微波EDA网,见证研发工程师的成长! 2025濠电姷鏁告慨鎾儉婢舵劕绾ч幖瀛樻尭娴滅偓淇婇妶鍕妽闁告瑥绻橀弻锝夊箣閿濆棭妫勭紒鐐劤濞硷繝寮婚悢鍛婄秶闁告挆鍛缂傚倷鑳舵刊顓㈠垂閸洖钃熼柕濞炬櫆閸嬪棝鏌涚仦鍓р槈妞ゅ骏鎷�04闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕濡ょ姷鍋為悧鐘汇€侀弴銏℃櫆闁芥ê顦純鏇㈡⒒娴h櫣甯涢柛鏃€娲熼獮鏍敃閵堝洣绗夊銈嗙墱閸嬬偤鎮¢妷鈺傜厽闁哄洨鍋涢埀顒€婀遍埀顒佺啲閹凤拷03闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕濡ょ姷鍋為悧鐘汇€侀弴銏℃櫇闁逞屽墰缁絽螖娴h櫣顔曢梺鐟扮摠閻熴儵鎮橀埡鍐<闁绘瑢鍋撻柛銊ョ埣瀵濡搁埡鍌氫簽闂佺ǹ鏈粙鎴︻敂閿燂拷 闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕濡ょ姷鍋為悧鐘汇€侀弴銏犖ч柛灞剧煯婢规洖鈹戦缁撶細闁告鍐f瀺鐎广儱娲犻崑鎾舵喆閸曨剛锛涢梺鍛婎殕婵炲﹪鎮伴鈧畷鍫曨敆婢跺娅屽┑鐘垫暩婵挳骞婃径鎰;闁规崘顕ч柨銈嗕繆閵堝嫯鍏岄柛娆忔濮婅櫣绱掑Ο鑽ゎ槬闂佺ǹ锕ゅ﹢閬嶅焵椤掍胶鍟查柟鍑ゆ嫹闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾归柣鎴eГ閸婂潡鏌ㄩ弴鐐测偓鍝ョ不閺嶎厽鐓曟い鎰剁稻缁€鈧紒鐐劤閻忔繈鍩為幋锔藉亹閻庡湱濮撮ˉ婵堢磽娴e搫顎岄柛銊ョ埣瀵濡搁埡鍌氫簽闂佺ǹ鏈粙鎴︻敂閿燂拷
首页 > 研发问答 > 微波和射频技术 > 天线设计和射频技术 > 2.3 GHz lna design sparameter vs netlist

2.3 GHz lna design sparameter vs netlist

时间:04-04 整理:3721RD 点击:
Hi. I am trying to design an LNA at 2.3 ghz with infineon's BFP 740 ultra low noise transistors.
On their page there is an axamle at the same frequency. When i use sparamets i get 0.18 db NF
but when i use netlist with the same matching circuit I get nothing so i changed the bias and now I am getting 0.7 db NF at best. So which one is wiser to use netlist or sparameters ?

Describe your situations correctly.

What do you mean by netlist ?

Do you mean netlist is a S-parameter simulation based on Gummel-Poon-Model ?

Is NF=0.18dB NFmin ?
On the hand, NF=0.7dB is not.

Describe your situations correctly.

http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineo...142740c849070c

The situation is this. In infineon website for bfp 740 http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/produ...77ce0#ispnTab7
you can download SimModel with symbol and footprint AWR MWO v1.0.zip file. Inside that file there is an example at 2.3 GHz. The example uses both S parameters and Netlist(mdl file) of bfp740. When you look at the design with Sparameter data set, It shows 0.1639 db NF. They have the same simulation with mdl file of bfp740 but,Unfortunately their design with mdl file of transistor is not correctly simulated. But when i used the same configuration they have on the example I get around 0.68 dB noise. at 2.3 Ghz which is close to their datasheets. SO i tought their Sparameter files might be wrong since datasheet shows 0.55 dB noise at 1.8 GHz at best.

I don't have AWR MWO.
However I can see contents of "BFP740H6327XTSA1/Simulation Data".

Which one do you use in your simulation
(1) BFP740.net (SPICE Netlist using Gummel-Poon-Model)
(2) bfp740_spar.mdf (Small Signal Table Model written as Keysight EEsof MDIF Format)

We don't call (2) "Netlist".

I think you can not understand simulation model, NF and NFmin at all.

What file do you mean by "S-Parameter" ?

I couldn't see 0.1639 dB NF in s-parameters data-set but anyway..
NF is NFmin what you see in the s-parameters data-set so that the transistor is matched (input) to Zopt to get the NFmin.You should do the same thing ( Zopt should have been supplied) to obtain the similar result.

This one is the simulation based on mdf format by using bfp740_spar.mdf done by infineon http://imgur.com/HFrMxef. This one is the one that I did by using BFP740.net (SPICE Netlist using Gummel-Poon-Model) http://imgur.com/vLuJM2T . Both are NF not NFmin.

闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕濡ょ姷鍋涢ˇ鐢稿垂妤e啫绠涘ù锝呮贡缁嬩胶绱撻崒姘偓鐑芥倿閿曚焦鎳岄梻浣告啞閻熴儳鎹㈠鈧濠氭偄绾拌鲸鏅梺鎸庣箓濞诧絽效濡ゅ懏鍋℃繝濠傛噹椤eジ鎮介娑樻诞闁诡喗鐟︾换婵嬪炊閵娧冨妇濠电姷鏁搁崐顖炲焵椤掑嫬纾婚柟鍓х帛閻撴盯鎮楅敐搴′簽濠⒀冪仛閹便劍绻濋崨顕呬哗闂佸湱鎳撶€氱増淇婇幖浣肝ㄩ柨鏃€鍎崇紞鎺楁⒒閸屾瑨鍏岄柟铏崌瀹曠敻寮介鐐殿唵闂佽法鍣﹂幏锟�...



闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕濡ょ姷鍋涢ˇ鐢稿垂妤e啫绠涘ù锝呮贡缁嬩胶绱撻崒姘偓鐑芥倿閿曚焦鎳岄梻浣告啞閻熴儳鎹㈠鈧濠氭偄绾拌鲸鏅梺鎸庣箓濞诧絽效濡ゅ懏鍋℃繝濠傛噹椤eジ鎮介娑樻诞闁诡喗鐟︾换婵嬪炊閵娧冨妇濠电姷鏁搁崐顖炲焵椤掑嫬纾婚柟鍓х帛閻撴盯鎮楅敐搴′簽濠⒀冪仛閹便劍绻濋崨顕呬哗闂佸湱鎳撶€氱増淇婇幖浣肝ㄩ柨鏃€鍎崇紞鎺楁⒒閸屾瑨鍏岄柟铏崌瀹曠敻寮介鐐殿唵闂佽法鍣﹂幏锟�...

(2) "bfp740_spar.mdf" gives NF=0.1645dB at 2.3GHz
(1) "BFP740.net" gives NF=0.65dB at 2.3GHz

Surely do you set same bias points(Vce, Ic) between (1) and (2) ?

I believe (2) rather than (1).

See the followings.
http://www.designers-guide.org/Forum...73409182/11#11
http://www.designers-guide.org/Forum...73409182/13#13

That's exactly what I'm saying.The simulator takes NFmin value while it is simulating the transistor ( because it's been supplied in s-parameters data-set).But when you do this simulation with GP model even the bias conditions are exactly same, the NF will not be NFmin, instead NF will be "50 terminated Noise Figure".That's the difference.

I don't think so.

Even in simulation using (2) "bfp740_spar.mdf", I think impedance of ports are 50ohm.

闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕濡ょ姷鍋涢ˇ鐢稿垂妤e啫绠涘ù锝呮贡缁嬩胶绱撻崒姘偓鐑芥倿閿曚焦鎳岄梻浣告啞閻熴儳鎹㈠鈧濠氭偄绾拌鲸鏅梺鎸庣箓濞诧絽效濡ゅ懏鍋℃繝濠傛噹椤eジ鎮介娑樻诞闁诡喗鐟︾换婵嬪炊閵娧冨妇濠电姷鏁搁崐顖炲焵椤掑嫬纾婚柟鍓х帛閻撴盯鎮楅敐搴′簽濠⒀冪仛閹便劍绻濋崨顕呬哗闂佸湱鎳撶€氱増淇婇幖浣肝ㄩ柨鏃€鍎崇紞鎺楁⒒閸屾瑨鍏岄柟铏崌瀹曠敻寮介鐐殿唵闂佽法鍣﹂幏锟�...

Here is the Noise Figure simulations of all 3 circuits. I have s parameter simulation, GP model simulation with same circuit as S parameter(Just a DC voltage source of 3.3V added for Bias didn't add anything to it, had the bias network in Spar circuit.) And lastly my own derivation of the same circuit with rogers 5880 and 2V DC source for lower Collector current and better Noise figure.

Simulation using (2) does not require bias at all.
However simlation using (1) require bias.
How do you feed bias for base and collector in Simulation using Gummel-Poon-Model ?

What values do you set Vce and Ic ?

I suspect you don't match same bias points between (1) and (2).

And Title of this thread should be changed to "2.3 GHz lna design, Small-Signal-Model v.s. Large-Signal-Model".

http://www.designers-guide.org/Forum...num=1212376329

闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕濡ょ姷鍋涢ˇ鐢稿垂妤e啫绠涘ù锝呮贡缁嬩胶绱撻崒姘偓鐑芥倿閿曚焦鎳岄梻浣告啞閻熴儳鎹㈠鈧濠氭偄绾拌鲸鏅梺鎸庣箓濞诧絽效濡ゅ懏鍋℃繝濠傛噹椤eジ鎮介娑樻诞闁诡喗鐟︾换婵嬪炊閵娧冨妇濠电姷鏁搁崐顖炲焵椤掑嫬纾婚柟鍓х帛閻撴盯鎮楅敐搴′簽濠⒀冪仛閹便劍绻濋崨顕呬哗闂佸湱鎳撶€氱増淇婇幖浣肝ㄩ柨鏃€鍎崇紞鎺楁⒒閸屾瑨鍏岄柟铏崌瀹曠敻寮介鐐殿唵闂佽法鍣﹂幏锟�...

闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕濡ょ姷鍋涢ˇ鐢稿垂妤e啫绠涘ù锝呮贡缁嬩胶绱撻崒姘偓鐑芥倿閿曚焦鎳岄梻浣告啞閻熴儳鎹㈠鈧濠氭偄绾拌鲸鏅梺鎸庣箓濞诧絽效濡ゅ懏鍋℃繝濠傛噹椤eジ鎮介娑樻诞闁诡喗鐟︾换婵嬪炊閵娧冨妇濠电姷鏁搁崐顖炲焵椤掑嫬纾婚柟鍓х帛閻撴盯鎮楅敐搴′簽濠⒀冪仛閹便劍绻濋崨顕呬哗闂佸湱鎳撶€氱増淇婇幖浣肝ㄩ柨鏃€鍎崇紞鎺楁⒒閸屾瑨鍏岄柟铏崌瀹曠敻寮介鐐殿唵闂佽法鍣﹂幏锟�...

闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕濡ょ姷鍋涢ˇ鐢稿垂妤e啫绠涘ù锝呮贡缁嬩胶绱撻崒姘偓鐑芥倿閿曚焦鎳岄梻浣告啞閻熴儳鎹㈠鈧濠氭偄绾拌鲸鏅梺鎸庣箓濞诧絽效濡ゅ懏鍋℃繝濠傛噹椤eジ鎮介娑樻诞闁诡喗鐟︾换婵嬪炊閵娧冨妇濠电姷鏁搁崐顖炲焵椤掑嫬纾婚柟鍓х帛閻撴盯鎮楅敐搴′簽濠⒀冪仛閹便劍绻濋崨顕呬哗闂佸湱鎳撶€氱増淇婇幖浣肝ㄩ柨鏃€鍎崇紞鎺楁⒒閸屾瑨鍏岄柟铏崌瀹曠敻寮介鐐殿唵闂佽法鍣﹂幏锟�...

as you can see Spar model and GP model has the same bias which is Vc=1V Ic=3mA. But results are different from each other.

So, how does a s-parameter simulation uses NF information ? Is there any additional Noise Figure data in s-parameters data-set ? No.
It computes NF by using existing measured NF data in order to extract the actual NF data, right ?
If we know NFmin,Rn,Ys we can find F ( Microwave and RF Engineering-Roberto Sorrentino,Giovanni Bianchi.Page 429,Eq-11.32)

Right.

You can not understand noise parameters in S-parameter and NF calculation by using them at all.

NF is calculated by {s11, s12, s21, s22} and {NFmin, Rn, Gamma_opt}.
Maybe your Ys is equivalent to Gamma_opt.

So if Zsource is not Zopt, NF is not NFmin.

Touchstone format is a subset of MDIF.
{s11, s12, s21, s22} and {NFmin, Rn, Gamma_opt} are listed in MDIF file.
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/lit...3.html#1112521

I don't think they are same.

Former is (Vce, Ic)=(1.0V, 3.0mA)
Latter is (Vce, Ic)=(1.05V, 3.79mA)

Current discrepancy is fairly large.

Compare NF with adjusting latter (Vce, Ic) as (1.0V, 3.0mA).

However I believe Small-Signal-Model not Large-Signal-Model since former is a raw data without approximation due to fitting.

Yeah.. Only you understand ALL, we know nothing..
Can you show us Highness where the s-parameters are here ?

闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕濡ょ姷鍋涢ˇ鐢稿垂妤e啫绠涘ù锝呮贡缁嬩胶绱撻崒姘偓鐑芥倿閿曚焦鎳岄梻浣告啞閻熴儳鎹㈠鈧濠氭偄绾拌鲸鏅梺鎸庣箓濞诧絽效濡ゅ懏鍋℃繝濠傛噹椤eジ鎮介娑樻诞闁诡喗鐟︾换婵嬪炊閵娧冨妇濠电姷鏁搁崐顖炲焵椤掑嫬纾婚柟鍓х帛閻撴盯鎮楅敐搴′簽濠⒀冪仛閹便劍绻濋崨顕呬哗闂佸湱鎳撶€氱増淇婇幖浣肝ㄩ柨鏃€鍎崇紞鎺楁⒒閸屾瑨鍏岄柟铏崌瀹曠敻寮介鐐殿唵闂佽法鍣﹂幏锟�...

You often append wrong things elsewhere.

Sorry, {s11,..,s22} are not used.

{s11,..,s22} are used in NF calculation, if s-parameters are cascaded like two stage amplifier.

However, if Zsource is not Zopt, NF is not NFmin.
So all NF in this thread are not NFmin.

This message board surely wishes to attract and keep our expert daily regular posters, and that is the aim of forum rules:

Copyright © 2017-2020 微波EDA网 版权所有

网站地图

Top