC
Implements proposed 7-bit PFD/DAC structure- 0.18u CMOS- Circuit details
to be published in the future
-
72M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Measured vs Calculated Phase Noise (Integer-N)
Calculated noise is way off!- Issue: we did not consider reference jitter and 1/f noise
-
73M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Adjustment of Calculations to Fit Measured Result
Calculated noise now assumes:- Detector noise is -107 dBc/Hz with 1/f corner of 130 kHz
-
74M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Back Extraction of Reference Jitter
Assuming G(f) = 1:
Assuming Nnom = 73, T = 1/50MHz, iup/idown = 1/5⇒ ∆tjitt = 3.08ps
Accounts for PFD structure with reduced iup
-
75M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
7-bit PFD/DAC Synthesizer Vs Integer-N Configuration
Left: Phase swapping enabled- Timing mismatch converted into broadband noise
Right: Phase swapping disabled- More fractional spurs, lower broadband noise
-
76M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Adjustment of Calculations to fit Measured Results
Calculated noise now assumes:- Detector noise is -100 dBc/Hz with 1/f corner of 20 kHz
-
77M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Back Extraction of Timing Mismatch Using the Model
Assuming G(f) = 1:
Assuming Nnom = 73, T = 1/50MHz ⇒ ∆t2 = 10.7 ps
-
78M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Measured Noise Suppression
Comparison of 7-bit PFD/DAC synthesizer with 2nd order Σ∆SynthesizerLow freq noise ~2dB worse because of phase swapping29dB quantization noise suppression measured at 10MHz !
-
79M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Measured Noise Suppression: No Swapping
Demonstrates that timing mismatch is degrading our maximum suppression by 2 dB (when swapping)Spurs occur due to gain error from timing mismatch
-
80M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Summary of Calculation/Measured Results Comparison
Comparison of PLL Design Assistant results to measured data allow back extraction of key parameters:- Intrinsic noise
Detector and VCO noise- PFD/DAC nonidealities
Delay mismatch valueFuture work: better low frequency noise accuracy
-
81M.H. Perrott MIT OCW
Conclusions
Fractional-N frequency synthesizers are about to undergo dramatic improvement in achieving high PLL bandwidth with excellent noise performance- The PFD/DAC approach presented here is only one of
many possibilities to achieve this goalDesign and simulation methodologies are starting to emerge- Analytical modeling of noise can be quite accurate
The PLL Design Assistant can be useful in this area- Behavioral simulation can be used to verify analytical
modelsCppSim offers a convenient and fast framework for this
Research into High Bandwidth PLL Architectures is at an Exciting Crossroads
6.776High Speed Communication Circuits Lecture 23Design of Fractional-N Frequency Synthesizers and Bandwidth Extension TecOutline of PLL LecturesDesign of Frequency SynthesizersFrequency-domain ModelReview of Classical Design ApproachExample: First Order, Type I with Parasitic PolesFirst Order, Type I: Frequency and Step ResponsesLimitations of Open Loop Design ApproachClosed Loop Design Approach: OverviewClosed Loop Design Approach: ImplementationPLL Design AssistantDefinition of Bandwidth, Order, and Shape for G(f)Definition of TypeLoop Filter Transfer Function Vs Type and Order of G(f)Passive Topologies to Realize a Second Order PLLPassive Topologies to Realize a Third Order PLLProblem with Passive Loop Filter ImplementationsGuidelines for Active Loop Filter DesignActive Topologies To Realize a Second Order PLLActive Topologies To Realize a Third Order PLLExample DesignUse PLL Design Assistant to Calculate ParametersResulting Step Response and Pole/Zero DiagramImpact of Open Loop Parameter VariationsResulting Step Responses and Pole/Zero DiagramsDesign with Parasitic PoleNoise EstimationCalculated Versus Simulated Phase Noise SpectrumCalculated Versus Simulated Phase Noise SpectrumNoise under Open Loop Parameter VariationsConclusionBandwidth Extension of Fractional-N Frequency SynthesizersImpact of S-D Quantization Noise on Synth. OutputImpact of Increasing the PLL BandwidthRecent Approaches to Bandwidth ExtensionExamine Classical Fractional-N SignalsMethod 1: Vertical CompensationMethod 2: Horizontal CompensationImplementation of Horizontal CancellationAdd a Second PFD with Delayed Divider SignalScale Error Pulses According to Accumulator ResidueA Closer Look at Adding the Scaled Error PulsesAlternate ViewpointImplementation of Pulse Scaling OperationPrimary Non-idealities of ConcernEliminate Impact of DAC Current Element MismatchEliminate Impact of Timing MismatchImprove Horizontal Cancellation PerformanceFor More Details on This ApproachDesign and Simulation of ‘PFD/DAC’ SynthesizerAnalytical Model of ‘PFD/DAC’ Fractional-N PLLParameterized PLL ModelApplication:A 1 MHz Bandwidth Fractional-N Frequency Synthesizer ImplementationDesign GoalsEvaluate Noise Performance with 1 MHz PLL BWCalculated Phase Noise for Classical Fractional-NCalculated Phase Noise for 7-bit PFD/DAC SynthSimulation of PFD/DAC Synthesizer using CppSimIntrinsic PLL Noise PerformanceCalculate Intrinsic PLL Noise SourcesCalculate PLL Noise Due to Intrinsic Noise SourcesSimulated Phase Noise due to Intrinsic Noise Sources2nd Order S-D Fractional-N PerformanceCalculate PLL Noise for 2nd Order S-D SynthesizerSimulated Phase Noise of 2nd Order S-D Synthesizer7-bit PFD/DAC Synthesizer PerformanceImpact on PLL Noise due to Non-idealities of PFD/DACCalculate PLL Noise for 7-bit PFD/DAC SynthesizerSimulated PLL Phase Noise of 7-bit PFD/DACSummary of Design/Simulation ResultsA 1 MHz BW Fractional-N Frequency Synthesizer ICMeasured vs Calculated Phase Noise (Integer-N)Adjustment of Calculations to Fit Measured ResultBack Extraction of Reference Jitter7-bit PFD/DAC Synthesizer Vs Integer-N ConfigurationAdjustment of Calculations to fit Measured ResultsBack Extraction of Timing Mismatch Using the ModelMeasured Noise SuppressionMeasured Noise Suppression: No SwappingSummary of Calculation/Measured Results ComparisonConclusions